Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-02L ..... I~ L ........... z:L September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 000 88 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 2, 1998, at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 9:05 a.m.), 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 9:01 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Marshall. 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 from the Public. Ms. Jennifer Gaden spoke regarding the Year 2000 problem with computers. She knows that a great effort is being made to bring computers into compli- ance, but is concerned about how the technological problem might affect her daily life, and the lives of those around her. She asked if it can be assumed that American technology will have everything under control so as to glide into the year 2000 without a ripple. At this time, no one knows what will happen. The problem is far too complex for anyone to fully understand. Ms. Gaden said she believes there is a good chance there will be major technological failures. Facing the unknown, what does the community do about it? The possibility of major difficulties can be acknowledged and prepara- tions made for them. She is in favor of preparations in two major categories. First, there is education and information. 1) Inform the public that there is a problem. 2) Inform ourselves as a community about how key industries which all depend on computers are progressing toward compliance, and also how groups tightly linked to them are progressing. Second, make arrangements for the physical needs of the community on all levels, regional, municipal, etc. Ms. Gaden said she would conclude by referring to a web site that contains a series of articles about the Year 2000 problem (Y2k) . She sug- gested that all Board members read the first article on the web site. Mr. Marshall thanked Ms. Gaden for comin9 today. He said that he is especially worried in his business, and also about banks and other economic institutions because no one knows what is going to happen. Mr. Perkins said he talked to Ms. Gaden on Monday and suggested that she come to the Board and talk about this problem. He said the Board is now getting a lot of information about this situation. There is an article in the NACo News, and an article in VACo's publication, and most of the magazines the Board receives have articles about this subject also. It is important that the public know about this so they can prepare for it. He thanked Ms. Gaden for coming, and said he hoped the news media would pick up on it. Ms. Thomas said the woman who is in charge of this problem for the entire Commonwealth was at the LGOC Conference and 9ave a sometimes humorous, but mostly serious, presentation. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.2 through 5.9 on the Consent Agenda, to accept Items 5.10 through 5.18 as information, and to remove Item 5.1 from the Consent Agenda. (Note: Conversation relatin9 to each item on the consent agenda will be found with that item.) Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) O00 .S4 AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Item 5.1. Appropriation: EMS Recruitment and Retention Mini-Grant, $4930.00 (Form #98012). It was noted in the staff's report that the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant to provide funds to produce movie theater ads for recruitment purposes. The mini-grant is funded by a $4930.00 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant, and there is no local match required. (Mr. Bowerman said he has a problem with the use of these funds even though the dollars do not come from the County. He thinks it is wasted to do it in a movie theater. He thinks the ads in movie theaters, personally and from people he has talked with, are an irritation. If the money is available for the County to use, he would suggest there are better venues to use other than theaters. If they have to make a video for theater ads, he would rather not take the money. (Mr. Marshall asked about using a video on television. Mr. Martin said he does not think it would hurt to show it in a movie theater. He said if they can't change the venue, why discontinue the process. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it is a waste of money. (Ms. Humphris said she had not thought of it that way, but she hopes that whoever decided this was the method that could do this well, thought about that before they made the decision. She wishes the Board knew more about the project. She hopes it gets done because it is difficult to recruit people. Mr. Bowerman said he agrees, but wonders why the venue is not just public announcements on television. Why bring it to movie theaters? Mr. Tucker said the County is just the fiscal agent for this money. (Mr. Marshall said at the next directors meeting for the Board of Health, this subject is to be discussed. He will bring up Mr. Bowerman's concern. Mr. Bowerman said just because the money is there, he does non think it should be used unless it will be effective.) Item 5.2. Appropriation: Traffic Safety Grant, $3253.45 (Form #98013). It was noted in the staff's report that the Board and the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles approved a Federal grant in 1997-98 to fund traffic enforcement overtime. The grant was approved for the period October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998. This appropriation requests expenditure for the period July 1, 1998, through September 30, 1998. The local match was provided in the 1997-98 fiscal year. There is no local match for 1998-99. The remaining Federal portion of the grant is $3253.45. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NUMBER: 98013 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DMV TRAFFIC SAFETY GP3~NT EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1 1535 31145 120000 1 1535 31145 210000 DESCRIPTION A~4OUNT WAGES-O/T $3,022.25 FICA 231.20 TOTAL $3,253.45 REVENIJE 2 1535 33000 330001 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FEDERAL GRANT $3,253.45 TOTAL $3,253.45 Item 5.3. Appropriation: Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant, $12,547.99 (Form #98014). September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) 000 ., 5 It was noted in the staff's report that the COPS MORE 95 grant and two supplements were approved for a three-year period beginning December 1, 1995, and ending November 30, 1998. This appropriation requests approval to expend remaining funds for the balance of the grant period. The U.S. Department of Justice grant has $12,547.99 remaining. The local match has been approved and transferred in prior years. There is no additional local match required for the remaining period. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 19.98-99 NUMBER: 98014 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: BALANCE OF COPS 95 GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1 1521 31010 120000 1 1521 31010 210000 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT WAGES-O/T $11,656.29 FICA 891.70 TOTAL $12,547.99 REVENUE 2 1521 33000 330001 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FEDERAL GRANT $12,547.99 TOTAL $12,547.99 Item 5.4. Appropriation: Comprehensive Community Corrections Act Grant, $435,148.00 (Form #98015). It was noted in the staff's report that the County serves as fiscal agent for the Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB). In that capacity, the County receives and appropriates funds awarded to the CCJB by the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). The CoUnty contracts with community agencies to provide the services stipulated in the grant. For FY 1998-99, DCJS awarded $435,148.00 to the CCJB to be allocated as follows: Offender Aid and Restoration for pretrial and community corrections services at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail and community corrections services for the Central Virginia Regional Jail $319,196.00 Central Virginia Regional Jail for pretrial services 33,066.00 Region Ten Community Services Board for substance abuse services provided at The Mohr Center 80,886.00 Community Criminal Justice Board for office expenses 2,000.00 By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NI3MBER: 98015 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS GRANT 99-6348 EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1 1520 29406 566120 1 1520 29406 566140 1 1520 29406 566150 1 1520 29406 562500 DESCRIPTION OAR CENTRAL VIRGINIA JAIL REGION TEN TJ PLANNING DISTRICT TOTAL AMOUNT $319,196.00 33,066.00 80,886.00 2,000.00 $435,148.00 REVENUE 2 1520 24000 240440 DESCRIPTION COMP COMM CORRECTIONS GRANT TOTAL AMOUNT $435,148.00 $435,148.00 September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) 000 6 Item 5.5. Appropriation: Family Support Program, $654,368.00 (Form #98021). It was noted in the staff's report that at the June 17, 1998, Board meeting, staff presented information on a proposed pilot program in the Department of Social Services entitled the "Family Support Program." This program will expand family support services to the schools that have Bright Stars programs in order to provide on-going services to the families and children as they progress from kindergarten through the fifth grade. Family support services will also be provided to the general at-risk population in the other eleven elementary schools. Under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, Federal Financial Participation (FFP) funds will be used at a 50 percent matching rate for the purpose of foster care prevention. The proposed budget for the Family Support Program is $654,368.00 to be matched by local and State funds already being used in other County prevention services, i.e. Bright Stars, $320,146.00; Growing Healthy Families, $118,659.00; CSA, $175,000.00; current DSS family support worker, $40,563.00. The Federal funds will be used to hire a Family Support Coordinator and an Office Associate to administer the Family Support Program as well as the Bright Stars program. Nine