Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-13June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 13, 1984, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers Present: St. John. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. The meeting Was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the consent agenda with the items presented for approval and the items presented as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Item No. 4.1. Request to take Albino Lane in Running Deer Subdivision into the State Secondary System, by letter dated June 4, 1984 from Mrs. Edith Kirby. Mr. Bowie asked if the residents in the subdivision were notified of this request. Mr. Agnor explained that the acceptance of this road into the State Secondary System is a condition of subdivision plat approval. The following resolution was adopted: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby· requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Running Deer Subdivision: Beginning at station 0+10 a point common with the centerline of Albino Lane and the edge of pavement of Running Deer Lane, thence in a southeastwardly direction 1,258.71 feet to station 12+68.71 the end of the cul-de-sac. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in Deed Book 777, page I18.~ Item No. 4.2. Change Orders 2, 3 and 4 for the Court Square Project Were approved as presented. Mr. Agnor said the most significant is change order #3 in the amount of $41,085 for the replacement of the gutters and downspouts on the courthouse and the former office building. The roof repairs and some gutter replacement were specified in the contract but were found to be more intensive when the work was begun. These three change orders will use 43 percent of the budgeted contingencies on the project leaving a balance of $77,632. Mr. Agnor also noted that this rapid use of funds this early in the contract may be a problem if other significant changes are uncovered and he will keep the Board appraised of this. · Item No. 4.3. Statements of Expenses for the month of May, 1984, for the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Regional Jail (State Compensation Board), as filed with the State Compensation Board, were approved as presented. Item No. 4.4a. Request for Street Signs. A request dated October 12, 1983 was received from Mr. Michael T. Boggs, Vice-President for Haley, Chisholm and Morris, Inc., for street signs to identify Forestvue Drive in Blue Ridge Forest Subdivision. Mr. Boggs has ordered and paid for the signs. The following resolution was approved: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Forestvue Drive (State Route 1544) at the northwest corner of its intersection with State Route 660. WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Item No. 4.4b. Request for Street Signs. A request dated June 6, 1984 was received from Mr. Henderson Heyward, President of Hedgerow Corporation, for street signs to identify Rodes Drive in Greencroft Subdivision. Mr. Heyward has agreed to purchase the signs. The following resolution was approved for same: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Rodes Drive (State Route 1640) at the southeast corner of its intersection with U. S. Route 250; WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. Item No. 4.5. Memo dated June 6, 1984 from Mr. Ray Jones regarding Federal Revenue Sharing Entitlement, was received as information. See below: "The County has received an official notice of its estimated allocation of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for Entitlement Period 16 which runs from October 1, 1984 to September 30, 1985. The allocation for this period is reported at $698,768 (up from $567,877 for the current Entitlement Period), an increase of $130,891. Payments are received quarterly in January, April, July and October. Therefore, in Fiscal Year 1984-85 the County will receive one quarterly payment from Entitlement Period 15 in the amount of $141,970, and three quarterly payments from Entitlement Period 16 in the amount of $17~,692 each - a total of $666,046. Shown below is the data used for allocating Federal Revenue Sharing Funds to this County for the two periods - Entitlements 15 and 16: Data Component Entitlement 15 Population 55,783 (1980) Per Capita Income $ 7,852 (1979) Adjusted Taxes $ 6,632,737 (1982) Intergovernmental Transfers $12,763,428 (1982) Entitlement 16 57,462 (1982) $ 9,656 (1981) $ 9,424,350 (1983) $13,414,018 (1983) The numbers in parenthesis are the effective years of the data. As you can see, there was an increase in per capita income of 22.9 percent. This was due in part to the change in the method of determination; the Census Bureau moved away from the use of zip codes to determine the locality of residence. Adjusted taxes are local taxes less the amount allocated to Education. It is therefore significant to fund as much of the local portion of Education as possible from Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. This is the main reason the County budget has allocated as much Federal Revenue Sharing Funds to Education as possible in the past several years. The significant increase in adjusted taxes is the main reason that the County's allocation is increasing by $130,891 from Entitlement 15 to Entitlement 16." Item No. 4,6a. Letter dated May 22, 1984 from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell, Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, regarding Morea (Charlottesville) and Faulkner House (Albemarle County) being entered in the National Register of Historic Places, was received as information Item No. 4.6b. Letter dated June 8, 1984 from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell, Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, regarding the placement of Crossroads Tavern in the Virginia Landmarks Register, was received as information. Item No. 4.7a. Letter dated May 16, 1984 from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Highway Commissioner, Department of Highways and Transportation, was received as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated March 14, 1984, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective May 16, 1984. ADDITION LENGTH BLUE RIDGE FOREST SUBDIVISION Forestvue Drive - From Route 660, 0.29 Mi. North to Cul-de-sac. 0.29 Mi." June~13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Item No. 4.7bl. Letter dated May 17, 1984 from Mr. Harold~C. King, Highway Commissioner, Department of Highways and Transportation, forwarding a copy of the Tentative 1984-85 Construction Allocations for the Interstate, Primary, and Urban Systems, and Public Transit,~' as well as an update of the Six-Year Improvement Program through 1989-90, was received as information. Item No. 4.762. Letter dated May 18, 1984 from Mr. Harold C. King, Highway CommisSiOner, regarding the 1984-85 Construction Allocations for the Secondary System, was received as information. Albemarle County fiscal year funds are shown in this report at $1,525,174. Item No. 4.7c. Letter dated June 4, 1984 from Mr. Dan S~ Roosevelt, Highway Engineer, regarding the Pedestrian Study for Route 6, was received as information. "At the February 8, 1984, Board of Supervisors meeting, the Department was requested to study pedestrian traffic at the intersection of Route 6 and 627 in Albemarle County. On May 15, 1984, the Department studied this intersection. This letter is a report on this study. Attached is a copy of the hourly volumes of both vehicles and pedestrians using the intersection of Route 6 and 627 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. During this twelve hour period, there was an average of 104 vehicles per hour along Route 6 or approXimately one vehicle every 30 seconds and approximately six pedestrian crossings each hour or an average of one every ten minutes. Even during the heaviest hour of vehicle/pedestrian conflicts, only 176 vehicles and 20 pedestrians were involved. These figures do not indicate to us that a problem exists at this intersection which is more severe than what exists at most intersections in Albemarle County. Based upon our study, we do not recommend any additional action be taken than has already been done at this intersection." Item No. 4.7d. Letter dated June 7, 1984 from Mr. H. W. Mills, Maintenance Supervisor, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, regarding Route 743 across Jacobs Run being closed from June 18 to July 20, 1984, to replace the existing structure, was received as information. Item No. 4.8a. Notice from Mr. A. R. Curtis, District Manager for Vepco, dated May 11, 1984, regarding a hearing before the State Corporation Commission on July 26, 1984 at 10:00 A.M. on an increase in rates based on Financial Operating Review, was received as information. Item No. 4.8b. Notice dated May 11, 1984, from Mr. A. R. Curtis, District Manager for Vepco, was received regarding a public hearing before the State Corporation Commission on October 23, 1984 at I0:00 A.M. for an investigation of the corporate reorganization~ was received as information. Item No. 9. As required by Virginia Code Section 15.1-1377, the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority furnished copies of Internal Revenue Service Form 8038' for the following projects: a) July 15, 1983 for Riverbend Limited Partnership ($4,600,000) b) October 3, 1983 for Wellagain Limited Partnership ($800,000) c) December 27, 1983 for Augusta Lumber & Supply, Inc. ($900,000) d) January 6, 1984 for Boar's Head/Amvest ($3,000,000) e) May 24, 1984 for Wellagain Limited Partnership ($2,500,000). Agenda Item No. 5. (Night), 1984. Approval of Minutes: December 21, 1983 and March 12 and March 2I The minutes of December 21, 1983 were assigned to Mr. Henley and are to be deferred due to his absence. The minutes of March 12, 1984 were assigned to Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Bowie and both had completed the reading of same. Mr. Bowie noted a concern about information the Board members request at a meeting, and how that request is tracked for submittal in the future. No comments were offered to this concern. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the minutes of March 12, 1984 with no corrections. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. June 13, l~8-4~(Regular Day Meeting) 211 Mr. Fisher and Mr. Way had read the assigned pages for March 21 (night), 1984 and noted no corrections. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the minutes of March 21 (night), 1984 with no corrections. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Piedmont Corridor Study -- Presentation by Highway Department. Mr. Hindstrom said a proposal for an interstate type road extending from North Carolina to Maryland was presented at a recent Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting and he felt the Board should be aware of same. Therefore, a representative from the Highway Department is present to explain this proposal, known as the Piedmont Corridor. He said the Board should be aware of this proposal since same will impact the County in many ways. Mr. William Jeffries, representative of the Highway Department, said the idea began in 1983 at the Lynchburg Chamber of Commerce whose members have a real interest in a Route 29 by-pass in that area. However, since there are no funds to build a by-pass, the Chamber felt another idea should be pursued. Thereafter, the idea of using interstate funds for a road was developed. The road to be known as the Piedmont Corridor would extend from Greensboro, North Carolina to Frederick, Maryland. The steering committee for this proposal presented the idea to Mr. Harold King, Highway Commissioner, in March, and basically, he agreed with the idea. Mr. Jeffries said no funds are currently available for this corridor but the committee felt a proposal should be prepared in order that same would be developed when funds become available. Mr. Jeffries said once all the information is compiled, adoption of the concept will be encouraged by all jurisdictions involved in the corridor. There is no information available at this time other than the potential crossing of Route 250 in the Ivy area by this corridor. Aerials will be available in four to six weeks. In conclusion, Mr. Jeffries said any thoughts or ideas relative to this concept, should be submitted to Mr. Richard Lockwood, Transportation Engineer, for the Highway Department. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Jeffries had indicated on a map at the MPO meeting, a route for this proposed corridor. He asked if he would do so again for the Board. Mr. Jeffries made a tentative location of the route on a County tax map. Mr. Fisher said that route appears to affect the Ivy Creek area and if it does, he is very concerned. Mr. Lindstrom said since the road is not in an urban area as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census, neither the MPO nor any of the affected Jurisdictions have veto power over this type of project. Mr. Jeffries said that is correct. Mr. Lindstrom said he is amazed that this was presented as a concept at a recent MP0 meeting, and it now appears that the proposal has advanced further through agreement of the Highway Commissioner and discussion of funding same. He said the Board needs to keep an eye on this proposal. Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned since the South Fork Rivanna River watershed is affected by this proposal. Mr. Jeffries said that is correct, there is no veto by localities, but concerns can be expressed to Highway Commission members and through public hearings on the proposal. Mrs. Cooke said she is aware of the need for another corridor for Route 29 North traffic, but is very concerned that the watershed will be affected by this route. She feels the Board should express that concern. Mr. Fisher extended appreciation to Mr. Jeffries for the report. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to request the Planning staff to draft a letter expressing concerns mentioned today relative to the Piedmont Corridor's impact on the South Fork Rivanna River watershed in Albemarle County. This draft should be submitted to the Board at its meeting on July 11, 1984 for further discussion. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 6b. Public Hearing: Six-Year Highway Plan for 1984-90 and 1984-85 Secondary Roads Budget. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 29 and June 5, 1984.) This public hearing was advertised after the May 23, 1984 meeting on the same subject due to changes in the 1984-85 allocation given at that meeting by Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer. Mr. Roosevelt was present. He said the amount of available funds for Fiscal Year 1984-85 will be almost $470,000 more than originally anticipated. Therefore, the Board requested that he rework the Slx-Year Plan to incorporate the change. Mr. Roosevelt said this has been done and he will review only the changes made since the May 23 meeting. The total of the 1984-85 fiscal year allocation is changed from $1,067,139 to $1,525,174. In accordance with previous policies, he increased the "Undesignated" category for F. Y. 1984-85 from $85,000 to $198,200 to take maximum advantage of Department policy. Since the spot improvement on Route 652 qualifies as a gravel road improvement, no additional funds need to be designated for gravel road improvements to meet the minimum requirement (requirement is $258,000). Ail remaining funds are allocated to the Meadow Creek Parkway (a $344,835 increase to $829,974). These changes have been reflected throu the plan. The increased allocation to the Meadow Creek project will allow this project to be fully financed by the sixth year of the planning period, and will allow up to $94,389 for another project in the sixth year of the plan. This has been allocated to the gravel road improvement scheduled for Route 643, reducing by a like amount the additional funds needed after the six-year planning period. Mr. Roosevelt said the overall effect of these actions is to increase the column called "Total Estimated Cost" by $113,200, decrease the funds necessary after the planning period by $344,835 and allocate $108,400 more than the minimum required for gravel road improvements. 212 June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Me~ting) The public hearing was then opened. No one was present to speak for or against the proposed Six-Year Highway Plan, and the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the Six-Year Highway Plan for Secondary Improvements, 1984-90, as presented by Mr. Roosevelt on April I1, 1984 and with the above revisions for a grand total of $10,776,200. (See the minutes of April 11, 1984 containing the Six-Year Plan in its entirety.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None ......... Mr. Henley. Mr. Roosevelt then summarized Virginia Code Section 33.1-70.01 requiring that an annual secondary road budget be adopted by the Board of Supervisors in priority order. He then reviewed the steps involved in the process, and summarized the recommendations for 1984-85. Mr. Roosevelt said $145,000 remains in "Undesignated" funds and he recommended that amount be added to the Meadow Creek Parkway (Route 631) project for a grand total of $965,174. Mr. Way asked about funds for "New Additions" in the amount of $20,000. Mr. Roosevelt explained and noted that there are three current requests; one road in Lakeside Subdivision, and two in the Woolen Mills area. He also refreshed the Board's memory that several months ago, he wrote indicating that many old subdivisions may no longer be eligible under the Virginia Code for "New Addition" funding. Mr. Fisher asked about money for operation of the Hatton Ferry. Mr. Roosevelt said $10,000 should be added to this budget for that operation. Therefore, $10,000 should be deleted from the Meadow Creek Parkway project. The public hearing was opened. and the public hearing was closed. No one was present to speak for or against the budget Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following resolution for the Secondary Highway Improvement Budget for Fiscal Year 1984-85 with the revisions described in the foregoing writing by Mr. Roosevelt. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following Secondar~ Highway Improvement Budget for Fiscal Year 1984-85 is hereby adopted with same being set out in priority order: PRIORITY ROUTE FROM TO DES CRIPTION AMOUNT 1 743 29 631 Hydraulic Road 225,000 2 County Wide Install New Signs 10,000 3 County Wide Install New Entrance Pipe 20,000 4 County Wide Fertilize/Seed Right-of-Way 3,000 5 County Wide New Additions 20,000 6 625 At Hatton Ferry Operate Ferry 10,000 7 671 609 668E Hard Surface 109,000 8 618 729 2 Mi. E 729 Hard Surface 113,000 9 652 .70 Mi N 631 4 Mi. S 1441 Hard Surface 50,000 10 631 Cvl C1 So RR Meadow Creek Parkway 965,174 TOTAL $1,525,174 Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Fisher said he received a letter about Route 611 on Jarman's Gap, requesting addition and maintenance of a .95 mile section into the State Secondary Road System; said letter from Hunter B. Andrews, dated May 25, 1984 (Copy of letter is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Roosevelt to review this request and assist him in a response to Senator Andrews. Mr. Roosevelt said this road is not in the state system and would be covered under the Rural Addition part of the budget. The request should be referred to the Road Viewers to determine if the road qualifies for addition to the system using those funds. He suggested the Board respond by stating that this request will be reviewed by the Road Viewers. An application dated May 15, 1984 had already been received from Mr. Frank A. O'Neill concerning this road. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Ipswitch Place which lies behind Albemarle High School is in the state road system. Mr. Roosevelt said it is not in the system as it was built as a private road. Mr. Lindstrom said he has received a petition and inquiries regarding why the school~oes not come down the road. Mr. Agnor said school buses do use private roads. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor to contact the transportation division of the School System to determine why this is not a designated school bus route. He noted that there are a number of young families with school-aged children living in that area. (Note: After the meeting, the Clerk researched the files and found that Ipswitch Place, from Route 657 northwesterly for 0.20 miles to the end of the~,:~e~a.¢ was added to the Secondary System on May 20, 1983.) June 1~84 (Re~ula_r Da~ Meetin_DE~ Mr. Way asked if a public hearing will be held regarding the bridge approach project on Route 729 at Buck Island Creek. Mr. Roosevelt said no requests for a public hearing have been received and he has recommended that the project be developed to the purchase of right-of-way stage. One letter received stating opposition was withdrawn after he discussed the project' with that individual. Mr. Way said a great deal of concern has been expressed to him. Mr. Roosevelt said he explained to the individual representing the persons in the subject area that in order for a public hearing to be held, same had to be requested in writing and no communications have been received from persons living in that area. (Due to being ahead of schedule and since the next agenda item was advertised for a public hearing, the Board took up various items from the agenda.) Agenda Item No. 23. Request from VEPCO for Easement on County Property on McIntire Road. Mr. Agnor said letter dated May 15, 1984 from Mr. Mike Brent, Division Right-of-Way Agent for Vepco, has been received requesting the County to authorize an overhang easement for a pole to be set on McIntire Road; same is to be located south of the entrance to the County employees' parking lot. The pole will be set on the highway right-of-way and the guy wires bracing the pole go sixty feet onto County property. Mr. Agnor said the staff does not find any problem with the guy wires and recommends granting of the easement as requested. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Way, to authorize the Chairman to execute the VEPCO overhang easement with Plat No. 00-80-23-84 attached, as recommended by the staff. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 24. Agreement for Charlottesville Transit to serve Piedmont College. Mr. Agnor said a request was received from the City during the budget work sessions to participate in the funding of a bus route to the Piedmont Community College. The Board did not oppose the service, but voted to not participate in the funding of same. However, in order for Charlottesville Transit to operate within the County, Board approval must be obtained. Therefore, an agreement between the City and County has been drafted which will allow this service to operate between an existing route within the City limits and out Route 20 South to the college. Ail financial obligations and liabilities for the service have been removed from the County. Mr. Agnor said the route will operate for a nine-month period beginning September, 1984 and ending June, 1985 with continuation of the service being determined at that time. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to authorize the Chairman to execute the following agreement for the Charlottesville Transit Service to operate bus service to Piedmont Community College with there being no financial obligation or other liability for the service to the County. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. This Agreement made and entered into this 13th day of June, 1984, by and between the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (Albemarle) and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA (Charlottesville). WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, Charlottesville is desirous of providing public transit service to Piedmont Virginia Community College via the extension of a bus route which will also serve a portion of the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed route will travel southbound and northbound on U.S. Route 20 between the entrance to Piedmont Virginia Community College and the City limits, Charlottesville therefore requests the Board to enter into this agreement, in order that Charlottesville may operate such service without obtaining a certificate of convenience and necessity from the State Corporation Commission; now, therefore, The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby agrees to permit and authorize the City of Charlottesville to provide such service over U.S. Route 20 between the entrance to Piedmont Community College and the City limits. Such agreement is made for the purpose of establishing the contractual authority of Charlottesville to operate such transit service within the territorial jurisdiction of Albemarle County and, it is understood and agreed that by executing this agreement the Board shall incur no financial obligation or other liability for such transit service. The term of the agreement shall be for a nine month period, beginning September 1, 1984 and ending June 30, 1985. June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 28a. Discussion: Rabies Law re: Innocu!ation of Cats. Mr. Agnor said at the June 6, 1984 meeting, he reported the status of the recenv clinics held in the County and City as the result of a purported rabies epidemic and the number of animals innoculated; same being 900 in County clinics and 600 at the clinic held at the Health Department on Rose Hill Drive. Mr. Agnor said he has discussed the results of the clinics with Dr. Richard Prindle, Director of the Health Department, and although there is no way to actually forecast the results, Dr. Prindle feels the program was ~uccessful Therefore, Dr. Prindle does not recommend operating any further clinics at this time. He is also attempting to assimilate information from local veterinarians regarding the number of innoculations from those premises. Mr. Agnor said he also discussed a drafted City ordinance on this subject with Dr. Prindle. He recognizes that the ordinance is not enforceable and the only real usefulness of same is for notification purposes to private citizens. The ordinance provides a legal ground for persons suffering a bit or scratch; same can be used as a means of collecting medical bills from the owners of the animal. In other words, Mr. Agnor said the ordinance is primarily for private citizens rather than for public agencies. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor his recommendation regarding adoption of such an ordinance. Mr. Agnor said he does not recommend adoption of an ordinance since same is not enforceable. Mr. Agnor also did not feel that the problem is severe enough to justify adoption of an ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he wants to know the Board has done all in its power to meet public needs based on the recent purported rabies epidemic. Mr. St. John agreed with the comments made by Mr. Agnor regarding the fact that creating civil remedies between citizens is not a power delegated to counties. The State Legislature creates all civil remedies between citizens. Mr. St. John said if an outbreak of rabies became a problem in the future, he felt the process of informing citizens about the availability of clinics for the innoculation of animals is a better approach than creating a civil remedy when this is not within the Board's powers. Mr. Way said a number of people have expressed gratitude to him for the clinics. Therefore, he feels that regardless of whether or no~ there is a rabies epidemic, perhaps these clinics should be held once a year as a preventive measure. Mr. Bowie did not favor adoption of am ordinance if same is not enforceable nor one with which the average citizen can comply. However, he does feel that having the vaccination clinics available is a solution to some problems and he supports that even if County funding is required. With no motion to set an ordinance for public hearing, Mr. Fisher said he assumes the matter is closed. He then extended appreciation to Mr. Agnor and Mr. St. John for their research on the subject, and noted that from the conversation today there is support for more rabies clinics. Mr. Agnor said he will advise the Board if the current situation changes. Agenda Item No. 22. Deed Regarding Inglecress Limited. A letter dated May 9, 1984 from Mr. Magruder Dent, Jr., attorney for Inglecress, Limited, has been received regarding the Inglecress Subdivision on Garth Road along with a deed for execution by the Board to eliminate a conflict regarding a note on the approved plat which contemplates public roads in Inglecress Subdivision when the actual approval by the County permits privately maintained roads (Copy of this letter is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, has reviewed this request with the Deputy County Attorney, Frederick W. Payne, and recommends approval of the request because the Board approved the subdivision on September 10, 1980 with a condition that the roads be privately maintained. Mr. St. John said this request is to vacate a portion of the plat declaring the roads in Inglecress Subdivision to be dedicated to public use. Mr. St. John said according to the developer, planning staff and minutes of the September 10, 1980 Board meeting, the roads were clearly intended to be privately maintained. Further, he noted that all parties holding interest in the lots have signed the deed showing this agreement with the correction. In this case, a public hearing is not necessary. Mr. St. John said he has reviewed the deed and recommends approval. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to authorize the Chairman to execute the following deed~for Inglecress, Limited which will eliminate a conflict regarding a note on the approved plat which contemplated public roads in Inglecress and the actual approval being for privately maintained roads. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. THIS DEED OF PARTIAL VACATION made this 5th day of April, 1984, by INGLECRESS LTD., a Virginia corporations ANN HAFFNER SANFORD and JACK W. SANFORD, JR., her husband; JAMES W. GERCKE and ADELE H. GERCKE, husband and wife; FRED S. LANDESS, WILBUR L. HUNDLEY, DAVID J. WOOD, SR. and JOHN W. ZUNKA, Trustees; NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST CO., Noteholder; MARY PORTER. HAFFNER, Executrix of the Estate of Berta Garth Jones, Noteholder; and THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: June 13~ 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) WITNES SETH 1. That the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated October 31, 1983 governing "Inglecress" in Albemarle County, Virginia, are recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Deed Book 787, starting at Page 182 (the "Declaration"), and provide, among other matters, that the roads named "Stable Road", "Saddle Court", "London Road", and "Jones Lane" as shown and described on the subdivision plat of Inglecress recorded in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 787, Page 194, shall be privately owned and privately maintained. 2. That the subdivision plat of Inglecress contains the provision, "Ail roads and streets not previously dedicated are hereby tendered for dedication to public use". 3. That the aforesaid provisions of the Declaration and on the subdivision plat are in conflict and it is the purpose of this instrument to resolve that conflict by vacating the said quoted provision shown on the subdivision plat, and to confirm the provisions of the Declaration that said roads shall be privately owned and privately maintained, and to make no other change. 4. That among the parties to this instrument are all persons holding interests in said subdivision, which interests are as follows: Inglecress, Ltd. proprietor of the subdivision and owner of all lots in Inglecress except those three specified below; Ann Haffner Sanford, owner of Lots 3 and 34, Inglecress, under deed of exchange from Mary Porter Haffner, Executrix of the Estate of Berta Garth Jones, dated January 12, 1984, recorded in Deed Book 787, Page 196; James W. Gercke and Adele H. Gercke, owners of Lot 29, Inglecress, under deed of Inglecress, Ltd., dated February 22, 1982, recorded in Deed Book 792, Page 624; Fred S. Landess and Wilbur L. Hundley, Trustees, under deed of trust of Inglecress, Ltd., dated January 26, 1984, recorded in Deed Book 787, Page 212, securing an obligation held by National Bank and Trust Co.; and David J. Wood, Jr. and John W. Zunka, Trustees, under deed of trust of Inglecress, Ltd., dated January 25, 1984, recorded in Deed Book 787, Page 217, to secure an obligation to Mary Porter Haffner, Executrix of the Estate of Berta Garth Jones. NOW THEREFORE In accordance with Section 15.1-482(a) of the Code of Virginia, the parties named above in paragraph 4 ex~cute this instrument to evidence their agreement that the sentence appearing on the subdivision plat of Inglecress quoted in paragraph 2 be vacated and of no effect, and to request that The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County execute this instrument to evidence its approval of such vacation. And The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County in consideration of the above request and of its approval of the said vacation, has caused its approval to be shown by its execution of this instrument by its agent hereunto duly authorized. In all other respects t~e Declaration and the subdivision plat of Inglecress shall remain unchalnged and in full force and effect. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: An Ordinance Increasing Penalty for Violation of Albemarle County Service Authority Sewerage User Regulations (Amends Section 19.1-3 of the Albemarle County Code). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 29 and June 5, 1984.) Mr. St. John said the request and basis for this amendment to the ordinance is set out in a letter dated April 24, 1984 from Mr. James M. Bowling, Deputy County Attorney, and was presented to the Board on May 9, 1984 [The letter is set out in the minutes of May 9, 1984). In brief, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority recently amended their sewerage user regulations in order to comply with recent amended regulations of the EnviroNmental Protection Agency and State Water Control Board regarding same. In revising these regulations, the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors felt that any violation of the regulations would be severe enough to justify criminal prosecution and penalties as severe as the law allows. Therefore, the Board of Directors requested that the County Code be amended to increase the penalties. Mr. St. John said this request does not pertain to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority since the Rivanna Authority only has two customers, the City and the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Agnor explained that this regulation involves industrial categories of pollutants and those users are customers of the City and ACSA. The Rivanna Authority notified each industrial user and held public hearings when the standards promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Control Board were adopted. Mr. Agnor also noted that the City ordinance regarding these violations is being requested for amendment as well. The public hearing was opened. No one from the public was present to speak for or against the ordinance and the public hearing was closed. June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the following ordinance, amending Section 19.1-3 of the Albemarle County Code. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 19.1 (WATER AND SEWERS), SECTION 19.1-3 (VIOLATIONS; PENALTIES) OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE BY INCREASING THE PENALTY FOR A VIOLATION OF THE SEWERAGE USER REGULATIONS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 19.1-3 of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended and reenacted by increasing the penalty for violation of the sewerage user regulations of the Albemarle County Service Authority, as follows: Section 19.1-3. Violations; penalties. Any person violating the provisions of Section 19.1-2 herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding twelve months or both by such fine and imprisonment. Each day such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. The board of supervisors, in addition to other remedies, may institute an appropriate action or proceeding, at law or in equity, to prevent violation or attempted violation, to restrain, correct and abate such violation or to prevent any act which would constitute such a violation of the provisions of Section 19.1-2 herein. Agenda Item No. 18. Request for Allocation of Library Refund. Mr. Agnor said as explained earlier, the Regional Library refunded $15,005.28 to the County from funds in excess of needs for the Fiscal Year 1982-83. At that time, the Board was informed that the Library Trustees planned to request a portion of the funds for specific projects. The request today is for $2,170 to be appropriated for the Library's use in having an outside agency review the Library's Pay and Classification Plan. Mr. Agnor said this plan was adopted in 1980 and should be revised in preparation for the Fiscal Year 1985-86 budget. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request. Mr. Agnor said another request is for funds to be appropriated for fire detection systems for the two branch libraries, Scottsville and Crozet.. Four proposals have been received for the system and $3,300 is the amount needed. Mr. Agnor recommended that the two requests be approved in the total amount of $5,470. Mr. Agnor said the Board can either advertise an amendment to the Budget or transfer funds. Mr. Agnor recommended transferring the $5,470 from the County Executive's budget under the "compensation line" since there has been a vacancy in his office staff. Mr. Fisher asked the reason a fire detection system not being constructed at the time the buildings were constructed. Mr. Agnor said the systems were not required and this omission was not detected until after construction. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to transfer $5,470 from Code 1-1000-12010-100100--County Executive-Compensation, to Code 1-1000-73020-562800 Library, $2,170; and to Code 1-1000-73020-701002 Building Alterations, $3,300, for Fiscal Year 1983-84. Mr. Bowie said the reason for his supporting the motion is because the request is less than one-third of the funds being returned and he intends to support agencies that save money. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: Village Square Phase II and III Final Plat. (Subdivision plat of Phases Two & Three, The Village Square, located on State Route 631, drawn by W. S. Roudabush, Inc., revised dated April 5, 1984.) The following letter of appeal was received on May 4, 1984 from Herbert L. Beskin, attorney representing the applicant: "RE: Village Square Phase II and III Final Plat TM61A, Parcel 3-B, Charlottesville Magisterial District: Appeal of April 24, 1984, Decision by Albemarle County Planning Commission Dear Ms. Neher: On April 24, 1984, the Planning Commission voted to deny approval of the above-described final plat on the basis that 'verification is needed for density bonus awards and to bring the density in compliance with the recommended dwelling units per acre specified for this area of Urban Neighborhood 2 in the comprehensive plan'. Please consider this letter to be an appeal by Salasco Service Corporation of this decision, and a request that this matter be placed on the agenda of the Board of Supervisors as soon as possible." June 13, 19~ ~Regular Day ~eeting~ Mr. Ron Keeler~ Chief of Planning, was present and presented the following staff report: "History.:_ The Board of Supervisors on December 9, 1981 approved an overall preliminary plat of Village Square showing 91 lots with density bonuses, on 19.274 acres, and at the same time approved the final plat for Phase I consisting of 25 lots on 8.66 acres. The overall density approved on the preliminary plat is 4.62 dwelling units per acre, although the plats which have been submitted for Phase tZ and Phase IIZ have a combined density of 6.54 dwelling units per acre. Also, in December, 1981, the Board accepted dedication of 1.75 acres to be used in conjunction with the development of the Meadow Creek Parkway. The second phase of development is the subject today. The overall density that was approved with the bonuses was 4.62 dwelling units, per acre. The density bonuses requested and approved were: 11 dwelling units for the dedication of 1.75 acres to public use, three dwelling units for location of the property within 1/2 mile of the VO. TEC School, 11 dwelling units for the maintenance of existing wooded areas, and 19 dwelling units for provision of significant planting (street trees). The actual bonus to be used was 12 dwelling units, so only one additional unit is needed. Staff Comment: With preliminary plat approval, the Planning Commission granted a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the townhouse parking area (Phase III) to be privately maintained. A commercial entrance will be required to access the parking lot from Towne Lane. To meet the recreational area requirement of 50 square feet per unit, the applicant is proposing a tot lot and walking path with three exercise stations. Extensive clearing and grading will be necessary for this development. ¥irtuatly all existing wooded areas will be lost in the immediate vicinity of the buildings. The proposed landscape plan includes street trees, residential buffers and ornamental plantings. While the applicant is no longer eligible for density bonuses based on preserving wooded areas (maximum 15% density bonus), staff recommends approval of the proposed landscape plan and density bonuses based on 'significant landscaping' (25%) and dedication of land to publ±c use (15%). (Mr. Keeler said in terms of new landscaping and in terms of what can be saved during construction, there will be about 31 trees per acre, and about 50 shrubs per acre and he feels that satisfies the requirement for significant landscaping.)" Mr. Keeler continued by noting two letters of objections from adjacent property owners. The staff had recommended approval of the plat subject to a number of conditions. The Planning Commission at its meeting on April 24, 1984 by a vote of 4 to 3 denied approval on the basis that clarification is needed concerning the density bonuses, and alSo to bring the density into compliance with the recommended dwelling units per acre specified in the Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhood II. Mr. Keeler further explained that the Planning Commission members expressed two concerns One is the controversy about the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway. If the Meadow Creek Parkway is not constructed, the Commission is very concerned about increasing density along Rio Road in view of the current road condition. Also, the Comprehensive Plan recommend low urban density for this area which is in the range of one to four units per acre. With the bonuses, the density will be 4.62 units per acre. Therefore, Mr. Keeler said the Commission is highly concerned with the controversy about the parkway construction as well as approving densities which are not recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion followed about the original approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. Keel~er said the plat was approved in 1981 by the Planning Commission and then appealed to the Board by an adjacent property owner with the Board then concurring in the Commission's approval. Mr. Fisher asked if the densities shown on the final plat are consistent with the prior approval. Mr. Keeler said yes, in fact, there are two units less; the total was 91 units, and the current request is only for a total of 89. Mr. Fisher said he could not understand the action of the Commission in voting to deny the plats for Phase II and Phase III when preliminary approval was given previously. Further, he is confused because nothing appears to be inconsistent with the prior approval. Mr. Herb Beskin, attorney representing Salasco Service Corporation, was present and reviewed the following letter dated June 11, 1984: "RE: Village Square Phase II and III: Appeal of April 24, 1984, Decision by the Albemarle County Planning Commission Denying Approval of the Final Plat Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: I am writing on behalf of Salasco Service Corp., who will appear before you on June 13 requesting approval of the final plat for Phases II and III of Village Square. Village Square is a 19.274 acre development situated just off Rio Road near the entrance to Penn Park. As you will note from the April 24, 1984 staff report, preliminary plat approval was granted by the Board in 1981 for 91 units, together with final plat approval for the 25 units of Phase I. Given its R-4 zoning, such a development would usually only be entitled to 77 units. In this instance, however, the developer was awarded density bonus points pursuant to Sections 14.4.2 and 14.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting Specifically, the developer was awarded the following bonus points: 15% for dedicating 1.74 acres of land to the county for public use; 5% for locating the development within 0.5 miles of the VOTEC Center;~ 15% for maintaining existing wooded areas; and 25% for providing significant plantings (street trees, etc.). Section 14.4.5 of the Ordinance limits the cumulative effect of density bonus points to 50%, so the developer was entitled to 38 units beyond the 77 that would have been allowed under R,4 zoning. Salasco at first requested 14 of these additionaI units, hut is now requesting only 12, less than a third of the additional units to which it is entitled. If granted these additional 12 units, Village Square would have a density of 4.62 dwelling units per acre. This figure is 15.6%~greater than that normally allowed in R-4 zoning, but of course much less than the 50% Salasco might have requested. Despite the staff recommendation that the final plat be approved, the Planning Commission denied approval. Salasco asks that the Board grant final approval for the following reasons: Salasco has substantially relied upon the preliminary plat approval and the granting of bonus density points. A. It dedicated 1.75 acres of the development to the County for public use. It is now too late to redesign the development to make use of this parcel. B. Phase I of the development was designed for only 2.92 dwelling units/acre because of the higher density which was granted for Phases II and III. It is too late to redesign Phase I for higher density. C. It has spent thousands of dollars in design and engineering drawings. Nothing has changed, and no new conditions exist, which justify this reversal of position. A. This is the first time the County has, in effect, reversed its position on the granting of bonus points. B. For reasons of continuity and fairness, developers should be able to rely upon preliminary Commission decisions unless there is a major change in the situation. None exists in this case. Salasco has gone to great lengths to preserve the natural setting of this development. In addition to the planting of trees on the streets of the subdivision, the developer has spent thousands of dollars to save existing trees. It has moved young trees, relocated driveways, and adjusted house sites, all at it own expense. If you have a few spare minutes before the hearing, we ask that.you drive through Village Square to see for yourself the quality of the environment which has~.been created. The staff continues to recommend approval of the final plats. Salasco will amend the deed for the 1.75 acres to make it clear that the dedication to public use is absolute, and the land will never be used for private development. It is our understanding that this was a concern of some of the Commission members; Salasco has always been, and is now, willing to execute any documents necessary to alleviate this concern." Mr. Beskin concluded by stating that as noted in the above letter, he understands the County has never before reversed a decision on bonus points awarded in this type of situation. Further, no changes have been made which justify this type of reversal decision. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John the legal status of the parcel which has been reserved for public dedication. Mr. St. John said the type of assurance which Mr. Beskin has mentioned (executing a document stating the parcel is for public dedication) for the public dedication would be a helpful assurance. He said an argument could be made that i~f Meadow Creek Parkway is not constructed within a reasonable time period, then the purpose of dedication had failed, so that action would be voided. Therefore, a statement on file from the applicant regarding this dedication would be a safeguard. No one else was present to speak for or against this appeal.d~o¥~m¥~~~d. Mr. Fisher said the evidence presented for the applicant is compeling, but he would like to have a clearer understanding of the Planning Commission's action of April 24, 1984. He said that perhaps this matter should be deferred to June 20, 1984 in order to discuss that action with the Planning Commission members. Mrs. Cooke asked if the Board desired her to speak with the Commission. Mr. Fisher said that was a good idea. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a week's deferral would create a problem for the applicant. Mr. Bowie said he and Mr. Way discussed this question with the Rivanna representative on the Planning Commission. He understands that part of the problem was the dedication of the 1~706 acres as a bonus point. If the Meadow Creek parkway is not constructed, then the 1.706 acres would be returned to the developer to build more units and create even more traffic. He understands this was the key concern. However, since the letter presented by Mr. Beskin. today indicates willingness on behalf of the applicant to execute documents to make the dedication permanent, that would alleviate the Commission's concern. June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) 2Z.9 Mr. Fisher asked if a document should be executed before the Board takes action on this appeal. Mr, St. John said yes, he will work with the applicant's attorney in drafting same. Mr. St. John said beyond that, the only legitimate question is whether or not'the developer has failed to complY with the conditions for the granting of bonus densities. If the developer has not failed, then he did not feel the County can then decide to take a second, look at the development or at the Zoning Ordinance in regard to the bonus densities. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Keeler if he had stated that the developer has lost the bonus for maintenance of the wooded environment. Mr. Keeler said the developer is no longer eligible for that bonus. Mr. Bowie said he has recently visited the site and there is no way houses can be built in that area without removing nearly all of the trees. MOtion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to defer the Village Square Phase II and III Final Plat Appeal to June 20, 1984 for the following two reasons: The drafting of a legal document which will be executed by the developer to ensure that the 1.706 acre parcel will be dedicated to public use, and a determination as to whether or not the applicant has complied with obligations relative to bonus densities. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES' Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: NOne. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 30. Report from Building and Properties Committee. Mr. Bowie, member of the Building and Properties Committee, said the committee has met and reviewed two proposals received as a result of the advertisement for bids relative to the McIntire School property. The committee does not find either proposal acceptable. Mr. Agnor has been requested to schedule another meeting with one of the groups making a proposal in order to discuss the proposal further. The proposal appears to be for a long- term use and the County desires to have more benefit from the property than what has been presented. Mr. Bowie also noted that three months of maintenance for the building has been included in the budget for Fiscal Year 1984-85 and perhaps an examination should be made of ways to fund the maintenance without using County funds while this process for proposals is underway. The Board may want to consider negotiating with the present occupants for maintenance funds until a final decision is made. No comments were offered by the other Board members. Mr. Agnor said July 11, 1984 is the target date for having some final ideas for the Board. At 10:53 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11':02 A.M. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: Use of $450,000 in Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for Educational PurPoses; also, amendment of the 1983-84 County Budget by a like amount. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5, 1984.) Mr. Agnor summarized the request for $450,000 to be appropriated from the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund and transferred to the School Fund. Briefly, Mr. Agnor said the Federal Revenue Sharing Act had not been extended by Congress when the revenue estimates for 1983-84 were being prepared. Therefore, only receipts for one quarter from Federal Revenue Sharing were included in that budget. The Act has now been extended, and the County will receive an additional $426,000 in the-current budget year. The purpose of the public hearing today is to receive comments on the transfer of $450,000 of Revenue Sharing Funds to the School Fund; the formula used to allocate monies to localities is improved when funds are used for educational purposes. .In conclusion, Mr. Agnor said the recommendation and action necessary is that $450,000-in Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for Fiscal Year 1983-84 be appropriated to the School Fund, and the General Fund transfer (Local share) to the School Fund be reduced by a like amount. The public hearing was opened. No one was present to speak for or against the budget amendment and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way then offered motion to adopt the' following resolution based on the recommendation of Mr. Agnor. Mr. Bowie seconded the-motion. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Federal Revenue Sharing funds can be used in general budget operations. Mr. Agnor said yes, but vendors must comply with the Davis-Bacon Wage Act. The School system has been allocating these funds specifically for utility costs, and all utility companies are in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Wage Act. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $450,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund and transferred to the School Fund. AND FURTHER, that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to reduce the General Fund transfer to the School Fund by an equal amount of Fiscal Year 1983-1984. Agenda I~tem Nos. 25 and 25b. Staff Services. County Executive's Report for May 1984: Appropriation - Mr. Agnor said there are no significant changes in the financial condition indicated in the May 30, 1984 Financial Summary, but there are two problem areas. One is a deficit in the Staff Services budget resulting from the operational costs of the McIntire Building being charged to this budget when no funds were budgeted for the facility. A public hearing was held on an appropriation of $45,500 on March 14, 1984 but no action was taken at that time in order that a meeting between County officials and the present tenants could be held (See the minutes of March 14, 1984 for a detailed explanation). Therefore, Mr. Agnor said an appropriation in the amount of $45,500 is being requested today for ~the Staff Services budget. Mr. Agnor further explained that the School Administration division reports that the revenues and expenditures of the School fund for FY 1983-84 will be closely matched, but ' will end the fiscal year in black ink. Further, the financial report for the third quarter indicates that the General Fund will have about $3.4 million over-collected in revenues after all expenditures and encumbrances have been accounted for. The May report confirms that indication. Mr. Bowie said the reason for deferring action on the appropriation in March was to allow time to negotiate with the YMCA, an occupant in the McIntire School Building. He had also asked that the School Division be approached to fund some of its obligation during the 1983-84 fiscal year. Mr. Bowie asked why the entire amount of $45,500 is being requested when some money has been received from the YMCA. Mr. Agnor said the appropri'ation must be in the gross amount since rents are deposited as revenues. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the above request by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. BE iT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $45,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to Staff Services and coded as follows: 1 1000 43000 510100 1 1000 43000 510200 1 1000 43000 510300 1 1000 43000 540500 Electrical Services Heating Services Water and Sewer Service Janitorial Supplies AND FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. $ 7,500 32,500 5OO $4~ ~000 ,500 Agenda Item No. 25a. Transfer of Funds re: Excess Fees Paid to State Treasurer. Mr. Agnor explained the following letter dated June 7, 1984 from Mr. Melvin Breeden, Deputy Director of Finance, regarding the transfer of funds for Excess Fees paid to the State Treasurer: "The expense of operating the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court is funded one hundred percent by the State from the fees charged for recordation of deeds and other documents. A monthly statement is filed with the State reporting fees collected and expenses of operation, one-third of the surplus (excess of fees collected above allowed expenses) being remitted to the State and the remaining two-thirds of the surplus is retained by the County. The accounting procedure established by the Auditor of Public Accounts requires that the County maintain accounts showing total receipts of this office, an operating budget for the office, and a refund code for the State's one-third of the surplus revenues. Based on the estimated receipts of the Clerk's office and operating expenses for fiscal year 1983-84, the surplus revenues were estimated to be $13,000 and this amount was included in the original FY 83-84 Appropriation Ordinance. Due to the unanticipated economic recovery during the fiscal year, revenues from recordation of deeds and seller's tax will exceed our projections by approximately $90,000 which will also result in an increase of the State's one-third of the surplus fees. Therefore, I respectfully request the following transfer of funds: From 1 1000 73020 562800 Regional Library 1 1000 71000 100300 Parks and Recreation $17,000 3~000 20,000 To 1 1000 92010 580306 Excess Fees - State Treasurer $20,000" June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) '-221 Mr. Fisher questioned the request on the agenda earlier in the day to appropriate funds for smoke detection systems in the two branch libraries. He asked if there are still enough in the Library budget to cover this request. Mr. Agnor said this request was written before the request for the smoke detection systems and the money for those systems was transferred from the County Executive's budget. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the transfer as set out above. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: Amendments to Planning Commission Ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 29 and June 5, 1984.) Mr. St. John summarized the purpose of the amendments relating to the Planning Commission and noted that the amendments are basically for housekeeping measures. (The request is set out in the minutes of May 16 (Night), 1984.) The public hearing was opened. and the public hearing was closed. No one was present to speak for or against the amendments Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded-by Mr. Way, to adopt the following ordinance to amend and reenact certain sections of Chapter 2, Article II, Planning Commission, in the County Code. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE II, PLANNING COMMISSION, OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE BE IT ORDAINED by the. Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Article II, Planning_Commission, of the Albemarle County Code is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 2-4. CompoSitiOn; appointment; terms and compensation of members; quorum. (a) Composition. The Planning Commission of the County shall be composed of eight members appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Ail members of the Commission shall be residents of the County qualified by knowledge and experience to make decisions on questions of community growth and development, and at least one-half of its members shall be freeholders. (b), (c), (d), (e)Same. Sec. 2-13. Duty O'f 'p'l'~n'n'i'~g'corm~iss'iOn generally. (a), (b), (¢), (d)(1), (d)(2) Same. (d)(3) The designation of a system of community service facilities such- as parks, forests, schools, playgrounds, public buildings and institutions, hospitals, community centers, waterworks, sewage disposal or waste disposall areas, and the like; (4) The designation of historical areas and areas for urban renewal or other treatment; and (5) An official map, capital improvements plan, a subdivision ordinance, and a zoning ordinance and zoning district map. Sec. 2-23. Legal status of plan, · (a), (b), (c) Same. ~ i (d) Any public area, facility or use as set forth in paragraph (a) which is identified within, but not the entire subject of, a submission Under either the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development ordinance or theisite development plan review provisions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance orlboth may be deemed a feature already shown on'the adopted master plan, and, thereforei excepted from the requirement for submittal to and approval by the commission or the~governing body; provided, that either of such ordinances or a resolution of the governing body has defined standards governing construction, establishment or authorization of such public area, facility or use or has approved it through acceptanceiof a proffer made pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. I June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 11. B. Aubrey Huffman &.Associates, Ltd., showing one acre on U.S. Route 250 and Riverbend Drive, Pantops, dated October 24, 1979.) ' Appeal: "Pantops (Riverbend Drive) Final Plat". (Plat drawn by Mr. Lindstrom said he will abstain for the same reasons he has stated in the past when this item has been heard by the Board and left the meeting at this time. Mr. Fisher said the following letter dated May 29, 1984, from Herbert L. Beskin, has been received as an appeal of the Pantops Riverbend Drive Final Plat: "IN RE: Jefferson Savings and Loan Lot Located at Intersection of Riverbend Drive and Route 250 East (Tax Map 78, Parcel 17F2): Proposal to Delete Restriction in Subdivision Plat Dear Ms. Scala: This letter is confirm the telephone conversation that you and I had on May 23rd, and to note an apPeal of last week'S Planning Commission decision regarding this parcel. You explained to me that if no appeal was filed concerning last week's decision by the Planning Commission to amend the restriction to allow only a right turn in on Route 250, the decision would stand. The Board of Supervisors has delegated' it's authority to amend subdivision plats such as this one to the Planning Commission, and therefore any decision by the Commission would be final unless appealed to the Board of Supervisors. In order to effectuate the change in the plat restriction, you said that the plat must be redrawn with the new wording of the restriction and brought to your department and signed within 18 months of last week's meeting. The plat would then have to be recorded within six months after that. If these time limits are not met, there would be no official change in the plat restriction. On behalf of Jefferson Savings and Loan, please consider this letter as an appeal of last week's decision by the Planning Commission. Jefferson Savings and Loan wishes to appeal this matter to the Board of Supervisors, and will ask the Board of Supervisors to lift the restriction in its'entirety. ~I have spoken with Ms. Neher, and it is my understanding that this matter will be placed before the Board of Supervisors at 11:30 a.m. at the Board's June 13, 1984 meeting. Either J. Randolph Parker or I will be present at this meeting to represent Jefferson Savings and Loan. Please let me know if I have misunderstood our conversation in any way, or if my information regarding the appeal is incomplete or incorrect in any fashion. If-I .~ do not hear from you to the contrary, I will assume I have summarized our conversation correctly, and that this appeal has been perfected. Thanks for your assistance." Mr. Keeler then presented the following staff report: "Located in the southeast corner of U.S. Route 250 East and State Route 20 North at Riverbend Drive. Proposal to delete restriction: ~Access will be limited to Riverbend Drive'~. Tax Map 78, Parcel 17F2, zoned Highway Commercial. Rivanna District. History: December 18, 1979 - Planning Commission approved with conditions final plat with note: 'Access will be limited to Riverbend Drive'. August 23, 1983 - Planning Commission denied request by Jefferson Savings and Loan Association to remove note regarding access from plat. January 1, 1984 - Board of Supervisors heard appeal from Planning Commission decision, and recognized a committee to develop possible solutions for Board's consideration. February 15, 1984 - Board of Supervisors sent the matter back to the Planning Commission with no recommendation. It was decided that it was improperly before the Board since a site plan for McDonald's to use the site was still pending. Staff Comment: Jefferson Savings and Loan Association is requesting that the Planning Commission eliminate the plat restriction which states, 'access will be limited to Riverbend Drive'. This is the same request which was before you last August. However, staff feels that certain conditions have changed since that time so that a reconsideration is warranted. When the Board discussed the matter in February, the possibility of a median cut in Riverbend Drive was also dis%ussed. A new traffic study was submitted to the Highway Department by the applicant which proposed both right turn ingress and egress on Route 250 and a median break on Riverbend Drive to serve the site. In response, by letter dated March 12, 1984, the Highway Department recommended that the County consider limited access from Route 2~0 to the site but that the continuous median on Riverbend should remain." Mr. Keeler stated that without access to the site from Route 250, the only way to gain access to the site would be: Use State Farm Boulevard turn right onto South Pantops Drive, turn righ2'~ and proceed down Riverbend Drive to the site; or, turn right from 250 onto Riverbend Drive, continue down to South Pan2ops, U-turn and come back to the site. The planning staff and the Highway Department staff feel that some means of access would be appropriate,.~i.i~efore, the recommendation is that a right-turn for ingress by eastbound traffic from Rod~0 and for cars coming straight across Route 250 from Route 20 be allowed. There would not be any direct access to the site for westbound traffic on Route 250, and that would be the only limitation in terms of. getting directly to the site from Route 250. He then continued with the staff report: June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) 22:3 "Following these discussions, McDonald's Corporation withdrew its site plan on 6, 1984, based on the change in the Highway Department's comments from a recommendation of denial of access to Route 250 by letter dated August 3, 1983 to a recommendation for right turns in and right turns out only by letter dated May 3, 1984, the staff did recommend that the Planning Commission reconsider_ its previbus action. Staff has received a letter from representatives of Pantops Shopping Center supporting removal of the access restriction provided that the Planning Commission also acknowledges that a site plan showing Route 250 access to the PD-SC zoned out-parcels would receive favorable consideration." Mr', Keeler said the above paragraph refers to the property occupied by the bank. Also, the shopping center has frontage on Route 250 running from the bank property to the Hardees~property and if this is approved, the shopping center will also request access directly from Route 250. Mr. Keeler continued with the staff report: "Staff would like to emphasize that the need for access from Route 250 to the Jefferson Savings and Loan site has been established after thorough study of other alternatives. The need for access is based on both the intensive highway commercial zoning of the site and the peculiar location of the site in relation to adjacent roadways. No other site in the area shares similar characteristics. Staff recommends that the note on the plat be changed to read, 'limited access will be permitted on Route 250.' Staff also recommends that access be restricted to right turns in only, since Riverbend Drive provides adequate egress from the site. A right turn only egress on Route 250 will provide little additional benefit and may hinder traffic flow from Riverbend Drive." Mr. Keeler said the staff report has been amended since the Planning Commission meeting because the staff's feeling regarding the "no right turn out" might be seen as being inconsistent with those of the Highway Department. The Highway Department has indicated that right turns in and right turns out may be acceptable, however, the staff felt differently. The Highway Department recommended that a right turn out be designed to discourage left turns in, but Mr. Keeler said that same would have to be designed at such an angle as to be impractical. The following are the additional comments of the staff: "Other reasons for no right turn out: - can't move 'right turn in' as far east as possible - get 'X' cross pattern of traffic on site - get 'X' cross pattern on public road if right turn out is west of the right turn in - right turn out from controlled, signalized intersection is better than additional conflict point - have to look back over shoulder to get out - hard to design so that westbound traffic would not try to turn left into site." Mr. Fisher asked if the staff is recommending that all exits (egress) be onto Riverbend Drive. Mr. Keeler said yes. He said it is simple to exit onto Riverbend Drive and to make either a right or left turn onto 250. The staff recommendation is different from prior recommendations because there has been a change in circumstances. It is now absolutely clear as to the disposition of Riverbend Drive. The staff feels that allowing a right turn in will substantially increase access to the property, and the staff cannot support uncontrolled access to Route 250 as requested by Jefferson Savings and Loan. Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 22, 1984, denied the request of the applicant to eliminate the following restriction placed on the lot when same was originally approved: "access will be limited to Riverbend Drive". The Commission voted to change the restriction to read: "access will be limited to Riverbend Drive except that right turn ingress will be permitted at the easternmost end along Route 250." Mr. Keeler said he interprets that sentence to mean the easternmost "practical" location because there is an electrical tower at the easternmost location. Mr. Fisher said he understands the original position of the staff and the Highway Department was that there would be no access to the property from Route 250. It appears the staff, Highway Department and Planning Commission now agree to inbound right turn only traffic from Route 250 but the purpose of this appeal is because the applicant desires unrestricted access to Route 250. Mr. Keeler said that is correct. The Highway Department also stated that they would approve a controlled right turn out, but no plans have been submitted for that. Mr. Fisher said when the land was subdivided, there was no expectation of any access from Route 250. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt for his comments on this matter. his feelings today are the same as those made in February. Mr. Roosevelt said Next to speak was Mr. J. Randolph Parker, from the firm of Tucker and Parker, attorney representing the applicant. Mr. ParMer said there is one procedural error that has not been mentioned. When this matter came before the Board in February, the appeal was from the denial of the Planning Commission for a median break in Riverbend Drive, rather than on the earlier decision in August of allowing no access on Route 250; that decision was not appealed. A proposal for a median break on Riverbend Drive was made, denied by the Planning Commission, brought to the Board, and returned to the Planning Commission. Mr. Parker said there are some items in the history of this lot that have not been mentioned. From the time Jefferson Savings and Loan purchased this lot in 1979, and during the time that plans were being discussed about Riverbend Drive regarding an unbroken median, Jefferson Savings and Loan was not given any notice of the actions of the Board and Planning Commission. June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Obviously, this lot is the most affected by the unbroken median strip. However, this has been the only time Jefferson Savings and Loan has been able to make comments concerning this matter. Mr. Parker said his client does not feel that this parcel is any different from other lots on Route 250 such as Moore's, New York Carpet World, and the gas station. Traffic going west on Route 250 and wishing to enter this lot, having to turn, continue down Riverbend Drive for five hundred~feet, making a U-turn and come back to the parcel is something a large number of vehicles will not do. The Planning Commission's action will permit approximately 65 percent of the traffic to have access to the lot with 35 percent denied access (those westbound). What is being proposed and requested is for the Board to remove the restriction regarding the Route 250 access and let the site plan process take care~of that once it is known how the lot will develop. With the access as now restricted, the lot is not marketable. Further, Mr. Parker said the electric tower takes approximately 70 feet of the property. If the property were to be used as a restaurant, which is permitted under its zoning of Highway Commercial, a tractor trailer coming onto the site would go into the tower when making a turn. Mr. Parker said with the uncertainty as to how the property will be used, the request is for the ingress and egress to be part of site plan conditions. As mentioned, this property is considered to be no different from that of Moore's in terms of access because westbound access in the manner proposed is not possible. Further, all the properties he has mentioned have unrestricted access onto Route 250. Mr. Parker said his clients realize there are traffic problems on Route 250. but restricting access to this lot is not going to solve those problems, and Moore's, the next adjacent property, has unrestricted access. In conclusion, Mr. Parker said the request is for the Board to eliminate the restriction imposed by the Planning Commission regarding access with same to be dealt with in the site plan process when the actual use of the subject property is known. Mr. Bowie felt this lot is different from that of Moore's and New York Carpet World. Heading west cars turning into New York Carpet World are making a right turn off of 250 and left turn traffic into that site does not block the entire road because it can use the middle lane. However, making a left turn into this property and Moore's property stops all traffic. Mr. Fisher said he feels the biggest mistake was made when this lot was permitted in 1979. This is a small-sized lot, on a corner, with no way to get the access far enough away from an intersection and directly into the lot and not create problems. Mr. St. John said he would like to state that if the Board lifts the restriction at this time, the Board is not creating carte' blanche that in the future just any kind of ingress or egress will be permissible. The Board could still review this proposal at the site plan stage when the known business use is before the Planning Commission. He felt it is relevant to remember that the median strip is not the entire problem, nor the Highway Department conditions on same. When entrance to this lot was restricted to Riverbend Drive and the owners of the adjoining property and the owners of this property acceded-~to that, the expectation of ingress and egress on Route 250 was given up. However, on the other hand, he did not feel any of the owners dreamed of being faced with this unbroken median strip on Riverbend Drive. Again, Mr. St. John said he did not feel that by removing the restriction the Board is affirmatively saying that the site plan will not have any restriction, but rather would just be postponing the restriction. He felt all persons will be better able to make a decision when the use for the lot is known. Mr. Fisher said on the other side of the coin is that people have been working with this lot ever since same was subdivided in 1979, and no one has figured out how to have ingress and egress to the site. Therefore, he saw no purpose in postponement, but rather state now that egress from Route 250 will not be permitted, instead of spending unnecessary funds on plans that will not resolve the situation. Mr. Fisher then asked what uses can be made of the lot other than a fast-food restaurant. Mr. Keeler read the uses permitted in Highway Commericatu zoning; thirty-nine uses by right, and eleven uses by special use permit~ Mrs. Cooke said from that list, there does not appear to be many uses which would not require a great ~deal of traffic movement. Mr. Keeler said probably not, but the traffic distribution figures presented by Mr. Parker of the traffic traveling west were from a study based on fast food restaurants with the high volumes being for morning traffic. Mr. Way asked if the location of the right-turn as allowed by the Planning Commission is firm. Mr. Keeler said no. The location as he stated in his presentation should be the easternmost "practical" location. Mr. Fisher felt the staff and Planning Commission recommendation solve a problem on a very difficult lot, and he supported same but could not support the applicant's request. Mr. Way agreed that the recommendation appears to be the best answer to an unfortunate situation. Mr. Bowie said he too had problems with a left-turn lane being allowed in the westbound lane of 250, with that entrance being so close to the intersection of Riverbend, Route 20 and 250. He did not feel he could support eliminating the restriction as requestedi_ by the applicant. Mr. Fisher said if no motion is made, then the Planning Commission recommendation action stands. He asked the Board if the language suggested by Mr. Keeler to delete the word "end" and add "practical location" in the Commission's recommendation with same then to read "access will be limited to Riverbend Drive except that right turn ingress will be permitted at the easternmost practical location along Route 250" was desired. The Board concurred in that recommendation and motion to that effect was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, with the motion carrying by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 12:12 P.M.) June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 12. At 12:14 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn into executive session for personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:37 P.M. Agenda Item. No. 13. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Set Salary of Board members for Fiscal Year 1984-85 (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 29 and June 5, 1984). Mr. Fisher read the ordinance as proposed. He noted that a search of the records reveals that this Booard has not received an increase in salary since July 1, 1984. An amendment to the State Code in 1984 set the salary of boards of supervisors according to the population in the County. This change proposed would bring the Board's salary up to the amount allowable under this code change. The public hearing was opened. With no one to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following ordinance as advertised: BE IT ORDAINED that the salary of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle 'County, Virginia, for the fiscal year 1984-1985 is hereby set as follows: $6,900 for each Board member; in addition to his/her regular salary, the Vice-Chairman shall receive a stipend of $1,200; in addition to his/her regular salary, the Chairman shall receive a stipend of $1,800. This to be effective on and after July 1, 1984. AYES: ~Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. ~Being ahead of schedule, the Board skipped to Agenda Item No. 17. Eradication of S~hoo! Debt. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the following memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, dated June 5, 1984: As reported to you earlier, the economic recovery has increased General Fund Revenues and will result in an excess of revenues over expenditures in FY 83-84 by approximately $3.4 million. These unanticipated revenues can be used to eradicate the School Fund Deficit which accumulated from 1977-1982. The School Fund owes the Capital Fund $466,609 and the General Fund $1,039,141 for a total amount of $1~505,750. The staff has discussed the matter with the State Auditor's Office, and believes that it is in the best interest of the County's financial statements to remove this obligation between funds prior to the fiscal year ending on June 30. It is therefore requested that the Director of Finance be authorized to transfer the $1,505,750 from the Unallocated Balance of the General Fund to the School Fund, with this transfer being used to repay the Capital Projects Fund $466,609 and the General Fund $1,039,141. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to authorize the Director of Finance to transfer $1,505,750 from the Unallocated Balance of the General Fund to the School Fund to repay the Capital Projects Fund $466,609, and the General Fund $1,039,14 for the deficit accumulated between 1977 and 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 14a. Request from VEPCO for Quitclaim on Easement at Lot 2, Block 6, Section 4, Berkeley Subdivision; and Agenda Item No. 14b. From James Cosby a request to approve Deed of Correction to Grant a 50-Foot Easement to Serve Lot Sold to Claude O. Wickline. The following is excerpted from a staff report written by Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, dated March 23, 1984: "VEPCO had proposed to construct a district office and equipment storage yard on Parcel 12-1 (part), Tax Map 61M. This would have required three separate approvals, but all three applications have been withdrawn. VEPCO still wishes to proceed with a request to quitclaim an easement on Lot 2, Block 6, Section 4, Berkeley Subdivision. On the site plan, the area of the easement was planned for a cut slope and paved storage yard area which would have prohibited access to the lot. Lot 2 is served by an easement rather than a dedicated road because the lot was created for specific use as a well lot after the residential lots in Berkeley were platted. It was divided from the residual acreage and was June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) zoned B-1 until the County rezoned the lot to R-1 in anticipation of its sale at public auction. When the Wicklines purchased Lot 2 on January 26, 1977, they were apparently not granted an easement with the lot. The Comprehensive Plan, at that time, proposed that CommonweaIth Drive be extended as a major thorough- fare to Rio Road which would have provided access to Lot 2. The Comprehensive Plan was amended September 21, 1977, to delete that connection. Instead, Commonwealth Drive is now proposed to tie into Berkmar Drive across the Seminole Trail Fire Department property. Although the Comprehensive Plan does not show a public road in the area of the easement, it appears that Lot 2 was intended to be sold as a residential lot with access through Berkeley, rather than a business lot with access from Rio Road. The question of access to Lot 2 was probably overlooked at the time of sale since the purchasers owned the adjacent lot, Lot 1." Mr. St. John explained that this is a technical, legal situation involving the law of easements. On two adjoining pieces of land there is an easement across one of them to serve the other. One piece is the dominant piece - that is the parcel the easement serves; the servient parcel is the parcel over which the easement goes. The County formerly owned~the dominant parcel, and Mr~. Dave Wood owned the servient parcel. The dominant parcel was used as a ~elt lot by the Albemarle County Service Authority, and the easement was needed to get to the lot. When the well lot was no longer needed, it was sold to the Wicklines who owned" another lot adjoining Lot 2. This well lot was large enough to be a buitdable lot. If the Wicklines wanted to sell Lot 2 they would need the easement for access to that lot. Mr. St. John said when he first received this request from VEPC0, he forwarded same to the Planning Department and asked the Staff to investigate whether the County had any fixed plans to use this easement. Now we get to the legal part, Mr. St. John said. At one time, the County as owner of this dominant lot had an interest in the easement to the dominant lot. The County's interest was Just like that of any other lot owner; it was not a governmental interest in the easement because the easement runs with the land. Mr. St. John said if he were the owner of this lot and sold same to someone else, and two years later when he had no interest in the lot all, that person asked him to abandon the easement, he would say he did not have anything to do with it. That person would have to call the present owner because the easement runs with the land. The Board could possibly have an interest as a governmental agency - a public interest - in having the easement left as a possible extension of Commonwealth Drive. The Board as a public entity could abandon this easement in gross because it may be needed in the future as a road. The Board cannot by quitclaiming this easement extinguish any rights the Wicklines have because the County has no interest - it is no longer connnected with this property. Virginia Code Section 55-50 says that When the owner of the property conveys that property to a second person and omits any reference to an existing appurtenance, including this easement, that regardless of that omission the grantee as a matter of law gets the rights to the easement. Mr. St. John said he feels that without any deed of correct±on, without any quitclaim whatever, this easement has not been extinguished, and the Wicklines have succeeded to the County's right to this easement. By no action that this Board takes can it enhance or diminish those rights. Mr. St. John said his recommendation to the Board is to do nothing; do not do what VEPCO wants, or what the Wicklines want. Mr. Keeter said that when the COunty sold this lot the lot was zoned for commercial use. This situation was referred to the Planning Commission to rezone the property to a residential use so the lot would be saleable for that purpose. The lot was originally designed as a well lot, but it had the same dimensions as all of the other building lots. At one time the Comprehensive Plan showed Commonwealth Drive as being extended out to Rio Road. The Plan was changed to connect only to Berkmar Drive. There is no need for a public road at this location at this time. Mr. Fisher said the staff has recommended that the easement be maintained in order to provide access to Lot 2. Mr. Keeler said that is correct since Lot 2 is landlocked without this access. The following letter from Billy V. Kelly, Senior Real Estate Specialist, Virginia Electric and Power Company, dated January 10, 1984, addressed to Mr. George R. St. John, had brought this matter before the Board: "The Virginia Electric and Power Company is purchasing a~parcel of land fronting on Rio Road and Berkmar Drive in Albemarle County. The County holds a 50 X 100 foot easement on this parcel for access to Lot 2 as shown on the ... plat. Since the County has conveyed Lot 2 to a private owner, it appears tat they have no further need for the easement. We would appreciate it is the County would release this easement to Vepco." Mr. Kelly was present. He said VEPC0 feels the County should quitclaim this easement since it was not conveyed when the lot was conveyed. Mr. James G. Cosby, Attorney representing the Wicklines, was present, The following letter dated February 15, 1984, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., was also presented to the Board: "RE: Right-of-way on Commonwealth Drive Extended in front of the adjoining Lot 2, Block 6, Section 4, Berkeley SubdiviSion. Your File No. ACPZ 84-66 I represent Mr. and Mrs. Claude O. Wickline who own Lot 2, Block 6, Section 4, Berkeley Subdivision, by virtue of a deed from the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, dated January 26, 1977, recorded February 8, 1977, in Deed Book 614, page 124. We are advised that Virginia Electric & Power Company has, by letter dated January 10, 1984, requested the County to abandon and release to Vepco the 50 x 100' right-of-way shown on the attached plat recorded in Deed Book 412, page 164. We understand further .that Mr. St. John, by his letter of January 12, 1984, has given approval of such abandonment from a purely legal standpoint. Ju~ne 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Please take NOTICE that Claude O. Wickline and Kathleen S. Wickline, owners of record of the said Lot 2, assert their claim to and in the said right-of-way which, as shown on the said subdivision plat, is to provide a "R.O.W. for access to well lot (Lot 2) until development of. street is-accomplished.,' The Wicklines oppose any abandonment, of the right-of-way to their lot as this would greatly diminish the value of Lot 2 which was sold to them for full value at public auction as a buildable lot in 1977. This is to request that you advise Mr. and Mrs. Wickline at 2701 Commonwealth Drive, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901, and me of any proposed action or action already taken with regard to Vepco's request, and that you advise us of any further proceedings or hearlngs with regard to this matter." Mr. Cosby handed to the Board several exhibits, including a copy of the 1965 subdivision plat. He agreed with Mr. St. John that the Virginia Code section cited should have answered the question, however, he said there is a cloud on the title. When the County purchased this lot in the mid-1970's, the lot was purchased from Commonwealth Utilities Corp. Lot 2, Section 4, Block 6 in Berkeley Community, as shown on plat of 0. R. Randolph, Deed Book 412, page 164, with 50 foot easement of right of way along southeast side of said lot as shown on said plat and rights reserved in Deed Book 337, page 332, insofar as they apply, and being the land conveyed by George Gilmer and others to Commonwealth Utilities, Incorporated, by deed dated August 3, 1965, Deed Book 412, page 161. This conveyance is subject to: a. ~- Restrictions, easements and set back lines, Deed Book 337, page 332, except that Lot 2, Section 4, Block 6 may be used as a well lot, and .... " Mr. Cosby said that when the County determined that it no longer needed this lot, and a handful of other lots, about six of them were sold at public auction sale in October, 1976. The Wicklines bid, and paid full price for Lot 2 as established at that sale. One of the conditions of the sale was that the lot be rezoned from a commercial~designation to R-i, Residential. Mr. Cosby urged the Board members to conclude that when the County sold this lot at full value at a public auction as an R-1 lot, that the lot was sold with the intention that it was a buildable lot. When the deed to the Wicklines was drawn and executed by the Board, the language described the well lot as shown on the plat, but it did not specifically mention the 50 foot right,of'way for access to Lot 2. Mr. Cosby said he agrees with Mr. St. John that the Virginia Code language should cover this point, and he would have thought ~he?issue would be dead except for this exchange of correspondence. 0bivously VEPCO does not think the issue is dead. If the County does nothing, the Wicklines still have a parcel of land which has a cloud on the title which VEPCO asserts against them currently, and which anyone else in the world who is successor in title to that property in the future could~assert. They will'have a problem, and it will affect the market value of the property until it is resolved. Mr. Cosby drew the'Board's attention to an exchange of letters On this request. The letter from VEPCO dated January 12, simply asks that the easement be abandoned back to VEPCO which is now owner of the fee simple title to the subservient parcel. The language in the letter states: "When the County sold th~ lot, it did not sell the easement, and neither did it extinguish it." Mr. Cosby asked the meaning of the word "sell" in that context. Certainly the County sold the lot, and if "sell" means the same thing three or four words later, the County did not sell the easement. Mr. Cosby said he does not see why Mr. Kelly took the position stated in the letter that the County did not sell the easement, and despite the language on the plat which is of record "right-of-way to well lot until dev.'~opment of street is accomplished." Mr. Cosby said he submits that it was the intention of the Board of Supervisors to sell; this is the same Board - the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia - with different members, and even though the membership is different, this Board can conclude what the County intended to do at the time. Certainly the. Board of Supervisors did not intend to visit upon the Wicklines this cloud on their title, with VEPCO having a claim, and with anyone else potentially having a claim. Mr. Cosby then asked the Board to approve a deed of correction which he had submitted in advance of this meeting. The Wicklines request reaffirmation of their right to the easement to serve well Lot 2. If the Board wants to abandon the easement in gross as described by Mr. St. John, that would also be all right with the Wicklines. Mr. Cosby said he is trying to clear title today with everyone besides VEPCO; the Wicklines know they must resolve the conflict with VEPC0 also. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if he has changed his original opinion, Mr. St. John said no, but he agrees with Mr. Cosby that the Board would not prejudice the County in any way if it went ahead and executed the deed of correction. The Board can express its intent about this deed, but it is not realistic to declare this to be what the Board intended to do in 1976. Mr. St. John said he agrees with Mr. Cosby, but disagrees with Mr. Kelly who concluded that the easement did not run with the lot. This is a legal conclusion which, if these parties go further, will be subject to a judicial decision. Mr. St. John said his legal conclusion is that the easement did run with the title to the Wicklines, and that they own the easement now, and that the Board could not abandon it or their rights in it if the Board wanted to. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is title insurance. Mr. Cosby said he has not checked. The fact that there is a cloud on the title is evident here in this room today~. VEPCO is saying that it has rights to the easement, and the County is saying, no, you don't. Mr. St. John said he forgot to mention that this~is the type of thing a title examiner is supposed to catch. If that had been done at the time the Wicklines bought this property, this question would, have been resolved at that time. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if it is his. opinion that the right-of-way exists; it was never extinguished, and it is there. Mr. St. John said that is correct. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that the Wicklines would like for the Board to authorize a deed of correction, and that deed would not add anything to what they already have, and would also take away this alleged cloud on the title. He asked Mr. St. John if he saw a problem with this procedure. Mr. St. John said the only problem he sees is theoretical. Mr. Lindstrom said he understood what Mr. St. John had said, and did not know that just because two people disagree that that puts a cloud on the title. Mr. St. John said if the Board wants to grant the request, he does not see any danger to the County, or any practical reason why the request should not be granted, theoretically. Mr. St. John said if he had to write his letter (mentioned earlier) over again, he would not use the language "the County did not sell the easement", but instead would say "the easement was not expressly mentioned in the description". That is what he meant to say at the time. June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher said it seems to him that this matter will have to be resolved in a different arena; it is too complicated for him, and he will abide by Mr. St. John's recommendation. Mr. Lindstrom said that is the easy way to deal with the request. Since it is unlikely that one would have sold a piece of property without access, why make the Wicklines "go through all of the other hoops" if all the Board can do is authorize a deed of correction which clears up something and does not add or distract. Mr. St. John said he thinks it is a fair assumption that it was the intent to include the easement in the sale. The Board could do something between these two requests today. The easement could be abandoned in gross, or the Board could adopt a resolution stating that the County has no intention to use th-e easement for a public road; this would extinguish whatever potential rights the County might have as a county in a public road. Mr. Bowie said he leans toward not leaving this matter hanging, and not forcing it into court. He cannot believe that anybody would buy a lot, or sell it for that matter, without any access. Mr. St. John said if the Board wants to approve the deed of correction presented by Mr. Cosby it is in proper form. There is no question about form. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no particular problems with the deed of correction presented, how:ever, it does recite that it was the intent of the Board of 1979 to do certain things. He suggested that the language be amended to state that this Board "believes it was the intent of the Board" to do certain things. Mr. Cosby suggested changing the second "whereas" paragraph to read, "whereas it is believed it was the intent". Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to authorize the Chairman to execute on behalf of the Board of Supervisors the deed of correction presented by Mr. Cosby, with the one change in wording suggested above; the Chairman's signature to be attested to and the Board's seal to be affixed by Lettie E. Neher, its Clerk. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. (Note: the Deed of Correction as approved reads as follows:) "THIS DEED OF CORRECTION made this 19th day of June, 1984, by and between the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called the Board, Grantor, and CLAUDE O. WICKLINE and CATHLEEN S. WICKLINE, husband and wife, hereinafter called the Grantees, WITNES SETH : WHEREAS by deed dated January 26, 1977, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, in Deed Book 614, at page 124, the Board granted and conveyed to the ~antees herein that lot or parcel of land generally described as Lot 2, Section 4, Block 6, in Berkeley Community and designated on the Albemarle County Tax Map Section 61-M-6-02, in consideration of the sum of SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($6,500.00) and pursuant to a sale of the said lot to the Grantees at a public auction held on October 1, 1976; WHEREAS it is believed it was the intent of the Board to sell and convey the said lot together with a 50-foot easement of right-of-way along the south- east side of the lot as shown on a plat of O. R. Randolph recorded in Deed Book 412, at page 164, as, "R.O.W. for access to well lot (Lot 2) until development of street is accomplished"; WHEREAS it is now the intention of both parties hereto to record this Deed of Correction to grant, convey and confirm to the Grantees the said easement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, of the sum of SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($6,500.00) previously paid and received, and of the additional sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00), the Board GRANTS, BARGAINS, SELLS and CONVEYS with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the Grantees, as tenants by the entirety with full rights of survivorship as at common law, and not as tenants in common, all that certain lot or parcel o.f. land known as Lot 2, Section 4, Block 6, in Berkeley Community,. as shown on a plat of O. R. Randolph recorded in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 4~12, at page 164, and further designated on the Albemarle County Tax Map Section 61-M-6-02, together with a 50-foot easement of right-of-way along the southeast side of said lot as shown on said plat, and being in all respects the same property conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County in paragraph 3 of a deed of Commonwealth Utilities, Inc., dated November 22, 1.968, of record in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 452, page 7. Reference is made to said deed and said plat for a more particular description of the property herein conveyed. This conveyance is subject to all easements and restrictions of record. Pursuant to resolution of the Board unanimously adopted at a regularly scheduled meeting on February 19, 1976; the approval and ratification of the sale of said well lot by order of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, entered November 30, 1976; and to a resolution of the Board approving this Deed of Correction unanimously adopted at a regularly scheduled meeting on June 13, 1984, the Board has caused this instrument to be executed by Gerald E. Fisher, its Chairman, and its seal to be affixed and attested to by Lettie E. Neher, its Clerk." · June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) 229 Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to deny the request to abandon the'easement from VEPCO. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ' AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley~ Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: Progress on June 5, 1984). 1984-85 County Budget (Advertised in the Daily Mr. Agnor explained that this public hearing was scheduled in order to include what are commonly known as "self-sustaining funds" in the County budget. He reviewed for the Board those categories which had been advertised in the amount of $4,325,965. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the proposed budget, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to incorporate the above expenditures and revenues into the County budget. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AyEs: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 15a. AdOpt Annual Appropriation Ordinance for 1984-85. Mr. Agnor explained the ordinance and noted that the Cost Center concept for the Schools has been incorporated into the ordinance this year. After finish of the explanation, Mr. Fisher asked for comments from the public. was no one present to speak. There Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. (The ordinance as adopted is set out below.) ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1985 An ordinance making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1985; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: SECTION I That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1985: Paragraph One For the current expenses of TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, AND OTHER REFUNDS the sum of two million two hundred fifty-one thousand ten dollars and no cents ($2,251,010) is appropriated from the General Fund as follows: 1. Refunds and Abatements $ 2,251,010 Paragraph Two For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT the sum of four million one hundred eighty thousand three hundred forty-five dollars and no cents ($4,180,345) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Board of Supervisors $ 268,853 2. County Executive 266,850 3. Personnel 107,669 4. Legal Services 153,565 5. Data Processing 398,100 6. Finance 1,079,150 7. Engineering 263,290 8. Planning 339,920 9. Landfills 593,553 10. Elections 81,290 230 June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) 11. Staff Services $ 532,005 12. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 18,860 13. Soil and Water Conservation 9,720 14. Watershed Management 30,790 15. Visitor's Bureau 36,730 Paragraph Three For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN DEVELOPMENT the sum of three million three hundred three thousand six hundred eighty dollars and no cents ($3,303,680) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Parks and Recreation Redevelopment and Housing Virginia Public Assistance Public Assistance-Payments Food Stamp Program Fuel Assistance Program Health Department Mental Health Regional Library Piedmont Virginia Community College Extension Service District Home Offender Aid and Restoration Madison House Community Action Agency Jefferson Area Board on Aging Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Jefferson Area United Transportation Shelter for Help in Emergency Charlottesville Albemarle Legal Aid Society Urban Bus Service Outreach Counseling Southside Medical Center 484,26O 55,500 3~,450 2U,000 ~153,930 40,382 337,785 100,133 480,064 5,170 65,476 18,000 16,930 3,000 17,957 6,408 151,616 17,770 20,171 5,859 8,819 10,000 40,000 Paragraph Four For the current expenses of the Function of PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE the sum of three million five hundred eighty-seven thousand eight dollars and no cents ($3,587,008) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Clerk, Circuit Court $ 241,335 2. Circuit Court 22,095 3. General District Court 14,970 4. Commonwealth's Attorney 177,955 5. Juvenile Court 26,073 6. Sheriff 253,265 7. Fire Department 326,572 8. Forest Fire Extinction Service 9,060 9. Volunteer Fire Departments 218,800 10. Inspections 428,115 11. Animal Control 60,285 12. Ambulance and Rescue Squads 39,000 13. Zoning ~180,310 14. Emergency Services 7,365 15. Regional Jail 72,930 16. Juvenile Detention Home 9,090 17. Police Department 1,391,292 18. Victim Witness Program 27,425 19. Magistrate's Office 2,720 20. Emergency Medical Services 226 21. Community Attention Home 14,525 22. SPCA Shelter Contract 4,800 23. 911 System 52,000 24. T.J. Emergency Medical Services Council 6,800 Paragraph Five For the current expenses of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum of one million dollars and no cents ($1,000,000) is appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to: 1. Capital Improvements Fund $ 1,000,000 Paragraph Six For the current expense of the Annual Payment to the City of Charlottes- ville, pursuant to the REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT between the City and the County dated February 17, 1982, payable in January, 1985, the amount of one million five hundred'seventy-nine thousand seven hundred fifty-three dollars and no cents ($1,579,753) is appropriated from the General Fund as follows: 1. Revenue Sharing Payment to City of Charlottesville $ 1,579,753 June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) SUMMARY Total GENERAL FUND appropriations For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Total GENERAL FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $15,90~,796 $13,375,421 2,514,875 11,500 $15,901,796 SECTION II That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1985: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the SCHOOL FUND the million one hundred four thousand six hundred five do ($27,104,605) is appropriated from the School Fund to follows: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. General Reserve & Compensation School Board Superintendent Community Services Personnel Finance and Administration Maintenance Transportation Vehicle Maintenance Facility Instructional Administration Fine Arts/E.S.L. Special Services Administration Special Education Flow Through Pupil Services Speech Program E. D. Program Enrichment Program Vocational Education Community Education Adult Education Media Center Computer Instruction Broadus.Wood Elementary School Brownsville Elementary School Crozet Elementary School Greenwood Elementary School Greer Elementary School Hollymead Elementary School Meriwether Lewis Elementary School Murray Elementary School Red Hill Elementary School Rose Hill Elementary School Scottsville Elementary School Stone-Robinson Elementary School Stony Point Elementary School Woodbrook Elementary School Yancey Elementary School Albemarle High School Albemarle High School Driver Education Albemarle High School Athletics Western Albemarle High School Western Albemarle High School Driver Educa Western Albemarle High School Athletics Burley Middle School Henley Middle School Jouett Middle School Walton'Middle School (Note: The 1984-85 School Fund appropriations sum of twenty-seven llars and no cents be apportioned as $18,799,869 605,081 103,674 8,552 225,391 2,142,611 184,842 582,009 292,208 1,394,374 29,570 15,377 105,288 65,000 24,133 9,693 26,186 10,775 112,145 97,355 3,400 76,306 86,708 43,554 62,704 30,083 91,456 69,249 28,559 21,451 45,992 40,511 47,890 50,972 34,308 63,728 29,978 402,926 6,006 149,761 252,101 ~ion 6,475 131,052 85,229 142,406 126,761 · 140,906 itemized above may be allocated to the following State education categories): 7. 8. 9. 10. Administration Instruction Attendance and Health Pupil Transportation Operation-School Plant Fixed Charges Adult Education Other Education Programs Capital Outlay Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Education Center $ 568,725 15,416,574 532,387 1,808,770 2,829,210 4,816,628 11,700 80,,798 475,075 564,738 222 June 13,1984 (Regular Day Meeting) For the current expenses of FEDERAL SCHOOL PROGRAMS, the sum of six hundred thousand six hundred seventy-nine dollars and no cents ($600,679) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Chapter I $ 482,440 2. Migrant Education 28,347 3. Organizational Research & Development 25,700 4. Chapter II 64,192 SUMMARY Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $27,705,284 To be provided as follows: Revenue From Local Sources (Trans from Gen. Fund) Revenue From the Commonwealth Revenue From the Federal Government *Federal Revenue Sharing (Transferred from Federal Revenue Sharing Fund) Miscellaneous Revenue From Local Sources Total SCHOOL FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $15,332,209 10,150,643 892,829 875,740 453,863 $27,705~84 *Federal Revenue Sharing monies are earmarked for payment of energy usages of electricity and fuel in Education. SECTION III That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1985: Paragraph One For the function of CAFETERIA OPERATIONS the sum of one million two hundred forty-nine thousand ninety-four dollars and no cents ($1,249,094) is appropriated from the Cafeteria Fund to be apportioned as foIlows: !. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias $ 1,249,094 SUMMARY Total CAFETERIA OPERATIONS appropriations For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 To be provided as follows: Revenue From Local Sources Revenue From the Commonwealth Revenue From the Federal Government Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $ 1,249,09~ $ 833,271 40,000 375,823 Paragraph Two For the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS, the sum of one hundred thirty- seven thousand six hundred dollars and no cents ($137,600) is appropriated from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Textbooks $ 137,600 SUMMARY Total TEXTBOOK RENTALS appropriations For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $ 137,600 To be provided as follows: Receipts from Rental Fees $ Revenue from the Commonwealth Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $ 120,000 17,600 137 Paragraph Three For the function of the McINTIRE TRUST FUND the sum of five thousand dollars and no cents ($5,000) is appropriated from the McIntire Trust Fund as follows: 1. Payment to County Schools $ 5,000 SUMMARY Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $ ,Sr, OOp To be provided as follows: Revenue from investments per trust $ Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $ 5,000 5,000 June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Paragraph Four For the expense of REGIONAL JAIL OPERATIONS the sum of one million two hundred thirty-one thousand nine hundred thirty dollars and no cents ($1,231,930) is appropriated from the Regional Jail Fund as follows: 1. Operation of Regional Jail $ 1,231,930 SUMMARY Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND appropriations For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $ 1,231,930 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Revenue fro~ the Commonwealth Revenue from Other Sources Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $ 182,324 952,076 97,53o $ 1,231,9301 Paragraph Five For the current expenses of DEBT SERVICE the sum of two million eighteen thousand three hundred forty-two dollars and no cents ($2,018,342) is appro- priated from the Debt Service Fund as follows: 1. Debt Service Payments $ 2,018,342 SUMMARY Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $ 2,01'8,342 To be provided as follows: Revenue From Local Sources Total DEBT SERVICE resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 2,018,342 2,018,,3,~2, Paragraph Six For the current expenses of ELECTRICITY AND FUEL the sum of eight hundred seventy-five thousand seven hundred forty dollars and no cents ($875,740) is appropriated from the Revenue Sharing Fund and transferred to: 1. School Fund $ 875,740 SUMMARY Total ELECTRICITY AND FUEL appropriations For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $ 875,740 To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Federal Government Total ELECTRICITY AND FUEL resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 8?5,74o 875,? 0 Paragraph Seven For the current expenses of GRANT PROJECTS the sum of one hundred eleven thousand nine hundred twenty-two dollars and no cents ($111,922) is appropriated from the Grant Projects Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. TIPS/CJS 2. TIPS/NDN SUMMARY Total GRANT PROJECT FUND appropriations For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $ 50,907 61,015 $ 111.,9.22 TO be provided as follows: Revenue from the Commonwealth $ Revenue from the Federal Government $ Total GRANT PROJECT FUND resources available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 $ 50,907 61,015 111,922 (Note: Appropriations for Grant Projects are made subject to approval of the Grant Application and sufficient funding by the Grantor.) - .234 June 1 18~m_~_~_~ular ~' Meeting) Total Appropriations mentioned in Sections I through III in this Ordinance for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1985: RECAPITULATION Section I Section II Section III General Fund School Fund Self-Sustaining Funds $15,901,796 27,705,284 5,629,628 GRAND TOTAL .