Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-11-05November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 061 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 5, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room %7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Jo To BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Gerald E. Fisher. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mrs. Cooke. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 by the Vice Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve Item 4.1 on the consent agenda and accept items 4.2 through 4.9 as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Item No. 4.1. Amendment to Personnel Policy (P-26) to Mandatory Exit Interview, was approved as presented. The policy was attached to the following memorandum from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated October 27, 1986: The revision has been created by two recent laws affecting employees. One is a Federal law, which was reported to you earlier, requiring that em- ployers offer access to health insurance programs for extended time periods beyond active employment. The other is a State law requiring employees enrolled in the State retirement system with less than five years of service to withdraw from the State system upon termination of employment. Both of these laws went into effect July 1, 1986. To assure that terminating employees have these two requirements explained to them with appropriate decisions by the employee, the exit interview is being made a mandatory procedure. Additionally, the procedure will be used to assure turn-in of keys and equipment, and payment of final paycheck. AMENDMENT TO PERSONNEL POLICY (P-26) F. An ex2Lt interview shall be conducted with every employee who is separat- ing from employment regardless of the length of service, their position or the circumstances of their separation. The Personnel Director or designee will conduct all exit interviews, normally during the employee's last week of work. Supervisory personnel have the responsibility of notifying the Personnel Director as soon as they know an employee is leaving. The exit interview will consist of a discussion regarding the individual's employment and the completion of various requirements such as continuation of health care, refund of retirement money, return of county keys and material. The final paycheCk will be held in the Personnel Office until such requirements are met. Item No. 4.2. Albemarle County Service Authority's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ending June 40, 1986, was received as information. Item No. 4.3. Building Report for Month of September, 1986, from the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received as information. re: Item No. 4.4. Letter dated October 16, 1986, from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, Hazardous Communications Act, was received as information, as follOws: In 1983 the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued the Hazard Communication Act, commonly referred to as the employees "Right to Know" law, the purpose of which was to ensure that all employees were adequately informed of the hazards associated with materials they used or handled. In 1984, the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted the federal law, calling it the Virginia Occupational Safety and Health Hazard Communication Standard, and expanding its compliance requirement to include all state and local government employees. Compliance with the State Standard requires (1) an inventory of materials identified as being under the standard (2) establishing a Materials Safety Data Sheets file on every material so identified (3) labeling of the materi- al (4) training employees (custodians, maintenance personnel, teachers, supervisor) in the identification, use, labeling and handling of the identi- fied materials, (5) preparing a written program for compliance with the 062 November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2 ) -regulations, and (6) establishing an ongoing compliance procedure for purchasing, receiving, labeling and handling materials, and training new employees. The Director of Personnel, with assigned responsibilities for training and safety, has engaged the services of two people, who supervised the Uni- versity of Virginia, to set up the program for county employees by the end of 1986. It will involve costs borne by the Personnel budget which were unanticipated in the current budget, and which will be monitored and ab- sorbed as much as possible from other planned appropriations. Results of the absorption of these costs will be reported to you in the fourth quarter fiscal year summary. re: Item No. 4.5. Letter dated October 16, 1986, from George R. St. John, County Attorney, Agricultural-Forestal District - Tax, was received as information, as follows: On October 15, 1986, the Board of Supervisors in response to a suggestion by a citizen, asked that I determine whether real estate within an agricultural-forestal district can be taxed a tax rate lower than the rate applicable to the regular land use tax outside such district. Under Code Section 15.1-1512 land used in agricultural-forestal production within an agricultural and forestal district automatically qualifies for agricultural-forestal value assessment under the land use tax provisions as set out in Code Section 58-769.4. In other words, the rates for agricultural and forestal land must be exactly the same within and without the district. Therefore, the