family support workers will be hired to work in the elementary schools in addition to adding .6 FTE hours to the Bright Stars Team Leaders (the family support worker for the four Bright Stars programs) to bring them up to fulltime. Additional operating expenses include telephone service, mileage expenses, postage, office supplies, etc. Capital equipment expenses are mainly for lap-top computers since Family Support Workers will not have an official office, but will work primarily out of their homes. The elementary schools will also provide varying degrees of office space depending on space availability at the individual schools to which they are assigned. There are no local funds required for this appropriation. (Ms. Thomas said she has talked with someone in the School System who wanted to say how much Ms. Roxanne White had worked on getting these funds. Mr. Bowerman said he agrees this is a good use of the money. He was not present on June 17 so does not know if the Board discussed a Board evaluation of the program at six-month intervals. The program has a lot of money, and a lot is for salaries for people working out of their homes. He would like for the Board to have a periodic review of the results. Mr. Tucker said staff can provide that information, but he would suggest that the first such report not be made until after the first of next year. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Board needs to measure results.) By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NLIMBER: 98021 FLrND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAM EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1 1557 53150 110000 1 1557 53150 210000 1 1557 53150 221000 1 1557 53150 231000 1 1557 53150 232000 1 1557 53150 270000 1 1557 53150 331100 1 1557 53150 332104 1 1557 53150 520100 1 1557 53150 520300 1 1557 53150 530700 1 1557 53150 540200 I 1557 53150 550100 1 1557 53150 550400 1 1557 53150 550600 1 1557 53150 600100 DESCRIPTION SALARIES-REGULAR FICA VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM HEALTH INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE WORKER'S COMPENSATION R&M EQUIPMENT-OFFICE MAINT CONT-DP EQUIP POSTAL SERVICES TELECOMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC OFFICIAL LIABILITY LEASE/RENT - BLDG TRAVEL - MILEAGE TRAVEL - EDUCATION TRAVEL - SUBSISTENCE OFFICE SUPPLIES AMOUNT $424,938.00 32,508.00 48,530.00 32,775.00 891.00 3,011.00 100.00 1,950.00 2,600.00 8,800.00 1,000.00 2,900.00 31,320.00 6,500.00 3,250.00 5,850.00 September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) 1557 53150 601200 1557 53150 601600 1557 53150 601700 1557 53150 800100 1557 53150 800200 1557 53150 800700 BOOKS & SUBSCRIPTIONS DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES COPY SUPPLIES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT FURNITURE/FIXTURES ADP EQUIPMENT TOTAL REVENIIE 2 1557 33000 330001 DESCRIPTION FEDERAL GRANT REVENUE TOTAL 000:1.87 650.00 1,625.00 1,300.00 280.00 3,290.00 40,300.00 $654,368.00 AMOUNT $654,368.00 $654,368.00 Item 5.6. Albemarle County Personnel Policies, Amend §P-60 to add languag. permitting market equity adjustments. It was noted in the staff's report that in July, 1996, the Counny implemented new pay ranges for all its employees based on recommendations from Hendricks and Associates. There was discussion that broadening the ranges to a full 60 percent from minimum to maximum would allow adjustments to salaries (for additional skill level obtainment and market factors) to occur without having to reclassify upwards or downwards causing other internal equity concerns. No policies were developed to allow for such marken equity adjust- ments to occur. Staff is now presenting such language for the Board's approval. Specifically, §P-60 of the Albemarle County Personnel Policies is recommended to be amended to give the County Executive the authority, based on a recommen- dation from the Director of Human Resources, to make an in-range equity adjustment. Such adjustment is not to exceed the mid-point (market value) of the employee's salary range. While it is anticipated that market equity adjustments would be infre- quent, staff has identified several positions in Information Services that are currently compensated well below the market gmven the current trends in the computer industry. A specific example ms a current Programmer Analyst who was brought in at a salary fairly close to the bottom of the range ($30,633) so as not to compress the salaries of more experienced programmers who are far down in their range. Market conditions exist today such that a Programmer Analyst working on the Year 2000 programming problem can make substantially more than the $31,000+ currently being paid by Albemarle County. In order to stay competitive with the marketplace, it is felt that a horizontal movement along the scale is more appropriate than reclassifying the position upwards thus bumping against other positions which would then also have to be moved. Similar situations exist with several other Information Services