Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-07November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 7, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:06 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Thomas introduced students who were present today for Youth-in-Government Day from Henley Middle School; Colin McCrimman, Taylor Verrill, Rachel Cornett, Hannah Holdren, Erin Kerr, Taylor Quarles and Kyle Patterson. __________ Mr. Paul Grady, a resident of Crozet, said he hopes the County and City will go ahead with building Cell Five at the Ivy Landfill. The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority is an authority and is to provide a service. Cell Five would provide a service for those who now find themselves in an awkward situation. It is not convenient for the people in Western Albemarle County to take their construction debris all the way to Zion Crossroads. He hopes the Rivanna Authority looks at more than just the cost of providing this service. The cost of housing will go up if people have to send their construction debris to Zion Crossroads. He hates to see that money go into BFIs pockets. He would rather see it be used by the County, and have the County = provide the service. Even if the Rivanna Authority loses 50 percent of its business because of the present situation, he thinks this means the cell will last twice as long. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to approve Items 5.1 through 5.5, and 5.7 through 5.10, to pull Item 5.6 for discussion at next weeks meeting, and to accept = Items 5.11 through 5.16 for information. (Note: Conversation regarding individual items will be shown along with staffs information regarding that item.) = The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. __________ Item 5.1. Public hearing to amend jurisdictional (service) area of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water service to TM 45, P 15 (Jeff Saine). The applicant had requested that this public hearing to be canceled. (Ms. Humphris said that she got an E-mail from the applicant on Monday. He said the process is very confusing. She has talked to her appointee on the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors several times about their communications with applicants. The ACSA does not always give an applicant a true message of the situation. She asked that the ACSA have a standard letter form stating the fact that any request to be added to a service area must be approved by the Board of Supervisors before a connection can be made. There is a need for better coordination of information between the Health Department, ACSA and County staff to all applicants making requests for inclusion in the service areas. Mr. Cilimberg said staff gives the applicant a true picture of what has to be done. Ms. Humphris said she understands that often applicants choose to misunderstand what they hear.) By the recorded vote set out above, the request that this public hearing be canceled was granted. __________ Item 5.2. ZMA-01-04. SNB Car Wash - Proffers (deferred from October 17, 2001). It was noted in the staffs report that the Board held a public hearing on this zoning map = amendment at its meeting on October 17, 2001, but could not take action until a second signature was provided on the proffers. The signed proffers have now been received and approved for processing by the November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) County Attorneys Office. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning subject to the proffers dated October = 17, 2001. By the recorded vote set out above, ZMA-01-04, SNB Car Wash, was approved subject to the applicants proffers dated October 17, 2001. The proffers are set out in full below: == PROFFER FORM Date: October 17, 2001 ZMA # 01-004 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 61-147 0.6 Acres to be rezoned from C-1 to HC Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. 1.The property zoned HC shall be limited to the area of the parcel south of the "proposed zoning line" as shown on the Preliminary Site Plan entitled, "Preliminary Site Plan Rio Road Laser Car Wash" dated August 27, 2001. 2.If the area zoned HC is developed as an automobile laundry, development shall be in general accord with the Preliminary Site Plan entitled, "Preliminary Site Plan Rio Road Laser Car Wash" dated August 27, 2001. 3.By-right use of area zoned HC shall be limited to 24.2.1(1) automobile laundries and uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of section 22.1, Commercial C-1 zoning district, as those regulations exist on October 17, 2001, a copy of which is attached hereto. Special use of the area on the parcel to be rezoned shall be limited to uses permitted by special use permit pursuant to section 22.2.2, Commercial C-1 zoning district, as those regulations exist on October 17, 2001, a copy of which is attached hereto (on file). 4.Architectural features shall be compatible with the character of the commercial and residential buildings visible from the site. Architectural features shall include building forms and elements, including roofs, windows, doors, materials, colors, textures and scale. No construction of a structure shall begin unless and until compatibility of the architectural features is agreed upon by the owner/developer and the Design Planner. (Signed) John A. Taylor John A. Taylor, President & CEO 10/12/01 E. Charles Swegart E. Charles Swegart - VP, CFO 10/28/01 Signatures All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date __________ Item 5.3. Proclamation recognizing November 11 through November 17, 2001, as American Education Week. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the following resolution: AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK WHEREAS,today's students will be the leaders of tomorrow; and WHEREAS,it is the responsibility of our public schools to prepare students to successfully meet emerging challenges and opportunities; and WHEREAS,by equipping young Americans with both practical skills and broader intellectual abilities, schools give them hope for, and access to, a productive future; and WHEREAS,the responsibility of providing a quality education to our students is a responsibility of the entire community; and WHEREAS,the success of our public schools is reflected in the support given to them by the community; and WHEREAS,the purpose of American Education Week is to focus attention on the important role education plays in our country and its future; and WHEREAS,the theme of American Education Week 2001 is "Together: Making Public Schools Great for Every Child"; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) NOVEMBER 11, 2001, THROUGH NOVEMBER 17, 2001 as AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY AND, FURTHER, encourage all citizens to extend their commitment to public education and to the future of our children by supporting our community's schools through the contribution of their time and energy. __________ Item 5.4. Appropriation: McIntire Skate Park, $11,541.00 (Form #2001-030). It was noted in the staffs report that at its June 6, 2001 meeting, the Board approved a = recommendation from the Department of Parks and Recreation to contribute $11,541.00 to the City of Charlottesville as the Countys share of the FY 02 operating costs for the McIntire Skate Park. Because => this request was received subsequent to approval of the FY 02 operating budget, the funds were never > officially appropriated. Appropriation Form #2001-030 in the amount of $11,541.00 appropriates the County's share of the FY 02 operating costs of $36,066.00 for the McIntire Skate Park. These costs are > based on a 32 percent participation rate by County residents which will continue to be the basis for future funding requests from the City. Operational costs consist of attendant wages, utilities, repairs and equipment. Funding for the costs will be taken from the Board's FY 02 contingency account. Staff > recommends approval of Appropriation #2001-030 in the amount of $11,541.00 for the County's share of the FY 02 McIntire Skate Park operating costs. > By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001/02 NUMBER: 2001-030 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COUNTY CONTRIBUTION MCINTIRE SKATE PARK EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 1 1000 79000 567650 SKATE PARK$11,541.00 1 1000 95000 999990 BOS-CONTINGENCY(11,541.00) TOTAL$-0- REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT TOTAL$-0- __________ Item 5.5. Appropriation: JABA (Esmont Senior Center), $4213.00 (Form #2001-033). It was noted in the staffs report that at the Boards meeting on September 5, 2001, it approved an == additional $4213.00 to the Jefferson Board for Aging to continue providing a two-day a week Senior Center Nutrition program in Esmont. For financial reasons, coupled with lower than anticipated attendance, JABA has proposed discontinuing the second day at the Esmont site. The additional money will pay for additional meal costs for an average daily attendance of 25 seniors for FY 02. The funds will come from the Boards >= Contingency Funds. These new funds allow the second day to continue, while the community attempts to increase the centers daily attendance. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #2001-033 in = the amount of $4213.00 to JABA for the Esmont Senior Center Nutrition Program. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the request by adopting the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001/02 NUMBER: 2001-033 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING TO EXPAND SENIOR MEALS PROGRAM AT ESMONT SENIOR CENTER BY JABA EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 1 1000 59000 563200 JEFFERSON AREA BOARD OF AGING$4,213.00 1 1000 95000 999990 BUDGET CONTINGENCY(4,213.00) TOTAL$-0- REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT TOTAL$-0- __________ November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) Item 5.6. Funding Request for the "Midnight Ramble" Festival. It was noted in the staffs report that from February 7 through 9, 2002, the Charlottesville/ = Albemarle Tribune newspaper and its 501(c)(3) corporation, Creative Communications Associates, will bring a vintage African-American film festival to the community. The films will depict black life during the era of 1900 to 1950 and showcase many of the black directors, actors and writers of that age. Ossie Davis, Ruby Dee and Harry Bellafonte are scheduled to be guests for the festival, billed as the first of its kind on the East Coast and marketed from Pennsylvania to North Carolina. Films will be shown at local facilities, such as the Vinegar Hill Theater, the Charlottesville Performing Arts Center, Dickenson Auditorium at Piedmont Virginia Community College and the County Office Building. Exhibits will also be shown at various venues and a kick-off event will be held in the Omni Hotel Ballroom on February 7. Proceeds from the event will be used to support a scholarship fund for Virginia high school and college students. Creative Communications Associates, a non-profit corporation, has requested a $5000.00 contribution for the event from Albemarle County. Ms. Agnes White, the publisher of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Tribune and main spokesperson for the event, confirmed that the tax deductible portion of each $50.00 ticket is $35.16. The largest portion of the collected funds will go into a scholarship fund to provide a $2000.00 annual scholarship to four current or future college students in need of financial assistance. The scholarships will be open to any student in Virginia as long as they have and are able to maintain a B average or better. A scholarship committee composed of local community representatives, A@ will approve the scholarships on an annual basis. A small portion of the funds will also go to fund the Mary Williams Senior Center and another portion will go to another, as yet undetermined, charity. The City has committed to fund $5000.00. Festivals similar to this one have been funded by the County through Tourism Fund revenues, e.g., the Virginia Film Festival at $10,300.00, the Virginia Book Festival at $10,300.00, and, the Lewis and Clark Festival at $2500.00, although both the book and film festivals are on-going annual events. The Midnight Ramble Festival, if successful, is planned to be held every two years. Staff recommends funding for the "Midnight Ramble" festival in the amount of $5000.00 as requested to be provided from the Tourism Fund carry-over. However, it is also recommended that funding be contingent on the assurance that an Albemarle County student who meets the strict selection requirements, be selected for one of the annual scholarships. Without this guarantee, it does not seem appropriate for Albemarle County to contribute what amounts to a two-year scholarship for a student from another area of the state. If the Board approves funding for this request, the official appropriation will be added to the next FY 02 Budget amendment hearing scheduled for December 5, 2001. > (Ms. Humphris said she understands that the Board has discussed this request previously. Staff does recommend funding in the amount of $5000.00 from the Tourism Fund, and she supposes the Board will approve the request, but she will do it with reluctance. This departs from the Boards policy that such = events have a track record before the County expends any tax dollars. Also, there is nothing in the staffs = report about any goals or specifics that this event would have to achieve in order to insure future funding. This money would be coming from the Tourism Fund, but Albemarle County will derive little money for its Tourism Fund from this festival because all of the events are scheduled to take place in the downtown Charlottesville area, except for one at Piedmont College. She said the upside of this is having professionals come to the community. She applauds the substance and background of the event, but she is not comfortable with putting money into it. She thinks it is a mistake to depart from the Boards policy and set a = precedent. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board members agree that the funding be contingent on an assurance that an Albemarle County student who meets the selection requirements be selected for an annual scholarship. Ms. Humphris said she hopes that is an absolute requirement. Mr. Perkins said whether the event is successful or not should not depend on whether the County contributes money to it. If it demands in the future that the City and County have to contribute to it, then he would not call it successful. Ms. Humphris said that is what she meant when she said there is nothing in the staffs report about = the future. She thinks it is a mistake to raise their hopes if they think they will have money from the County and the City from now on. To her this proposal is much too vague. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks a lot of the success of the event will depend on its being publicized in different localities. Ms. Humphris said it is being billed as the first festival of its kind on the east coast, and it will be marketed from Pennsylvania to North Carolina. Mr. Dorrier said it has the potential for good. Ms. Humphris said that is correct, but in other cases, the Board has waited until the potential was firm, and the event was actually up and going without the use of any tax dollars. She thinks the Board has to be extremely careful in the way it spends taxpayers money. = Ms. Thomas asked how the Board would judge whether it should put support into it every two years. Ms. Humphris said she thought the staff report would list suggestions as to how this should work. She still wishes there was firm wording about the Albemarle County student, about the fact that this festival is not intended for any permanent support, etc. Mr. Tucker said this item can be deferred if there is additional language the Board wants included. Mr. Dorrier asked if a staff person could contact the School Board and work out some plan. Mr. Tucker November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) said the festival has a marketing plan; the County would not be doing any marketing. Ms. Thomas suggested that this agenda item be postponed until next week in order to get some specific language in the way of conditions or expectations. Ms. Humphris said they want to provide a $2000.00 annual scholarship to four current or future college students, and that is a very large amount of money if they intend to keep this program going. Since they only plan to have the festival every other year, she thinks they should spell out more clearly what amount of money they need to establish these scholarships in order to have them on-going. They would need quite a large endowment in order to have the amount of funds they are proposing to give out. Ms. Thomas said they are not talking about an endowment, but money coming directly from ticket sales. That is the way she reads the request. Ms. Humphris said if they do that, this will be a very hit or A miss program. They might make the amount of money needed one year, but not another year. She thinks @ the Board needs to have more specifics from them about their goals, and have written conditions about the Countys contribution. = Mr. Dorrier said there is to be a Scholarship Committee composed of local representatives. He asked who these people are. Perhaps the County could have some liaison with that committee.) Ms. Thomas said it was the consensus of the Board to defer further discussion of this request until November 14, 2001 (Clerks note: This was subsequently deferred until December 5, == 2001.). Staff is to return more specific information on the program's goals, clearly define the amount of money needed in order to maintain ongoing scholarships, and set out specific conditions for Albemarle County's contribution. __________ Item 5.7. Authorize public hearing for December 5, 2001, on Junior Firefighters' Ordinance. It was noted in the staffs report that in June, the Fire/Rescue Advisory Board (FRAB) first discussed = the establishment of a Junior Firefighters program. State law requires that the Board adopt an ordinance authorizing the establishment of such a program. Adoption of an ordinance which strictly follows State Code allows candidates 16 to 18 years old to fully participate in all activities of the volunteer company as long as they have parental consent and have attained Firefighter I certification. The Fire Rescue Advisory Board has considered whether or not the ordinance should restrict, to some degree, the activities of Junior Firefighters. It is staff's understanding that some restrictions have been included in some of the Junior Firefighter ordinances adopted by other localities. Adoption of the ordinance in its current (draft) form would not prohibit each individual station from establishing limits on the activities of the junior firefighters. The draft ordinance was reviewed, accepted and passed by a unanimous vote at the October 24 FRAB meeting. However, FRAB membership believes that some limits should be established system-wide and will develop a policy to be implemented by all County fire/rescue agencies. Staff recommends that the Board authorize advertisement of the ordinance for public hearing on December 5, 2001. By the vote set out above, the Clerk was ordered to advertise for a public hearing on December 5, 2001, An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Article I, In General, of Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, adding Section 6-102, Junior Firefighter Programs. __________ Item 5.8. Resolution to change Venue of the Community Criminal Justice Program. The Community Criminal Justice Board adopted a resolution stating that it had determined that co- location in the Offender Aid and Restoration Program (OAR) would provide benefits derived from closer association with criminal justice issues. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) reviewed the issues as well and came to the same conclusion and supports the move of the program to OAR. The TJPDC requested that the localities in the TJPDC and Central Virginia Regional Jail agree to the change of venue for this program for which they provide the funds. As requested by the TJPDC, the Board adopted the following resolution approving the request: RESOLUTION TO CHANGE VENUE OF THE COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission adopted a resolution on October 4, 2001 supporting the relocation of the Criminal Justice Planner position of the Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board from planning district offices to the offices of OAR-Jefferson Area Community Corrections located at 750 Harris Street in Charlottesville, Virginia, 22903; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on September 10, 2001, the Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board passed a resolution approving the relocation of the Criminal Justice Planner position from the Planning District Commission office to OAR-Jefferson Area Community Corrections; and WHEREAS, both the Planning District Commission and the Community Criminal Justice Board are in agreement that the proposed relocation would benefit the Thomas Jefferson area; November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors approves and supports the relocation of the Criminal Justice Planner position to OAR-Jefferson Area Community Corrections and agrees to the transfer of the financial management of all Community Criminal Justice Board funding to OAR-Jefferson Area Community Corrections. __________ Item 5.9. Installation of "Child at Play" Sign(s) on Shelton Mills Road (Route 683) and Brownsville Road (Route 751). It was stated in the staffs report that the residents of Shelton Mills Road (Route 683) and = Brownsville Road (Route 751) have petitioned the County to request the Virginia Department of Transportation to install Child At Play sign(s) on Shelton Mills Road and Brownsville Road. This request requires a resolution of support from the Board. These roads are located in the western part of the County off of Route 250 West and near the intersection of Routes 240/250/635. Staff received a petition from the residents of both roads. There is no established neighborhood association(s). Many residents along these two roads have young children and often walk or bicycle on the roads to visit one another, yet the roads are narrow with poor sight distance. Also, residents from surrounding communities often come to Shelton Mills Road and Brownsville Road to walk. Although it is not a major attraction, many residents visit scenic Stockton Creek which Shelton Mills Road crosses. There are no sidewalks on either road. VDOT recently posted a 25-mph speed limit on these two roads due to the traffic and geometrics. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the required resolution. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution approving the request: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the residents of Shelton Mills Road (Rt. 683) and Brownsville Road (Rt. 751) are concerned about traffic on their streets and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that live on these two roads; and WHEREAS, the residents believe that a "Child At Play" sign would help alleviate some of their concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the "Child At Play" signs on Shelton Mills Road (Rt. 683) and Brownsville Road (Rt. 751). __________ Item 5.10. Establishment of Temporary Biodiversity Work Group. It was noted in the staffs report that the "Natural Resources and Cultural Assets" chapter of the = Comprehensive Plan states that the County should: "Establish an advisory committee to assist the County in overseeing the development of a Biological Resources Inventory and the integration of such an inventory into the planning process." Staff is now preparing for the first stage of this work, the development of the Biological Resources Inventory. The Comprehensive Plans calls for a standing Biodiversity Committee to address biodiversity issues and their relationships to County policy. One of the first tasks called for in the Biodiversity section of the Plan is a Biological Resources Inventory. In order to carry out this inventory efficiently, staff recommends the formation of a temporary "Biodiversity Work Group," whose task would be to prepare the Inventory, assess the biological value of various resources, and provide other background information necessary to the functioning of the ultimate Biodiversity Committee. The ultimate committee would be charged with developing an action plan for protecting biodiversity, reporting to the Board on the state of the County's biological resources, facilitating voluntary protection efforts, assisting with public education materials, and assisting with policy development related to biological resources. It would also have a wider representation of community members and groups, in order to build consensus on policy directions. Work Group members would be selected to provide the widest available base of local knowledge and academic background to support the Biological Resources Inventory. While the Work Group would establish the foundations of the Inventory and complete those portions available from existing data, the Inventory would be added to and monitored over the long term by staff and the standing Biodiversity Committee. Staff believes that this Work Group will provide vital information and expertise in developing the Biological Resources Inventory, which would be difficult or impossible to complete without such assistance. Further, developing the Inventory through a working group of experts will allow us to have significant amounts of data in place before policy-development discussions (with the full committee) begin. This will both better inform the committee and isolate the initial data-gathering process from the policy discussions. Staff recommends that the Board establish a County Biodiversity Work Group, with the following parameters: Duties/Mission: To advise and coordinate in the development of a Biological Resources Inventory November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) and to identify issues relating to biological resources in the County. Specific functions to undertake include: Develop methods for and provide expertise and guidance in developing a $ Biological Resources Inventory for the County Determine criteria for identifying the types of biological resources to be inventoried $ (organisms vs. landscapes/ecosystems, etc.) Provide preliminary judgments of the biological value of various resources, and $ assess their priorities for conservation Assess existing data for its value to the Inventory, and assist in making that data $ available to the County's GIS databases Evaluate methods of conducting the Inventory $ Analyze and adapt local naturalists' field data for use in the County's biodiversity $ planning process Assess prospects for donations to the Inventory of time, expertise, or other $ resources from the community, including the University of Virginia Recommend one or more approaches for conduct of the Inventory to the Board of $ Supervisors, with estimates of costs Provide time, data, and other support to assist with the Inventory $ Assist in development of preliminary materials for public education on biodiversity $ Make recommendations regarding the size, composition, and necessary expertise $ for the permanent Biodiversity Committee Membership: A working committee of approximately 12 members. Membership includes individuals with experience in natural history (including those with detailed knowledge of local wildlife, plants, and other resources); terrestrial, aquatic, and landscape ecology; biological conservation; population genetics; forestry; geology and soils; Geographic Information Systems for conservation; and adult science education. Length of Term of the Work Group: 18 months from its first meeting. Frequency of Meetings: Monthly meetings of the complete group, plus meetings of subgroups as needed to complete tasks and supply information. If the Board agrees with the parameters above, staff will contact groups and individuals with the areas of experience listed above and ask that they agree to serve on the Work Group. Appointments to the permanent Biodiversity Committee would be made by the Board when the Work Group has completed its tasks. (Mr. Perkins asked how the people who will serve on this work group will be selected and who will make those selections. Mr. Tucker said staff is going to contact some people and some groups who have experience under the criteria listed. Staff is trying to find members to be appointed, rather than advertise. Ms. Humphris said it is noted that staff will do this for the temporary group, but for the permanent group, the Board will appoint the members. Mr. Perkins said the temporary group is to be set up for 18 months Mr. Cilimberg said staff expected to handle these appointments the same way it did for the Greenways Study. The idea was to make the temporary work group informal and get it started working as soon as possible. It would take several months to advertise and get a group appointed, if that was the way the Board wanted to make the selections. Mr. Perkins asked if there will be a member of the Board chosen to be on the Work Group. Mr. Tucker said staff is not looking for a liaison at this point, but it can if that is what the Board wants. Ms. Thomas asked if the Greenways group has worked well. Mr. Benish said that group has not yet begun its work because of a staffing adjustment in the Parks Department. A position to be called a Greenways Planner is being created. The Greenways group will be starting work in the next month. A@ Ms. Thomas said it is a chicken and egg sort of thing when one reads the language from the A@ Comprehensive Plan. It seemed to be a toss up as to what was done first, but she thought staff might have some track record for selecting this way to go about doing the work. Mr. Benish said there is a very active organization of people who are interested in the Greenways Committee and the Bio-diversity Committee. The idea is to set some ground work for basic things, things which are important to begin the bio-diversity planning process.) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the establishment of a temporary "Biodiversity Work Group" to assist in the development of the Biological Resources Inventory called for by the Comprehensive Plan. Appointments to the permanent Biodiversity Committee will be made by the Board when the Work Group has completed its tasks. __________ Item 5.11. Albemarle County Service Authority's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001, was received as information. __________ Item 5.12. Copy of letters dated October 16 and October 17, 2001, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels: November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) a.Tax Map 44, Parcel 4F (property of Irving L. Jones, III and Janice M. Spink). b.Tax Map 71, Parcel 26; Tax Map 85, Parcels 21 & 22B; and Tax Map 85A, Parcel 1 (property of Jason K. Pollock known as Lochwood Farm). Letters were received for information only. __________ Item 5.13. Letter dated October 15, 2001, from Norma C. Job, Environmental Engineer Senior, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, re: Moores Creek Regional Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), Permit No. VA0025518, Albemarle County. The letter noted a request for modification of the permit to remove the zinc limit and all associated requirements and reducing the chlorine monitoring frequency based on new information received from the applicant. This letter was received for information only. __________ Item 5.14. First Quarter Report for JAUNT services for FY 2002 for Albemarle County, was received as information. __________ Item 5.15. Letter dated October 18, 2001, from Rose M. Chioni, President, Our Lady of Peace, re: Certification of compliance with the requirements of Paragraph 2 of the agreement dated November 24, 1992, by and between Our Lady of Peace and Albemarle County, was received as information. __________ Item 5.16. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, November, 2001, was received as information. _______________ (Note: The Board skipped Agenda Item No. 6a temporarily.) Agenda Item No. 6b. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, was present, and made the following report. He said VDOT is ready for snow operations. The process with Morgantown Road went well. VDOT recently had some turnover in personnel so work is moving a little slower than he would like. Their Transportation Planner, Bob Ball, moved to Colorado, so that position has been advertised. Of the two people he introduced last month, only one is left, so they are looking for another Assistant Resident Engineer. The Transportation Engineer in Culpeper left and a new person just took over the job. Although that person has a lot of experience, there has been a six to eight week period during which work has been really slow. __________ Mr. Perkins said he left Mr. Bryan a message about White Mountain Road. __________ Mr. Perkins said he has received some calls and complaints about Allen Road (Route 666), near Earlysville. That is a dead-end gravel road. Mr. Bryan commented that this dry weather is hard on gravel roads, and VDOT cannot do much without water in terms of taking out the wash boards. A@ __________ Mr. Perkins said that some of the spot improvements VDOT has done on some of the rural roads has really helped. __________ Mr. Dorrier said the VDOT Monthly Report notes several things being done on Route 20 South. One of those has to do with turn lanes at the intersection of Route 726 in Scottsville. He asked if that is the bank building, which is a very dangerous intersection. Mr. Bryan said this afternoon, VDOT will be gathering at the site to take a physical inspection. The project is on the list of primary road projects. __________ Ms. Humphris said she has received some complaints about the synchronization of the traffic light eastbound on Barracks Road at the Bypass ramp. Mr. Bryan said his office would check it out. __________ Ms. Thomas said a constituent mentioned the light on Route 250 West at Broomley Road. The light works well in the mornings, but in the evenings there is often a red light on Route 250 when there is no traffic coming out of Broomley. __________ Ms. Thomas said some people are concerned about the scalping of trees along the roads. She does not know if any of that cutting is recent. Mr. Bryan said VDOT is constantly vigil about that issue. __________ Ms. Thomas said she has heard concerns about trucks using Taylors Gap Road as a short cut November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) from Route 29 South to Route 250 or I-64. __________ Ms. Thomas said the quality of the paving that was put down on Shady Spring Drive has annoyed some of the people in that subdivision. It is a very rough surface. Mr. Bryan said the road was surface- treated, not paved, basically tar and gravel were spread over the road. That kind of treatment is based on the traffic count and how many years since it was last done. __________ Ms. Thomas said people are ecstatic about the paving of Old Lynchburg Road. __________ Ms. Thomas said people are happy about the lines placed along the edges of Dick Woods Road. __________ Ms. Thomas said the Mayor of Charlottesville has mentioned concerns regarding the purchase of land for the Meadow Creek Parkway. There are rumors that it will take years instead of months. Mr. Bryan commented that he does not know the status of the land acquisition. Mr. Tucker suggested that staff look into this question. Mr. Bowerman asked when VDOT is to approve the alignment of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Bryan said it is supposed to be at the January meeting of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). Ms. Humphris asked why advertisement of this project has been delayed for two years. Mr. Bryan said he did not know, but would find out. Ms. Humphris said that two years is a significant amount of time considering where the project was in the process two years ago. She thought that as soon as VDOT approved the design, the project would be ready to go because the funding was there. Ms. Thomas said it may have to do with the purchase of land. Mr. Bryan said that is normally a two-year process. __________ Ms. Thomas said there is the matter of the Environmental Impact Study being done on the Route 29 Western Bypass. She has talked to Mr. Davis about this. Since he sat through an MPO meeting, he knows the concerns, but fellow Board members are not aware of all of these concerns. She would like for the Board to write a letter requesting a true public hearing. There are also some other factors to be included, and she asked Mr. Davis to mention these. Mr. Davis said in the lawsuit regarding the Bypass, the court found that VDOT had not met the requirement for preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to address concerns about the realignment that brought the Bypass closer to the South Fork Reservoir. VDOT is now in the process of undertaking this SEIS. There are a couple of other issues to bring to the Boards attention. One was = mentioned by Ms. Thomas concerning an undefined public input process in the preparation of the SEIS. The Federal regulations are vague as to what has to be done. VDOT is currently determining what process they will undertake. If the Board has an opinion as to holding public hearings versus public information meetings, or the number of public hearings, the Board can make a request to VDOT. Mr. Davis said the second issue is whether or not there is a need to update certain data. One issue raised in the lawsuit was the validity of the traffic study used in the original EIS, and in the Black and Veitch Study. If the Board wants that information updated, this is an opportunity to do that. Any other issues the Board feels were not properly addressed in the original EIS regarding location of the road, its proximity to the Reservoir, and what impact it will have on the environment, can also be addressed. Before drafting the letter, he needs directions from the Board as to how that should be addressed. Ms. Thomas said the MPO discussed the Black and Veitch Study. There is some concern that it will be picked up and used and not questioned. Ms. Humphris gave some good comments about what was in the appendix and what was not. Ms. Humphris said she thinks any communication from this Board should address all the things Mr. Davis listed. The Board could even go further because in VDOT communications to the MPO, it seems they may be planning on relying on the Black and Veitch Study. There were some significant problems with that study. She listed those problems for Ms. Hannah Twaddell to include in the letter the MPO will send. She thinks the Board should include those problems also. She said Mr. Stephen Bowler had some information about that, and he understands what the problems are, that Black and Veitch did not consider single-storm events, but just averaged everything. When dealing with sedimentation during construction, it is the single-storm event that causes the big problems. It was pointed out to them that there had been five, two-year storms within ten years, and one, ten-year storm, and one, one hundred year storm. Any one of those storms would have caused a tremendous amount of damage. Even the Rivanna Authority is finding that recently the sedimentation has accelerated at a much higher rate. They are thinking about doing another bathymetric study just to find out what is going on. That, and Black and Veitchs use of the Russell = Equations, the ingredients in the formulas to do with the steepness of the slopes between the Reservoir and the tributaries, and the factors that were used, need to be included in the letter. She suggested that Mr. Bowler help with the drafting of the letter. Ms. Thomas asked that staff be directed to draft a letter to go on the Consent Agenda for approval. Mr. Bowerman said when the Board reviewed the Meadow Creek Parkway alignment it held a November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) public hearing and that is not part of the normal VDOT process. After that public hearing, comments were passed to VDOT. If VDOT envisions its normal process, is it possible for this Board to have something in addition to that normal process which may be more informative? Mr. Bryan said a public information meeting and a public hearing are quite different; they will try to hold a public hearing. He said there is more information he can give the Board on the Black and Veitch Study. VDOT is looking at about 12 points in that study. Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Davis if he has sufficient directions from the Board. Mr. Davis said he will put together something for the Board to review. Ms. Humphris said she saw the list of things VDOT is requesting from County staff, and she understands they are pushing staff to get this done. She said it is an all-consuming task and she hopes the County will be allowed adequate time to complete this task. Mr. Tucker said staff is taking the time necessary to do the work. It is mainly a collection of attachments which are being used to respond to the request. It has been over a month since staff started pulling these documents together. Ms. Humphris said it is important that the response be thorough, and that it provide everything the County has to protect its interests. __________ Mr. Perkins asked if Morgantown Road is wide enough for stripping. Mr. Bryan said it is wide enough, but most of the residents do not want it stripped. It would not be conducive to pedestrian traffic if it is stripped. Mr. Tucker asked if any thought has been given to stripping on the curve where there is a blind spot. Mr. Bryan said VDOT will look into the situation. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Six-Year Secondary Road Plan and County's Priority List of Road Improvements, Work Session on. Mr. Cilimberg said this is a six-year program which begins July 1, 2002, and in the first year would have less than $5.5 million total funds. That is actually an increase over the FY 2001 year which had $4.7 million in the plan. The remaining five years of this plan are estimated to cost $35.0 million. Being funded at only about $5.5 million per year, that will not complete many of the projects on the list. The Board has before it today the priority list from which the funding for projects would be based. Since the Planning Commissions meeting, one additional public project has been requested to be added (Route 605, Durrett = Ridge Road) for paving. It has been added to the list. The list is very much the same as last years list = because projects are still being funded, particularly major secondary road projects. He said a public hearing will be required for the plan, and then the Board will approve the priority listing. Ms. Thomas said the items listed with advertising dates total $119.5 million. That is not all of the items on the list. Mr. Bowerman asked if some funds for the Meadow Creek Parkway have been set aside. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct. There are two McIntire Road Projects listed on Attachment C. For the McIntire Road Ext. Bridge over Meadow Creek project, funding is complete. For the McIntire Road Ext. from NCL Charlottesville to the CSX Railroad, that funding will be completed in the FY 2002-03 budget. There is one additional project listed as McIntire Road Ext., Rio Road to Route 29 which has received little funding, and it is estimated to cost $37.5 million. Ms. Humphris referred to Attachment D which lists as Priority #4, Meadow Creek Parkway, Melbourne Road to Rio Road, including bridge over CSX Railroad, at $14.5 million. She does not understand why it is stated that this project includes the railroad bridge, and then also listed as Priority #4, Meadow Creek Parkway, Bridge over CSX Railroad, at $2.2 million. Mr. Cilimberg said that project should read bridge over the Meadow Creek not the CSX Railroad. A@ Mr. Bowerman said that at one time the CSX Bridge was to be replaced on Free Bridge Road at a cost of $1.0 million; $500,000 for a temporary bridge, and $500,000 to build a permanent bridge. Now, listed as Priority #6 is replacement of a substandard bridge (Route 651 - Free State Road) in the Developed Area at a cost of $3.3 million which is partially publicly funded and partially developer funded. Is that to also serve the development area between Dunlora and the railroad tracks in addition to the project listed for Meadow Creek Parkway? Mr. Cilimberg said the $3.3 million for the Free State Road project is for a replacement road from Rio Road to Free State Road in lieu of the bridge. That project would be in an alignment that might end up as part of the Meadow Creek Parkway northward. That determination has not been made because there is a Federal process required which has not yet begun. Mr. Bowerman asked if that is all publicly funded in addition to any construction road that must be built. Mr. Cilimberg said it is the cost of the project including right-of-way between Rio and Free State Roads. It is hoped that the right-of-way will be provided through donation. Mr. Davis said the cost shown includes the purchase of right-of-way. Mr. Cilimberg said this Board, and also the MPO, have talked about some projects that do not now qualify for secondary funds, such as the remaining portion of the Southern Parkway. There would be great difficulty in getting it funded even if it became eligible. There just is not the money in this program to cover the projects needed, in fact, it does not cover many of the big projects to be done. The Airport Road project November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) has been put off until 2003 for advertising. That project started about four years ago. Mr. Bowerman asked if delays in getting through the process inflates the costs. Mr. Cilimberg said costs go up during the preliminary engineering (PE) work. It is also connected to how the estimates are originally made by VDOT. Mr. Bowerman asked if the figures in the plan are based on the expected costs for when the project begins, or are they based on 2001 figures. Mr. Bryan said there are certain parameters used for estimating cost, and then inflation is factored in. Mr. Bowerman asked how that relates to the Airport Road project mentioned by Mr. Cilimberg. Mr. Bryan said inflation has caused an increase in the costs. There have been some other delays such as where to put a settling pond, some environmental issues and where to put a crossover for the post office. Mr. Cilimberg said when staff was working with the Airport Road project, the estimate went from $4.0 million in the early stages to over $6.0 million during the work done by Delta Associates. The project is now estimated to cost almost $11.0 million. Mr. Benish said he would like to give an update on one project, and use it as an example of what happens during the Secondary Road planning process. In the case of Proffit Road, now that there is a County school being built on the road, VDOT has moved up the scoping on the project so there can be an early start on the project. When VDOT and County staff developed the estimates for the Secondary Plan, they were based on unit costs, and not the specific scoping of the project. Scoping was done a month or so ago and there is a cost estimate in this plan of about $9.5 million, but based on the ultimate project wanted and VDOTs preliminary engineering, the highest alternative cost is about $16.0 million (includes curb and = gutter, bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides). Mr. Bowerman asked the length of Proffit Road from Route 29 to the school. Mr. Benish said it is just a little over 1.5 miles. The Airport Road project is not quite a mile long. There are some significant potential right-of-way implications for Proffit Road. Each project has to be looked at individually, and that is problematic when looking five to ten years into the future. Mr. Bowerman said this plan is discouraging because the cost of a mile of roadway with an urban cross-section is in the range of $10.0 to $15.0 million. It is hard to deal with the project considering the amount of money the County gets. Mr. Benish said right-of-way plays a significant part, particularly when trying to retrofit a road into a road that has a lot of existing development. This is true for Proffit Road. Mr. Bowerman said the cost for the Meadow Creek Parkway is cheaper per mile because it is a new road on a new alignment. Mr. Cilimberg said it is also a different cross-section. It indicates that the County has made a commitment in the Urban Area that it wants to do the urban cross-section with sidewalks and bikeways as part of the whole approach to urbanization. It is not cheap. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is any money available, other than from the state, because this is an urban-type project. Has staff fully explored all of the potential sources of funding for some of the important roads which mean the future of the urban area? Mr. Cilimberg said for the Airport Road project, staff actually found substantial amounts of money to do the project. That was a project which was to cost $10.944 million, and the money included an enhancement grant and Federal moneys through other sources for airport access. Mr. Dorrier mentioned a project for Route 708, Secretary's Road, which is a short unpaved road running from Route 795 to Route 620. He said this road is in the Woodridge area which is growing rapidly. It is the only unpaved part of Route 708. One of the landowners refuses to give right-of-way, but all of the other landowners will give right-of-way. He thinks it would be in the public's interest to have the road paved. He asked what role VDOT could play in this. He has had constituents approach him with this question. Ms. Thomas said she will intervene and say it is this Board that will have to make that decision. The Board did that once and discovered that when there is public acquisition of right-of-way it moves the project into a whole new category and tremendously increases costs. Also, there have to be engineering cross- sections for every few yards. This Board vowed that it would never do that again since it tries to learn from experience, and that was not a good experience. Mr. Bryan said it is possible to modify the alignment by going around particular areas. Mr. Dorrier asked if VDOT would take a traffic count on that section of Route 708. Mr. Bryan said he has a 2000 count. Ms. Thomas said that Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Bryan might discuss a way to engineer the road to get around the property of the person who will not donate right-of-way. She said the Board needs to set this item for a public hearing. She asked if staff had a date to suggest. Mr. Tucker said January 16, 2002, would be a good date for a public hearing unless the Board wants to hold another work session. It was agreed that a public hearing would be advertised for the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan for January 16, 2002. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. JAUNT's Annual Report, Presentation by Donna Shaunesey. Ms. Shaunesey thanked the Board for giving her the opportunity to present this report (their 25th Anniversary Report). She said that more Albemarle County citizens are using JAUNTs services than ever = before. In both rural and urban parts of the County, night and weekend service is very popular. It is clearly November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) a service people need and use. The BIG BLUE and routes in Scottsville both went up 22 percent this year. They keep trying to tweak the BIG BLUE route so it is more useful. They just added stops at NGIC and North Fork. They have had some trouble since September 11 because passengers going to NGIC have to be searched. They are continuing the Welfare-to-Work Program which is 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to anyone who needs a ride who is a welfare client going to work. Although they did only half as many trips under this program this year, it was not because they turned away people. They think that after two years, the Welfare-to-Work Program is actually working, and people are moving off of welfare and going into the job market on their own. Ms. Shaunesey thanked the Board for its support of JAUNT, and also for the JAUNT Board members appointed by this Board. She said that Juandiego Wade is now President of the JAUNT Board and does a really great job. Not only does he preside over Board of Directors meetings, but he also = reaches out to staff. Clifford Buys is a wonderful resource for the Finance Committee. Carolyn Fowler has also been great on Human Resources issues. She reminded the Board that the County needs to appoint one more member. Ms. Shaunesey said there are some trends they are looking at. One is, more people are riding JAUNTS demand/response service which is the most expensive to run. That will have some budget = implications. They have asked for some extra Federal money to help handle that. Mr. Dorrier asked if demand/response is emergency demand. Ms. Shaunesey said no. It is just A@ when people call a day or week ahead for service. They have tried to analyze where these requests are coming from all of a sudden. It just seems to be additional requests across-the-board. They do direct as many people as possible to their route service because that is a less expensive way to operate. Second, over the last year, there have been a wave of lawsuits nationally about the Americans with Disabilities Act and the transportation regulations which accompany that act. JAUNT has always gone way beyond the call of duty in terms of reaching out to people who need service. They also want to make sure they are insulated against any potential lawsuits. There was a lawsuit settled in the Tidewater Region recently for $60.0 million for not providing adequate para-transit services. If you have fixed-route service which is Federally funded, then they are required to have complementary para-transit service. Any place CTS goes, JAUNT has to be sure it serves that area also, and it cannot charge more than twice the City bus fare and has to operate the same hours. She said most of the successful lawsuits have been based on people calling a day before for service and being turned down because there was not adequate capacity. JAUNT has always budgeted very closely so there are no extra drivers sitting around, but if someone calls as late as 4:45 p.m. on Tuesday, and wants a ride at 6:30 a.m. the next day, JAUNT has to be able to provide that service. In order to make sure they will not be hit with a lawsuit, in next years budget application, they will = ask for an increase in order to be sure they have adequate capacity and can be immune from any lawsuits which would affect the County, the City and JAUNT. Ms. Shaunesey said there have been changes in Medicaid rules. This past July, the Department of Medical Assistance Services changed the whole way that Medicaid transportation is provided. JAUNT has been providing Medicaid transportation for the past 25 years. Now a brokerage service in Norton, Virginia, takes all the calls. People call an 800 number and make their arrangements. JAUNT is still providing a lot of that service, but not all of it. In the southwestern part of the State where a different brokerage service is operating, folks on dialysis had to go into the hospital because they were not sure they could get to the doctor. The whole system broke down. In this area, JAUNT has picked up a lot of the pieces. If people needed transportation, they decided to take them and worry about who would pay for it later. However, this whole thing has changed, and a lot of low income people have had a difficult time making that transition. Fortunately, starting about December 1, it will change again, and every Medicaid client in the area will have to choose from one of four HMOs so that all Medicaid service will be provided under a HMO scenario. = HMOs will then contract with transportation providers, so that people who just got used to calling one = provider, will have to call many to see if they can get service. She does not know what the implications of this will be on JAUNT. If anybody hears that JAUNT is refusing to transport a person, that is not what is actually happening. The rules have changed at the State level. Mr. Dorrier said he believes that public transportation is the way of the future, and that there needs to be a better offering for the public. He asked if one has to call in to JAUNT to get a ride. Ms. Shaunesey said that is true for all but BIG BLUE. Ms. Dorrier asked when the last bus runs. Ms. Shaunesey said it runs until 11:00 p.m. They are required to operate the same hours that the City bus service does. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is good communication of routes and times, and that sort of information. He knows JAUNT comes to Scottsville, but he has not seen much notice of the routes and times. Ms. Shaunesey said they have a dilemma in that the more they advertise the service they have, more money must be expended. They are trying to walk a thin line. They do have a passenger educator who is out working in the community all the time. He has spoken to the Scottsville seniors group. They do put up posters in stores, but have not launched a huge media campaign because they are having a little trouble coping with the present demand. On some of the routes, when they have to deviate from that route, it costs money, and they are leery of going over budget. Mr. Dorrier asked if the JAUNT Board is looking at the overall future of the program. Ms. Shaunesey said yes. She said if they hear about an area which needs service they try to provide that A@ service. They analyze their ridership every six months, particularly in the County, to see where the riders are coming from. November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) Ms. Thomas thanked Ms. Shaunesey for the report and for the service provided by JAUNT. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:19 a.m.) _______________ (Note: While waiting for the slide projector to be made ready for the next presentation, the Board skipped to Agenda Item No. 18.) Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Minutes: September 5, September 19, September 27 and October 10, 2001. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of September 5, 2001, page 16 (beginning with Item 14) to the end and found them to be in order. He then offered motion to approve these minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 10:21 a.m.) Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Bowerman had read his minutes. He said yes. She suggested that they A@ be approved while waiting. Mr. Bowerman said he had read the minutes of September 5, 2001, Pages 1 - 16 (end at Item 14) and found them to be in order. He then offered motion to approve these minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. Commission on Children and Families (CCF), Presentation. Ms. Saphira Baker, Director of the Commission on Children and Families, introduced members of the Commission and Work Group who were present today: Sterling Robinson, Dr. Michael Dickens, Kathy Ralston, Richard Merriwether, Dr. Kevin Castner, Ruth Stone, Paul McWhinney and Rory Carpenter. Mr. Richard Merriwether, Chairman of the Commission on Children and Families, was present to make the presentation with the use of slides. He said they want to share some of their accomplishments for the year 2001. He said the CCF is relatively new and was established by a joint City/County agreement in 1997. They have come a long way since that time. This can be attributed to their talented and dedicated director and dedicated and caring commissioners. Mr. Merriwether said their Annual Report has been put into a new format which they think will help the commissioners and help identify areas for consideration by the Board and City Council. He said the CCF focuses on ten work areas, and today he will mention four of those areas: children needing extensive services, Comprehensive Services Act, Data Management and the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee. He said there are four presenters this morning. Dr. Michael Dickens was first to speak, regarding Stepping Stones which is a statistical/graphical A@ annual report on the well-being of children and families in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. He said this years report has been modified from last years report. Each year data will be added so that the variables == will become more significant over a period of time. Stepping Stones was conceived as a vital sign chart A@A@ for the community. It does not tell why things are happening, but it gives an accurate reflection of what is happening. Dr. Dickens said the report is broken down into 12 areas. Four things stood out in this years report = which are fairly significant. He showed charts for the following items. Births to teens under 18" are A declining significantly which is in line with the national trend. Next is Juvenile Arrests for Violent Crime. A@ The juvenile arrests per thousand children between 12 and 17 have dramatically declined in the City in the last 10 years and continues to drop. On the other hand, the County has always enjoyed a much better performance in this arena, but over the last ten years there has been almost a 50 percent increase. Mr. Dorrier asked what type of violent crime is being referred to in the County. Dr. Dickens said it is for murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Dr. Dickens said Possession of Drugs & Alcohol in Public Schools shows a significant decline in A@ the City School system. The County School system has always experienced a greater number of incidents per thousand students for possession of drugs and alcohol. It seems to be relative static. The next category, Children Receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) has declined significantly A@ since welfare reform in both communities. He said there are several things they want to highlight. Of almost 60 different indicators, these caught the attention of the Commission. Enrollment in sports and extracurricular programs has begun to decline in the public school system, but at the same time, November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) participation in the parks and recreation programs has increased. They are not sure if one counterbalances the other, or whether there is any relationship between the two. Dr. Dickens said alcohol arrests of people under the age of 21 in the City have remained static. In the County, it has almost doubled since 1997. That needs to be looked at carefully. Kindergarten readiness is one they picked out because the Commission feels strongly that early intervention is the most important aspect of preparing children or avoiding the outcomes which will be mentioned later in this report. Kindergarten readiness tests for both the City and the County have reflected over the last four years a fairly steady level of readiness. Things are not improving, although not getting worse. Finally, one indicator that is of more significance to those who live in the City, is that of students living with both parents. There is no A@ data available for the County. For the City, the number of children living in a two-parent home is only 41 percent. This does not mean that there are not two adults in the home, but only that it is not a two-parent home. That number has been about the same for the last four years. This is significant when thinking about people going off of the TANF program and going back to work. If 60 percent of them are one-parent homes, who is going to provide day care? That is an essential, preventative item. Dr. Dickens said the Commission strongly urges the Board to look at these reports. They hope and intend that the report will come to the Board each year, and it will be more informative as the data trends gets longer. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a mentoring program for children without a two-parent family. Ms. Baker said there are a number of mentoring programs in the community. Mr. Tucker said he would like to comment about the statement that drugs and alcohol are more of a problem in the County. He knows that the juvenile area is a major area for enforcement, and enforcement in the County is very aggressive. Ms. Thomas said drugs and alcohol often correlate with affluence rather than with poverty. Ms. Ruth Stone said she is Co-chair of CCF and also Director of Piedmont CASA. She will talk today about the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (JJAC). They have a strategic plan which was brought to fruition in 2000 and now it is in the implementation phase. She said the JJAC brings together a lot of agencies who work with juvenile offenders. They are working on a comprehensive plan for the community and on information-sharing between the agencies. A survey was taken of professionals who work with children, and it was found that a quick exchange of information is key to providing services to kids and their families. A universal release form is being designed to be used by all of the agencies, and designing a secure website so the release form can be posted in a way that adheres to the confidentiality requirements of state law, but enables the different agencies to get quick access to information. Ms. Stone said the JJAC has been working with the community in developing a plan for the new Juvenile Detention Facility. They want to do a coordinated assessment and service plan for the children who go into the detention center. When they come out, they want to have a comprehensive plan which will meet both their needs, expectations and goals for the kids, and not just use the detention center as a holding facility. She said that Gretchen Ellis conducted a risks and needs survey of the children. She reviewed court files and found that domestic violence is a common thread in the homes of children who later become juvenile offenders. Likewise, child abuse was a common theme. There are children who live in very chaotic families, and it has a long-term impact on them. JJAC wants to respond to those issues, look at those risks and find better community responses, as well as looking at the positive things that support children. A lot of children do not take advantage of these services, so they need to engage a broader group in these prevention packages. Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of Albemarle County Service Services, was present to speak about the Comprehensive Services Act. It is an interagency coordinated effort that was developed by the state several years ago to provide services to children in foster care, special education and prevention of foster care. This year this work group has worked on Children Needing Extensive Services (CNES). They A@ profiled 37 children in Charlottesville and Albemarle who met the conditions of CNES with costs for their care ranging between $6000 and $14,000 per month. The Work Group established several priorities to see if anything can be done differently. A lot of these children require significant resources without hope for significant improvement in their lives. There are two things which they are asking City Council and the Board of Supervisors for: to assist in lobbying the Legislature to provide total care costs for these CNES children. Prior to CNES, most of these children were taken care of in state facilities. That is no longer happening, so there has been a shift of costs to local government. Also, to support early intervention programs that decrease domestic violence. One characteristic they found in the children needing extensive services was the common thread of domestic violence. Ms. Baker said the Board has heard from four of the Commissions work groups today. This was = just a brief focus on the findings and a look at the kind of work the Board can expect to receive from the CCF in the future. She said a large part of their mandate is to understand the conditions facing local children and their families, in addition to their work in coordinating services and monitoring funds. She said that in their annual report there are a number of findings, and she will mention a number of key things which have come out of their work. She said this is a community with extensive resources, fine arts, recreation, mentoring, and community service programs for many kids. But, there are portions of the population with significant needs. What they see is that these kids, in their teens, show up having experienced child abuse, substance abuse and domestic violence. They have seen drops in temporary assistance for needy families, but it is not proportional to the number of children taking advantage of the free and reduced lunch program, or the overall poverty rate for the region. Ms. Baker said this is the first year that in addition to coordinating and monitoring and leveraging strategies to improve the issues they found, they are also analyzing the data and identifying gaps. They November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) know basic things, such as a supportive family is a critical element of a childs healthy growth and = development. Members know that effective prevention programs can make a difference in reducing negative behavior later on. They know that where and how residents live can determine what they experience. Finally, when CCF works with community agencies and residents to target a problem, they can bring about good results. In the juvenile justice field, over the last two years, they have brought in over $150,000.00 in additional grant funds. Ms. Baker said the Commissioners urge the Board to approve the expansion of commission citizen representatives by one in order to increase the CCFs diversity and to do a better job of engaging residents. = They are asking both the City and the County to appoint one additional citizen. She thanked the Board for allowing CCF to present its annual report. Ms. Thomas said this report is complete and it does tell the Board both what is expected of the County and what the problems are. It is massive and complex and comprehensive. Speaking for herself, she appreciates all the work that has gone into this report. She hopes a difference can be made using the report, rather than just having it be a report. She asked if the Board members had questions. Mr. Dorrier said he talked with a local judge who stated that about 70 percent of his cases had to do with people who have drug problems. He wanted to see if there is some way the community could identify and work with these young people before they got to his court. He felt strongly enough about it that he wanted to meet with this group to discuss the situation. Since the court system is taken up with so many drug offenders and people with lack of adult supervision, he wonders if there is a plan to identify and work with those young people. It is stated in the report that of the people who have been identified as a problem, 48 percent have drug or alcohol problems. Ms. Baker said most recently they have used that data to try and raise money for a local prevention initiative. There are some state funds available which could be used to work with families who have substance abuse problems in their children. CCF did not get that grant but they have the information to keep trying to get that kind of service locally. Commission staff would be happy to bring people to the table to problem solve. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is anything this Board could do to help CCF work in that direction. Ms. Baker said communication to residents that it is an issue, and then investing more in prevention and treatment in young people, and not wait until it is too late and they are already in trouble. Ms. Humphris said there are a number of specific recommendations in the report. She asked if the Board will get the requests included in the recommendations in a formal way, rather than simply in this report. How formally is this Board to address the recommendations? Ms. Baker said this is the first year that recommendations have been included in the report. They felt it was incumbent on them to start giving that information, so it is new to CCF also. She said they can do it in either format. They do need approval to appoint another citizen member to the CCF. As to the others, the requests can be discussed at the pleasure of the Board. Ms. Humphris said there are specific things set out on page 21 of the report. She noted the following: In the future, as outcome measurement is expended in the review of public agencies, support A expansion of the capacity of City and County staff to serve as a resource of outcome measurement. She @ said that looks like a budget item, and asked if the Board will see that as a budget item in the future. In other words, are all of these things going to be transferred into something concrete to which the Board can respond? Ms. Baker said yes. That is already being done. A@ Ms. Thomas thanked all members of the CCF who attended this meeting. Mr. Dorrier asked if CCF could make a report to the Board in six months, rather than waiting a year. Ms. Thomas said this is something that will be discussed during budget sessions next year. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. Public hearing to amend jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water service to a 0.77 ac parcel located on W side of Rt 743 (Earlysville Rd), W of Hydraulic Rd, ajd to Ivy Creek Natural Area & lots in Roslyn Ridge Subdivision, Znd RA. TM 45, P 15 (Jeff Saine). (Public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on October 22 and October 29, 2001.) The applicant had requested withdrawal of the request. (Note: The Board had already taken care of this matter under Consent Agenda Item 5.1) _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. Amendment to Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Mandatory Connection Policy to include Farmington, Discussion of. Mr. Tucker said Virginia Code 15.2-5137 authorizes a service authority to adopt rules and ' regulations requiring property owners to connect to its water lines or sewer mains provided the local government concurs with the requirement. In 1995 the Albemarle County Service Authority, with the concurrence of the Board, adopted a mandatory connection policy for water and sewer service for new construction abutting a street or public way containing a water line or sewer main. On October 18, 2001, the ACSA amended this policy to require that all parcels of land in Farmington that are served by the Farmington water distribution system connect to the ACSA water system. Farmington had requested the ACSA to upgrade and operate the water system providing water to Farmington to improve water quality, reliability and fire flow. Currently, water is provided by the ACSA but is distributed through privately-owned November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) and maintained lines. Eighty percent of the customers have already signed contracts to connect to the new water distribution system. In order to assure financial assumptions for the system improvements, the ACSA wants to implement the mandatory connection policy to guarantee that all existing customers will connect. The ACSA intends to begin construction of the new system early next year, and it has requested that the Board concur with this amendment to the policy so it can be enforced. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution concurring in the adoption of the amended Mandatory Connection Policy adopted by the ACSA on October 18, 2001. Ms. Thomas said Farmington lies in her district. It is a situation which has been developing and essentially was the backup for an agreement they reached as individual homeowners with 80 percent of them agreeing to the hookup. They are paying substantial household costs, and this change in policy is just to make sure that there are no people who think that drilling their own well is an alternative, and yet they would be profiting in all other ways from the public water system being in place. Ms. Humphris said she would like to disclose that she is a member of Farmington Country Club, but the County Attorney advises that this does not pose any conflict of interest on her voting on this situation. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve the request of the Albemarle County Service Authority re: its Mandatory Connection Policy by adopting the following resolution. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Resolution Approving the Albemarle County Service Authority Mandatory Connection Policy Whereas, the Albemarle County Service Authority on October 18, 2001, amended Section 15 - Mandatory Connection Policy of the Albemarle County Service Authority Rules and Regulations; and Whereas, Virginia Code Section 15.2-5137 requires the concurrence of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to implement any change to the mandatory connection policy for water service; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors finds that the amended mandatory connection policy serves the best interests of the County by providing a safe and reliable water system in the water service areas for which the ACSA is providing service. Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby concurs with the amendment of the Albemarle County Service Authority's Rules and Regulations, Section 15 - Mandatory Connection Policy adopted on October 18, 2001. Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Bill Brent, ACSA Executive Director, for being present this morning. _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. Board-to-Board Presentation - School Board Chairman. Mr. Charles Ward, Chairman, Albemarle County School Board, was present. He said some of the news coming from Richmond is unsettling, a lot having to do with the budget. The School Division has put a 7.5 percent holdback on all departmental budgets, and there has been an additional five percent reduction in budgets. They have put a moratorium on all hiring, except for critical needs such as teachers. Mr. Bowerman asked what amount of money the 7.5 percent would generate. Dr. Kevin Castner said it is $440,000, and the five percent is $320,000. Mr. Ward said Albemarle County is one of the few school divisions nationally which has an Equity and Diversity Committee. The Committee recommended that the matter of equity education be put into a policy so it will be known that education on this subject is taking place. That policy comes to the School Board tomorrow. They suggested tightening up anti-discrimination language by possibly adding sexual orientation in that language. That suggestion will also be discussed tomorrow. Currently, there are four policies on this subject, two are state policies. Due to the Dillon Rule, the School Board probably does not have the authority to change or modify them. What he understands is that the other two policies are inclusive enough today to include sexual orientation. Mr. Ward said the Long-Range Planning Committee has met and presented its report to the School Board. There is another redistricting about to take place because of the enlargement of Burley Middle School. The Committee gave a plan on how to proceed with this question which has Capital Improvement Program (CIP) implications. The School Board will be looking at this when the CIP is discussed at the end of November. One other thing that came from this committee is to delay construc-tion of a new southern elementary school. The School Division had an Average Daily Membership (ADM) loss of about 100 people this year. Also, the Committee wants to move up construction of an addition to Monticello High School. Some committee members also brought up the idea of adding an auditorium to MHS. That cost is projected at $4.9 million. They also asked if they should look at possible consolidation of some of the elementary schools in the southern area of the County. On that last issue, there were school board November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) members who said no, they dont believe that should be done right away. He said this is an inclusive A@= committee, discussing any idea presented to it, but not taking votes on ideas. Mr. Ward said for the first time the School Board had a joint meeting with the Charlottesville School Board and the Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) Board. They wanted these boards to discuss things in general terms. They looked at the idea of possibly having a joint health program. It does not appear that there would be the critical mass needed to lower the rates, and staff will look into this question. They heard about dual enrollment from PVCC. The Albemarle School Board has an agreement for dual enrollment with PVCC at Western Albemarle High School. There are professors who teach at PVCC who are at Western and who also teach a high school class (Astronomy and English). It augments and sometimes supplements Advanced Placement Classes. These kids are getting a college credit and a high school course at the same time. In some respects, this competes with taking the Advanced Placement Tests. Mr. Ward said they heard that in Henrico County, they will spend $18.0 million to provide their middle and high school students laptop computers. Albemarle County is just providing the School Board members with laptop computers. It is not unusual to have kids take their class notes on their personal laptops computers. Henrico is one of the first and has a cooperative agreement with Apple Computers. Of course, it required a restructuring of their budget. Mr. Ward said the School Board also met for the first time with the Albemarle Planning Commission in order to improve communications. Mr. Ward said the first part of the Progress Report came out in September, and there will be another part at the end of November that will show school-by-school data. He said they are way ahead of the reporting that the State will require. They feel fortunate. Mr. Ward said at the Parents Advisory Council they talked about safety. Chief John Miller, Sgt. Jim Bond and Officer Allen Reed came to talk about the School Resource Officer program. They explained what the officer actually does which is to talk to the kids on a variety of issues. He said the School Board appreciates the support the Board of Supervisors gives them to have the SROs. Mr. Ward said concerning legislative items for the next General Assembly Session, the School Board has decided to stay with the VPSA positions, about 19 requests for changes. However, if after the VPSA meeting later this month, and after hearing from JLARC, if they feel there is a need to modify any requests, they will do so then. Mr. Ward said that after the School Board meets with the Board of Supervisors on November 14, they hope to get the local revenue projections. They are very concerned about those. He said budget preparation will be very challenging since there will be new School Board members. He has already talked to two of the new members, and told them that their work starts today. He offered to answer questions. Ms. Thomas said there are a few students from Henley Middle School present today. Mr. Ward said the students who could not attend today will attend the School Board meeting tomorrow and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Ms. Thomas then read the proclamation concerning American Education Week into the record (See: Consent Agenda Item 5.3) and presented same to Mr. Ward. Ms. Humphris said she would like to make a comment since she will be leaving the Board, and some things get lost in history. She said that a very large committee planned Monticello High School. She said she was the single voice that cried that the school needed an auditorium. She was shouted down that it absolutely did not need an auditorium. The two principals from Albemarle High and Western Albemarle said absolutely not, it would be a waste of money and space. She said she was told that they did not use A@ their auditoriums. She was very upset. She said an auditorium is a perfect place to bring the students together and give them a sense of belonging. Now, she has heard people who have gone to performances in the forum who left because they could not hear, because seats are uncomfortable. They were promised that they would have the use of the Dickenson Auditorium at Piedmont College. With over 200+ performances per year in that auditorium already booked, that is not going to work. Ms. Humphris said she will not be around to vote on any budget for approximately $5.0 million for a new auditorium, but she always thought it was a necessity, and she remains convinced that it is. Ms. Thomas said she can vouch for the fact that Ms. Humphris was the only one on the committee who pursued this idea, which means that she (Ms. Thomas) was on the other side. Mr. Ward said there are a couple of things that have been discussed more than one time (one had to do with the type of floor needed in the Crozet Elementary School gym). He thinks the Long-Range Committee needs to formulate a checklist of essential items needed in each of the schools. In the ten years he has been a member of the School Board, these items have come up for discussion twice. Mr. Dorrier said when the Long-Range Planning Committee considered consolidating some of the small schools in the southern area of the County, it raised some real concerns among parents. These parents started calling him. Some people feel that small schools are actually better than the bigger schools. He asked that any discussion of this subject be in a restrained fashion. Mr. Ward said he, personally, needs to know the motivation for this recommendation. He said that when Monticello High was opened, the Schools were able to consolidate some bus trips, and save trip times. If schools are closed, bus trips will then become longer, and the question is whether that actually helps students. There are many issues that have to be answered, and he has received many comments on this suggestion. November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) _______________ (Note: Mr. Tucker said Agenda Item No. 12 [Revenue/Budget] concerns only County staff people, so this item can be skipped temporarily because the meeting is running behind schedule.) Agenda Item No. 13. Court Square Enhancement Project, Overview Presentation. Mr. Satyendra Huja, Strategic Planner with the City of Charlottesville, was present. He said the project has been in planning stages for two years. These facilities are located in the original part of Charlottesville, it is a very historic and important part of the community. Now, someone coming from Monticello goes through High Street without knowing that they have been to Court Square because it is not in an inviting condition on the High Street side. The idea of this effort was to see how to improve and make it more attractive for visitors. They also realize that it is not a museum, but a living, working place. The needs of the people working there must be taken into account. They believe the improvements being suggested will be a great enhancement to the area. Also, he will mention the budget and a schedule. At this time, there is approximately $2.24 million for the project funded through TEA-21 funds. The County is contributing $250,000, and the City will contribute approximately $720,000. They hope construction can start next spring and take about one year to be completed. Mr. Huja said there are two court studies going on in the community at this time. The study he is talking about is not the space study, but that of infrastructure, sidewalks, streets, landscaping, lighting, etc. He then introduced the consultants, from PMA Associates, Mr. Jeff Stargell, and from Daugherty & Graham, landscape firm in Annapolis, Mr. Pearson Daugherty. He said that Ms. Roxanne White has also been very helpful in organizing this meeting so they can speak about the project. Mr. Jeff Stargell said he is an architect and planner with PMA. His firm specializes in historic preservation projects, planning projects, architectural projects. His firm is associating on this project with Daugherty & Graham, a landscape design firm in Annapolis. He said they found this to be a special opportunity. He then gave the background of the most historic part of Charlottesville, which it is Court Square, using diagrams and charts. He said the purpose of this project is to knit together the historic elements along with improvements to pedestrian elements such as sidewalks, street lighting, signage, put the utilities underground, and develop a cohesive and sensitive historic character to the overall environ- ment. In other words, to try and neutralize and soften the more vehicular environment. The overall scope of the project includes paving the streets along Park Street in brick. This is the area that feels the most historic, and the most intact part of the Court Square area. It is where the older buildings come together with the site of the 1803 Court House. The brick paving will be extended in front of the Court House, then all of the sidewalks around the Court House Square will be brick paved with granite curbing. The granite curbing came from the original curbing used to define Court Square. That theme will continue along Park Street and East Jefferson Street. The intersections will be improved to include granite crosswalks and brick paving centers. The other side of High Street will be postponed until it becomes clear as to what the solution will be for the courts. They hope there will be enough money to actually extend this theme down into and along Fifth Street along with taking electric power underground. Mr. Stargell said he has explained some of the public space improvements consisting of sidewalks and streets, and he asked Mr. Daugherty to explain the improvements on Court Square which relate to the Court House grounds, and areas adjacent to the court. Mr. Daugherty said he will be describing the enhancements to take place on the Countys property. = The biggest item is to replace the concrete wall which totally surrounds the Countys buildings. The wallis = in disrepair, and it will be replaced with a brick wall which will vary in height. It will be a sloping wall and have a top that is brick shaped. At the entrances, it will be punctuated by a pier. The main entrance to the Court House will be changed to be handicapped accessible. There was wrought iron incorporated with the walls in the past, and some of that will be brought back to make a grand entrance to the Court House. A lot of the overgrown shrubbery will be removed in order to improve the view into the Court House. There is an existing handicapped ramp, and that will be removed, along with the historic sign and redesigning a new historic board. They will also revitalize an old entrance. The sidewalk configuration to both entrances of the Court House will be improved. Mr. Daugherty said lighting is an important part of this project. There are some wonderful posts on site which will be refurbished with a new fixture on top of them. Other fixtures will be added throughout the Square. They may replace some of the benches. As far as planting goes, the big elms are beautiful, but are in their declining years. They will be supplemented with some big trees so that when the elms are gone, there will be trees in place which have some stature. They will look at adding trees in different places, and preserving and cleaning up some of the old American Boxwoods. On the High Street side they are replacing the handicapped ramp with a brick handicapped ramp, changing out concrete and putting in granite, repairing the stairs and repairing the hand railings. They found that the deputy sheriffs park their cars on the sidewalk and then take the prisoners through the building to the Court House. The sidewalk will be widened so a van can pull into the area and disembark people into the Court House and not block the street. He offered to answer questions. Ms. Humphris said she questions the new light fixtures. She does not know the City's lighting policy, but this Board is very much into Dark Sky promotion and having full cut-off fixtures, non-glare, etc. The Board had a very bad experience with a major parking lot at the new North Fork Research Park. The Board thought the fixtures ordered would meet County requirements. They are very expensive, very handsome fixtures, but they spread glare everywhere. She asked about these new fixtures. November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) Mr. Daugherty said they are cut-off fixtures. The whole top of the fixture has a shielded top. Ms. Thomas asked about the glare from the fixtures. It is very hard to get a historic-looking lighting fixture that does not have the lighting fixture evident so that what you get is glare and not good coverage on the ground. Mr. Stargell said the particular fixture they are recommending has the light up inside so it is a down light. Mr. Bowerman asked if that means the light source is not seen. Mr. Stargell said that is correct. The fixture directs all of the light down to the ground. Mr. Huja said that is also a requirement of the Citys Board = of Architectural Review. (Note: At this point, the Henley Middle School students left the meeting. Ms. Thomas thanked them for attending.) Mr. Perkins asked the source of the brick and the granite curbing. Mr. Daugherty said they are looking at a couple of sources. The actual brick has not yet been selected. There will be two kinds of brick; a wire-cut paver brick will be on the streets, and on the sidewalks it is a sand-molded brick. He said the wire-cut brick works better with traffic. Mr. Bowerman asked if they have taken into account the maintenance and the long-term costs of the brick. Mr. Daugherty said they have met with the Citys Public Works Department to get their input. Mr. = Huja said they went to Annapolis to look at their brickwork. They dry mount, so there will be no mortar joints. Mr. Daugherty said the brick is such that if there is any need for repairs to utilities, etc., it can be popped up and the base recompacted, and the brick put back so the sense of a repair is minimized. Mr. Bowerman said there is a lot of granite used in Pittsburg for curbs. Mr. Huja said the City has collected a lot of curbs from various streets, and they hope to reuse those. Mr. Daugherty said they will use the older granite in the older area of Court Square and the new granite further away. Mr. Huja thanked the Board and its staff for support of this project. He thinks this will be a great place in a year or so. Ms. Thomas thanked Ms. White and other County staff members who have been working on this project. _______________ Agenda Item No. 14. 2002 County wide Customer Survey, Presentation by Kate Wood from the University of Virginia Center for Survey Research. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said last year the Board approved funding to conduct a County wide survey to assist the County in setting strategic goals and policy directions, gauging citizens thoughts regarding the provision of County services, and helping guide the use of County = resources. In October, the County selected the University of Virginia's Center for Survey Research (CSR) to conduct this survey. CSR has a national reputation for its careful approach to research, its level of innovation in survey methods and the quality of its reports. They did the Countys first survey in 1994. They = also worked with the City of Charlottesville on its 2000 survey. Ms. White said the survey will be conducted in January, 2002. It will be a random telephone survey of about 700 County residents. The survey will be completed in January, the results compiled in February and March, and the final results will be presented to the Board in April. The results will be used in putting together the Countys Strategic Plan. She introduced Ms. Kate Wood. = Ms. Wood said that CSR is happy to be doing this project, having been selected in a competitive process. She said that Tom Goodebach, Director of CSR, and she, are both residents of Albemarle County, so they have a professional and a personal interest in this project. She will mention how CSR has changed since it did the County survey in 1994. She said that CSR began as a very small operation in 1988 in the Universitys Department of Sociology. It has grown quite rapidly since then. A year and a half ago, it = became part of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. They moved off of the Universitys main = grounds to new offices on Fontaine Avenue. It has gone from having no full-time staff members, to having six full-time researchers on staff, part-time research assistants that number between 10 and 15 depending on graduate student demands for other things. Sometimes they also have 100 telephone interviewers. In FY 2001, they doubled their operating budget and doubled their business. They feel that they have moved from a casual academic shop to a more professional business. CSR just finished a major project for the Roanoke County School System and is in the process of doing the analysis of a major project for VDOT looking at citizen satisfaction all over the State of Virginia. Ms. Wood said Albemarle Countys project is smaller. As the project is planned now, they plan on = completing 700 interviews. This will be a telephone survey conducted from their lab on Fontaine Avenue. At this time, they have 23 telephone interviewing stations from which they will make calls mainly in the evenings, and on Sunday afternoons. There will be a random digit dial sample. They will be working from a set of telephone numbers which have been identified as belonging to Albemarle County. They will work in a random way with the telephone numbers. The alternative is to do a listed sample where CSR would purchase telephone books. However, if people do not have listed numbers in the telephone books, they would go unrepresented. Ms. Wood said there are two major points for the survey. One is to determine the direction in which County residents would like to see things move. That can be in terms of policy issues, particularly in terms of comprehensive goals. She noted that the Board has been given a list of the topics which will be part of the project. One of those is a subset of comprehensive goals which were taken from the 1994 Survey. November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) This was done in order to make some comparisons. She said public opinion on these issues is not static, and is important for County government to know exactly what the public thinks. She said with 700 completed surveys, it will give a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percent. Ms. Wood said the topics to be covered are: comprehensive goals, selected services, growth and transportation, public safety questions, general government issues, and trust in government. Mr. Bowerman asked if the questions to be used are open-ended. Ms. Wood said there will be some