suggestion made by this citizen at the October 15th meeting, cannot lawfully be implemented. Item No. 4.6. Notice from the State Water Control Board dated October 14, 1986, re: Application for an Industrial NPDES Permit for Cove Creek Industries, Covesville was received as information. Mr. Lindstrom asked staff to check for some clarification of this permit request. Item No. 4.7. Letter dated October 20, 1986, from Richard W. Frizzell, of H.C.MoF., re: Bonds, Concerns Expressed by Board of Supervisors was received as information, as follows: First, you were concerned that an inequitable discrepancy might exist between the rates charged Medicaid/Medicare patients and non-Medicaid/Medicare patients. Specifically, you were afraid that the Medicaid/Medicare patients might be charged a lower room rate than non-Medicaid/Medicare patients, and that the rate charged Medicaid/Medicare patients would not be sufficient to cover the costs of housing and caring for the Medicaid/Medicare patients. You wondered whether the rates charged non-Medicaid/Medicare patients would be high enough to make up for losses incurred in caring for and housing Medicare/Medicaid patients, a rate higher than that rate charged non-Medicare/Medicaid patients. Federal and State laws and regulations provide for reimbursement of all reasonable costs related to patient care to providers on behalf of Medicaid/Medicare pa- tients. Therefore, neither group will be required to "carry" the others. Furthermore, we have obtained a Certificate of Need which indicates prelimi- nary governmental approval of the plans for the nursing home, including the proposed rates. Second, you were concerned that the refunding of the 1984 Bonds might result in some sort of "windfall" for the developer. Federal law bases the Medi- care/Medicaid reimbursement rates on a particular nursing home's debt service requirements for reimbursement of the facility's capital costs. Federal and State law limits the Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement for the return on equity allowable to and expenses for interest incurred by a nursing home operator. Therefore, nursing home operators cannot obtain a reimbursement based on a rate of return higher than the operators' debt service requirements and thereby profit on the difference between the rate of return and the debt service costs (the "spread", if you will). Because nursing home operators cannot charge Medicaid/Medicare patients rates higher than the rates charged non-Medicaid/Medicare patients, as explained above, this requirement that reimbursement be based on debt service requirements effectively limits any hidden "windfall" a nursing home operator might obtain in the rates charged non-Medicare/Medicaid patients. Third, the 1984 Bonds were issued at a variable rate of interest, while the 1986 Bonds are being issued at a fixed rate of interest, which is currently higher than the variable rate would be. Although we cannot predict with accuracy what interest rates will be over the next forty years while the bonds are being redeemed, we believe that the current drop in interest rates is a temporary trend and that interest rates will eventually rise again, making the forty-year fixed rate attractive. Nonetheless, because we cannot predict with accuracy what interest rates will be over the next forty years, we are unable to say with certainty that changing from a variable interest rate to a fixed interest rate will result in specific cost savings in the rate charged to patients. We can say, however, that obtaining a fixed rate of interest makes one factor in determining the rates charged patients less susceptible to inflationary pressures. November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 063 Item No. 4.8. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Program Report for Month of Septem- ber, 1986, was received as information. Item No. 4.9. Planning Commission Minutes for October 14 and October 21, 1986, were received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-86-07. Mary Doggett. To rezone 11.86 acres from R-i, Residen- tial to Planned District-Mixed Commercial. Property located on east side of Avon Street Extended about one mile south of 1-64. Tax Map 91, Parcels 1, la, lb and le. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 21 and 28, 1986.) Mrs. Cooke informed the board that this applicant had requested a deferral. Mr. Lindstrom moved to defer ZMA-86-07 until November 19, 1986. Mr. Way seconded. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-86-04. Alliance Bible Church. To rezone 1.731 acres from R-2 to CO. Property located in the northern corner of the intersection of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) and Rt. 652 (Old Brook Road). Tax Map 61, Parcel 127 (part of). Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 21 and 28, 1986.) Agenda Item No. 7. SP-86-50. Christian Missionary Alliance Church. To amend SP-84-45 to delete condition restricting access to Old Brook Road. Property located in the northern corner of the intersection of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) and Rt. 652 (Old Brook Road). Tax Map 61, Parcel 127 (part of). Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 21 and 28, 1986.) Mr. Horne presented the staff's report: Petitions: Under ZMA-86-4, the applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone the 1.731 acres of the existing 5.207 acre parcel from R-2, Residential to CO, Commercial Office (PROFFER). Under SP-86-50, the appli- cant seeks relief from condition one of SP-84-45 to permit the same 1.731 acres to have access to Rt. 631 (Rio Road). Property, described as Tax map 61, parcel 127 (part of) is located in the northeast quadrant of the inter- section of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) and Rt. 652 (Old Brook Road) in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: The southern portion of this property is developed with the Merridale School and Alliance Bible Church. The northern portion of this property, subject to these petitions, is vacant and encumbered with sewer, drainage, and stormwater detention pond easements. Therefore, barring easement reloca- tion/abandonment, the 1.731 acres is limited as to building construction. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan was amended to recommend CO Commercial Office zoning in this area. The plan also recommends future improvements to Rio Road. Staff Comment: The only matter of public interest identified by staff is concern of access to Rio Road. Property to the north is zoned CO, Commercial Office and occupied by Bill Bailey (Coldwell Banker) Realty. Mr. Bailey DBA/Rio Land Trust is contract purchaser of the property proposed for rezoning. Due to title differences, these two properties would not be combined, however, Mr. Bailey has proffered joint access for the two properties. This request is consistent with Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval with the following actions: ZMA-86-04 - Acceptance of the applicant's proffer for joint access between Tax Map 61, parcel 128 and 1.731 acre portion of Tax map 61, parcel 127; 2. SP-86-50 - Amend Condition 1 of SP-84-45 to read as follows: 1. Access from 3.476 acres residue of Tax Map 61, parcel 127 restrict- ed to Old Brook Road (Rt. 652). 3. Staff approval of subdivision plat. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 15, 1986, unanimously recommended approval of these petitions with the three conditions set out above. Mr. Horne then pointed out that in Paragraph 2, the report indicates 3.476 acre residue. He informed the Board that the residue should be 3.163 acres. Mr. Horne discussed the very limited building activity that could take place in Parcel X because of the stormwater detention basin for the Church located on that parcel as well as water, sanitary sewer easements and a drainage easement bisecting the property. He said that the proffer is that the existing '064 November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4 ) Bailey Realty property and the 1.731 acre Parcel X would have a joint access easement to Rio Road. The following is the proffer offered by W. W. Bailey in a letter dated September 15 1986 addressed to the Board: ' ' ' In conjunction with the pending application for rezoning of 1.731 acres, a partion of Parcel 127, Tax Map 61 the following proffer is hereby offered: Access from State Route 631 to the 1.731 Acre parcel will be limited to one entrance to be located over a "joint access easement" on parcel 128 Tax Map 61. This access easement is shown on the attached subdivision plat of Parcels X and Y prepared by Roudabush, Greene,. and Gale, Inc. P.C. revised July 21, 1986 and also shown on an attached plat showing Joint Access Easement to serve Tax Map 61, Parcel 128 and Parcel X which is to be subdivided from Tax Map 61, Parcel 127 prepared by Roudabush, Greene and Gale Inc. dated September 11, 1986. Mr. Horne said the Highway Department has reviewed the proffer and has no problem with the joint access easement. Mr. Lindstrom asked about Condition 1 of SP-84-45. Mr. Horne repliedthat the entire parcel, X and Y, can only have access to Old Brook Road. The change in that condition is to allow parcel X to have one access to Rio Road, a joint access with the existing Bailey Realty. Mr. Lindstrom said with the exception of the proffer, the rezoning is without limita- tion. He asked about the proposed use of the property. Mr. Horne said that at the Commis- sion meeting the applicant had stated the reasons for the request is to protect his own parcel and for potential overflow parking. Mr. Horne emphasized the limited potential for building on this land, pointing out the encumbrances to it by easements as well as the steepness of the property. Mr. Horne said that with the stormwater detention pond, the area would have to be re-engineered for any building to take place. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Richard Thurston, Pastor of the Church, came forward and stated he has nothing to add, but will answer any questions concerning the property being retained or what Mr. Bailey plans to buy. Mr. Lindstrom asked him about the purpose of the rezoning. He replied he wanted the property to be compatible with his existing property. With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie offered motion that ZMA-86-04 and SP-86-50 be approved with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Way seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Conditions of Approval: ZMA-86-03 - Acceptance of the applicant's proffer for joing access between Tax Map 61, parcel 128 and 1.731 acre portion of Tax map 61, parcel 127; 2. SP-86-50 - Amend Condition 1 of SP-84-45 to read as follows: 1. Access from 3.163 acre residue of Tax Map 61, parcel 127 restrict- ed to Old Brook Road (Rt. 652). 