Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-14 000098 April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 14, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Martin. 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. Helen B. Snook, Co-President of the League of Women Voters, presented the Board with a new booklet entitled ~Water in the New Millennium, Balancing the Needs of People and the Environment." She said it is a compilation of articles which have appeared in their newsletter. She noted that on April 20, at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, Charlottesville City Hall, the consultants for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will outline potential water supply alternatives, as well as the process and criteria for meeting regulatory requirements and choosing the best combination for the community's needs. It will be~ a public discussion and all are invited to attend. She said the community faces a supply challenge. It is noted in the book that the supply will not survive for the population in the 2050 projection, the usable volume will be significantly less than it is today, cut by a factor of 8+. If the population keeps growing, this problem will have to be faced. This is happening because of siltation and the development along the river and the streambeds. In the middle of the book, many alternatives are listed. Several have been discussed with this Board, and have been discussed by others in the community. The League hopes that having all of this information in one booklet will enable the Board to digest it and respond to the needs of the community. Ms. Humphris said at a meeting with the consultant, a question was asked as to whether all of this information took into consideration what the negative impact of construction of the Route 29 Western Bypass would be. She understands that no one has taken that into consideration. Everyone needs to know that listed in the booklet are the impacts of growth, but they do not include what will happen if the Bypass is built. Nobody knows that at least 40 percent of the siltation from the construction will go into the Reservoir diminishing both the quantity and the quality. Ms. Marshall said he had seen a noticeable difference in the groundwater supply in Southern Albemarle in the last ten years. It has been a concern of his for a long time. Mr. Michael Weber, a resident of the City, said he owns property in the Ivy Valley. He played a short recording of the Board of Supervisors' meeting of 18 months ago when Option VII-A was adopted as the option for the I~lz Landfill. He said Mr. Tucker said those things in good faith and was just passing on information given to him by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority about the nature of the transfer station and its purpose. He said that Mr. Tucker recently signed an agreement with Waste Management, which is not a local hauler, to take all of the University of Virginia's waste, except medical waste, to the Ivy Transfer Station. It will then be transferred by Waste Management to the landfill it owns in Sussex County. This represents a dramatic change in what was perceived as being the ground rules for that transfer station. He, personally, believes the RSWA staff knew from the beginning that this is what would come about. They would not have had that much concrete poured had they not intended for this to be a county-wide transfer station. Mr. Webber said this is why ~we" had to go to court. It is not personal. There is no way ~we" can rely on things that happen in council. April 14, 1999 (Regular Night (Page 2) 000099 Mr. Ed Strange from Ivy said when the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority presented Option VII-A to the Board, they also presented it to the neighbors as a $50,000 option. This was to be primarily for the three haulers working in the western part of the County. The neighbors thought the promise was very clear. It was to be small, but within weeks that had changed to allow the public to come to the landfill. Many more haulers than anticipated also came, so many in fact that Ivy receives more waste from this area than the BFI Recycling Center in Fluvanna. Now, the RSWA wants to spend five times the original amount of money. The RSWA has contracted with Waste Management to take UVA's trash for loading at Ivy and yet they are still calling it a mini- transfer station. This is breaking the promise. If RSWA wants to load trash for Waste Management, he does not object, but it should not take place at Ivy. Let it be done at the Franklin Street facility. ~.He thinks it would be better and cheaper, and the RSWA and this Board would not be breaking a promise to the neighbors. The Board signed off on Option VII-A, and it has members on the RSWA Board. The neighbors feel this Board made them a promise, and they hope the Board will keep that promise. Ms. Erica Davita and Mr. Michael Davita came forward to speak. Ms. Davita thanked Mr. Perkins for speaking with her this morning. They purchased land last year in White Hall when they moved to Virginia. Being new to Virginia and being new to owning a farm, they investigated what they had to do to keep the farm in land use. They did everything they were supposed to do last year, and have cattle coming this year. Ms. Davita then related a series of events that occurred when she visited the County's Assessors office. She does not feel that they should be penalized and pay more taxes because the County messed up and did not send them the proper notifications for land use. She has been told that nothing can be done. She knows that they are not the only County citizens in this situation. Mr. Martin said this Board has talked about this particular issue. He asked that the County Attorney contact Ms. Davita. Mr. Davis said he would do that. Ms. Davita said she hoped that someone here tonight could do something about Mr. Woodzell. She is appalled at his behavior and does not like being threatened with having the police escort her out of the office. Mr. Martin said the Board will look into both issues, and someone will contact her. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Board needs to discuss this issue further. He has learned that a lot of people ~fell through the cracks" somehow. They were not notified in time, but the County seems to be blaming them when maybe it is the County's fault. Maybe some of these properties should be reinstated in land use and not have an effect upon their taxes. Mr. Martin said the Board can discuss this question further in Executive Session next week. Mr. Bowerman said he understands the County has tO follow regulations in the State Code. Even though it has been identified that the County mishandled, in the past, notification for whatever procedure used, the County has no recourse but to impose the taxation. Ms. Thomas said the landowner who contacted her several times is also concerned that while people are sitting around talking about this, another deadline will come and go for reapplying for next year. She said it needs to be recognized that there are deadlines and people will get caught twice if the County does not make something much clearer than has been done to this point. Mr. Martin said Mr. Tucker can bring this back to the Board for discussion at the appropriate time. He said this does not come as a surprise because the Board did discuss it at last week's meeting. If there is a change of opinion by Board members as to how to proceed, then the Board needs to pick up the discussion where it was left last week. Ms. Thomas said she may be out of order, but she wondered if the Board members wanted to have more discussion about what the RSWA is doing about the transfer station. She has alerted RSWA and Mr. Tucker and others that this is a problem. Mr. Perkins asked if there is a tipping fee at the transfer station. Ms. Thomas said ~yes." The goal was to have a tipping fee so high that it would not be attractive for haulers to use unless they were working on the western side of the County. Mr. Tucker said UVA recently changed haulers. This particular hauler is the transfer vendor. He has talked to RSWA about whether this is still a mini-transfer station as opposed to a full-fledged April 14, 1999 (Regular Night (Page 3) 000±00 transfer station. It is a matter of degree. Originally, the intent was that this would be primarily provided for the haulers in the western part of the County, so they would not have to travel all the way to Zion Crossroads. Mr. Martin asked if the Board members would like to have a summary report on this matter at the next meeting. That was the consensus. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.3a, and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried b the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Set Public Hearing for May 5, 1999, to consider a Salary Increase for Board of Supervisor Members. It was noted in the staff's report that the State Code allows a governing body to increase its salary annually by an amount up to five percent, but only after holding a public hearing on the increase. The salary increase can only be enacted between May 1 and June 30, for the next fiscal year. If so ordered, the Clerk will advertise for a public hearing on a four percent increase (which is equal to the salary pool for all County employees) for May 5, 1999. The effective date of the salary increase would be July 1, 1999. By the recorded vote set out above, the Clerk was ordered to advertise for a public hearing on a salary increase for Board members for May 5, 1999. Item 5.2. Appropriation: Education, $60,692.68 (Form #98068). It was noted in the staff's report that at its meetings on March 8 and March 22, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations: Approprie~ion of $75 for Red Hill Elementary School. Red Hill Elementary School received a donation from Mr. Donal Day in memory of his cousin, Chris Showers of Twin Falls, Idaho. Mr. Day requested that this donation be used to enhance the mission of the library at Red Hill School. Appropriation of $53,741.68. Albemarle County Schools has been awarded a grant in the amount of $53,741.68 from funding for the Goals 2000, Educate America Act. These funds will be used to purchase classroom computers and related technologies for the business labs at Albemarle High School and the technology lab at Sutherland Middle School. Appropriation of $6876 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. The Virginia Commission for the Arts made Teacher Incentive Grant awards to several teachers in the Albemarle County Public Schools. The Teacher Incentive Grant Program was established to help strengthen the quality of education in and through the arts in elementary and secondary schools, to explore new opportunities for creativity in the classroom, and to encourage innovative projects which integrate the arts into non-arts curricula. Transfer of $161,735 for the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) . The CSA Committee of the Commission on Children and Families (CCF) requested supplemental funding for the CSA Programs for FY 1999. The total request is $1,733,949, of which 45 percent ($780,277) is the local match. Of the required supplemental local match, $161,735 is requested from the School Division to pay for special education costs associated with CSA children. The remaining amount of $618,542 was requested and appropriated from General Government funds at the February 7, 1999, Board of Supervisors' meeting. The School Board maintains the only financial reserve contained within the County budget. Currently there is $96,616 in available reserves. April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Me~ing) (Page 4) With the mild Fall and Winter, staff anticipates savings due to lower than budgeted heating and electrical costs. Combining the School Board Reserve and heating and electrical savings would meet the funding requirements for CSA from the school system's budgeted resources. The funding for this transfer could be met within existing and available resources without negatively impacting existing programs. Staff recommended that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $60,692.68, as detailed on Appropriation Form #98068. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NUMBER: 98068 FUND: SCHOOL/GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SCHOOL DONATIONS, GRANTS, VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF THE ARTS AND CSA FUNDS EXPENDITURE CODE 1 2207 61101 601200 1 3135 60605 800100 1 3104 60301 601300 1 3104 60201 601300 1 3104 60204 601300 1 3104 60205 601300 1 3104 60252 601300 1 3104 60206 601300 1 3104 60211 601300 1 3104 60212 601300 1 2112 93010 930206 1 2410 60100 999981 1 2433 62420 510100 1 2433 62420 510200 BOOKS/SUBSCRIPTIONS MACHINERY/EQUIP INSTR MATERIALS INSTR MATERIALS INSTR MATERISkLS INSTR MATERIALS INSTR MATERIALS INSTR MATERIALS INSTR MATERIALS INSTR MATERIALS TRANSFER TO CSA SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE ELECTRICAL SERVICES HEATING SERVICES TOTAL AMOUNT $75.00 53,741.60 300.00 600.00 300.00 286.00 300.00 300.00 3,300.00 1,490.00 161,735.00 (75,000.00) (34,694.00) (~2,041.00) $60,692.68 2 2000 18100 181109 2 3135 24000 240324 2 3104 24000 240326 2 3104 24000 240327 2 3104 24000 240328 2 3104 24000 240329 2 3104 24000 240330 2 3104 24000 240331 2 3104 24000 240332 2 3104 24000 240333 2 3104 24000 240334 2 3104 24000 240335 2 3104 24000 240336 DESCRIPTION DONATION GOALS 2000 VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS 2 3104 24000 240337 VA COMM OF THE ARTS 2 3104 24000 240338 2 3104 24000 240339 2 3104 24000 240340 2 3104 24000 240341 2 3104 24000 240342 2 3104 24000 240343 2 3104 24000 240344 2 3104 24000 240345 2 3104 24000 240346 2 3104 24000 240347 2 3104 24000 240348 VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS VA COMM OF THE ARTS TOTAL AMOUNT $75 00 53,741 68 300 00 300 00 300 00 300 00 286 00 300.00 300 00 300 00 300 00 300 00 300 O0 300 O0 300 O0 300.00 300.00 300 O0 30O O0 300 O0 290 00 300 00 300 00 300 O0 $00.00 $60,692.68 Item 5.3. Boys' and Girls' Club Funding Request. It was noted in the staff's report that on February 22, 1999, the School Board approved a donation of $6999.99 to the Boys' and Girls' Club for their Computers-4-Kids program to be paid from their Reserve Fund. Subsequent to this decision, it was determined that the School Board, by State Code, is not April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) O00i02 (Page 5) allowed to make contributions to outside agencies. Therefore, a letter was sent to the Board of Supervisors requesting approval of the same funding request. The Boys'and Girls' Club is a community agency which receives funding from the City of Charlottesville and the United Way, as well as Federal funds and community contributions. They also collect $12 per year from each club member, which numbered 241 unduplicated youth in FY 1998. Their total FY 1999 budget is $217,049. The Computers-4-Kids program requested $6999.99 to fund a part-time program manager and to purchase peripheral equipment for distribution to the kids. Through a survey, they determined that 121 County students do not have a home computer. To date, they have placed 58 computers in the homes of these students. Since the School Board approved funding this program from their Reserve Fund, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve a one-time grant to the Boys' and Girls' Club for $7000. Funding for the program can actually come from the School Board's budget by reducing the fourth quarter General Fund transfer by $7000. If the Board chooses to fund this program, it is recommended that any future funding requests be submitted directly to the Board through the regular budget and program evaluation process. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopt: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NUMBER: 98069 PUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CONTRIBUTION TO BOYS' AND GIRLS' CLUB EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1 1000 59000 560159 1 1000 93010 930001 DESCRIPTION BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB TRANSFER TO SCHOOL OPERATIONS TOTAL AMOUNT $7,000.00 (7,000.00) $7,OOO.OO Item 5.3a. Proclamation recognizing May, 1999, as Correct Posture Month. By the above recorded vote, the following proclamation was approved: CORRECT POSTURE MONTH WHEREAS, correct posture has a direct effect on spinal health; and WHEREAS, correct posture and optimal spinal health make it possible for all organs in the body to function efficiently -- a factor essential to proper growth and development; and WHEREAS, poor posture in our everyday activities can bring on or exacerbate pain and injury; and WHEREAS, doctors of chiropractic can reveal spinal problems brought on by poor posture and educate patients on how to prevent pain and injury; and WHEREAS, conversely, correct posture -- and as a result, optimal spinal health -- assures our nation a more efficient and productive population; and WHEREAS, every individual should be made aware of the benefits of correct posture and its effects on spinal health; and WHEREAS, the science of chiropractic and doctors of chiropractic have contributed greatly to the better health of our citizens by providing quality health care; April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim MAY, 1999 as CORRECT POSTURE MONTH and urge that this month be dedicated to informing all of our citizens of the health benefits of correct posture, and further commend the doctors of chiropractic for their community service programs. Item 5.4. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for March 16 and March 23, 1999, were received for information. Item 5.5. State Compensation Board Reimbursement of Expenses Related to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA), was received as information. It was noted in the staff's report that the Virginia General Assembly recently adopted legislation to reimburse localities 100 percent of the administrative costs associated with the implementation of the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA). This reimbursement process is to be handled through the State Compensation Board. Earlier this fiscal year, a budget was submitted to the Compensation Board for Albemarle County's anticipated expense associated with the PPTRA in the amount of $29,185.00. The first reimbursement request, in the amount of $26,678.28, was recently submitted to them. It is required that a copy of this reimbursement request be provided to the Board of Supervisors, as well. Updates to the County's assessment and collection process, required for implementation of PPTRA, will be complete by April 17, 1999, with tax bills for the first half of 1999 being mailed somewhere around April 26, 1999. Item 5.6. February, 1999 Financial Report, was received as information. It was noted that General Fund revenue projections were last revised as part of the 1999-2000 budgetary process, while General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time. Education revenue projections have not been revised at this time. Education expenditure projections reflect a four-percent operating expense holdback, net compensation adjustment. The February financial report reflects that 3.5 percent of the hold back was released on January 11, 1999. Item 5.7. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board meeting of February 17, 1999, was received for information. Item 5.8. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority meeting of February 22, 1999, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Request by the City of Charlottesville that the County Grant to the City a Permanent Natural Gas Line Easement across Property jointly- owned by the County and City and Identified as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 007 and Parcel 008, located within the Ivy Creek Natural Area (Deferred from March 17, 1999). Mr. Tucker said this matter is again requested for deferral (see minutes of March 17, 1999, for the staff's report regarding this request). The date suggested is May 12, 1999, since this request is awaiting a hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to defer this request until May 12, 1999. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-98-71. Stony Mountain Fibers (Sign #45). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow sheep farming w/retail sales on 4.766 acs in accord with Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for Home Occupation, Class B. Loc on Rt 612 (Hammocks Gap Rd) approx 0.9 mi from its inters w/Rt 20 (Stony Point Rd). Znd RA. TM63, P41A. Rivanna Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 29 and April 5, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to use an existing 1200 square foot building as studio space for natural fiber processing, classes in spinning and weaving, and related retail sales. The parcel currently contains a residence, barn and pasture for sheep. He said the Virginia Department of Transportation noted that sight distance at the intersection of Stony Point Road and Hammocks Gap Road is a concern. They do not think the proposal will create a significant amount of additional traffic, but will add to the non-tolerable condition of Route 612. They did state that the existing driveway should be widened to a commercial standard, or at a minimum to allow two cars to pass in the entrance. The Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committee unanimously recommended the permit for approval, and noted the use is consistent with an agricultural/forestal district. He said that staff recommended approval of SP-98-71 subject to four conditions, and approval of a waiver of Supplementary Regulations to allow retail sales of equipment and accessories used to make the handcrafted items. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 23, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of SP-98-71 subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak. Ms. Barbara Gentry said the entrance has already been widened. She offered to answer questions. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Coleman Gentry said he is an adjacent property owner. He is in full support of Ms. Gentry having this use on the property. It is natural fibers, and sheep farming. There have been no problems in the past. Mr. Joel Mangham said his property is close to the Gentry property. He also raises sheep and horses and deals regularly with the Gentrys. He is quite pleased with them as neighbors, and quite pleased with their proposal. He has no objections. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Thomas said this is exactly the sort of thing that should be happening in the County. She then offered motion to approve SP-98-71 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Zoning Administrator approval of adequacy of existing parking; 2. Widening of the entrance to allow two cars to pass in the entrance; 3. Compliance with Section 5.2, Supplementary Regulations, except: April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 4 o 000 05 * Waiver of Section 5.2.2.1.c to allow retail sales of equipment and accessories used to make the handcrafted items; The home occupation use shall be substantially as described below: * Processing of natural fibers by shearing, dyeing with natural materials, spinning, knitting, and weaving; * Retail sales of items handcrafted on the premises, such as wool, clothing, and rugs; * Retail sales of equipment and accessories used to make these items, such as spinning wheels, weaving and knitting supplies, etc. (requires waiver of Supplementary Regulations); ~ * Classes in spinning and weaving once a week. Classes usually contain five students at a time; at the most they will contain eight to ten students; * Proposed operating hours are Tuesday through Saturday, between 10:00 a.m., and 5:00 p.m., by appointment only; * Three (two-day) weekend open houses a year are proposed; and * No employees are proposed. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-98-73. Good Shepherd Church (Sign #38). PUBLIC HEARING. on a request to allow construct of 16'x16' addition to existing church on 11 acs in accord w/provisions of Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows churches by special use permit. Loc on Rt 29 S, approx 1.25 mi S of City Limits. Znd RA. TM75, Ps36, 36A, 36B & 37. Samuel Miller Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 29 and April 5, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the Church is planning an expansion to provide a Rector's study to the rear of the existing church building. The church has been in its present location for approximately 100 years. It is a nonconforming use. It has been surveyed by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, but has not been evaluated for National Register status. It is located on an entrance corridor, but the addition will not be visible from the highway. The Engineering staff suggested that a better set of steps be provided from the lower parking area to the church entrance if the congregation grows, and the lower lot becomes the primary parking lot. The Zoning Office needs to know where the interior boundary lines are in order to make sure there are no side setback violations with the addition. There are three parcels involved, two of which have cemetery plots located on them. The Church knows they need to resolve this issue as part of the conditions of approval. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff recommended approval with four conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 16, 1999, unanimously recommended approval subject to the same four conditions. Mr. Martin invited the applicant to speak first. Mr. Edwin Johnson said he is a member of the Church. It is a small church with only 19 people in attendance on Sunday. Early last Fall, a member donated moneys to help build a room onto the Church. They want that for the Rector's office, a possible nursery, or whatever it is needed for. There will be no water or sanitation. They knew they had to apply for a license. They have a part-time priest who is with them three or four days a week. They have no secretary or office. Mr. Roy Haney said he has been a member of the Church for 60 years. About 30 years ago they had funds left to the church to establish a cemetery fund. They still have that fund, and people have contributed funds to make it a perpetual fund for the cemetery. They will have a little trouble with the people who contributed to the cemetery fund if the three parcels of land have to be joined together. They do not think they will ever have to abolish the church, or close the church. The three parcels they have are all owned by the Diocese of Virginia which owns the property. The church and the addition is right in the middle of the 18 acres. April ~4, ~999 (Regular Night ~eeting) (Page 9} Ms. Humphris asked if Mr. Haney was addressing Condition No. 3 about conformity with setback requirements because of the property lines of the different parcels. Mr. Haney said that was correct. Ms. Humphris asked if anybody is still looking for possible maps that might identify those lines. Mr. Haney said he has been to the County Office Building four or five times and gotten maps. It states in the fee that it is three parcels of land. Ms. Humphris said she does not think there is anything this Board can do but put the condition on the permit because it has to legally conform in the Zoning Office. Ms. Thomas said if the Board removed Condition No. 3 the Church would still have to do what Condition No. 3 says. Mr. Davis said that is correct. It is directory only, it does not add a new requirement because the Zoning Ordinance requires it already. He does not know if staff has determined that there is a setback problem, it depends on where the lot line is. Mr. Cilimberg said that is right. There is the possibility a survey might have to be done. Ms. Thomas said that just adds expense for the Church to determine lines that are within their own property. She understands why people who have given funds for the perpetual care of a cemetery are concerned that the money might have to be spent for a church building if the cemetery property is combined with the church property. Mr. Davis said the only other solution would be to request the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance to the setback. Depending on the facts, that may be a possible remedy. Ms. Thomas asked if this Board can make that request. Mr. Davis said "no." The landowner has to make that application. Ms. Humphris said somebody has to determine the facts. Mr. Davis said it would be unusual for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance unless they knew where the setback was and the extent of the variance being requested. At some point in time, the Church will have to establish where these lines are. Mr. Haney said they are a small church, and a poor church. They would not be putting on this addition unless one of their members had said she wanted to pay for it. 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. Mr. Perkins said he wonders why a special use permit is required. Is it not a grandfathered use? Mr. Davis said when a nonconforming use is expanded, it has to comply with current requirements. Ms. Thomas said she has a problem with that. She thinks the County needs to let churches know they have to go through the special use permit procedure. This is the second church in her district that has suddenly found that what they thought would be a building permit, turns into a special use permit which adds to the time and to the expense. If they have to go through this process, the least the County can do is inform churches that this is what they will be facing. She gets the feeling there is nothing the Board can do to keep the people at Good Shepherd Church from having to do something. Mr. Davis said it is a site plan issue. Short of amending the Zoning Ordinance, there is nothing the Board can do in this situation. Mr. Cilimberg said the Church has to meet all the setbacks at the time of obtaining the building permit when they have to show where the lines are, and where the addition will be in relation to those lines. Mr. Tucker said there are several lines. He asked if they could have a plat prepared that eliminated all of those lines. Mr. Cilimberg said that has been discussed, and that is where they ran into the situation with the cemetery. Mr. Davis said another possible solution would be, once they stake out the addition, to simply do a re-subdivision that met the zoning requirements for the setbacks and then divide the land so that hopefully the cemetery would be all included in the land that is separated. They could measure from the building, meet the setback, and then reestablish a redivision of the land for the cemetery. To the extent that they could do that, that would be a solution. April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about the financial burden on 19 people. Mr. Martin asked if there is anything the Board can do. Mr. Marshall asked what the Board could do to help these people and stay within the law. Mr. Davis said there is nothing the Board can do in this instance. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is anything such as a site survey that is less than perfect. Mr. Cilimberg said it is a question of what is necessary at time of building permit application. Mr. Tucker said he and Mr. Cilimberg could talk to Ms. McCulley to see what might be adequate to meet Zoning's need and Building Inspections need. From that, determine whether or not they do need a survey. That would be the costly part. ...... Mr. Martin said the Board is sympathetic to the request, but it seems there is nothing the Board can do to help. As this procedure progresses, if staff finds that there is anything it can do to help, they may come back to the Board and make that request. At this time, it seems the best the Board can do is approve the permit with the conditions recommended. Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-98-73 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the sketch plan dated February 6, 1999, and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children's play equipment, and walkways between the buildings and parking areas; Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment; Conformity with setback requirements shall be established prior to issuance of a building permit; and A stairway or walkway from the lower parking lot to the church shall be provided when parking needs regularly exceed parking provided by the upper lot. Mr. Johnson said they would like to leave this meeting knowing what the next step should be. Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Cilimberg discuss this item with the Zoning Administrator. The next step is to possibly submit an application for a building permit for the addition. Mr. Johnson said they have already applied and paid for a building permit, and they do have a building plan. Mr. Tucker said he will ask staff to see what the issue is with the setbacks. Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-98-09. University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle Virginia, by amending Section 29.0, Planned Development-Industrial Park (PD- IP), to allow, as a part of the development process, the modification, variation or waiver of Section 26.0, Industrial Districts-Generally, and Section 29.0, Planned Development-Industrial Park. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 29 and April 5, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant proposes a textual language change which would authorize the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to modify, vary or waive certain regulations during rezoning consideration of a Planned Development-Industrial Park. The PD-IP zoning text was developed in the late 1970s and adopted into the prior Zoning Ordinance. At about the same time, the new draft ordinance was delivered by the consultants, and the staff was immediately directed to rewrite the draft. The PD-IP text was carried over to the next ordinance and remained ~unused" until the UREF rezoning in 1995. Subsequent to approval of the rezoning petition, staff met with the applicant to discuss internal design visions for the Park. At that time, it April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) O00J. OS became apparent that a discrepancy existed between the PD-IP District and other planned development districts regarding Commission/Board authority to modify, vary or waive provisions. Other planned development districts contain language much more liberal toward flexible design by providing more discretion to the Commission and Board to allow innovative design which may not be achievable by strict adherence to general or planned development provisions. The current language of the PD-IP does not offer flexibility as outlined in the general intent for planned developments. Language as proposed by the applicant is virtually identical to language applicable to industrial areas within Section 20.0, Planned Unit Development (PUD). It is staff's opinion that this discrepancy is editorial in nature and that provisions of the PD-IP should correspond to the provisions of the more recent PUD District, and recommends approval of the applicant's proposed text with language as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg said, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 2, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-98-09 as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak first. Mr. John Matthews, Mitchell Matthews Architects, was present to represent the applicant. He offered to answer questions. With no questions from Board members, the public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed, and the petition placed before the Board. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Section 29.5. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. (Note: The full ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 99-18(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 29.5 as follows: CHAPTER 18 ZONING ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sec. 29.5. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS In addition to requirements contained herein, the requirements of sections 8.0 and 26.0 shall apply to all PD-IP districts, except as hereinafter expressly provided. Any requirements of sections 26.0 and 29.0 shall be subject to modification, variation or waiver as provided in section 8.0, planned development districts, generally. For such areas as may be located on the perimeter of a PD-IP district, the commission shall be particularly mindful of the intent to protect the character of adjoining development. In addition to materials required by section 8.5.1, a transportation analysis plan shall be submitted with the application for PD-IP district designation. Such plan shall show: projected automobile and truck traffic generation; percent of truck traffic by type; internal and access point turning movement; general alignments of internal April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 000209 roads; rights-of-way widths and roadway typical sections including base strength designs; proposed improvements to the existing transportation network; percentage estimate of traffic distribution to and from the site on external roads; bus and car pool programs, if any. The phasing of improvements enumerated in this section shall be indicated on the plan. (12-10-80; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-18(1), 4-14-99) Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-98-27. University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork (Signs #47, 48,~49 & 51) . PUBLIC HEARING on a 'request to amend an approved PD-IP (ZMA-95-04) to reduce bldg setbacks along internal public road ROW from 50' to 10' Loc on W side of Rt 29N (Seminole Tr) approx 1.35 mi N of Rt 649 (Airport Rd). TM32, Ps 4B, 6, 6A & 19. Existing zoning provides for office, research flex space & industrial uses as well as supporting commercial uses. The Comp Plan designates this property for Industrial Service uses w/n the Hollymead Community which is consistent w/existing zoning. Rivanna Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 29 and April 5, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg said this is an amendment to ZMA-95-04, University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (UREF), which rezoned 525 acres to allow establishment of the North Fork Business Park. UREF proposes a reduction in building setback along internal roads from 50 feet to 10 feet to accommodate ~the desired urban character of the park." No reduction from established building setbacks around the perimeter of the development is requested. Mr. Cilimberg said setbacks from public roads vary in relation to the stated purposes of the various zoning districts as well as the circumstances within an individual district. Some residents along Route 606 have expressed concern that reducing building setback from internal roadways would result in having parking areas located closer to the perimeter of the development. It is emphasized that no reduction in the 150-foot buffer from Route 606 is proposed. Mr. Cilimberg said it is staff's opinion that the requested variation is consistent with recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. The proffered setback from Route 606 is a five-fold parking setback and a three-fold building setback from basic zoning regulations. Provided that no interference occurs with required sight distance along the roadways and that the reduced setback does not interfere with utility location (which can be addressed with individual site plans), staff recommended that the Planning Commission, as provided by Section 8.5.4.d, ,recommend approval of the applicant's requested setback variation to the Board of Supervisors. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 2, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-98-27. Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak. Mr. John Matthews said Mr. Bruce Stouffer, Director of Research Park Development, was also present to speak tonight. Mr. Stouffer said the park is located adjacent to the Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport. It is 532 acres zoned for 3.0 million square feet of mixed-use development. The purpose of the park is to create a state-of-the- art attractive environment in which businesses and organizations who wish to have a relationship with the University can locate. The tenants in the park at this time are Micro-Aire, Motion Control and PRA. UREF is in the process of completing the Phase I infrastructure which is a one-mile long road. Mr. Stouffer said that in the last few years, UREF has done extensive master planning with Mr. Matthews' firm, an international firm specializing in town planning. They have been able to develop the concept of a research community. They hope to have the type of commercial amenities that the businesses which locate there will want to have. A lot of different things are being considered at this time for the development. The project is on schedule, with a 20+ year build-out. They would also like to give growing local companies a place to locate. They are looking for high technology industries, specifically, medical sciences and engineering sciences. Mr. Stouffer said UREF recently received some good publicity in their tree transplanting effort. They made a decision when development of April 14 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) O00i~O (Page 13 infrastructure was begun to mulch the trees which had to be removed to put in the road instead of burning the trees. That was a big cost decision. Now they are using the mulch to take care of the median strips along their roads and transplanting trees as high as 60 to 70 feet tall to locations along the roads and median strips. This is something which has not been done that often, so has received some national press coverage. They hope this development will be something to be proud of. Mr. Stouffer thanked County staff and the Board members for giving UREF good input to help make this a successful project. They look forward to a bright future He then showed slides of the project. Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. Mr. Willie Snow said he lives across Route 606 from the PRA Building. He showed the Board members some pictures of the lighting. He said that as one comes around the curve on Route 606, you only see the white building. PRA also leaves most of the lights on in the building at night, and they leave all of the parking lot lights on at night. He does not feel that is necessary. He also brought pictures of the landscaping. UREF was required to put a buffer between Route 606 and the PRA building by planting trees. It will probably take 20 years before the trees they planted obtain any height. He suggested that evergreen trees be planted along the top of the berm. Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Snow if he thinks the problem is with the light fixtures themselves, or the amount of light coming out of each fixture. Mr. Snow said the lights are just too bright. His bedroom window is right across from these lights. Mr. Stouffer said he has talked to PRA about the issue of keeping lights down at night. They have to do the best they can, but they have people who work all hours of the day and night, He said UREF is working to make sure the landscaping is adequate. It is a dramatic change to go from a bare field to any type of lighting. He is sympathetic to that, and is working hard to have the impact be minimal. He offered to meet with Mr. Snow and other neighbors to come up with a good solution. Mr. Bowerman said he had received a letter from staff today concerning this issue. It states that the light fixtures do meet ordinance requirements. The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America recommends 2.4 foot candles for office parking. There are 27 fixtures, and they use a 70-watt metal alloyed lamp which emits a very intense white light. He said since the parking is to the rear of the building, which is off-site, maybe eventually the trees will be large enough to screen, but there must be some way to mitigate the amount of lighting being produced. Mr. Bowerman said he has not been out to look at the site at night. He said if this lighting is going to be a standard throughout the project, this is something the Board should work with UREF on now. PRA is a tenant. The issue should be settled throughout the design standards. Ms. Humphris said it is a significant issue. She got an E-mail the other day about going on a ~lighting tour" to Monticello High School to see their athletic lights, to St. Anne's-Belfield to see their baseball lights, and to the University Research Park. She did not understand why the park was included. It was ironic because it was for the purposes of University Research that the County first started down the path of having the Lighting Ordinance as it is today. Hearing this, she is appalled. When Mr. Stouffer said there would be a bright future for the North Fork Research Park, she never imagined every building there being lit to this extravagance. She thinks the PRA people need to have a short course in safety lighting. Safety lighting does not require anything like this. The County has been looking for years for ways to reduce the lighting in the Piedmont Community College parking lot because it is so horrendous. If the County has a whole research park with the type of lighting being described, it will be a disaster, environmental and otherwise. Mr. Stouffer said these lights were just installed a couple of months ago. Before making this a standard, they met with Susan Thomas in the Planning Office. The lighting was approved by the County. They did modify it for the Dark Skies Ordinance. They have heard the Board's concerns and will work to modify that lighting. April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board could meet with staff and some people from UREF and visit the site at night with the lights on so they will know what is being discussed. He is simply going on hearsay because he has not seen the lights. After seeing the lights at night, the Board would be in a position to make a rational judgement as to what is satisfactory, not only to PRA, but also to the Real Estate Foundation for the remainder of the lighting. Mr. Snow asked that the neighborhood association also be included in this meeting. Mr. Martin concurred. Mr. Scott Desmond said he is also an adjacent property owner. He lives on Route 606 directly across from the PRA Building. He does not know how Mr. Snow can sleep at night. It should also be a safety issue for cars because those lights are very bright. He encouraged the Board members to drive out at night and see the lights. He said a hedgerow six to seven feet tall would probably take care of the problem. As far as the building itself is concerned, the lights are on 24 hours a day. He can read a newspaper in his living room at night with no lights on. Mr. Bowerman asked if the lights at PRA are on 24 hours a day in the building or outside of the building. Mr. Desmond said it is both. The lights which affect his property are the outside lights. His other concern is with the building setbacks. There is a gate directly across from his driveway. He knows there are no plans now to open that gate. He hopes it does not become a road, and that it remains closed. He asked if it does become a road, will they be able to build right up to the edge of the road? Mr. Cilimberg said there is one entrance on Route 606, which is the existing entrance, Quail Run. That is the only entrance that will be located on Route 606. Ms. Kathy Bryant said she lives on Chris Greene Lake Road about one-half mile away, through the woods, and she can see the PRA Building and its lights. She cannot see the parking lot lights, but the PRA Building looks huge. She said the request tonight concerning the internal roads means that all of the parking lots will now be facing their neighborhood. When the Park was approved, the neighborhood was told there would be screening trees. Cedar trees were planted and they are very short. She does not think they will be six-feet tall in 20 years, and there is no way they will ever block a four- story building or a parking lot. The neighbors have suggested to Mr. Stouffer the use of magnolia trees or spruce trees, something along the top of the berm that will grow to about 40 feet tall. They feel the screening is inadequate and does not meet what the Board asked UREF to do. Ms. Bryant said the neighborhood is also concerned about the glare of the parking lot lights. Ms. Susan Thomas told them that the lights do not glare upward, but the glass is so thick that the light glares out like a lighthouse light. It is very disruptive to drivers. The neighborhood had expected the lights to be like those at Motion Control or Micro-Aire which are low level, very dim, yellow lights. Those fixtures are short, non-obstructive and environmentally friendly. She said the lighting at this park is brighter than that at Forest Lakes. She asked that the lights be shut down at night, or at least one-half of the parking lot lights be shut off. The neighborhood has serious concerns and they ask for the Board's assistance in solving this problem. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Martin said he is in favor of what UREF is trying to do in terms of bringing the buildings up to the road. The DISC Committee has been discussing the entire concept of mixed uses. He is disappointed to hear the comments tonight about the lighting. Aside from that, he encourages Mr. Stouffer to meet with folks. He hopes this will not turn into one of the issues that become a real sore point between UREF and the Board, and more importantly between UREF and the community. Mr. Bowerman said without visually seeing what is going on, it is difficult for him to know what to do. He believes UREF is serious about trying to meet the neighborhood's concerns. He would like to get this lighting issue settled before taking any action on the setbacks. He suggested that ZMA-98-27 be deferred so all can understand what type of lighting will be on the UREF site as it develops over 20 years, and the effect of that lighting on the adjacent community. April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)~' 000ii2 (Page 15) Ms. Thomas said the lighting is related to the setbacks. She thinks it is very good planning to have the buildings closer to the road, but that will put the parking lots behind those buildings, so how does that affect everything that was proffered to make this a good park. The Board does not want unintended consequences. Mr. Matthews asked to speak again. He said there is no question that lighting is an issue. One concern he has with Mr. Bowerman's proposal is that it would be open-ended. The land is just a field now and is pitch black at night. Any level of light compared to what has been there in past years will be tremendous. What is before the Board tonight is a planning issue. He knows that Mr. Stouffer will work with the residents and he thinks the best approach would be to take Mr. Stouffer at his word. This amendment needs to be approved because there are projects ready to start. Working out what to do on the existing parking lot, and then trying to apply that to the whole park, could go on indefinitely. Even if they had the most inconspicuous lights, surrounding residents would still be concerned by lights shining on their property. Mr. Bowerman said he does not want to do anything unreasonable. Mr. Martin said he likes the idea of deferring this petition tonight for a very specific time to get certain things done (a tour, staff's input, a meeting that the neighborhood association could attend), and then put this back on a Consent Agenda for the final vote. Mr. Bowerman said that would be satisfactory with him. He knows that parts of the Lighting Ordinance are compliance parts. He knows those are some of the things this Board would like to change and have compliance take place through design, wattage and lighting types. He then offered motion to defer ZMA-98-27 until May 5, 1999. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Mr. Perkins said he would like to comment about the buffer. Red cedars are very slow growing. He thinks there are a lot of things that coUld be planted that would be much better. Leland cypress, loblolly pine, Virginia pine, there are all sorts of things that would do better. He said the buffer looks pretty skimpy. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Stouffer mentioned looking for better examples of good safe lighting. She would like to say that the lighting in the City's McIntire Park parking area which is well-lit, disturbs no one, and could not disturb drivers on the Route 250 Bypass, is very safe. With no further comments from Board members, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Approve Fiscal Year 1999-2000 County Operating Budget. Mr. Tucker said that on April 7, 1999, a public hearing was held on the proposed operating budget for FY 1999-2000. The Board has been presented with a Resolution for adoption tonight to approve total expenditures of $146,325,348. The revised Board Contingency Fund totals $56,932, and of that amount, $50,000 has been set aside for a CTS bus route which staff is still studying for the Pantops area, particularly to the Pantops Shopping Center. He said $163,637 has been added to the School Fund from State and Federal Revenues. These additional revenues, when combined with the revised School Board Contingency Reserve of $50,237 and the $300,000 in additional General Fund transfer allocated to the schools during the Board's work sessions, provides the Schools with $648,544 which may be used toward funding their $990,679 unfunded school budget. There are additional self-sustaining funds for the Schools of $122,210. Mr. Tucker said one item that was left during the Board's work sessions had to do with a request from MACAA for its Head Start Program. The staff has provided the Board additional information regarding that request for $7211. Should the Board decide to fund this program, funding could be provided from a combination of Board Contingency Reserves ($6932) and additional General Fund 000 1.3 April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16 ) Carry-over ($279.) This would leave the $50,000 previously set aside for the proposed Pantops bus route in the Board's Contingency Reserve. Mr. Marshall asked how much money has been set aside for compute'r problems associated with the year 2000 date (referred to as "Y2k"), and excess energy costs. Mr. Tucker said additional revenues were found in the current year's budget, and that will be part of the carry-over for next year in the amount of $900,000+. That amount will be larger because the total savings in expenditures for the current year are not yet known. Mr. Marshall said oil prices have increased tremendously in the last six weeks. He said this past winter was very mild, but suppose there is a hard winter next year. Mr. Tucker said the budget for fuel was not reduced because there is no way to predict the weather or the prices. That is why there is usually a savings if there is a mild winter. Ms. Humphris said she would like to comment on the MACAA request. In the Board's other discussions, she was disturbed as to why this request came in during the work sessions, instead of earlier. Attachment B to the staff's report today gives the history of the request and staff now recommends that the County fund its share of MACAA's Disabilities Coordinator in an amount of $7211. She will support that recommendation because it is in the children's best interest. Although she does not like the way this request has come about, she is happy to see that staff has spelled out some conditions that they do want MACAA to fulfill before ever seeing such a request again. Mr. Martin said he agrees. He has been to every Head Start site in the Charlottesville area. He was part of a group which donated books to the Head Start program. He was part of a group that actually extended the Head Start program through the Summer months. Without a doubt, he feels the Head Start Program performs one of the most important functions of any agency that works with at-risk and underprivileged children. A big part of that is that they require parental participation. Many programs with worthy goals don't have things connected to them that promote parental involvement. He feels strongly about this particular program, and that the Board support it. Mr. Perkins said he does not think this would be any duplication of efforts. In the recommendation from staff they are enforcing some conditions that MACAA work toward with the School System. Ms. Thomas said it is important to get children, especially those with handicaps, early. She knows how difficult it is for parents to do this on their own. She appreciates the staff looking into this program further because she does not think the Board understood the request fully when it was presented earlier. Mr. Marshall said he has seen the Head Start program Work in the Esmont area for years, and he can't say enough good things about the program. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following resolution (Attachment D to the staff's report this date) approving the County Operations budget for the Fiscal Year beginning July !, 1999. Mr. Perkins asked if the Board was voting on the budget, or the MACAA recommendation. Ms. Humphris said Attachment D includes the money for MACAA; it is the entire County budget. Mr. Perkins said he is disappointed that the Board got information about new State and Federal funds at this late date. He does not think there is any way to change that now. It seems the Board should have a public hearing because the Board does not know what the budget is until it knows these figures. That is a suggestion for next year. He asked what determines the timing of the Federal revenues. Mr. Bowerman asked Code requirements regarding these revenues. Mr. Tucker said another public hearing would be required if the revenues exceeded a certain amount, and these revenues do not trigger that requirement. Mr. Perkins said he was suggesting that instead of having the public hearing in early April, to wait until revenues are known. He said the Board does not have to adopt the budget this early. The Board has been doing it this early because of School contracts. Mr. Davis said the Board is required to adopt a April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) budget for the School system by May 1. required to meet. O00il4 That is one deadline the Board is MS. Thomas asked if that applies to everybody. From reading the newspapers, it seems that the outlying counties are further behind in the process than Albemarle. Mr. Davis said they also need to adopt their school budget by May 1. Mr. Perkins asked the requirements for adopting the County budget. Mr. Davis said the tax rate must be set so the tax bills for the first half of the year can go out. Mr. Tucker said it must be done in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Bowerman said it seems that May 1 is as late as the budget can be adopted. Mr. Davis said those,types of deadlines drive the budget process for the Board. Mr. Martin said the budget is just a dynamic document because even after the Board passes it, it immediately starts changing because expectations of what should be spent by September are different from actuals. That is why the year ends with, hopefully, a surplus. The budget is constantly changing. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the financial estimators underestimate revenues and overestimate expenditures. Mr. Bowerman said that is conservative planning. Mr. Perkins said he had a couple of thoughts concerning the general process. The County's biennial reassessments and additional funds from the State have enabled Albemarle to maintain the current tax rate. What about next year? The County Executive requested that the Board use the Reserve Funds frugally and prudently with an eye to shifting as much of these reserves as possible to the Debt Service Reserve for funding future capital projects. The Board failed to do this. He feels the majority of County residents desire that the Board act in a prudent manner. In Greene County, the newspaper quoted their Chairman as saying ~we are setting aside money for the reserve funds." The State of Virginia, in a magazine grading the states, received an ~A" for financial management. The primary reason was that the projected rainy day fund for the close of the current biennium is at a full six percent of the General Fund expenditures and may exceed even that. The Board has budgeted $833,970 over the County Executive's recommended budget. What kind of grade would the Board get on financial management? Probably a ~C" or a ~D". Mr. Marshall said he basically agrees with Mr. Perkins. He will not support this budget for that reason. He thinks there should be more reserves set aside. He resents the fact that each year he gets misquoted in the press in one way or another, saying he does not support the schools. It has nothing to do with any one item in the budget. He knows there is money in this budget that could be put toward that reserve. He does not see line items, so he does not know exactly which one it is, so he is not voting against Head Start or the schools, but against $136,325,627. Mr. Bowerman said when he made the Sustainability presentation to the Louisa County Board of Supervisors, they were questioning individual line item expenditures of the County Administrator. They had dollar amounts and checks and invoices. This Board could certainly do that if it wanted to. Ms. Humphris said what has just happened really concerns her. The Board has gone through all of the work sessions and several public hearings, and she had not heard these comments before tonight. She does not know what Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins do not like about this budget. Mr. Marshall said that during the work sessions when the Board was spending those reserves, he said they should be held back for the same reasons he stated tonight. Mr. Martin said he thinks it was fairly clear as the Board went through the budget process that the Board members were in agreement up until the last moment. That was the point where the Board started taking money away from the reserve and trying to put more money into the School System. That is when the Board lost the support of Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. Mr. Marshall said that during the work sessions Mr. Martin said ~it looks like only four of us are gonna reach an agreement." Ms. Humphris said she remembers that. Mr. Marshall said the Board is not just hearing it from him tonight. Mr. Martin said there is a motion on the floor. Unless there are additional comments, the Board is in the same place it was during the last April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) work session. Roll was immediately called, and the motion to adopt the following resolution carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: Mr. Perkins and Mr. Marshall. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1999, be approved as follows: General Government- Administration Judicial Public safety Public Works Human Development Parks, Recreation & Culture Community Development Other City/County Revenue Sharing Refunds Capital Improvements General Government Debt Service Education - Operations Education - Self-Sustaining Funds Education Debt Service Contingency Reserve TOTAL $6,232,695 2,314,328 12,163,875 2,582,626 8,407,538 3,970,870 3,437,094 202 734 5,853 794 26 000 2,157 930 310 688 82,767 565 7,397 890 8,450,000 ~0,000 $136,325,627 1999. Agenda Item No. 12. Adopt FY 1999 Tax Rates. Mr. Martin asked for a motion to adopt the tax rates for calendar year Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution setting the County levy for the taxable year 1999. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable year 1999 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of personal property; at Pour Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools; and at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service assessments; and FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital, including Public Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through Section 58.1-3508. April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) O001~ (Page 19) Agenda Item No. 13. Approve FY 1999-2000/2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program and Adopt FY 1999-2000 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve the CIP budget. Ms. Thomas said she would like to comment. Only four people came to speak at the public hearing on the Capital Improvement Program which was disappointing. Then during the public hearing on the operational budget, Mr. Tom Loach came and chided the Board for not doing a sufficient amount of planning to actually know what is being done with the school building at Crozet. She thinks it behooves the Board to carry forward with some of the planning that it led the Crozet community into believing it would do when it adopted by reference the Crozet Community plan. Mr. Perkins said a lot of the money being put into the schools is just for maintenance. As long as the building is maintained, it certainly can be used for a variety of different things if and when the need arises. One of the first things might be space for a library. He believes it could be worked out with the current tenants for a library to move in, and if not that, there is enough room on the site to build a new building for a library. He thinks it is important to maintain the building, and to keep it occupied. As long as that is done, it will not be the same as Greenwood which started out being worth $1.0 million and ended up being sold for $48,000. Ms. Thomas said she agrees with that. Mr. Perkins said the Crozet issue may be much bigger than that. There may be zoning issues. But, they would have to be county-wide zoning issues and not just ones for Crozet. Maybe the Board will get around to those issues, but it is up to Planning staff to work on the issues as they can fit them into their work schedule. Ms. Thomas said she was not criticizing the people on the Building Committee. She is simply encouraging the Board to do more along those lines. Mr. Marshall said Mr. Rick Huff sat down with Mr. Perkins and himself and went over this and it is money well spent. Mr. Martin requested that the Clerk call the roll. Roll was called, and the motion to approve the following Capital Improvement Program budget carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. (The Capital Improvement Program budget for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 is as follows.) ~ENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS: Administration & Courts County Computer Upgrade $185,000 County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement 824,160 Court Square Maintenance/Replacement 50,000 Juvenile & Domestic Court Maintenance/Replacement 15,000 Subtotal $1,074,160 Public Safety Projects Fire/Rescue Building & Equipment Fund Juvenile Detention Facility Public Safety Facility Subtotal $215,384 1,465,725 90,000 $1,711,109 Highways a Transportation Greenbrier Drive Pedestrian/Bike Path Revenue Sharing Road Projects Subtotal $75,000 400.000 $475,000 Library Projects Library Computer Upgrade Maintenance/Replacement Projects Subtotal $98,953 25.000 $123,953 Parks, Recreation & Culture County Athletic Field Development $45,000 April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) Crozet Park Athletic Field Development PVCC Facility Renovation Scottsville Community Center Improvements Southern Albemarle Organization Park Development Walnut Creek Park Improvements Maintenance/Replacement Projects Subtotal Utility Improvement Projects Keene Landfill Closure Subtotal Subtotal-General Government Capital Projects TQURISM-RELATED CAPITAL PROJECTS: Rivanna Greenway Access & Path River Access .Improvements Subtotal-Tourism-Related Capital Projects SCHOOL CAPITAL PROJECTS: Northern Area Elementary Recreation School Administrative Technology CATEC Cosmetology Lab School Instructional Technology Northern Area Elementary School Western Albemarle High School Renovations Burley Library Addition/Renovation ADA Structural Changes Maintenance/Replacement Projects Subtotal-School Capital Projects GRAND TOTAL-CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET FY 1999-2000 128,000 18,618 12,785 25,000 24,500 21,730. $275,633 $75,O00 $75,000 $3,734,855 $50,000 30,000 $80,000 $300,000 70,000 38,234 439,700 971,504 502,000 300,000 30,000 $3,835,805 $7,650,660 Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: March 13, 1996; July 2 1997; and June 17, 1998. Mr. Perkins said he had read July 2, 1997 (Pages 17 and 18), and June 17, 1998, and found them to be correct with a few typographical errors. He then offered motion to approve those minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Ms. Thomas mentioned a letter from the Batesville Ruritan Club (copy on file) concerning the increased truck traffic through the community on Route 692. She asked staff to look into this issue. She said Mr. Bill Mills of VDOT is aware of the letter and will write to the Ruritan Club and explain the process for removing trucks from the road. That will be helpful, but is not the same as looking at the whole issue of cut-through truck traffic. Because she is a member of the Planning District Commission, she knows what is going on with Routes 151 and 6, which are in Nelson County, where they are trying to cut down on the large, oversized trucks on those routes. Drivers think that when going east on Route 250 they can take a short cut and it will get them down Route 29 South faster. Travel time is such that it does not save them time, but looking at a map, it is tempting. The trucks used to go through Nelson County and now they are cutting through Batesville. Those roads are not meant for use by big trucks. Mr. Perkins said the changes that were made on Routes 6 and 151 were length limitations. There are no weight limitations. Route 692 is less able to handle long trucks than those roads. There are a number of trucks cutting through that way going to Augusta Lumber Company and Campbell's Sawmill. There always have been trucks doing this. Ms. Thomas said those are important roads for these businesses. That is why the Board needs to look at this issue in depth. The rural economy says April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) 0001~[8 (Page 21) there will be lumber trucks, hay trucks, and other big trucks, but there is no need to have cut-through truck traffic going to Lynchburg. Mr. Marshall said if the Board members have not been on Route 6 between Route 29 