open- ended questions, but they will be doing a rating of services. They will ask people to make choices between two different answers. They will talk about growth and transportation, and this will be a policy alternative part of the survey where they will pose several different options. Then they will ask a series of questions about general County government. These are customer satisfaction questions. They will ask about the website and how often it is used. She understands there is some question of decentralizing county offices, and moving some operations out into the County. There will probably be a question about that. They will ask an overall question about how satisfied people are with value for their tax dollar. This is a question used routinely on citizen surveys around the country. It is a standard question and it gives a nice measurement of customer satisfaction. Another standard question is how often do you trust government to A do what is right? Everyone can define that question in their own way. Finally, they ask about the @ interaction between services and taxes. This is a hot issue at this time. Ms. Wood said that is a broad outline of the survey. In the next six weeks, the County Survey Committee and the staff at CSR will be writing the questionnaire and getting it ready for the first part of data collection, which will happen in January. The first part of data collection will be a pre-test where they will call and complete 40 interviews. At the end of that time, they actually look at the data, talk with the interviewers, and determine if there are changes which need to be made in the questionnaire. She then offered to answer questions. Mr. Dorrier asked the cost of this contract. Ms. Wood said the contract has not been finalized yet, but the budget figure is around $32,000. Mr. Dorrier said on the list of questions, the area of solid waste and trash hauling/collection, is not addressed. Ms. Wood said that would come under the heading of selected services. She did not identify A@ on the list furnished to the Board today every single topic that will be covered. That item is on the list. Mr. Dorrier said the Board just discussed public transportation this morning, and he did not see much about it on the list. Ms. Thomas said it is listed as providing better transportation and she thinks there needs to be a A@ distinction between more and better. Ms. Wood said there are two areas where they will be dealing with A@A@ transportation. First they will deal with transportation under the comprehensive goals which will give a measure for how important people see transportation issues relative to other things. Ms. Thomas said she has several comments. When talking about safer she is impressed that the A@ County neighborhoods do not feel unsafe the same way that urban neighborhoods feel unsafe, in the sense that they never know who is lurking in the shadows. Rather, it is fast moving traffic that makes their streets unsafe for their children. She thinks that when talking about safer in the County, there needs to be a A@ distinction between the usual public safety police-related issues, and the things that might lead to traffic calming, which are entirely different issues. If you ask someone if they feel their neighborhood streets are safe, there will not be accurate answers because people will think of that question in entirely different ways. Ms. Wood said they actually would not ask the question in that manner for that very reason. One of the things they are paid to do is figure out when questions are ambiguous. Actually, they will talk about that issue both in the section that deals with neighborhoods and sidewalks, and then the safety from crime issue is an entirely different one. Ms. Thomas said she hopes that satisfaction with services and issues are two very distinct things. Letting the community know what services the County provides is very different from the news media letting the community know what the Board has discussed at a meeting. Mr. Dorrier said areas of satisfaction has been mentioned a couple of times. He asked if CRS will find out the areas of dissatisfaction and the extent of that dissatisfaction. Ms. Wood said they will. When a standard satisfaction question is asked, the respondent is offered the choice of rating each service. They end up with an assessment which is a rating for each service. It can be done a number of ways. It can be done on a mean so if the choices are numbered from one to four, the mean will be known. What is more often done is to take a measure of percent of the respondents who said they were completely satisfied. Then they look at the percent who said they were dissatisfied. Ms. Humphris said she is puzzled. Under the comprehensive goals section, some of the things A@ where people will be asked to rate the level of importance to them, she would pick out improving medical A and public health services in the area because County government hardly deals with public health issues @ at all. That is a State issue, and not a local issue. She is concerned about that. She is also curious about how most people would respond to the level of importance of expanding social services offered by the government because they will not know what those services are unless they have it explained to them. Under the item listed as expanding and extending water and sewer services, the Board has a rigid policy in A@ place about that which has been through the public process. It is tied to the whole growth area and the policy will not change. She does not understand how anybody could impress the Board with their wanting to extend water lines into the County. It is not going to happen. Then for things like expanding cultural A entertainment opportunities, this has not been considered by this Board to be in the purview of government; @ November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) this is a private matter. Ms. Wood said that is a good point. They do need to be careful about giving people the idea that this is a referendum on something. It is not. On the other hand, the questions in this particular set are after a very broad set of quality of life issues. What do people think is important about the quality of life in this community? Ms. Thomas said if the question of quality of life is to be discussed, people ask often about shopping opportunities. Those are not provided by the government, as most cultural opportunities are not provided by the government, but the citizens are aware that the Board has something to do with how easy it is to build big boxes. She thinks a lot of people would consider that a part of their quality of life, and whether they like to live in this area. She said the Board is often concerned about the visual appearance of things, and there is nothing that asks whether people like the way things look. Ms. Wood said that was part of the 1994 set of questions, and it can be added to these questions. This group of questions was chosen by the committee as a way of keeping the list short. Ms. Humphris said most people in the public have no idea how much regional cooperation there is among the adjoining counties and the University. If you ask them to say which areas need more cooperation, they would probably list areas where there is already cooperation. That question can be pretty misleading when asking people who have no knowledge. It is not a big deal that there it is a joint airport, joint water, joint sewer, joint libraries, joint jail, joint detention center, joint almost everything. Ms. Wood said this kind of survey is a very good public relations tool. Areas where the public needs to be educated, are often identified. Mr. Dorrier said an important point is that Tourism money is really collected from the people who come to the community, spend money here and leave. Some of that money is allocated to different festivals, and the public may not be aware of that. Citizens may not know that is money from tourists and not tax money, so that question needs to be worded carefully. Ms. Thomas said going door-to-door, she has been getting lots of people to say that their concern is growth. She tried to draw them out and have them say exactly what they mean, but it is very difficult. It is something about taking away more good things than are being added. They are concerned more about what they are losing than the activity that may surround more population. Maybe CRS can figure out a way to pin down how people feel about growth that does not use the word growth. She said it would be interesting to find out what people mean when they say they are afraid of growth. She thinks it means that they feel a sense of loss. Ms. Wood said this gets tied up with some of the aesthetic things, water things and economic development. CRS has worked on these issues a lot. Particularly in Prince William County which is a very high growth county, and where there it is a lot of controversy on certain issues. CRS has asked a lot of specific questions about growth, and knows it needs to keep this survey at about 15 minutes. CRS is striving to get a lot of information that may just skim the surface on some issues. They will try to get to the things considered the most important by the Committee. She said the issue of growth is one that could have a survey of its own with a battery of questions specific to that issue. Mr. Perkins asked if the people called are asked how long they have lived in the community. Ms. Wood said they are. Mr. Perkins wanted to know if these people are asked if they live in the rural areas or the growth area. Ms. Wood said they are. Mr. Perkins asked if he received a call, how it would show on the caller ID on his telephone. Ms. Wood said she does not know. Mr. Perkins said if it shows as being a call from out of the area, he does not answer the telephone at all. Ms. Tucker said a lot of people do the same thing. Ms. Wood said she has no answer. Mr. Bowerman suggested that this question be investigated. He asked if there is any involvement by Board members on the actual specifics of the questions. Mr. Tucker said the Board did not do that in 1994, but can if that is requested. Mr. Bowerman said the Board members campaign and they are here all the time, so knows some things. He does not want a glowing report of Albemarle County that is general. He wants this survey to stand to the scrutiny of a very skeptical public and a very skeptical board. He wants to find out what the people really think. That is a function of how the questions are asked and which questions are asked. Specifically, Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas have both identified ways to come at things. In order to be really useful, he wants to know what people don't like, as well as what people like. The way the question is asked, the way the person is drawn out, is a critical part of that. But, he thinks the content is something he would be very interested in. Maybe two members of this Board could make sure the information about what the public is interested in, could be incorporated into some of the questions. He wants to be very critical of the process, the way it is gone about, its results and its credibility. Ms. Wood said she can assure the Board that CRS will have a credible survey. They have not written any questions yet. They will be taking the Boards suggestions under consideration. The extent to = which the Board has an opportunity to actually sign off on the questionnaire, is the Countys decision. To = the extent that the Board members are skeptical about the questions, CRS wants that input. Ms. Humphris said the Board had a major discussion about the questionnaire in 1994. There were lots of problems with the questions proposed the last time, and lots of changes needed to be made before the questionnaire was finalized. Mr. Bowerman said as to the specifics of how to ask the questions, he relies on the expertise of CRS. He just wants to make sure that the right questions are asked. Ms. Humphris said the Board needs November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) to know what people know as well as what they think. Mr. Bowerman said he was just making the point that the Board members have a direct, daily involvement with people and their issues, and he thinks the Board would like to know exactly what is covered by the questions. Mr. Dorrier said he agrees with Mr. Bowerman. One area that is not mentioned in the list is the question of recycling. Ms. Wood said it is on the more specific list. Mr. Bowerman said he is also mindful of the 15-minute limit, and the need to prioritize all the Board wants to know with what is possible. Ms. Thomas said if County staff is going to respond to the Board, does staff have a suggestion as to how there could be more Board involvement in the details without either slowing the process, making it more expensive, or stepping on professional toes? Ms. Wood said they are not worried about having their toes stepped on. They want to hear from the Board as much as possible. Ms. White said staff has heard some of the issues today. There is a team working on some of the topics. If the Board members have ideas and thoughts, they should contact Ms. Lori Spencer, who is the main staff contact on this issue. Staff can then bring back a more detailed list than that presented today. However, they do not want the questions circulated before the survey begins. The team knows this is just the beginning of a process of surveys. The idea is to begin this process, get some information, and then decide whether to do an annual survey or do a survey every two years. In follow-up surveys, they will try to find out why people are dissatisfied with certain things. Next time, they will try to probe deeper into some questions. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to consider the County as bad guys not good guys. He would A@A@ like to go after this survey from that point of view. He thinks that would really bring out how people feel about their government. Ms. Wood said there will be some open-ended questions, and these questions really do give people the ability to speak their minds. Ms. White said the survey also is to find out how the County communicates with people. They want to find out if people believe they are included in the government process, and if not, why not. If they do feel included, what mode of communication has been used. That is an issue the Board has brought up today. Mr. Tucker said staff will determine how best to circulate and get the Board more involved. If there are topics which have not been mentioned today, Ms. Lori Spencer should be contacted directly, and she can start working on that topic. Ms. Wood said the question writing process takes a long time because it is very interactive. They have been through a couple of meetings, and today is the third time. The Boards input will be added into a = questionnaire which she has already generated. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board members could receive copies of questionnaires for other counties. Ms. Wood said the Board members should have received those before today. Ms. Thomas said she has gone to about 500 houses in the last six weeks. Her question has been what concerns do you have about County government? It is amazing how few concerns people have. A@ _______________ Agenda Item No. 15. Public hearing on proposed FY 2002 Budget Amendment. (Notice of public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on October 28, 2001.) Mr. Roger Hildebeidel, Budget Director, said Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that the County ' hold a public hearing to amend its current budget if the additional appropriated amounts exceed one percent of the original budget or $500,000, whichever is the lesser. This proposed FY 02 Budget > amendment totals $771,125.66, and is for items totally related to the School Division. The chart below breaks out the estimated amendment of the expenses and revenues in the funds. ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES Education Operating Fund$ 15,522.32 Capital Improvement Fund Education674,000.00 Grants/Programs/Project Fund Education $ 87,603.34 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES$777,125.66 ESTIMATED REVENUES Education Funds, Local Revenues$ 15,522.32 Capital Improvement Fund Education, State Revenues674,000.00 Grants/Programs/Project Funds, State Revenues 87,603.34 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES$777,125.66 This budget amendment consists of two appropriations that will need approval subsequent to the public hearing. Appropriation #2001-029, Education, $680,253.32. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1500.00 from Barbara and John Post and a donation in the amount of $1000.00 from Victor and Rachel Carew. These donations will assist in the purchase of laptop computers for use by teachers and staff. November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) Stone Robinson Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $3100.32. This donation will be used to pay the salary for the school nurse to work two extra hours per day for the school year. Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $505.00 from Scott Jamison and a donation in the amount of $148.00 from Daniel and Lolanda Loyne. These donations will be used for the gifted program at the school. VPSA School Educational Technology Notes Series I Funds to be used in support of Virginia's Web-based SOL Technology Initiative were not expended in FY 00-01 since State minimum computer and > infrastructure standards for the initiative were not released until after the end of FY 00-01. The carryover > amount of $674,000.00 retained by the State is available to be appropriated for FY 01-02. > Appropriation #2001-031, Education, $96,872.34. Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $269.00 from Michael and Mary Woloski. This donation will be used for the gifted program at the school. Walton Middle School received a donation from the Walton Middle School PTO in the amount of $8000.00. This donation will be used to purchase equipment for the computer lab at the school. Western Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $1000.00 from the Pfizer Foundation Volunteer Program. This donation will be used for the band program. The Goals 2000 Award was not fully expended in FY 00-01. The award carryover amount of > $85,703.34 retained by the State is available to be appropriated for FY 01-02. These funds will be used to > purchase classroom computers and related technologies and provide technology staff development opportunities for instructional staff. The Virginia Commission for the Arts made two grant awards to Albemarle County Public Schools. An Artist-in-Education Residency Program Grant was made to Crozet Elementary School in the amount of $1400.00, and a Touring Assistance Grant to Broadus Wood Elementary School in the amount of $500.00. These grant programs will involve interactive activities to include hands-on learning experience for students with performing, visual and musical arts. Mr. Hildebeidel said after holding the public hearing, staff requests approval of the FY 02 Budget > amendment in the amount of $777,125.66 and approval of Appropriations #2001-029 and 2001-031 as detailed on the appropriation forms. Ms. Thomas asked if the VPSS School Technology money is available. She knows the State is holding back funds in order to deal with some shortfalls. Mr. Hildebeitel said he was told that it is a carryover item which is just late in being allocated and the money is available. At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt Resolutions of Appropriation #2001-029 and 2001-031. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001/02 NUMBER: 2001-029 FUND: SCHOOL/CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATION TO SCHOOLS AND STATE TECHNOLOGY GRANT EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 1 2215 61101 800700 ADP Equipment$ 2,500.00 1 2100 62220 113100 Salary-Health Clinician2,863.15 1 2100 62220 210000 FICA237.17 1 2304 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies653.00 1 9000 61101 800707 Technology Grant Equip674,000.00 TOTAL$680,253.32 REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation$ 6,253.32 2 9000 24000 240265 VPSA Technology Note 674,000.00 November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) TOTAL$680,253.32 _____ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001/02 NUMBER: 2001-031 FUND: EDUCATION PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION ON DONATIONS AND GRANT AWARDS EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 1 2304 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies $ 269.00 1 2254 61101 800701 ADP Equip-Replacement8,000.00 1 2302 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies1,000.00 1 3135 60605 800100 Mach/Equip84,257.62 1 3135 60605 580500 Staff Dev1,445.72 1 3104 60203 312700 Prof Svc Inst1,400.00 1 3104 60201 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies500.00 TOTAL$96,872.34 REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation$ 9,269.00 2 3135 24000 250324 Goals 2000 Award85,703.34 2 3104 24000 240300 VA Comm - Crozet1,400.00 2 3104 24000 240362 VA Comm - Broadus Wood500.00 TOTAL$96,872.34 _______________ Agenda Item No. 16. Appeal: ARB-F (Sign)-2001-016. Whole Foods Market Application for Freestanding Sign. Mr. Cilimberg said on September 17, 2001, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed an application to replace the freestanding Whole Foods sign that stands at the entrance to the Shoppers = World Shopping Center on the west side of Route 29 North. The replacement sign was proposed as a single internally illuminated cabinet displaying white letters on a green background and dark green letters on a white band. The green background of the sign was not proposed as opaque. In keeping with the ARBs practice of requiring that the backgrounds of internally illuminated cabinet signs be opaque so that = only the message portion of the cabinet sign would be illuminated and visible at night, the ARB voted unanimously to approve the proposal with the condition that the green background portion of the sign be opaque. That is intended to reduce clutter and distraction and provide for coordinating appearances along the Entrance Corridor, increase visual continuity and limit negative impacts along the corridor. He said it is one of several approaches the ARB has taken to achieve that result. Mr. Cilimberg said the ARB has recommended that the application as presented be denied. The ARB can recommend approval of the application with the condition that the green background of the sign be made opaque. Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Chip Hughes said he is with the Whole Foods Market at 300 Shoppers World Court. He was born and raised in Albemarle County, and he appreciates everything the ARB has done to preserve the historical integrity of the County, as well as their efforts to have the County have a uniform presence. There will be a slight inconsistency in appearance by putting in a green sign for Whole Foods Market beside the red sign for Staples. The Staples sign uses translucent paint. At nighttime the sign for Staples will still be red in color, while the sign for Whole Foods Market will appear black. Ms. Thomas asked if there were anyone from the public who wished to speak. Mr. Robert Morris said he is with Performance Signs, the contractor. He met with the ARB initially. He said that Whole Foods Market is a national franchise, and they have used the green color for 127 locations. The color is important for their image in order to be consistent. Mr. Dorrier asked if they disagreed with the recommendation that the sign be opaque. Mr. Morris said the dark green color is almost black, so they feel the ARB is asking for a little too much. They are not trying to have a sign which is glaring or inappropriate. Mr. Bowerman said if the County allowed signs like Staples which do not conform to the ARB standards and to the Countys policy, then no signs would ever be changed. It is only over the last eight = years that the County has been able to initiate some new standards along Route 29 by bringing in the new concepts. At some point, the Staples sign will change and match the Whole Foods sign, rather than the opposite. Although he respects Mr. Hughes opinion, he thinks the ARB was absolutely correct in the policy = which they followed. It is only through following that policy consistently over time that the County will have a uniform appearance on Route 29. He supports the ARBs decision, but he does not think the Board needs = to take action to uphold the ARBs decision. Mr. Davis said the Board does need to take action to uphold = November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) the ARBs decision. = Mr. Bowerman then offered motion to uphold the decision of the ARB regarding ARB-F (Sign)- 2001-016, Whole Foods Market. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Mr. Dorrier asked if this means the status quo remains. Mr. Davis said this is approval of the sign with the condition as approved by the Architectural Review Board (Condition: The green background portion of the sign shall be opaque.). With no further discussion, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 17. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's 2002 Draft Legislative Program, Presentation by David Blount, Legislative Liaison. Mr. Blount said when he appeared before the Board in September he had noted that the goal of the Legislative Program was to make the five priority action items more educational. They incorporated A@ numbers, data documentation and anecdotes. Hopefully the document submitted to the Board will better educate and inform both the new and the existing legislators. Across the Planning District there will be nine legislators, and six of them are new. The Legislature will be dealing with the budget impasse from last = year, the revenue picture is dismal, and the events of September 11 have dampened the economy and shifted thinking toward a reprioritization of resources. He thinks the budget will be the issue. Mr. Blount said requests are: The Planning District and its member localities believe the state should fund its share of the A realistic costs of meeting the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and the actual educational needs and practices employed by school divisions across Virginia. @ The Planning District and its member localities urge the state to fully fund existing transportation A obligations, ... without incurring increased or unjustifiable debt. .... @ The Planning District and its member localities support 1) full funding, on a biennial basis, of the A state pool for the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) .... @ The Planning District and its member localities believe the state should broaden the revenue A sources available to local governments.... @ The Planning District and its member localities oppose any preemption or circumvention of existing A local authority to regulate land use, as has been done in recent years through legislative action. @ Mr. Blount said the items the Board submitted to VACO in June are also included in the program. There are several changes that will need to be made from the draft program presented today. Under the Transportation item, there needs to be some clarification to Accordingly, we support the creation of a new A@A funding classification and street standards for urbanizing areas, which could provide more options for planning and designing transportation models that support land use priorities. This sentence needs to be @ clarified so it is known that it is talking about secondary roads which serve an urban function. This was a concern of the City because they would like to be able to use their urban road funds for certain roads which are classified as secondary roads, but which serve the urban function. Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas both said that is also a concern of the County. Mr. Blount said that under Environmental Quality where it talks about landfills, he has changed A@ the first sentence under the third bullet to read The state should ensure that the closure schedules for @A landfills reasonably reflect the site-specific risk analysis for the locality. It should also provide adequate funding for landfill closure and post-closure costs. Further, the state should work with .... He said this is an @ issue which Albemarle County has, and Fluvanna County also has the same issue as a result of the analysis of their landfill. They have been moved up on the priority closing schedule by a number of years. Ms. Thomas said the Board was concerned that it was not just the schedule, but the schedule and the funding. Mr. Blount said that under Housing, bullet #2 reads: We support changes to the Code of Virginia A@A to allow local flexibility in the operation of affordable housing programs. That wording would be amended @ to read: We support changes to the to allow local flexibility in the operation of affordable Code of Virginia A housing programs and establishment of affordable dwelling unit ordinances. This tracks language in the @ which allows an Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance, and is what this Board wants the authority to Code establish. Ms. Thomas said the Board of Habitat for Humanity took an official vote about two nights ago encouraging this Board to add that request to Albemarles legislative program. = Mr. Blount said the final change would be under Housing adding a new bullet reading: We A@A support local authority to regulate the allowance of manufactured homes in zoning districts that permit single family dwellings. Mr. Davis said the County has that authority now, but the issue is whether or not to @ November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) mandate it. Mr. Blount said the Planning District Commission did want to oppose it, but put it in as support of current authority. Mr. Davis said the County has the authority to allow it now. Mr. Blount said the idea is to retain the authority to do that. Ms. Humphris suggested that the sentence read: We support retaining A local authority .... Mr. Blount said that is a good suggestion. Mr. Davis suggested saying: We support @A retaining local discretion .... @ Ms. Thomas said there is a growth commission which was divided into three subgroups. One is called the Brownsfields & Revitalization Subcommittee. Into that legislatively-appointed committee was A@ placed the bill proposed by this Board last year for historic preservation property loans by the locality. The Board based this request on something Charlottesville is doing. In this years listing of requests from the = Brownsfields and Revitalization Subcommittee under Other Policy and Code Changes it is listed as: A@ Authorize counties to provide loans for preservation of historic property. Ms. Kaye Slaughter from the A@ Southern Environmental Law Center is serving on that subcommittee and this proposal was brought to her attention. She got this subcommittee to include the proposal on their list. Ms. Thomas said she does not have any high hopes for passage of this legislation, but she thinks it would be a good step toward preservation efforts to have the growth commission include it in their recommendation, if they are willing to do so. Mr. Blount said it remains in the Planning District Commissions proposals under Housing and =A@ says: We support state-enacted incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic A structures. Ms. Thomas said the request was to have state enabling legislation so localities could do @ something. Mr. Blount said state-enacted could be deleted from the sentence. A@ Mr. Blount said he will be going to all of the localities in the Planning District seeking approval of these legislative items. Ms. Thomas said there is a Legislative Dinner scheduled for January 3, 2002. She asked if the Board needs to take formal action on this program. Mr. Tucker said yes, with the changes the Board A@ made today. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to support the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commissions legislative program with the changes made by the Board at todays meeting. The motion == was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. __________ Ms. Thomas said there is the question of whether the County has legislators who will sponsor specific legislation. Mr. Blount said the Boards meeting with legislators is scheduled for December 10, = 2001, and that just happens to be the deadline for legislators to pre-file requests for drafting legislation. If the Board wants to initiate the request for the historic preservation loan fund again, that would have to be done prior to that date because it is not part of the five requests from Albemarle, which are: 1)Legislation that would include Albemarle County in the "Photo-red" traffic light program. The program would allow Albemarle County to establish "photo-red" traffic light signal enforcement programs. 2)Legislation for Albemarle County to serve as a pilot jurisdiction in the adoption of ordinances to protect areas where the visual impact of buildings and development can be significant to the scenic attributes of the community. 3)A budget amendment to reimburse alternative space costs for the Albemarle County Social Services Department (submitted last year, but not approved). 4)Legislation that would grant Albemarle County greater flexibility in administration of affordable dwelling programs by placing the County's authority under the broader enabling provisions currently applying only to Fairfax, Loudoun, and Arlington counties. 5)Legislation to direct VDOT to work with urbanizing counties to create separate and distinct classifications and standards for urban streets in the secondary road system, as well as standards associated with amenities such as the location of utilities, sidewalks, bike lanes, and street trees. Ms. Thomas asked if all the Board members agree with these five items. Mr. Tucker said if the Board members are generally in agreement, that is all staff needs to know. Ms. Humphris said Delegate Van Yahres has said he will introduce the photo-red legislation. Mr. Blount said he does not believe the budget amendment is filed on the same time line, so the Board will have an opportunity to discuss that with the Legislators on December 10. Ms. Thomas said that No. 2 will be discussed at the ACIR meeting which is being held during the November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) VACO meeting at the Homestead. She thinks it is sufficient to tell staff the Board is still interested in those five issues, and they can get someone to pre-file them. _______________ Agenda Item No. 19. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 12:46 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific matters requiring legal advise concerning the Police Department. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by he following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 20. Certify Closed Session. At 2:21 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open = meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 21. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to appoint Mr. Charles (Chuck) T. Lebo to the Architectural Review Board to complete the unexpired term of Mr. Frank Kessler who had resigned. The term is to expire on November 14, 2002. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Raymond E. East has volunteered to serve on the JAUNT Board. This position has been vacant for some time. Mr. East would replace Ms. Margaret Borwhat who did not wish to be reappointed. The new term expires on September 30, 2004. Motion to make this appointment was offered by Mr. Bowerman, and seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motions carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 22. Landfill Options, Presentation of various. Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. Larry Tropia, the new Executive Director of the Rivanna Authorities. He said Mr. Cole Hendrix, Interim Director, is present today to review the options the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority received at its last meeting regarding the Ivy Landfill. A copy of those options has been forwarded to the Board members. After hearing from Mr. Hendrix, he would appreciate the Boards consideration of = the options and any directions it has for Mr. Mark Graham and himself. Ms. Thomas said the suggestion is that this Board will make the decision by way of advising Mr. Tucker and Mr. Graham. She asked if there are separate decisions to be made as a county that would be different from just advising, because there will be budgetary considerations. Mr. Tucker said there are other issues regarding the funding of these specific proposals. Those will come to the Board during discussions of the budget. Right now, the Rivanna Board is looking at which options to pursue. It cannot move forward with determination of how to fund these options, or how to share the funding with the City, until it knows which options to focus on. Mr. Hendrix said he would like to recount some history so the Board will know how the Rivanna Board got to the options they are considering. It started a year ago with the settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. At that time, the goal was to continue burying CDD (construction debris) on the site. A new Cell 5 was to be developed as part of the settlement of the lawsuit. The permitting of that cell began after the settlement. The Rivanna Authority thought only a single liner would be required in Cell 5. November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) There was a provision in the consent agreement which said that Cell 2 (which just closed on September 1, 2001) would have to close on September 1, but there might be a 90-day extension for good cause. The Authority proceeded with development of Cell 5 and with the idea that Cell 5 would be up and running before Cell 2 closed so there would be continuous receipt of construction debris. In the spring of 2001, it became evident that those two things would not happen. First it was determined that Cell 5 would require a double liner and that would increase the cost of design and construction of Cell 5 by about $800,000. Mr. Hendrix said at this time, the Rivanna Authority began to look at the financial aspects. The Authority had been receiving about $26/ton profit and that money was being used to finance many of the things the Authority was doing with regard to solid waste. A big part of that was the remediation program, but it also included the household hazardous waste program, part of the recycling program, a share of administrative costs, the education program, and the DEQ Assurance Funding, which the Authority has to operate under. Originally, it was thought that other than the debt service on the new cell, the Authority would continue to make that $26/ton minus the cost of the debt service. With the addition of the double liner, that proved to not be the case. Mr. Hendrix said that at the same time, it was determined it would be difficult to get the extension on Cell 2, and the permitting procedures for Cell 5 began to slow down. As a result, it became evident that Cell 2 would cost more money than had been anticipated. The profit would not be as great, and there was going to be a gap between the time Cell 2 closed and the time the new Cell 5 opened. There are some provisions in contracts the Authority has which say that certain vendors do not have to bring their refuge to the landfill for burial if the Authority at any time gets out of the business of burying CDD. Two of the major companies have now quit bringing their CDD to the Authority. The Rivanna Board believes they would lose about 40 percent of their CDD business. With the increased cost of the cell, plus the interruption of business, and the loss of about 40 percent of the business, it put the scenario which had been developed in the fall of 2000 in jeopardy in terms of its correctness. The Authority then had to prepare a report called The Assessment of Corrective Measures for the state regulatory agency. It became clear there would be A@ some significant capital costs involved in the remediation of groundwater at the landfill at a cost of approximately $3.5 million. Mr. Hendrix said the Rivanna Authority then looked at alternatives given those facts and the change of scenario from a year ago. The first alternative was to continue operating the landfill, but do no burying; take municipal solid waste and have it transferred out; take white goods and tires, grind stumps and brush and pallets; continue with the household hazardous waste program; continue recycling; and all of the construction debris would go to BFIs transfer station at Zion Crossroads. People could take these things = anywhere they wanted since they would not have to bring them to the Ivy Landfill, but the Authority thinks the majority is going to Zion Crossroads. Looking at all of these costs based on their new revenue estimates and capital costs, they found that over a five-year period that option would result in a $5.8 million deficit. If they proceeded to build Cell 5 with the double liner system, with the loss of business, over that same five-year period, they believe the deficit would be $7.2 million. If they constructed a transfer station at the Landfill so people would bring their construction debris to the landfill and it would then be transferred to another landfill from there, the deficit would be $6.9 million. If just the operations at Ivy were shut down and only the recycling program continued with people taking their CDD or MSW to Zion Crossroads, it would essentially shut down the Ivy Landfill and there would be no activity there. The deficit over a five-year period would then be $4.8 million. Mr. Hendrix said all four scenarios result in a deficit situation which means that the City and County would have to make up that difference. The Rivanna Board does not see anyway it can continue to operate any of the scenarios without a supplement from the City and the County. The cost is based on the change in business climate, and on the regulations it would have to meet for environmental quality purposes. This is all based on their best cost estimates, assumptions of future regulatory actions, predictions of business conditions, and policy decisions. He made this presentation to the Rivanna Authority Board and it is now looking for City Council and the Board of Supervisors to advise their representatives on the Rivanna Board as to the course of action to be taken. Ms. Thomas said if Option 4 to close down the landfill totally is chosen, could the recycling requirements imposed by the state be met through use of the McIntire Road Facility and whatever is picked up at the curb? Mr. Hendrix said he thinks that could be done. However, the things now pulled out of the waste stream could not be recycled. A lot of that is metal and all of the white goods could not be recycled. Tires could be recycled in some other way. As long as the regulation stays at 25 percent of the waste stream, the localities probably could meet that regulation. If it were raised to 40 percent, there might be some difficulty meeting that regulation. Ms. Thomas asked where the County and City stand now in terms of meeting that regulation. Mr. Hendrix said the recycling is above the 25 percent level, but he does not know the exact number. Mr. Bowerman mentioned a letter dated October 22 from Mr. Gary OConnell and asked its = implications. Mr. Tucker said that is another issue which is completely unrelated to the discussion today. Ms. Thomas said it is related in that the City and County will be discussing what share they will pick up. That will happen to any of these scenarios. Mr. Tucker said staff it is already working on that. Ms. Thomas referred to the schedules attached to the staffs summary, and said that for each of = the scenarios the Board is looking at the most expensive line (total financial estimated results) which all show deficits. Mr. Hendrix said the Authority can do any of those scenarios, but there are obviously costs involved in each. The two political bodies and the Rivanna Authority will have to decide what level of service is desired for the public in terms of solid waste and what is an acceptable cost for that service. November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) Ms. Thomas said a lawsuit would not be expected if a transfer station were used, as is assumed under the Cell 5 scenarios. Mr. Hendrix said figured into that scenario is a cost for defending a lawsuit. He believes a transfer station could be built and there would not be that lawsuit. Mr. Dorrier asked if the amount from the City and the County will be equal. Mr. Tucker said that negotiation of the costs will be the next decision. Ms. Thomas asked for a rough idea of what the figures mean to the County. If the costs were proportioned according to population, the County has two-thirds of the population, and the City has one- third of the population. Mr. Dorrier asked if the staff favors one proposal over the other. Mr. Tucker said the Rivanna Authority can implement any of these proposals, but the Countys members on the Rivanna Board are = looking for advice from this Board. Which scenarios do the Board members feel meet the County's needs? Also, the affordability of each must be taken into account. Mr. Dorrier referred to Mr. Paul Grady who spoke to the Board earlier today about the landfill closing. He said he has heard the same thing from other people. Something is needed to take up the A slack as to construction debris. From his viewpoint, it looks like building Cell 5 or a transfer station would @ satisfy Mr. Gradys needs. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Hendrix said there is a concern that once Cell 2 = is closed, the cost of disposing of demolition debris, which comes about through the building of a home, would cost more to dispose of, and therefore, the cost of a house would go up by a few hundred dollars. Whether that would actually happen or not, he does not know. Mr. Dorrier said one of the scenarios was to maintain the status quo. He asked if that scenario would satisfy that concern. Mr. Hendrix said CDD is being disposed of, and their costs are higher because they now have to take the CDD to Zion Crossroads. They can dispose of it at Ivy, and then the Rivanna Authority bills them at the rate of $42/ton where they were paying $35/ton a year go. Even if the Rivanna Authority built Cell 5 or a transfer station, there would still be increased costs. He does not know that doing either one of those would ameliorate any increase in the cost of housing. Ms. Thomas asked if disposing of a truck load of construction debris is assumed to cost about the same amount whether there is the status quo or building Cell 5 or building a transfer station. Mr. Hendrix said the costs are all predicated on the same increment. Their projections show an increase in fees over a period of time, but the increases are all the same for all four scenarios. Ms. Thomas said the Boards decision could be on choosing a solution that lowers the cost for the = construction industry, but that would add to the taxpayers cost because none of these scenarios differs today in the cost for the construction tipping fees. Mr. Hendrix said before Cell 2 was closed, the Authority was making a profit of about $26/ton. They compared the cost of a transfer station to that $26/ton and it went down to $1/ton. That is due to the cost of building a transfer station, of paying for transportation of that debris to some other landfill, and paying a tip fee at that other landfill. The profitability shrinks to almost nothing for a transfer station. Ms. Thomas said her comments are from the viewpoint of the construction person who wants a solution which is less expensive for him. The assumptions in the scenarios show an equal expense for that person. Mr. Hendrix said none of those assumptions would give the relief requested by that person, except to go back to where the Authority was three months ago. Ms. Thomas said that could be done if the Board decided to put in more tax dollars. Mr. Hendrix said that is correct. Ms. Thomas said the scenario of either Cell 5 or the transfer station would reduce the travel expenses for that construction operator. Mr. Hendrix said that is correct. Ms. Humphris said implementing either the transfer station or Cell 5 results in a much higher taxpayer subsidy of the construction industry. Mr. Bowerman said the least expensive scenario per year results in a cost of $620,000 for the County based on paying two-thirds of the costs. The most expensive is a subsidy of about $950,000. Mr. Hendrix said of those deficit figures, $3.5 million represents capital costs they believe will be necessary as a result of remediation efforts required for the site. If for some reason, that does not happen, then those figures would be reduced. Mr. Bowerman asked the cost of the McIntire Recycling Center and curb side recycling in the City. Mr. Hendrix said the Authority is in the process of getting those figures for County staff. The entire recycling program generates about 50 percent of the revenue needed to operate it. It costs between $400,000 and $500,000 per year to operate the program, and it generates about one-half of that money. Ms. Thomas said closing down the Ivy Landfill totally would be the option of choice for the neighbors to the landfill, and the least expensive option on the list. She wants to be sure that if something other than that option is