3. Staff approval of subdivision plat. Agenda Item No. 8. Grant Application - Rivanna Park. Mr. Tucker explained that the County and City propose to request funding assistance from the State with regard to the development of Rivanna Park. The ~State's maximum grant is $250,000. The City and County will jointly match that amount. City Council has already adopted this resolution on November 3, 1986. We will be making application in the future for similar funding requests. The Board is requested to adopt the resolution which will be attached to the grant application to the State. JOINT RESOLUTION FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR RIVANNA PARK COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE WHEREAS, the Virginia Division of Parks and Recreation provides funds to assist political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia in acquiring and developing open space and park lands; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville have recently acquired land for a jointly-owned recreational facility to be named Rivanna Park; and WHEREAS, in order to attain funding assistance from the Virginia Division of Parks and Recreation, it is necessary that the County and City November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) '065 guarantee funding of fifty percent of the cost of the improvements to be made; and WHEREAS, the County and City have previously agreed to contribute in equal shares to the first phase; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle and the Council of the City of Charlottesville, that the County Executive and City Manager are hereby authorized to make applica- tion to the Virginia Division of Parks and Recreation for a grant for the development of Rivanna Park and cause such information or materials as may be necessary to be provided to the appropriate State agencies and enter into such agreements as may be necessary to permit the formulation, approval and funding of that project. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by such governing bodies that each jurisdic- tion hereby gives its assurance that it will provide its proportionate share of the cost of the proposed project, up to a maximum of $125,000 from each jurisdiction. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County and City give their assur- ances that the general provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Virginia Outdoor Fund Fiscal procedures and all other applicable state and federal regulations governing expenditure of the requested grant funds will be complied with in the administration of this project. AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, and the Virginia Division of Parks and Recrea- tion are respectfully requested to assist in the prompt approval and funding of the Rivanna Park Project in order to enhance the recreational opportuni- ties for all our citizenry. Mrs. Cooke asked for any discussion. Since there was none, Mr. Bowie offered motion to adopt the resolution as set out above. Mr. Lindstrom seconded. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 9. Adoption: Board's Statement on Rt. 29 North Improvements. Mrs. Cooke opened the discussion by addressing the people in the audience, explaining to them that this meeting is not a public hearing; that there will be no discussion open to the public at this time. She said this statement is a matter for the Board to discuss and decide upon a statement to be sent to the Highway Department. She expressed the Board's apprecia- tion for the interest shown by the people present. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the Board members were mailed a memorandum from the Planning Staff for discussion tonight. He asked Mr. Horne to briefly review the memorandum and highlight the areas of concern on the Rt. 29 improvements. Mr. Horne said he would divide his comments into two parts: 1) The eight-lane portion of the project; and 2) the Rio Road interchange. The staff believes that all property south of the interchange ramps will be provided with satisfactory access. As far as the dual turn lanes at various intersections, staff feels these will be a significant improvement ~as some of these intersections are already a hindrance to traffic flow. He particularly mentioned the problem at Greenbrier Drive. The closing of the crossover at Dominion Drive should further reduce friction on the roadway, but will make access to Shoppers World more inconve- nient for certain areas. North of the interchange, the reconstruction of the southbound lane should greatly improve sight distance to properties west of Rt. 29. Because the eight lane project is to be constructed in the existing right-of-way, or in the median, the staff opinion is that the project should significantly improve traffic flow between Rio Road and Hydraulic Road without unreasonably affecting existing usage. Mr. Horne then discussed the Rio Road grade-seDarated interchange as a separate topic. The present level of service at that intersection, he explained, is at Level F, the lowest level of service. That is primarily due to the amount of traffic and that the at-grade intersection has to have four phases on the lights. The four phases leave a very limited amount of time for actual movement of traffic. As traffic grows on Rt. 29, there will be an increasing demand for green time at the light on Rt. 29. As more green time is given to Rt. 29, less will be available to Rio Road. The primary problem in the future with an at-grade, four phase intersection would be on Rio Road. The proposal on this plan is for a three-phase urban grade-separated interchange. That design was presented to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) with an analysis of the level of service it would