South and Scottsville recently, please drive it this week. It is probably the most beautiful place in the World. Mr. Perkins said Ms. Martha Harris had asked him to make the following statement: ~Martha Harris' assertions at the public hearing on April 7 about the difficulty she had in getting requested personnel information was disturbing to me. I ~also have had difficulty getting information, but I will say that Mike Thompson (Director of Personnel) was very helpful and timely in getting the information I requested this year. "I feel that general information such as number of applications received by categories of teachers (elementary and secondary) or the cost of new initiatives and other information should be provided in a timely manner to our citizens. This should not require an inordinate amount of staff time to prepare. ~This Board should stand with our constituents and assure that a narrow interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act does not deny citizens ready access to information that should be in the public domain. ~I ask this Board to convey this sentiment to the staff of Albemarle County. Tha public has ~ha right to know." Ms. Thomas said if that is a resolution Mr. Perkins would like to have seconded, she will do so. Mr. Martin said it has been duly motioned and seconded that the Board let staff know that information that Comes under the Freedom of Information Act be readily obtainable by the citizens of Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman said by law staff has to, so what is the interpretation to be attached to this motion? Mr. Perkins said there are a lot of things that are not in a form that can be handed to the public, and it might require some staff time to research. Mr. Davis said he is not speaking against what Mr. Perkins said, but the Freedom of Information Act requires that documents which exist be produced, but it does not require that documents be prepared. When staff receives a request which requires that information be accumulated, or tallied, or analyzed, and a new document created, it is not available under the Freedom of Information Act. That requires staff to diverge from what they are doing and do a significant amount of work to create information and answer questions. That is a policy issue the Board should address. He said that sometimes staff gives a response based on their time constraints, rather than because of any opposition to providing information. Ms. Thomas said the way she interpreted what Mr. Perkins said is that the Board is not by this resolution changing County policy to say that staff has to spend hundreds of hours producing documents they are not required to produce, but the general policy is that the public has the right to know, and County staff ought to take as their first reaction that they will try to get the information. If it is going to be expensive and time-consuming, they can explain this to the public. They can't, by law, be required to do it, and it will take some common sense to make a determination, but their first impulse ought to be that if the information can be appropriately gathered, it ought to be. Mr. Bowerman asked if it was Ms. Harris' point that information available last year, or information made available to the State, was not made available to her; information that had already been produced by Human Resources. Mr. Tucker said he believes Ms. Harris' point was that information submitted to the State came out in a different way in the State's document. She did not understand why it was different. Much of that information had been sent to the State. What she requested was not necessarily information they had already prepared. It became an issue of how it was requested; the County prepares the information on a fiscal year basis, and Ms. Harris had requested the information on a calendar year basis. The information can be prepared on a calendar year basis, but it takes more time and effort. Ail of this can be done, but it gets to a point where staff has to decide whether to prepare this information or delay other projects. April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) O00ii9 (Page 22) Mr. Perkins said he had discussed this with Mr. Tucker when Ms. Harris called him. What Mr. Tucker suggested is that if a longer notice was given, the information could probably be put together. He thinks the request has to be reasonable, and timely. He believes Ms. Harris feels that she was not given good timing because of "political implications", that staff did not want that information out by a certain date because of certain events, etc. Ms. Humphris said she thinks that needs to be controlled by the department head. That person has to use his judgement as to what his staff can do according to the department's work plan. She said if something is extensive and requires compiling information in a way that it is not usually kept, that will have to take a back seat to things which are on a deadline. She believes that needs to remain internal with County staff, and without the Board telling them how to do their job. Mr. Bowerman asked if the information was made available to Ms. Harris. Mr. Perkins said he believes that she got most of the information. Mr. Bowerman asked the time period for the response. Mr. Tucker said it was after the public hearing on the budget. Mr. Bowerman asked the length of time between the making of the request and delivery of the information. Mr. Tucker said the request was made to School staff. They provided the information they had, but other information had to be developed. Then, Ms. Harris requested the information through Mr. Perkins, and obviously, when Board members request things, staff does not think about how much it will cost or those kinds of things. He believes Ms. Harris had been given a cost figure for the information since staff had to run a new report. Mr. Tucker said that is the way requests for information which has to be developed, are handled. Mr. Bowerman asked the importance of calendar year information as opposed to fiscal year information. Mr. Perkins said he did not know. Mr. Bowerman asked if staff has to decide what is a reasonable request and what is not. Mr. Tucker said normally staff would make the requestor aware of the fact that the information they have requested is not readily available. If the information has to be developed, they are given an approximate cost of putting that information together. Mr. Bowerman said he believes Mr. Perkins' resolution is reasonable. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Thompson indicated that he felt a lot of what Ms. Harris requested is information the Personnel office should have. It is his intent to start keeping track of this information (such as how many applications they receive in a year for elementary school teachers). He said that is something that should be prepared and available to the School Board and this Board in an annual report. Mr. Martin said Ms. Thomas stated it best when she said the staff needs to realize that when a taxpayer asks for information, their first instinct should be to provide it unless there is a reason not to. Mr. Tucker said that is what staff tries to do, but sometimes when the citizen is told that it will take a week, they don't like it, and they really let staff hear about it. Mr. Martin said all Board members realize that. Mr. Tucker said that citizen then starts calling Board members, and then it appears that staff is being unreasonable. He wants to defend staff because it is not always as unreasonable as the Board is led to believe. Mr. Martin said no one is accusing the staff of being unreasonable, the intent is simply for the Board to say it wants staff to be user-friendly to the public. Mr. Martin asked the Clerk to call the roll on the resolution. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. (Note: The final resolution is set out in full below.) RESOLUTION WI~EREAS, responsible local government and responsive service delivery are based on an ongoing dialogue with citizens of our community; and W~EREAS, developing and maintaining an informed citizenry that participates in our local government's decision-making April 14, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) 000:1.; 0 processes and uses government services effectively depends on the free flow of information between citizens and government; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes that accessible information to the community is a valuable resource that should be developed and encouraged by county government employees whenever possible; and WHEREAS, the Board recognizes the need to provide pertinent information to the residents of'the County in a timely, efficient, cost-effective and accurate manner; NOW, THEREFORE, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby resolves that the Albemarle County local government will be proactive and responsive in its efforts to make information accessible to the public and that employees will work with citizens to meet their needs in obtaining information they are seeking and are entitled to under various Federal, State and local guidelines in a reasonable time frame and at a reasonable cost based upon the time and resources expended to produce the requested information. Mr. Davis mentioned that last Monday he forwarded to the Board members a draft response he prepared in reference to the Route 29 Western Bypass (Alignment 4f). Mr. Perkins said Ms. Deborah Murray referred to the Albemarle High School complex. He thinks it should be the Albemarle County School Complex, and then Albemarle High School, Vthe Jack Jouett Middle School and Greer Elementary. Mr. Davis said in his comments he clarified that reference. Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: Property Matters. At 9:29 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for a detention facility. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Executive Session. At 9:50 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 member's 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 executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned. Approved by the Board of County Supervisors