chosen, the County gets the value for its dollar. She worked through whether it is cheaper for the construction industry, and it is cheaper based on travel figures, but not otherwise. There would be a lot more recycling with Ivy open doing the status quo, than with Ivy closed. But, technically, the area could meet its requirement for recycling 25 percent of its solid waste stream. Mr. Bowerman asked if the tree stumps would go to Zion Crossroads if Ivy is closed. Mr. Hendrix said they will have to go somewhere. Ms. Thomas asked if everything taken to Zion Crossroads is buried. November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) Mr. Hendrix said he cannot say that the debris would be accepted at the Zion Crossroads transfer station. The stumps are brought to Ivy at this time, and they are ground and sold for mulch. If Ivy is closed down entirely, he is not sure what would happen. Ms. Thomas said there used to be an Illegal Dumping Task Force, and she was a member of that group. She is very concerned about what the community will do when they no longer have a place where they can take everything, particularly the large bulky items. Apparently, there was quite a reduction in roadside dumping when the amnesty days were instituted at the landfill. But, illegal dumping is a major problem along a lot of country roads. Mr. Hendrix said that recently 61 barrels were sent to a hazardous waste landfill as a result of the Household Hazardous Waste Program. Of course, there is a cost to that program. If the Board were leaning toward closing the landfill entirely, he would want to check the numbers concerning recycling to make sure what they are before that decision were made. Mr. Dorrier asked about the success of transfer stations. Mr. Hendrix said they work quite well. Mr. Dorrier asked about pollution. Mr. Hendrix said there is none. Mr. Bowerman asked about the stump grinding. Mr. Hendrix said the majority of the residential goods brought in are reloaded into large trucks and sent to another landfill, and that works fine. The stump grinding works well because they are ground and then sold as mulch. Mr. Davis suggested that the current operation at the landfill be explained. Mr. Hendrix said there is a municipal solid waste transfer station and the majority of the residential and business solid waste, particularly in the County, comes to that transfer station. That solid waste is transferred in large trucks to a landfill in Amelia County owned by Waste Management. There is the Household Hazardous Waste Program, and people bring in hazardous materials. People bring in their everyday trash. Stumps are ground. They take tires. They take white goods, refrigerators, stoves, freezers, etc. They remove the hydrocarbons from them, and then they are crushed and sent away to be used for scrap metal. They take pickup truck loads of CDD which is then mixed in with the MSW and it goes through the transfer station. They support the recycling program. There is the Encore Shop where people bring things which can be used again, and other people come in and buy them. They have a lot of office furniture and desks at this time. Ms. Thomas asked if the Encore Shop is holding its own without having CDD come to the landfill. Mr. Hendrix said he believes that during the last months it has been just as crowded as it was when the landfill accepted CDD. He thinks that pattern has been accepted so that when someone has a lot of useable furniture or equipment, they bring it to the landfill as a way to get rid of it, and it is recycled by selling it to someone else. Ms. Thomas said if this were a public hearing, the Board would hear from Mrs. McCauley. In general, the argument is that for her company, CDD was a growing and very profitable part of her business. Having to haul things to Zion Crossroads will make that much less profitable. If they dont have that = profitable part of their business, they may not do their garbage collection anymore. If they go out of business and BFI and Waste Management are the only big companies left, then the people who live at the end of the hard-to-get-to road will find it hard to get their garbage picked up. That is what she has gathered after quite a few telephone conversations with Mrs. McCauley. Ms. Humphris said the situation has changed since Mrs. McCauley started her business. The real question is, should the taxpayers subsidize Mrs. McCauleys business? That is an entirely different = scenario. Mr. Bowerman said there is also the issue of whether to send recyclables and things which can be reprocessed to Zion Crossroads at a higher cost, or continue to recycle some things at Ivy. There is the question of moving stumps to another county. Mr. Tucker said that more than likely the development community would get together and hire someone to grind stumps on site rather than hauling them. The development community has discussed doing this rather than taking them to Ivy, and they have not done it because it is not profitable. Mr. Hendrix said he thinks there will be some consolidation of haulers over the next year or two. Mr. Perkins said in the estimated 50 percent return on the business, has there been any calculation of new business? What will it be ten years from now in terms of tonnage? Is the Rivanna Board looking at the short-term rather than looking at the long-term? What is the life of a new Cell 5? Mr. Hendrix said Cell 5 would have had a life of 20 years, maybe even 30 years. He thinks this consolidation of businesses will take place largely within the realm of people who do have to bring their materials to the Ivy Landfill. The growth that can be expected will happen, but it will not impact the Rivanna Authority because it will be handled by others who will dispose of it without dealing with the Rivanna Authority. Mr. Dorrier asked if the five-year projections for capital costs are just the normal five-year projections or did the Authority just stop at five years. Mr. Hendrix said they just stopped at five years feeling that was a manageable amount of time on which to base projections. They do have twenty-year projections. Mr. Dorrier asked if the total cost for the transfer station is projected to be between $5.0 and $7.0 million. Mr. Hendrix said over a five-year period, the deficit would be expected to be $6.9 million. It is a different amount each year. In FY 2002 it is projected to be $1.3 million, but in 2003 it is $651,000. That is because there would be no capital costs in 2003. The on-going costs to the Authority are projected only as they would increase incrementally due to inflation or whatever. Ms. Humphris said she is not interested in building Cell 5 with the lawsuit potential and the fact that November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) it might not be approved in time. Given the political situation that seems to be clouding the factual situation of getting the permit for Cell 5, she has a lot of questions about subsidizing the construction business by building a CDD transfer station. She does not think the landfill should be shut down because County citizens need a place to take their stuff, so through the process of elimination she is left with the status quo. Every way she looks at the question, it seems there is a need to go with the status quo. Mr. Dorrier said he agrees with Ms. Humphris about Cell 5; he is in favor of the transfer station just as a reasonable alternative. To go with the status quo is a holding position, but is not sure this will move the County forward. Ms. Thomas said the timing is such that the Board could decide to go with the current status and still in the future do a transfer station. Choosing status quo does not rule that out. Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Hendrix proposed building a transfer station for financial reasons for the Rivanna Authority. Mr. Hendrix said no. There are no financial reasons to build a transfer station. To A@ build a transfer station or to build Cell 5 would be for the convenience of a segment of the public which would use that facility. Mr. Bowerman asked if putting manpower into the separation of CDD has been investigated. In other words, burying all of it, or having a smaller transfer station and only moving some of it. Mr. Hendrix said they did not look at that specifically. He does not think it would reduce the numbers. Ms. Thomas said the transfer station proposed is just taking in materials and then shipping them out. It is not a MURF. Mr. Hendrix said a transfer station would probably be a metal building with a concrete floor, a place where a large tractor trailer could drive in at floor level. The debris would be put on the floor. It would be loaded into the trucks and it would go out. Ideally, some labor would be employed to pull from the waste stream some things which could be reused, and maybe some of the lumber could be ground. It is a pretty simple operation and not highly labor intensive unless the separation part is added in. That transfer station could be built at any time. One of the problems is that the Authority has already lost 40 percent of the business it had three or more months ago, and that business is not coming back. Mr. Dorrier asked if the fee paid by the person bringing materials to the transfer station pays the cost of the station. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Dorrier asked if money is lost on every customer. Mr. Hendrix A@ said yes. Ms. Humphris said that is the reason she is opposed to doing that. The result would be that all A@ of the taxpaying citizens would be subsidizing a small segment of the business community, and she does not think they will want to do that. Mr. Dorrier said the County subsidizes farming through the Land Use Program, and that cost is passed to the homeowner. Ms. Humphris said whoever benefits by the service is the one who should pay for the service. Mr. Perkins said some of the business at Ivy has been lost and picked up by others. But, what about the hauling contractors in the community who own their own dump trucks and who were going to Ivy before, will they not come back to Ivy? Mr. Hendrix said he thinks some of them would come back. However, two or three larger companies do not have to come back, and will not come back and they have the bulk of the business. He thinks that as time goes on, they will have even more of the business. He thinks the local builders who bring their stuff in a pickup truck would come back. However, they do not represent volume wise as much as the other large companies. Ms. Thomas said the difference in costs between status quo and closing down Ivy, is about $1.0 million over five years. If it is assumed that two-thirds of that is County costs, that is about $120,000 a year difference between the first option and the last option. That is what the taxpayers would be paying in order to have all the services mentioned. She thinks those are valuable services. It is possible that one or two of those could take place someplace else, but there is also the concern about telling the community that they have a place to take their trash. As she went around door-to-door this fall, that was a concern expressed by many people. Mr. Hendrix said he was at the landfill this morning for about 45 minutes, and he observed five or six fairly large trucks/trailers carrying brush which they will grind and dispose of. People have come to depend on a place to take brush, stumps and tree limbs. If that service were discontinued, he believes that would cause problems, and a lot of that would be in illegal dumping. Mr. Perkins asked if that service would continue under the status quo scenario. Mr. Tucker said yes. They have not been land filling in any of the cells at the landfill, and everything that has been done in A@ the past continues. The only things they do not take are the large contractors dump trucks of CDD. They take materials from the homeowner, and if it can be put into a pickup truck or station wagon, or whatever, that will be taken, just not the commercial type CDD hauler. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the question boils down to whether all of that is worth $120,000 a year of taxpayer dollars when they are going to be putting in more than they have ever put in before. It is more than one cent on the tax rate. Ms. Humphris said she calculated about $218,000. There is the $1.6 million difference between the two options over a five-year period and two-thirds for Albemarle would be $218,000. Ms. Thomas said they were calculating costs from different figures. Ms. Humphris said there are still the capital costs which November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) are a little more for the transfer station than the status quo. Mr. Bowerman mentioned the 61 barrels of toxic wastes collected. He said some of that went into the municipal solid waste stream before this service was begun. Some of it would have been dumped around houses. Mr. Tucker said it often went into streams. Mr. Hendrix said the 61 barrels came from householders as part of the Household Hazardous Waste Program so it could be disposed of in an environmentally-friendly way. Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. Humphris had a motion. She said this is an advisory matter, rather than a final decision. Ms. Humphris said she would move that the Board of Supervisors direct its representatives on the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority to support maintaining the status quo at the Ivy landfill. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: Mr. Dorrier. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 23. Development Departments, Improvement efforts. Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said that over the next two years the development departments will endeavor to improve their operations and also address suggestions made over a number of years by committees of citizens and staff. Some of the suggestions go back to the 1985 LURC Committee. New initiatives are designed to achieve long-standing organizational goals. A clear direction has been established, and staff teams will determine how best to implement changes. Structured teams with clear time lines and targeted outcomes will work together with other staff people and department heads to ensure that the goals are achieved and the three departments work as a coordinated unit. Mr. Foley said after having discussions for the last year or more, it was concluded that a central development services center should be established by July 1, 2003. That would establish a single point of entry for customers for the three departments. It would be in one location and have one supervisor. He said that development of this proposal was based on input from staff as to need for change to improve the services provided. It was also based on changes going on as the County gears up for some of the new land use policies which have been adopted, and it recognizes organizational goals to improve customer service. Based on all of these things, and visits to other localities, staff developed this central services concept. Mr. Foley said the vision for these improvements is: the departments will function as a coordinated unit; the review process will be clear and consistent; technology will be used to simplify the process; and, staff will provide a customer-focused service. Mr. Foley said the three major components of the center would be central review, central operations and development review automation. Staff teams would be formed in those three areas to focus on how to centralize the things which are being done now. Central review would involve a single team of reviewers under one supervisor from the three departments that would review site plans and subdivisions. Rezonings and special use permits would still be a function of the Planning Department. Central operations would create a central receipt area where information could be provided to citizens/customers. Applications would be taken there, and the status of projects tracked for citizens. There would be a central filing area instead of having records scattered as they are now. Finally, development review automation would be implemented. This is a new software package which is being looked at with vendors. The whole objective it is to create more of a central services area for the three development departments. Instead of operating as three different departments which have to send E-mail messages to track down files, etc., they would operate as a single coordinated unit. Mr. Foley said in summary, these recommendations have been made for quite some time. This change will prepare staff for future challenges, and it will achieve the Countys overall objectives for = customer service and continuous improvement. He said the department heads are present today, and will answer questions. Mr. Bowerman asked who the supervisor would work for. Mr. Foley said that it is an issue which has not been decided at this time. They still need to know where this facility will be located, and if it will be part of a department as another division. There are different models being used by other localities, so staff will look at those models and see which would function best for Albemarle County. Mr. Perkins said there is a group from the development community (Development Review Council), and he wondered if they have had any input into this change. Mr. Foley said that is a technical group which reviews some of the zoning ordinance changes, and some interpretations by staff. They usually do not comment on organizational issues. Some of those folks have been on different committees over the last few years, and have made these recommendations in the past. Ms. Thomas said the Countys customers are not just the people coming in with a building project, = but customers are also the public which is silent and never comes to the other side of the desk. Although, speed of transactions needs to be built into what is done, how does staff make sure that when the customer November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) is getting service, those silent customers are also having their interests constantly upheld. Silent customers are sometimes those members of the general public that the Board assumes it is speaking for in matters such as growth management issues. Mr. Foley said speed is not necessarily the goal. They have had a lot of discussions about quality development, feeling that should not be sacrificed by what is being done. It is more in the area of how the County does business, and less in the quality of the review. He said the quality review done now, and the new goals, are not a part of what is being talked about. If the basics can be done better, it should free up time to be spent on the review. Mr. Cilimberg said this will enable staff to work with the general public much better. Mr. Foley said the focus of this change is not to grease the skids for development review, but A@ rather to do the job that has to be done more efficiently. For the kind of review expected by the Board and the Planning Commission, it takes more time to do a review. If a planner spends a lot of time checking through an application to see that every piece of information is in the application, it takes away time to do the actual review. Ms. Thomas asked if there were further questions. With no other comments, Ms. Thomas said the Board appreciates all of the work that has gone into this report. _______________ Agenda Item No. 26. Resolution: Emergency Water Conservation Measures. Mr. Tucker said that on Monday, the Albemarle County Service Authority declared an emergency in the urban service area regarding the water shortage, and has requested that the Board make a similar declaration. Mr. Davis has prepared a document for the Boards review. It declares that there is an = emergency concerning the water supply. It gives the Service Authority and its Executive Director authorization, when they determine it is necessary to implement certain rules and regulations of the Service Authority in restrictions found in the County Code under Sec. 16-500, to implement certain mandatory restrictions with regard to water usage in the urban service area. Mr. Tucker recommended that the Board adopt the proposed resolution, changing the word "as" to "are" in the last sentence. Ms. Thomas said she thought there were certain things which could not be done unless the Governor declared an emergency. Mr. Davis said under the enabling authority, the Board could not simply adopt an ordinance which was self-executing for a water emergency. There needs to be a declaration by this Board before emergency measures can be taken. That is the request of the Board today. Mr. Bowerman asked if there it is a termination date. Mr. Davis said the emergency ordinance will end when terminated by the Board when there it is no longer a water emergency. Mr. Tucker said Ms. Thomas is thinking about the provision which says the Governor has to declare an emergency for disaster relief. The County cannot receive disaster relief funds unless the State also has an emergency declaration. Mr. Perkins asked for a definition of urban service area. A@ Mr. Bill Brent said it is all of the areas served by the Service Authority except for Crozet and Scottsville. Ms. Humphris moved adoption of the following ordinance declaring that there it is an emergency arising out of a shortage of water supply in the urban service area of Albemarle County. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a lack of adequate rainfall has created a shortage in the public water supply which serves the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, the capacities of the reservoirs serving the area have continued to decrease even after calls for voluntary conservation measures; and WHEREAS, Section 16-500 of the Albemarle County Code provides that should the Board of Supervisors declare there to be an emergency in the County arising wholly or substantially out of a shortage of water supply, then the Albemarle County Service Authority and its Executive Director are authorized during the continuation of the water emergency to order the restriction or prohibition of certain uses of the water supply as set forth in the County Code; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority adopted a Resolution on November 5, 2001, declaring a water shortage emergency in the urban service area of Albemarle County and requesting that the Board of Supervisors also declare such a November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) water emergency to enable the imposition of appropriate restrictions on water use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby declares that there is an emergency arising out of a shortage of water supply in the urban service area of Albemarle County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Service Authority and its Executive Director are authorized during the continuation of the water emergency to implement mandatory restrictions on water usage within the urban service area, as set forth in Section 16.02 of the Albemarle County Service Authority's Rules and Regulations and in Section 16-500 of the Albemarle County Code, when the Authority or its Executive Director deem such restrictions are necessary. _______________ Agenda Item No. 24. Restructuring of Fire/Rescue Division into Department of Fire/Rescue. Mr. Foley said the County is currently facing many significant challenges in providing effective Fire/Rescue services due to population growth and increasing urbanization of the community. These challenges are not unusual for a county of Albemarles size with a growing population and urban density. = However, effectively addressing these challenges will require staff to rethink how to manage and coordinate services and this will be critical to ensuring that the County has an effective system in place to meet the growing expectation of its citizens. In addition to the changes which have taken place in past years, more significant changes are planned over the next five to eight years. This has led to the need to reconsider how Fire/Rescue services are managed and coordinated. Leadership and coordination is particularly critical because of the role volunteers play in providing services. Also, the recently adopted City/County Fire Contract requires a much more significant role for the County in ensuring adequate service. There are demands for services in the daytime when volunteers have the most difficulty in providing services. Most localities the size of Albemarle have established department status to handle the administrative and planning functions which are so critical to managing the provision of emergency services and planning to meet future challenges. Mr. Foley said the current Fire/Rescue Division long ago exceeded the typical responsibilities of a division. Current responsibilities include the areas of prevention, training, volunteer coordination, recruitment and retention efforts, supervision of field staff and supplementing the volunteer system during the day with the addition of 12 career firefighters in three of the stations in the northern part of the County. There is to be a new fire station constructed south of the City to provide service in the southern area of the County. In addition to this being the first construction of a fire station by the County, this will include the addition of eight more firefighters depending on the amount of volunteer support that is received for that station. Mr. Foley said in a couple of years there will be the need to determine how to best provide EMS service in the immediate area outside of the Charlottesville City limits. The City is going to reduce its service to the County outside of the immediate urban ring. That will require significant changes in how service is provided. The County has committed to, as a result of the Fire Contract, the construction of two additional fire stations (currently in the CIP). As the County continues to urbanize and meet some of the goals in the Development Areas and the higher density, it requires a rethinking of how service is provided. In addition, staffing implications for the future are important. There will be 12 professional firefighters on staff when the new station opens, and to man the other new stations committed to with some level of career staffing, it will require as many as 15 more career firefighters just to provide minimum coverage if the County does get volunteer support. At that time, the County will have a career force of between 30 and 40 people, and that does not include any requests from volunteer stations to help man their stations. He knows of two other volunteer stations who need daytime coverage with career staff. The significance of the staffing needed to provide basic coverage, particularly during the daytime, is something that changes the whole way this function is handled. The number of staff and how they are supervised has implications on the entire organization. How all of the services provided are managed, and changes in the relationship with the City in terms of coverage areas, all raise issues as to how the service will be managed in the future. Just the scope of the work now in the division is not the work of a division, but of a department. Excluding the future issues, that is very significant in terms of managing effectively the resources currently in the County budget. These other things are more significant. It is more important that emphasis be placed on the future in terms of the services which will be provided to the citizens. Combined together, it is time to consider a different way of managing fire/rescue services. Based on all of these things, staff recommends that the current division be restructured into a department and that a department head be hired. Now, there it is a division head who is paid a salary about three levels below that of a department head. This new person would have a higher level of responsibility, and would be more responsible for working with the volunteer system, with the City, and dealing with other changes going on. Mr. Foley said all of this information has been reviewed by the Fire/Rescue Board with all the chiefs and captains. They endorsed this recommendation to the Board unanimously. The point is to manage the resources available and to prepare for the challenges being faced, and not create someone just to tell all of the volunteers what they have to do. That has been dealt with indirectly. They recognize the need for these changes. They recognize that the relationship the County has with the volunteers, and the long-term planning needed for the system which is about 80 percent volunteer, is something which needs a full-time person working on it. Mr. Foley said the recommendation is to: Restructure the current Division of Fire/Rescue into a Department of Fire/Rescue; approve a new position titled Director of Fire/Rescue at Pay grade 22, A@ November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) equivalent with other Department Heads; and, authorize advertisement of the new position. If the Board agrees to move forward with this recommendation, there are some funds in the budget which can be used to pay for this position. The new fire station was to open earlier, but has not, so there are funds from that budget which can be used; the station will not open until November, 2002. Mr. Bowerman said one of the frustrations everyone has had over the past 18 months in trying to solve this problem is dealing with operational matters every day. There is no one, other than Mr. Foley, who thinks strategically about this and how to manage the volunteers and the paid staff. It is not creation of a bureaucracy, but creation of efficiency. He said the County recently lost a staff member (Assistant Division Chief for Administration), so the person filling in for him is also reviewing plans. No attention has been paid to how to use staff more effectively because there has been no one looking at the bigger picture. This recommendation was thought of by Mr. Foley about eight months ago, and the volunteer fire chiefs have bought into it, and he thinks it is important. Mr. Foley said County staff has been working as hard as it can work. It is a matter of resources, and the time needed to spend on the longer-term issues. Mr. Bowerman then offered motion to accept the staffs recommendation to restructure the current = Division of Fire/Rescue into a Department of Fire/Rescue; to approve of a new position titled Director of Fire/Rescue at pay grade 22, equivalent with other department heads; and, to authorize the advertisement of the position, such position expected to be filled in February or March of 2002. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Mr. Perkins said he would like to comment on the essential functions of this department. The staff report talks about the viability of emergency services, and he thinks this should be at the forefront of the duties of whoever is hired for this job. It is very important, not only from a budget standpoint, but also for the volunteers. Ms. Thomas said she has the same comment. A recruitment and retention coordinator is really crucial. Mr. Perkins said it is really a frame of mind. Mr. Bowerman said it is both ways. The Board is using public dollars to support volunteer agencies and because of a lack of planning between all of the companies they were unable to answer calls. There has to be accountability in terms of being able to answer calls. He said the volunteers, Mr. Foley, and the paid firefighters all recognize that it is a two-way street; or a three-way street when dealing with the City of Charlottesville. It is past time to initiate this. Mr. Foley said this is clearly an investment in the volunteer system and a way to maintain that system. It cannot be maintained the way it operates now. Communication is not good and no one is spending full-time on this matter. The volunteers are 80 percent of the system, and there is no question that the Boards goal is to maintain a predominantly volunteer system. = Mr. Perkins said when the Fire/Rescue office was created, he understood that working with volunteers would be their most important duty. But, a volunteer coordinator was only hired in the last year. He does not want that to happen again. Mr. Bowerman said it has been a question of staffing, and a question of operational issues. Mr. Perkins said working with volunteers should be their first duty. Mr. Foley said the most important job of this new person will be to manage and coordinate 80 percent of the response system. That will be a major priority of their job. The communication network and developing operational policies are critical. Mr. Bowerman said training and making sure the companies send men to the training sessions is also important. Part of what is envisioned is removing the operational costs from these companies so that the time they spend together is in training and in serving the community, rather than raising funds. Ms. Thomas said she would like to second everything Mr. Perkins said. With no further discussion of this item, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 25. First Quarter Financial Report. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, was present to present the report on the County's General Fund and the Fund Balance as of September 30, 2001. She referred the Board members to Attachment A to the staffs report, General Fund End-of-Year Financial Report. She said Real Estate =A@ Taxes are projected to exceed budgeted revenues by $0.874 million mainly due to an 11 percent estimated reassessment rate used for budgeting last January compared to the actual reassess-ment rate of 12.59 percent. Personal Property revenues are expected to be over budget in the current year by approximately $1.7 million due to better sales than anticipated and higher collections in the first half of the year. However, sales for the second half of 2001 reflect more of a decline in the market and are not expected to increase as significantly when compared to the second half of the prior year. She said those are the positive revenues. Other revenues are lower than what were projected, and reflect the lower economic climate at this time. Ms. White said Sales Tax revenues are expected to be below budgeted estimates by $0.380 million. Business License collections are also expected to be down by $0.203 million. There is a projected November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) $0.256 million decrease in Other Local Taxes due to reduced business license fees, mainly retail merchants. Other Local Revenues, which is a catch-all for miscellaneous fees and revenues from other sources, show a $1.023 million decrease mainly due to the reclassification of approximately $0.920 million in E-911 revenues from Other Local Revenues to a Transfer in from the E-911 Fund, a requirement of GAS-B34. The corresponding change is seen in the increase in Use of Other Funds of $1.035 million. Other Local Revenues have also decreased due to lower interest on bank deposits. The bottom line is that there is an anticipated increase in revenues of $1.2 million, or a .9 percent change. Ms. White said State and Federal revenues are also anticipated to be less than budgeted by approximately $0.427 million in a number of categories, including State Compensation Board reimbursements, Social Services, recordation fees, etc. Ms. White said that expenditures are within appropriate levels (23.9%) for the first quarter of the fiscal year. There are no revised expenditures at this time so everything is on target. Ms. White said the third part of the report is a look at Revised Revenues less Revised Expenditures. It is anticipated that there will be $1.169 million in unobligated revenues by the end of this current fiscal year (June 30, 2002) based on staff estimates. Adding the preliminary Fund Balance of $0.048 million as of September 30, 2001, to the Projected Unobligated Funds for the year would give an amount of $1.2 million. Ms. Thomas asked if the ACE Program is regarded as obligated funds. Ms. White said there are no funds for the ACE Program in the Capital Budget after this year. Funds are available for the Board to use this year on anything that is necessary. The ACE Program was funded previously with one-time moneys; the program is not funded next year with any on-going moneys. Ms. White said the Fund Balance report is self-explanatory. When the reappropriations were made recently, $2.003 million in FY 01 revenue and expenditure savings were committed to two reserve funds: > $1.557 million to the Capital Reserve Fund and $0.446 million to a Landfill Reserve leaving a net fund balance of $13.048 million. Of that balance, a minimum of $13.0 million has been committed for cash liquidity purposes. The $13.0 million remains within the County's financial policy of maintaining a Fund Balance "equal to or no less than eight percent of the County's General Fund plus School Fund." Mr. Bowerman said the School Division is holding back moneys. He asked if General Government is also holding back moneys. Ms. White said no. Mr. Tucker said the School Division is holding back A@ moneys because of the uncertainty of receiving projected State revenues; it is not because of a lack of local revenues. There were no further questions for staff concerning this report. _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. FY 2002 and FY 2003 Estimated General Fund Revenues/Budget Distribution, Presentation. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said that each October the Department of Finance prepares preliminary revenue projections for both the current and upcoming fiscal years. These revenue estimates are the first step in the budget preparation process and form the basis of the recommended budget proposals to come before the Board in March. Based on these preliminary revenue estimates, the Board also allocates the projected revenue growth, first to committed expenditures, such as Revenue Sharing, Capital Outlay and Debt Service, and then between the General Government and School Division operations. Revenues are updated again in January. Because of the turmoil in the country at this time, it will be a difficult year in which to make projections. Mr. Breeden referred the Board members to Attachment B to the staffs report. He said that staff is = projecting an approximate $1.2 million (0.9%) surplus over the appropriated FY 2001-02 budget level. The estimated revenues and transfers for FY 2002-03 exceed the current year appropriated budget level by $6.9 million (5.4%). He said the extra money is coming from the Real Estate and Personal Property tax collections. Most other categories are showing a decrease. Mr. Bowerman asked about the Fund Balance. Mr. Breeden said the current year's budget includes the use of $2.0 million from the Fund Balance. At this time, staff is not projecting that this will be done again next year. Ms. Thomas said she has been using a figure of 2.7 percent as a projection of what the Board will have to deal with when it starts work on the FY 02-03 budget. She asked if that figure is too pessimistic. > Mr. Breeden said the report shows a 5.4 percent increase in local revenues for next year when talking about the General Fund. Adding in the Schools will bring that figure down to about 4.0 percent. It then becomes an issue of whether the Fund Balance will be used for one-time requests, but, if some of those are repeat requests it drops that figure down to about 3.7 percent. These are budget-to-budget comparisons. Mr. Breeden said there was more revenue collected from the 2001 Real Estate tax, which is a major source of revenue, than anticipated. The 2001 reassessment increase was estimated at 11 percent. The actual average reassessment increase rate was 12.59 percent. However, a slow down is being seen in the market, particularly in new housing starts. The next reassessment (January, 2003) rate is currently anticipated to be in the range of an eight to 12 percent increase. For the FY 2002-03 revenue projection, staff is using eight percent, the lower end of the range. November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) Mr. Breeden said staff has heard from local car dealers, very poor reports concerning sales. Yet, all the information coming in from the DMV shows huge numbers of vehicles being registered. The first half 2001 tax bills increased 8.73 percent over the prior year. The second half 2001 tax bills increased only 5.20 percent, compared to 10.37 percent for the prior year. At the same time the collection percentage rate is improving with the State reimbursement paying increasing percentages of individual tax liabilities. Although staff is trying to be conservative, based on the last several years, an increase of 9.8 percent is being shown. Mr. Breeden said the Public Service tax, which is basically on the equipment owned by utility companies, shows a decrease due to a decrease in investment by public service companies and because of the full phase-in of liberal depreciation policies adopted several years ago by the State Corporation Commission. For machinery and tools, there is an estimated decrease of $247,000 (21.6%). This is caused by lack of investment in new equipment by manufacturers, as well as the number of manufacturing operations lost over the past few years. For the penalties and interest category, revenues are down due to improvement in the rate of current year collections, due largely to personal property tax relief payments reimbursed by the Commonwealth for certain individual taxpayer personal property. Mr. Breeden said sales tax revenue projected for FY 2002-03 is anticipated to remain flat compared to the FY 2001-02 appropriated budget amount due to the current overall economic slowdown. The effects of the national and state economic slowdown, as well as increased layoffs and job losses, are only now beginning to make an impact on local sales tax revenue. Also, business license fees are primarily based on sales and other forms of gross receipts earned by local businesses. In the revised projection for the current year (FY 2001-02), this source of revenue is projected to decrease by about 3.3 percent. The transient occupancy tax revenues are expected to decrease, reflecting the reduction in tourism travel both nationally and statewide, influenced by current economic conditions and concerns about the security of traveling. Other than the change for GAS-B34, other local revenues show a decrease because of interest earned on bank deposits (down by $350,000), because of rapidly falling interest rates, decreases in income from various service fees, and the effects of reclassifying certain accounts (such as the E-911 fund) from revenue to transfers. State and Federal revenues both show some decline reflecting the current state budget and revenue situation and the forecasts for FY 2002-03. Mr. Breeden said that covers most of the revenue information. He offered to answer questions. Ms. Thomas said she read an article yesterday in which it was stated that a former governor had increased tuition for college students in order to raise state revenues. She asked how much of the Countys = revenue comes from University of Virginia students. She said if tuition goes up, and they have less pocket money to spend, that could affect the County. Mr. Breeden said he does not have a number as a percentage. It is a big factor in the local economy. He thinks that most of the parents sending their children to UVA would still send them there, and they would still have pocket money. He said it could have some impact, but not a significant impact on the area. Mr. Tucker said staff usually reviews revenues with a group he put together called a Business/community Council. It is made up of people from the development community, real estate, A@ hotels/motels, meals, retail areas, and they generally agree that staff is making the right estimates. Staff feels good about its projections again this year. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Roger Hildebeidel will talk about the proposed allocation of the FY 2002-03 revenues. Mr. Hildebeidel referred the Board members to Attachment B. In Local Taxes there is a projected increase in revenues of $7,028,868. From that is deducted the amount of the increase in the City Revenue Sharing Agreement, leaving a balance of $6,818,000. That is the number to work with in terms of budget guidance to allocate three items; committed items which are largely debt service and capital outlay, and then operational items between the School Division and Local Government on a 60/40 basis. Using the same approach as that used last year, an increase of almost $1.2 million was allocated to keep the capital program on track. Debt Service is down a little bit because of the effect of revenues in terms of the Countys overall projected growth. At this time, staff had to guess at overall revenues because it had no = estimated school revenues from the state. The School Division has no information. This analysis used $200,000 for a Board Reserve Fund. So, the net amount to be allocated for non-departmental expenditures is $802,557, subtracted from the $6,818,000 leaves $6,016,212 to allocate for operations. On a 60/40 basis, between Schools and Local Government, that provides an increase of approximately $3.6 million to the School Division, and $2.4 million to Local Government. He said this is from General Fund revenues. The percentage increase to Schools would be 5.9 percent, and the increase to General Government would be 5.2 percent. Ms. Thomas asked if the net School Division amount appropriated for the current year includes the one-time funds. Mr. Hildebeitel said it does not include the $1.5 million which was a one-time number. Ms. Thomas said if that $1.5 million was included, the increase is about three percent. Mr. Hildebeidel said that is correct. Ms. Thomas said she thinks that is an important figure to use, otherwise there is the wrong November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) expectation that the School System is getting more new money then they actually are getting. Mr. Bowerman suggested that fact be footnoted. Ms. Thomas said when the Board meets with the School Board next week, it can be brought to their attention. Mr. Hildebeitel said staff recommends that the Board approve the projected FY 2002-03 allocation of local revenues to the Capital Improvement Program in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the financial advisors, and to the School Division and General Government areas for operating costs as shown on Attachment B. Motion to this effect was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 27. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Tucker said Chief Miller informed him that he has been working on the matter regarding a police citizen advisory committee which this Board has discussed several times. He will probably have a proposal for the Board in December. __________ Ms. Thomas said the High Growth Coalition is getting information about, and discussing, a piece of legislation being proposed which would allow cluster development by right. Although Albemarle County allows cluster development now, the shelter industry says there is a worse bill being proposed if something is not worked out with them. The worse bill would be one proposed by Delegate Albo last year that would require clustering automatically in any residential zone without requiring a special use permit. __________ Ms. Thomas said the Board members received a letter from Mr. Charlie Anson concerning littering alongside roads. She had Mr. Anson meet with Mr. Jim Bryan and they worked out who is responsible for what along Sunset Avenue. She said it is an increasing problem and it ties into the whole discussion about the Landfill. She wants to continue to remind people that they can take items to the Ivy Landfill. Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Anson was talking about littering or dumping. Ms. Thomas said it is both problems. Ms. Thomas said an organization of which she is a member is trying to get some NASCAR heros on a television ad campaign which apparently worked well in Texas. It seems that young men are the worse litters, and they look up to NASCAR drivers. __________ Ms. Thomas said the residents of Morgantown Road want the Board to look at the zoning text that allows for large construction companies to have certain activities in Light Industry. She has talked to Mr. Davis about this request. It may be that having that area in Ivy zoned LI is really the problem. One way or the other it would be good to know if there are many LI parcels stuck in the middle of residential areas because other Board members may face this same issue in their districts. Also, the Board should look to see if the activities allowed in light industry are really appropriate for the locations where LI is allowed. There might be problems with LI parcels left from when some areas of the County were intended to be villages. Ms. Humphris said she thinks this should also be looked at because of the big problem that is anticipated on Morgantown Road. __________ Mr. Bowerman said he will be late for the November 14, 2001, regular Board meeting, and is not able to attend the meeting with the School Board on that afternoon due to health considerations. _______________ Agenda Item No. 28. Adjourn to November 14, 2001, 4:30 p.m., for Joint Meeting with the School Board. At 4:40 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn this meeting until November 14, 2001, at 4:30 p.m. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County November 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) Supervisors Date: 02/06/2002 Initials: LAB