give. Service would be at level C, which is a better level of service. He emphasized that a three-phase inter- change, not a four-phase, is essential. He added that staff has recommended that sidewalks be placed on the north side of Rio Road west of the interchange. Half the construction costs of these would have to be paid by the County. Mr. Horne stated that if the Meadowcreek Parkway is built, the lower portion of which is to be located between Rio and the 250 Bypass, and Rio Road is upgraded between the Parkway and this interchange, even more pressure would be placed on the interchange between Rio and Route 29. Mr. Horne continued that staff opinion is that the eight-lane part of the project will have more impact upon the traffic than the interchange. He stated that the staff has no 068 November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6 ) significant problem with the specific design of the interchange. They feel that if an interchange is to be put in, this design is the most logical in the long run. The plans have been altered since the Board was briefed by the Highway Department. For example, the widening of Rio Road has been changed from extending all the way back to Berkmar. The plan now extends the widening only to Phillips Building Supply entrance. Staff would prefer four lanes back to Berkmar. At Greenbrier Drive, which is a severe problem now, there is an existing gas station/convenience store in the southwest quadrant of that inter- section. It currently has four entrances. The plans you saw showed closing the two entranc- es nearest the actual corner, one on Greenbrier Drive and one on Route 29. The staff feels that those two entrances should be closed. In conclusion, Mr. Horne spoke of the plans for the median area. The proposal is to have the a concreteJmedian or some other non-vegetative material~ The staff feels some low-maintenance vegetative material should be placed in the median. Mrs. Cooke asked if the Board had any questions for Mr. Horne. Mr. Bowie referred to the staff opinion that the eight lanes would improve traff_'~Blore_than the interchange. He asked if the two improvements together would increase ~ ~ ............ ~.,~u= =~_==~ staff was working with the Highway Department and would continue to do so concerning design changes, etc. Mr. Horne replied ~4Tat--~ and added that the Highway Department had been cooperative with County Staff. q~% Mrs. Cooke then read a statement from Mr. Fisher, the Board's Chairman, who was unable to be present. The most relevant parts of that statement follow: "The Board of Supervisors has repeatedly asked for improvements to Route 29 as its first priority for primary road improvements. These requests have occurred over a period of 5-10 years. It would be very inconsistent of us not to support this project, or at least most of it. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Support all of the proposed improvements, provided: A. The Rio-Route 29 interchange traffic signals can be set to work in three phases, not four. B. The question of access to Albemarle Square is reviewed to see if any other alternatives exist which don't damage so many businesses. C. The Hydraulic Road grade-separated interchange is moved up to Phase 2 (it is now one phase behind the Rio interchange in the plan, and should be kept in the same relative position; the other projects now in Phase 2 should not be deferred). D. Planning for any bypass is deferred until after the Hydraulic Road grade-separated interchange has been built and its effect on through traffic flow has been properly evaluated. E. Property owners and their tenants are properly compensated for right-of-way acquisition and damage to properties and businesses. F. The median strip is not an unrelieved stretch of concrete for three miles. 2. If the Board cannot support the full eight lanes, then I would support six lanes with all the other improvements and with all the qualifications stated above. 3. I cannot support the removal of the Rio grade-separated interchange from the project, because I think it would be short-sighted and would make it appear that we don't really support our own planning efforts. Finally, I believe it is very important that the "old" roadbed (southbound lanes) be regraded to the same height as the "new" roadbed (as is recommend- ed by the Highway Department)." Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, about an alleged "redesign" which had been mentioned in the local news media. Mr. Roosevelt came forward and explained that there would be no redesign until there had been sufficient time for analysis of all the testimony. The ten-day period after the hearing is considered hearing testimony. The Board's recommendation is considered significant testimony. He stated that with the amount of negative testimony at the hearing itself, there will be a lot of consideration given, but it will take some time before any decisions are reached. The Highway Department intends to review the comments and consider alternatives. That will not occur until the ten-day period has elapsed. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Roosevelt about the possibility of another hearing if changes are made as a result of the comments made at the first hearing. Mr. Roosevelt summarized the Department of Highway and Transportation policy-on this. If significant changes are made after the first public hearing, the Department will hold a second public hearing to explain the changes to the public and to accept additional testimony on those changes. If after full consideration of testimony, it is decided to remain with the current plan, then there would not be a second public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the normal time sequence of a project like this. Mr. Roosevelt described the steps the Department takes in a normal project, but prefaced the description with a comment that he did not feel this is a normal project. After the ten days have November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 067 elapsed, the Department staff will analyze the information received and make a recommendation to the Deputy Chief Engineer, who then makes his recommendation to the Commissioner. The Commissioner, in turn, carries the recommendation to the Transportation Board. This process usually takes a period of two to three months. The recommendation would then be considered at the Transportation Board's monthly meeting. In this case, the recommendation would probably not reach the Board before December or January. Eventually the Board would vote on a location and design for this improvement. Plans would then be cleaned up to show these design features approved by the Board. It would probably take a month or two. The plans would then be signed "approved for right-of-way." The next step would be taken by the appraisers, who would take another three months. If this project were moving in the normal sequence of events, it should go to the Transportation Board in January, and about July or August the people concerned would be contacted by right-of-way agents about purchase of right-of-way and easements. These steps would take about a year., bringing the project to an advertisement date in August of 1988. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is still a period during which suggestions might be made for changes in the design and be considered by the Department. Mr. Roosevelt said that significant changes in design should be made between the public hearing and approval by the Transportation Board. That is the purpose of the public hearing. Once the Transportation Board votes on the project, any suggestions are too late for consideration. Mrs. Cooke asked how strictly the Department adheres to the ten-day grace period. Mr. Roosevelt answered that any letters received in the ten-day period will be included with hearing testimony and sent to the Transportation Board. As far as the Board of Supervisors' recommendation, the Highway Department will be interested in that opinion regardless of when it is given. Any comments from citizens received after the ten-day period are not going to be included with the com- ments sent to the Highway and Transportation Board. Mrs. Cooke expressed her concern about the statement. She said she feels the statement is more far-reaching than just what happens to this county.'~ Her hope is that there might be some interaction with the City prior to making a statement. Mr. Roosevelt explained that primary road projects deal with primary funds. There is nothing in the law that requires the formal position of the local government to be obtained before the Transportation Board makes a decision. He doesn't feel that the Department will delay its process waiting for this Board's resolution. He said he feels the Board would be safe in making its' statement as late as the first part of January 1987. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he generally supports the recommendations presented by the staff. However, the hearing which Mr. Lindstrom attended changed his attitude somewhat. His greatest concern at that hearing was the animosity and the friction that was apparent between different segments of this community about transportation issues. That divisiveness is something the Board should try to minimize. Mr. Lindstrom sees that animosity as a greater problem than the transportation issue immediately before the Board. He suggested that the Board defer the statement to see if some of the differences cannot be reconciled. He feels there is a need to work with the City and the University, both of which are affected dramati- cally by this project. He stated that he would like to have several weeks before taking a final position. He suggested waiting until the Board's first December meeting. Mr. Bowie asked what the Board would do in the meantime if the statement is deferred until December. Mrs. Cooke said she hopes that will give the Board time to make an effort toward a meeting with the City. She feels that if the Board and City Council can approach the Highway Depart- ment with a joint resolution, it might have more impact. Mr. Lindstrom said he realizes that there is no easy alternative. He hopes that talking with several groups of people will have the effect of finding some proposal more acceptable to a broader base. He added that he feels that all road projects are interconnected. Because of this interrelationship, the Board needs to express a unified position with the city. Mr. Way said he has no objection to deferring if there is any possibility of coming up with a better solution. He warned that it should not be deferred too long. He expressed agreement with Mr. Fisher's statement, at least basically. He said that the Board has to do something. Mr. Henley stated that was his feeling as well. He said that he believes that the Board must rely on the expertise of the Highway Department. He plans to support the Highway Department's position. Mr. Bowie also concurred with the memo from Mr. Fisher. He strongly supports paragraph E, which concerns appropriate compensation