~.49,236,708 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer to other funds from the General Fund, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds from the General Fund for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance. SECTION IV Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions hereinbefore set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. Paragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro- priations made out of the General Fund, the School Fund, the Cafeteria Fund, the McIntire Trust Fund, the Regional Jail Fund, the Textbook Rental Fund, the Debt Service Fund and the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. OtherWise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors. Paragraph Two Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards make expen- ditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or make transfers bet~Ween specific items of appropriation without the consent of the Director of Finance being first obtained. Paragraph Three Ail balances of appropriations payable out of the General Fund of the county treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June, 1985, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the county treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1985. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to be applicable to the School Fund, Capital Improvements Fund, Cafeteria Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust Fund, Debt Service Fund or Federal Revenue Sharing Fund, but any balance available in these funds shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of these funds for the fiscal year beginning July I, 1985. Paragraph Four No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and membership fees and subscriptions shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual and the purchasing agent, who shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual. Z35 June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. ~ny obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the ~lbemar~e County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of t~e 'c'ounty, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of s'uc~ obligations. Paragraph Five Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by any or all county departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates. Paragraph Six Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance. Paragraph Seven Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Paragraph Eight This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and eighty-four. Agenda Item No. 15b. Set Tax Rates for 1984. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County~ Virginia,' does hereby lay the County levy for the taxable year 1984 for General County purposes at Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of real estate; at Four Dollars and Fifty Cents ($4.50) on every One Hundr'ed Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Fifty Cents ($4.50) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools; at Seventy-Seven Cents' ($0.77) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value on mobile homes; at Four Dollars and Fifty Cents ($4.50) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value o£ public service on unequalized assessments; and at Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service on equalized assessments; and FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property, including machinery and tools .not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public Service Corporation property except the :rolling stock of railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and all vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as ~set forth in the Virginia Code; except merchant's capital, farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58-829 and Section 58-829.1. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. "TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 16. Appropriation: Joint Dispatch Center. Memorandum from Melvin A. Breeden, dated May 25, 1984, was received: Board of Supervisors .... Melvin A. Breeden May 25, 1984 Appropriation - Joint Dispatch Center In a recent discussion with Michael Carroll, Emergency Services Coordinator, I was requested to invoice each of the participants in the Joint Dispatch Center in the amount of $38,000.00 to partially cover the cost of initial construction, archi- tectural services and equipment purchases. These invoices have been issued and payment from the University of Virginia and the City of Charlottesville is antici- pated within the next thirty days. 2:36 June 13, 198.4 (Regular Day Meeting) Since the County of Albemarle has been designated as Fiscal Agent for the Joint Dispatch Center, I am requesting authorization to establish a Joint Dispatch Fund similar to the current Joint Security Complex Fund in order to account for the activities of the Joint Dispatch Center effective for July 1, 1984. In addition, I respectfully request that an ordinance be advertised and a public hearing be set in order to appropriate these funds effective July 1, 1984 as follows: JOINT DISPATCH FUND Consulting Architectural Alterations to Building Funding to be provided as follows: $ 5,000 12,000 97,000 $114,000 County of Albemarle City of Charlottesville University of Virginia $ 38,000 38,000 38,000 $114,000 A revision of this approPriation will be presented to you as soon as the actual cost of construction and purchase of equipment is received from the Joint Dispatch Center Management Board." Mr. Agnor said this appropriation has already been accomplished by adoption of the Appropriation Ordinance which just occurred, however there is need to establish the Joint Dispatch Center Fund. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, that the Director of Finance be authorized to establish a Joint Dispatch Center Fund since the County has been designated as fiscal agent for this center. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 26. for the Handicapped. Request from Citizen to Modify Parks Policy to Allow Free Entry Mr. Agnor noted his memorandum to the Board dated June 7, 1984, with accompanying memo from Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation: "Mr. Henry Dean, a County resident, recently inquired as to the use of Golden Passports for access to the County Parks. Attached (see below) is a report from Pat Mullaney on the issuance and use of these passports in Federal and State facilities. The report recommends that the current free entry for County residents age 62 and older be extended to handicapped residents by recognizing license plates and decals issued by the Division of Motor Vehicles for the physically handicapped, and by letter of qualification from the Charlottesville/ Albemarle Association for Retarded Citizens for the mentally handicapped. It is recommended that the Board approve Mr. Mullaney's recommendation. Community groups support handicapped citizens emphasize the need for encourage- ment in the use of recreation facilities and participation in recreation programs. Free entry to the parks may provide some encouragement." "The Federal Government offers a Golden Age Passport (ages 62 and older) and a Golden Access Pass (for handicapped) which allow one-half off the regular user fees for the Federally-owned facilities. The Virginia Division of State Parks offers a Golden Age Passport for Virginia residents 62 and older which allows free parking at the State Parks. They also allow free parking for vehicles displaying the handicapped license plates or stickers issued by the Division of Motor Vehicles. Once in the State Park, the senior and handicapped citizen is charged full price for any additional services, i.e., cabin rental, beach entry, etc. In response to Mr. Henry Dean's request for free entry for the handicapped at our County Parks, we have contacted 15 other parks and recreation departments who operate public swimming facilities. Three of these departments open their swimming facilities free of charge to the public. Of the remaining 12 depart- ments who charge fees, only one offers a discount rate for handicapped citizens. Currently, our Department offers free entry for County residents ages 62 and older and reduced rates to low income families who qualify through the County Social Services Department. I feel that free entry for our handicapped residents would be simple to administer and have minimal impact on our total revenues. At the same time, I think that it would be a good service and would be greatly appreciated by our handicapped residents. .? 2.37 June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) If the Board of Supervisors wishes to allow free entry for the handicapped, the easiest way for us to administer the program would be by recognizing the Division of Motor Vehicles plates or decals for the physically handicapped and by asking the Charlottesville-Albemarle Association for Retarded Citizens to provide a letter of qualification for the mentally handicapped. I have spoken with Mr. Connie Cochran at CAARC and his agency would be happy to cooperate in this." Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommen- dations set forth in the memorandum of Patrick K. Mullaney, dated May 11, 1984, which would allow free entry for the mentally and physically handicapped at county parks. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ~ ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 28. Appointments. Mr. Bowie noted that the Board has interviewed many qualified people for the at-large member of the Albemarle County School Board, and he then nominated Mr. John Edward Baker for this vacancy, with a term to begin on July 1, 1984, and expire on June 30, 1988 (a copy of Mr. Baker's qualifications are on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Lindstrom said there were a considerable number of qualified persons who applied for this position and who were interviewed by the Board. The Board spent a good deal of time and thought on this appointment, and he feels this is the correct decision. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. Mr. Way then nominated Mrs. Edna T. Anderson for reappointment as a member of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, with a term to expire on June 1, 1987. motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. The Mr. Fisher noted that a letter dated June 11, 1984, had been received from Mr. Kenneth Ackerman, Executive Director, Monticello Area Community Action Agency, requesting that the Board appoint a member to the Virginia Water Project. The letter is set out.below: "I am writing on behalf of the Virginia Water Project (VWP) to request Albemarle County's help in filling a vacancy on the VWP Board of Directors. Elected officials or their representatives comprise one-third of the VWP Board member- ship. The remaining seats are filled by low income and private organization (e.g. community action agencies) representatives. There are 21 members on the VWP Board with seven positions reserved for the elected official sector. The Virginia Water Project is a statewide nonprofit agency which assists low income residents and communities in developing safe and sanitary water/wastewater facilities. VWP has provided assistance to the Newtown community by providing funding for the well serving the renovated community center and nearby household. A couple of individual Albemarle residents have also been given limited financial support from VWP to cover ~the costs of repairing pumps for their wells. Other support may also be available from VWP such as technical assistance and some matching funds in conjunction with Community Development Block Grant applications. I would appreciate your assistance in gaining an appointment by the Albemarle Board of Supervisors to the VWP Board. Mr. James B. Murray has expressed an interest and willingness to serve in this capacity. I believe he is well qualified through his long-standing activities in the area of natural resources. He is also currently serving as chairman of the Virginia Water Research Center's State Advisory Committee. His work with state government would also be a strong point in understanding VWP's role and capability. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please let me know if further information or involvement from Mr. Murray or myself would be helpful." Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Mr. James B. Murray to this vacancy. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher noted that there is a vacancy on the industrial Development Authority Board of Directors from the Samuel Miller District. He then recommended for appointment, Mr. Bruce D. Rasmussen, to this vacancy for a term to expire on January 19, 1988. Motion to this effect wa~ offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. ,..238 June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Bowie said he has recently been notified that the Rivanna District appointee t© the Industrial Development Authority has resigned. He will find someone to fill this vacancy in the near future. Mrs. C'ooke said she is still looking for people to serve on the committee for beauti- fication of the interior of this building. At 2:54 P.M.,~ the Board recessed, and reconvened at 3:07 P.M. Agenda Item No. 19. Association. Request from Carroll Cooper - Virginia Federal Savings and Loan Mr. Cooper was present. He said he hopes that all present are familiar with the situation in which Virginia Federal finds itself (see letter of April 30, 1984, addressed to Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman). Virginia Federal currently holds mortgages on 1,320 dwelling units in Albemarle County. Those mortgages realize $930,000 in tax revenues for the County. On December 5, 1983, Virginia Federal sent metered mail to 71 taxable entities including Albemarle County. When the package addressed to Albemarle County arrived at the Charlottesville Post Office, an additional postmark of December 6 was affixed. Thereafter, the Albemarle County tax office declared a late penalty by virture of this December 6 postmark. Virginia Federal voiced an objection, but was told by the Finance Office that it would notify all of the mortgagees that Virginia Federal did not remit the proper amount, and that their taxes were delinquent. Virginia Federal had no choice but to pay the penalty of $93,000 because of the impact this would have had on Virginia Federal's reputation. Mr. Cooper said that Virginia Federal has obtained an affidavit from the Charlottesville Postmaster stating that the postage meter marking is the official postmark, and the second postmark should not have been affixed by the Post Office staff. Virginia State law also supports this position. Mr. Cooper said he understands that Mr. Melvin Breeden has stated that on the same day that the Virginia Federal package arrived, other metered mail was accepted as being received on the December 5 due date, but that the package from Virginia Federal wa~ not so accepted because of the second postmark. Mr. Cooper said he would not be present today except for the fact that Virginia Federal does a lot of business in Albemarle County; there are three branch officies, the 1,320 loans, and Virginia Federal funded a portion of the new Hilton Hotel. Mr. Cooper said he.would be remiss in his duties if he did not come forth to express his distress at this situation. Mr. Fisher said he had not seen the affidavit mentioned by Mr. Cooper (Mr. Cooper handed him a copy). Mr. Fisher then read the affidavit of Mr. Richard F. Nye, Postmaster, dated February 21, 1984, Mr. Cooper then handed to Mr. Fisher an affidavit of Ms. Helen Atkins, employee of Virginia Federal, dated February 22, 1984 (a copy is on file). Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if he had seen copies of the affidavits and reviewed same. Mr. St. John said his staff has copies of the papers mentioned, and in addition has verbal information from the staff of the Finance Director. Mr. St. John said he understands that the Post Office will put an additional postmark on a letter or package that was privately metered only if the postmark does not carry the current date. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if the Board has any authority as a Board to resolve the dispute which exists between Virginia Federal and the Department of Finance. Mr. St. John ~a~ the Board does have such authority once this matt'er has been brought to the Board with a request to take some action. The-Board can absolve this penalty by ordinance which includes a finding that the lateness was not due to the fault of the taxpayer. Mr. Lindstrom said from what he has heard, it appears that the staff has done in this case what it would do in any situation. Mr. Lindstrom sai'd the question in his mind is whether this is something that can be legally eStablished by the affidavits presented today. He would like for the County Attorney's office to review same, and make a report to the Board next week. Mr. Fisher agreed that this would be the best solution at the present time. Agenda Item No. 20. Discussion of Tire Problem: Mrs. Cecil Gardner. Mr. Fisher explained that Mrs. Gardner had called him several weeks ago and asked if she could be on the agenda to explain a problem she has. (Note: From the news media several months earlier it was learned that there was a tire fire on the property of Mr. and Mrs. Cecil Gardner in the Cismont area. When investigating, the County Fire Official had found what he felt to be in excess of 5,000 tires and ordered their immediate removal from the property. When the Gardner's did not readily comply, the Judge of the General District Court had visited the property and then issued a court order demanding the removal of the tires.) Mrs. Gardner said she had personally called the individual members of the Board of Supervisors and asked each to visit her property, but not one had been out yet. Mrs.~ Gardner said there are several hundred tires on the property and it seems she and Mr. Gardner are not getting rid of the tires fast enough. They have been harassed by the County, been taken to Court; they return to Court on June 26. She said that neither she nor Mr. Gardner can quit their jobs to move the tires. Mrs. Gardner said they went to the County dump (landfill) and inquired, and the County will not take the tires. They offered to rent a chain saw and cut the tires up and bring them to the landfill, but that offer was refused. She said they are getting rid of the tires as fast as they can. 239 June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked how many tires were originally on the property, and how many are left. Mrs. Gardner said about 2,000 are left. Mr. Fisher restated his quest±on. Mrs. Gardner said the Fire Official had said they had 15,000 tires, but maybe they had 5,000. Mr. Fisher asked- how fast the Gardners' are getting rid of the tires. Mr. Gardner said there are some people coming in to take the tires out. It will take a while to get rid of them. Mr. Gardner said he cannot afford to take the tires to the landfill at this time. Mr. Fisher asked for a statement from the Fire Official. Mr. Ira Cortez said there are several opinions as to the amount of tires on the property. Mr. Cortez said he had taken photographs which show the magnitude of the problem (he showed the pictures dated February 2, 1985 to the Board). He said that some of the piles are very large. He and Deputy County Attorney, Fred Payne, were on the property last Thursday, at which time they found another pile of tires about 400 feet long, six feet high, and 15 feet wide, which have not yet been touched. Mr. Cortez said that on February 8 this problem was reported to the Fire Official by the Zoning Department. At that time he and a zoning inspector visited the property, took photographs, and documented the violation. A notice of violation was left on the back door of the Gardners' home. On February 10 there was a tremendous tire fire involving about 500 tires in two separate piles. A second notice of violation was never picked up by registered mail, so a notice was then left on the door. Mr. and Mrs. Gardner then came into the County Office Building for a meeting. He explained to them that the problem was not the tire storage which is a zoning matter, but the magnitude of the tire piles. Mr. Cortez said the tires need to be broken down into smaller piles of 2,500 cubic feet or less, which according, to the fire prevention code is a much easier fire to handle. No action was taken in March, April or May. Mr. Cortez said the property was visited on six or seven different occasions during this time period. A warrant was taken out on May 18 after ten visits to the property. After the meeting was held with'the Gardners' on February 28 and breaking the piles down-into smaller piles was discussed, an agreement was signed to break down the pile's by March 15, and to have the tires removed by March 30. The agreement was signed by Mr. Gardner; Mrs. Gardner refused to sign. Mr. Cortez said he visited the .site in May and found no appreciable differenc but it did appear that some tires had been burned, and some tires buried on the property. This case went to court on May 26 and Judge Helvin ordered that the tires be removed from the property within thirty days. That is where the problem stands at this time. Mr. Agnor asked Mr. Cortez if the Health Department has. been involved with this problem. Mr. Cortez said he had a copy of a letter from the Bureau of Waste Management who ~have ordered the Gardners' to dig up all of the tires which have been buried on the property. The problem seems to be magnified now. Mrs. Gardner said the tires were buried on the night of the first fire. It was done to put the fire out. Mrs. Gardner said as for the letter, the Post Office is closed when they go to work in the morning, and closed when they come home from work in the afternoon, so there was no way to pick up the letter. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought that when the Board had received~requests on items pending in court it had refused to hear same because of that reason. This matter is in court, Judge Helvin has made a decision, and he does not think this Board can overrule that decision. Mr. Bowie said he had been on this property, but no one was at home. tires, but he does feel the problem is in the proper forum. He did not see ~the Mr. St. John said this is a long-range problem. He thinks it costs forty cents each to dispose of tires at the landfill. It would be different if Mr. Gardner could just haul the tires to the landfill. Although it is illegal to have the tires on the property in the first place, the Gardners' do not now seem to have the means to dispose of the tires in a timely manner. Mr. Bowie asked what the Board might do to help alleviate this situation. Mr. Fisher said it is possible that the Board could waive the fee for splitting tires. Mr. St. John said there are a lot of junk tires in the County. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much revenue is generated by the tire-splitting fees. Mr. Agnor did not know. Mr. Lindstrom said some people have called him expressing a concern about this problem. He said he would be willing for the staff to investigate to' see if there is some way to deal with the splitting fee. There is clearly a matter of public safety in this case, and maybe that would distinguish this from other such problems and let the Board deal with the problem in a different way. Mr. Bowie said he can understand that when both people work there is a time problem, but this is a self-generated problem. It appears there have been ten attempts made to solve the problem. He has no problem with the staff looking at the situation again, but does not intend to step before the courts. Mr. Cortez said there has been a lot of action on the property since the court case, but his concern is not with the tires themselves so much as with the magnitude of the piles. There are tire fences in the area and they are no problem because they could be readily separated with a bulldozer and a fire stopped. These are very large piles and the night of the fire a bulldozer could not get close enough to break up the piles. If there was a fence as the Gardners' proposed (they had received permission to build a fence), 'there would be no problem with that. Mr. Gardner could eliminate at least 5,000 of the tires by building a fence as he had planned. Mr. Gardner has a backhoe and he was going to dig a ditch and place the tires in same, but, since February 28, nothing has been done. Mr. Bowie said part of the solution has to be with the individual. If the reason for getting the tires in the first'place was to build a fence, that would solve part of the problem and might be something the staff could look at. Mr. Fisher said he did not think that waiving the tire-splitting fee at the landfill will solve the problem because there will be an expense for getting the tires to the landfill. Mr. Fisher said he would be amenable to waiving the fee if the tires could be brought to the landfill site as a way of helping to solve the problem. He feels this would be better than just separating the tires into small piles, on the property. June 13, 19~4 (Regular Day Meeting) Mrs. Cooke asked what the Board would say to the next person who finds himself in this situation if it waives the fee for the Gardners. Mr. Lindstrom said he also had the same question. Mr. Bowie said none of this discussion interfers with the court order. Mr. St. John said that was correct. Mr. Cortez said the judge did not order that the tires be moved in thirty days; Mr~ Cortez is to visit the property again and take photographs so he can ascertain if there has been appreciable effort made during this time period. At this point, Mr. Fisher suggested that the staff gather costs on the amount of revenues generated by the tire-splitting fee, and that the matter be deferred until June 20 for a decision by the Board. Agenda Item No. 21. Piedmont Environmental Council - Study entitled "Fiscal Impact of Major Land Uses in Albemarle County, Virginia" (Copy is on file). Ms. Tamara Vance, Program Officer with the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), said that in December 1983 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was informed of a PEC study of fiscal impacts of major land uses in the County. PEC has completed this analysis by examining the Albemarle County budget (1983-84) to identify the revenues and expenditures for three land uses: residential, industrial/commercial, and farm/forest/open space. With the intent to regard land as a resource, these categories express land uses according to function. As is explained more fully in the report, farm houses are considered part of the residential use category rather than part of the rural land category in farm/forest/open space use. County budgets do not typically allocate revenues and expenditures to different land uses. It is possible, however, using estimates by County officials, to assign proportions of their budgets to these three land uses. The results of the study give an indication of the relative net loss or net contribution to the County budget from each category. In essence, the study indicates that in Albemarle County, residential use is being subsidized by the other'two major land uses. That is, residential land has a negative balance of approximately $5 million; County expenditures for residential services of $36.4 million exceed revenues of $31.4 million. This net deficit is made up by revenues generated in excess of expenditures for both industrial/commercial and farm/forest/open space. Industrial/ commercial land provides revenues of $5.53 million and requires expenditures of $2.68 million. However, if the industrial/commercial use results in new residential development, the real value of the tax revenues generated by the industrial/commercial use will be reduced. Farm/forest/open space generates revenues of $2.75 million and expenditures of $590,525. Even with the deferral for use-value taxation, farm/forest/open space provide a net tax benefit to the County. Another in~erpretation of the data reveals that for every dollar of revenue collected from residential land, $1.16 is spent on County services; for every dollar collected from industrial/commercial land, $0.48 is spent on services; for every dollar collected from farm/forest/open space, $0.21 is spent on services. Ms. Vance said it is important to point out that fiscal impacts are only a part of land use planning considerations. Other considerations may include provision of adequate housing, creation of jobs, environmental protection, and health of various sectors of the local economy. Nonetheless, this study shows that industrial/commercial and farm/forest/open space bring net tax benefits to the County, making clearer the wisdom of policies which protect agriculture and open space land and encourage industry and commerce which employ local residents. At the conclusion of the report, Mr. Fisher thanked Ms. Vance for her report. Agenda Item No. 27. Discussion of Crozet Park. Mr. Neil Snyder, President of the Claudius Crozet Park, Inc. Board of Directors, was present and made the following requests: "Three annual events are held at Claudius Crozet Park: the Crozet Arts and Crafts Festival, the Fireman's Fourth of July Carnival, and the Albemarle County Fair. The Park building and grounds are used throughout the year for a multitude of other purposes, including an easter egg hunt, beauty pageants, aerobics classes, softball and baseball, as well as the regular family reunions, receptions and picnics. The swimming pool is used extensively by community residents for fun and relaxation, and it continues to be a major summer attraction for our children. In 1983, the average daily attendance at the swimming pool was 89. On the first Saturday after opening full-time this year, June 9th, daily attendance was 160. Swimming lessons and a competitive swimming team are the highlights of the activities at the pool. In 1983, 65 children participated in swimming lessons, 36 of whom were beginners. For the first session this year, 32 children are signed up, with a waiting list for the next session. Recently, the Park Board of Directors has undertaken an ambitious program to plan for much-needed repairs and improvements to the Park complex. Each committee chairman has prepared long-range, intermediate-range and short-range plans. Ideas and suggestions for these plans were solicited from the community. Despite efforts to raise sufficient funds to operate the Park, it continues to be plagued by maintenance expenditures for the swimming pool, the main building and grounds. Currently, the park has a total indebtedness of $47,825 that can be attributed almost exclusively to essential maintenance and repairs to the swimming pool. In 1983, the pool operated at a deficit of nearly $6,400 dues to repairs, while providing a safe and secure play area for community children. Swimming pool revenues are not, and never have been adequate to support the operation and maintenance of the pool. Since it is our sincere desire to make certain that Western Albemarle residents can afford to use the pool, it is not likely that pool use fees will ever be adequate. In fact, total user fees for the Park, including pool revenues and building rental fees, 241 June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) will never cover all of the costs of operating and maintaining the Park, or any park designed for community use and enjoyment. On the average, user fees provide only a small percentage of the funds needed to operate and maintain community parks. Claudius Crozet Park has .received absolutely no taxpayer support, and it has been able to survive f~nancially for a quarter of a century only because it has let long overdue repairs remain undone or has borrowed funds to finance essential repairs. This year, in order to open the pool, about $700 was paid for epoxy paint, $124 for servicing the pump, and over $600 for repairs to the lifeguard stands, benches, doors, the roof, and the fence. Additional, we have purchased more than $1,000 in chemical for the pool already this year. The retaining wall around the apron of the pool and the pool building are in need of paint. A new housing for the pump ($400) ~s on order. To open the pool next year, about $18,000 is needed to replace the filter system, and to replace the pipes and valves in the pump room. With these repairs and replacements, the pool should remain in good condition for many years. Additionally, the Park building is in need of major repairs to the roof, windows and doors, and the tennis and basket- ball courts, ballfield and playground area need immediate attention. As you know, Claudius Crozet Park has been designated as open space in the County's comprehensive plan. Despite this fact the County provides no financial support to the Park even though it is fulfilling the recreation needs of a large number of residents in Western Albemarle County. Additionally, Mint Springs Park competes directly with Claudius Crozet Park by offering family passes for swimming during the summer for $50, one-half our family pass rate. Experience has shown us that our swimming pool will not generate enough funds to pay for operation and maintenance at $100 per family per summer. Yet, the residents of our community, your citizens, cannot afford to pay more for.these services. This is especially true since the Mint Springs pass rate is so low. Therefore, we submit the following requests for your consideration: The County is requested to provide $20,000 annually to Claudius Crozet Park for use in operating and maintaining the pool and in making needed repairs and improvements to our buildings and grou'nds. The County is requested to consider improving the Softball/baseball field at the Park for use by County softball teams and little leagues in Western Albemarle County. The County is requested to appoint one member to the Claudius Crozet Park Board of Directors." Mr. Agnor said he has talked with Mr. Snyder and Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation. He told Mr. Snyder earlier that whatever need might be met in the County's overall needs, for recreation could be examined. Mr. Agnor said the western part of the County is already served by the Greenwood Community Center and the Mint Springs Park. Other areas of the County are not served by such facilities. Mr. Agnor said he had not seen th~s ' specific request before today, so had no firm recommendation. Mr. Snyder was present and said that as far as Mint Springs Park being used for swimming, that facility is not readily accessible to the people in Crozet. Crozet Park is centrally~ located in the community and is accessible by foot or bike by anyone in Crozet. At the time Mint Springs was created, it was a county-wide effort, and not done specifically for western Albemarle County..He feels that Crozet Park is a Crozet-Western Albemarle asset and the only comprehensive recreational facility available in that part of the County. None of the County' facilities have a swimming pool. In 25 years, the Park has received no tax dollars to defray costs of the operation of the Park. Mrs. Cooke asked if there had been statistics kept over the years to show how many people living outside of the immediate Crozet area frequent the Park. A lady who was present said there were no such figures, however, they have rented out the space to various groups for company picnics, etc. There are no statistics on the number of people who use the pool on a daily basis. The Crozet Arts & Crafts Festival last year was attended by 10,000 persons from all around the State. Mr. Fisher said the County is not in the business of subsidizing private recreational facilities. The County did accept the Greenwood Community Center when its Board of Directors offered to deed the facility to the County after the County had kept the facility for two years under a cost-free lease. If the County subsidizes this facility, what would other people in the community request. Mr. Bowie said he felt part of the.Park's problems may be that the amount charged for family passes to the swimming pool are too low. The County does operate a swimming facility in the general area so the citizens have the choice of using whichever facility they choose to use. Mr. Way said if the Parks Director finds that services might be provided at this location which are not already available, that might be considered. Mrs. Cooke said if this park serves a large number of County people other than those living in the immediate Crozet community, the Board might want to study use of this facility, however, that requires soma recordkeeping. Mrs. Cooke said she would like to see statistics before she would consider subsidizing the Park. '2.:4 2 June 13, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Mullaney, who was present, for his feelings about the request. Mr. Mullaney said he is sympathetic. When a recreational program is started, it immediately picks up a certain number of followers. Mr. MUllaney said he w~0uld not like to see the swimming pool close down. The Park has the potential to be a good recreational facility, but needs some repairs, such as the softball backstop, the tennis courts, and the filtration system on the pool is old and some of the items in the pump house are old. However, he did agree that if the Park were not in existence at its present location, the people might be using Mint Springs and there would be no demand for the Park. Mrs. Cooke asked if this facility still operates as the Village Club. Mr. Snyder said he wanted to state that this is not a private club, it is a community park 501(c)3 non-profit organization) operating as a community park. If the Park lost that status, it would affect the fund-raising ability of the Club because people would no longer be able to deduct contri- butions from their Federal income. Mr. Snyder said he still feels the County needs recrea- tional facilities in the way of ba!tfields, hiking, Jogging, biking, swimming, or specific facilities just for the residents of western Albemarle County. Mr. Roy Patterson who lives in Crozet, said Claudius Crozet Park has been near his heart for decades. The facility is open to the public. The Park has no membership, only season swimming passes. The Board of Directors consists of members from community organizations. It is a community-Supported organization. Mr. Fisher said he felt that the Board would need some kind of a recommendation from staff before it could proceed further. No date for receipt of this information was set. Agenda Item No. 29. Work Session: 1984-89 Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Fisher said he felt it was entirely too late in the day - almost 4:30 P.M. - to begin discussion of this item. He suggested that the Board members set a separate'meeting to work on this program. It was agreed that the work session would be held at 3:00 P.M. on July 18. Agenda Item No. 30. over to July 11, 1984. Report from Buildings and Properties Committee was ordered carried Agenda Item No. 31. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Way mentioned that all of the Board members had been requested to participate in the Fourth of July Parade in Scottsville. Agenda Item No. 32. At 4:33 P.M., ~motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to adjourn until June 16, 1984, at 9:00 A.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messers. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. Chairman