for not only the owners, but the tenants who have money invested in businesses. He is also willing to defer until the first week of December if there is any hope of any kind of joint position. He pointed out that everything in the proposed project except the eight lanes has been approved by the Board again and again. The new wrinkle in the project is having the service roads. This needs to be studied. The Highway Department can be asked to redesign this portion of the project in order not to overburden the businesses affected. If redesigning is not possible, then those businesses should be properly compensated. He feels that any reduction the Board makes to the plan for Route 29 North expedites the approach of a bypass. He said that the Board must press forward and have a solid position. There is no room in this instance for a minority report. Mrs. Cooke stated that her greatest concern is the destruction of businesses caused by these plans. There simply hasn't been enough time for her to react. If there is some possible way to eliminate the items that destroy the businesses in this area of Route 29, North, then it is worth the effort to take these few extra weeks. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to defer action on this matter until December 3. Mr. Henley seconded. He added that he is a bit skeptical about the deferral, but feels there are a couple of glimmers that justify looking into. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. The Board recessed at 8:45 P.M. and reconvened at 8:50 P.M. 068 November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8 ) Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: FY '87-88 Budget Procedures. Mr. Ray Jones, Deputy County Executive, reviewed the budget preparation procedures used by the County Executive's staff. The County Executive and School Superintendent have set up a tentative calendar for the FY 87-88 budget. Mr.. Jones explained that the budget is moving back to a "traditional" process. Under the presen~ plan, revenue projections, will be sent to the Board in the next week to ten days. Everything will be provided on a timely basis. The County Executive's staff will forward the planning forms to the department heads tomor- row. These forms will be returned in mid-December and then submitted to the County Execu- tive. After the County Executive reviews and balances the information, it will be presented to the Board the latter part of February. Board review of the budget will be made during the first or second week of March, with the target date for adoption by the end of the second week of April. This schedule will enable the School Board to mail teacher Contracts in a timely manner. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that the approach used last year had not been a success. He asked if the Board will be getting information at an earlier time. He suggested there be some sort of presentation of what what the County Executive's projections are going to be, in the near future. Mr. Bowie commented that the new procedure last year had indeed not succeeded. He said the traditional approach bothers him because the Board receives no information until it gets a 100-page book of computer printouts. Then after many hours of budget work ses- sions, with all of the pluses and minuses, the Board has only made minute changes. The Board can't do the budget itself. There needs to be some method whereby the Board at least gives some guidance to the County Executive earlier in the process. Mr. Bowie said he has been working on an analysis of budgets back to 1980. He would like to present that analysis to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said that Mr. Bowie's statement was basically the same as his own request. He would like a view of the foundation of the budget; an opportunity to make tsuggestions which, the Board cannot do without the pertinent information. Mr. Jones stated that a sampling of about 80 percent has been done of the real estate reassessment. The staff has the advantage this year of having the capability of doing trends. The real estate reassessment figures will be more than just a sampling. The staff should be able to do things in a more timely manner. Mr. Lindstrom said it might be helpful if the Board could have as many of the pieces (revenues, expenditures, etc.) in one spot rather than getting a report on revenues and then a couple of weeks later something else. Mr. Bowie added that revenues are meaningless without expenditures. There was no further discussion of this item. Agenda Item No. 12. Adoption: Senate Joint Resolution 47. Mr. Tucker summarized a letter to the Board from the County Executive giving the back- ground of the proposed resolution. The conclusions of the Inspections, Engineering and Planning staffs are as follows: The problem is a localized one (Northern Virginia) that should not be solved by state legislation. Albemarle completes inspections within the same~work day of an inspection request being received, and approves plans within a three to five day review period. Current state Building and Subdivision codes provide for the acceptance by localities of inspection reports by qualified private sector agencies, but the problem in Northern Virginia seems to center around whether these private agencies are employed by a developer, or by the local government. Mr. Tucker explained that S.J. Resolution 47 arose from a request by the Northern Virginia Builders Association which is dissatisfied with regulatory procedures. He said that a hearing on this matter by the Joint Subcommittee of the General Assembly is scheduled for November 7, 1986. The adoption of the resolution opposing Senate Joint Resolution 47 is requested so that it can be forwarded to the subcommittee in time for that hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels it is reasonable for the County to maintain the flexibility it has. Mrs. Cooke askedthe reason for this resolution. They have local control to do what they want to do. Mr. Tucker answered that it is basically a question of whether or not the developer can go out and do his own inspections. Mr. Lindstrom commented that that seems to be an inherent conflict of interest. Mr. Bowie noted that the resolution was sponsored by the Northern Virginia Builders' Association, and not by a governing body in Northern Virgin- ia. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution. motion which carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bowie seconded the AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher RESOLUTION WHEREAS, it appears that Senate Joint Resolution 47 was initiated due to a perceived local problem within one geographical area of the Common- wealth; and WHEREAS, Volume I of the 1984 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code mandates enforcement of the Code by the Building Official of each jurisdic- tion in Virginia; and November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 06, WHEREAS, the Code already allows the Building Official to waive the review of plans and specifications when prepared by professional engineers and architects; and WHEREAS, the mandated acceptance by local government officials of certified plans and certified inspections would undermine the Official's authority without decreasing responsibility and would eliminate his current ability to reject certified plans and certified inspections when noncompli- ance of land development codes are discovered; and WHEREAS, it is felt that mandated acceptance by local government officials of certified plans and certified inspections would result in an increase in Code related problems to residential buildings and subdivision faciliites by diminishing the authority of government agencies in providing quality control of the land development process; and WHEREAS, this diminished quality control could affect the health, safety, and welfare of home buyers and occupants of buildings; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle, is strong- ly opposed to any change in the Code of Virginia that would mandate accep- tance to certified plans and certified inspections related to the land development process. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: December 11 and December 16, 1985; January 3, January 8, January 15, January 22, January 28, February 1 and August 20 (afternoon), 1986. Mr. Way stated he had read January 22, January 28 and February 1 and finds all three to be satisfactory. Mr. Bowie said he had read January 8. There were three minor typos which he had brought to the attention of the Clerk. -He finds them satisfactory. Mr. Lindstrom read December 16 but failed to read August 20. December 16 are all right. Mr. Way also failed to read Item 10. Mrs. Cooke stated she had read January 3 and January 15, pages 1-9, and finds them acceptable. Mr. Bowie moved to approve the minutes which had been read. called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: Mr. Way seconded. Roll was AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 13. Members Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the Public and Board Mr. Lindstrom reported briefly on the Second Pre-Allocation Hearing held by the Highway Department in Culpeper on November 3, 1986. The only thing he changed from the prepared text was that he said the Board generally supports the improvements to Route 29 North, but had not had a chance to meet since the public hearing, and so he was unable to speak specifically. He said he thanked the people for coming to the hearing and especially noted Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department, who, he felt did a terrific job chairing that meeting, the ZMA-86-05, RAC-Charlottesville, LP ZMA-86-06, Encore Investment Partnership ZMA86-05, RAC-Charlottesville, LP, and ZMA-86-06, Encore Investment Partnership, were both advertised at the request of the Planning staff, to be heard by the Board on November 5. We have just been informed that neither petition has yet been scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission. The advertisement was in error. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: The Acquisition of Property. At 9:18 P.M., Mr. Bowie offered motion to adjourn into executive session for a discus- sion of acquisition of property. Mr. Lindstrom seconded. Mr. St. John suggested that legal matters be added to that. Mr. Bowie added discussion of legal matters to his motion. Mr. Lindstrom agreed. There being no discussion, the roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie to reconvene into open session. Mrs. Cooke stated for the record that she wished to disqualify herself from the executive session due to a possible conflict of interest. Mrs. Cooke left the meeting at this time. O7O November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10 ) At 9:30 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to return to executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher. At 9:46 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session and immediately adjourned. CHAIRM~N