positions. The amendment to §P-60 would give the County Executive the authority and ability to retain valuable, skilled employees. The School Board is currently considering the same policy to give the Superintendent similar authority on the school side. In terms of commonality, all employees would be subject to the same policy. There are four factors which are required to be considered in reviewmng a request for an equity adjustment. They are: (1) (2) (3) (4) An identification of the position's relevant market. Consideration of internal equity. Research into the factors which led to the salary being signifi- cantly below market. Measurement of the actual degree that the salary is below market and the degree to which it will improve if an adjustment is made. These factors will enable staff to track more closely market conditions which are affecting the most sensitive positions. Staff recommends that the Board approve amendment of §P-60. (Ms. Humphris noted that on Page 3 of Policy P-60 under "G", the second sentence should read: "Under no circumstances will an employee receive an entrance pay rate below the minimum rate prescribed for the class in_ which he is placed unless he is on probation." She said that the next sentence ms incomplete: "In no case will this exceed lot less than the minimum." September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) O001'~ (Page 6) (Mr. Bowerman asked if this flexibility can be used in the hiring of an employee. Mr. Tucker said there is already a provision in the policies concerning hiring. It has worked fairly effectively. (Note: Mr. Michael Thompson, Director of Human Resources, later confirmed thaE the third sentence under (G) on page 3, should read: "In no case will this exceed ten percent less than the minimum.") By the recorded vote set out above, §P-60 of the County Personnel Policies was amended as presented in the staff's report (on file in the Clerk's Office). Item 5.7. Adopt Resolution to take Monticello High School Connecuor Road (RIP-88-002) into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County's Engmneering Department, the Board adopted the following resolution requesting that the Monticello High School Connector Road (RIP-88-002) be accepted into the State Secondary System of Highways: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Monticello High School Connector Road (RIP-88-002) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 2, 1998, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginma Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Require- ments of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Trans- portation to add Mill Creek Drive as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 2, 1998, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to § 33.1-229, Code of Vir- ginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby guaran- tees to the Virginia Department of Transportation for a period of one year from the date of acceptance into the secondary system of highways, Mill Creek Drive against defective materials and/or workmanship up to a maximum of $13,500.00. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) 1) Mill Creek Drive from Station 10+10, right edge of pavement of northbound of State Route 742 to Station 54+00, rear edge of pavemen~ of southbound U. S. Route 20, 4390 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 1/30/97 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1590, pages 421-424, with a right-of-way width of 100 feet, with additional right-of-way plats re- corded 9/19/95 in Deed Book 1492, pages 682-683 and recorded on 8/14/98 in Deed Book 1735, pages 694- 695, for a length of 0.83 mile. Total length 0.83 mile. 000 .89 September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) Item 5.8. Request for use of FY 1998 School Construction Funds for site acquisition for the proposed northern elementary school. It was noted in the staff's report that the 1998 General Assembly approved legislation (S.B. 4005), which funds the Virginia Public School Construction Grants Program with $55.0 million in each year of the biennium. The approved formula first distributes a floor or base amount of $200,000.00 to each school division, the balance of which is distributed on the basis of the composite index and the average daily membership (ADM). A local match is also required based on the composite index times the grant amount. Funds may be used for school construction, additions, renovations, infrastructure, site acquisition and debt service. Albemarle's FY 1999 State grant is $393,496.00 to be matched by $245,266.00 in local matching funds. The State allocation for FY 2000 is $395,441.00. The State Board of Education has approved guidelines for administering the program which include procedures for distribution and certification documents. The School Division must certify that the funds will be used for purposes stated in the legislation, which includes setting out how the funds, both State and matching, will be used. The School Division must also certify the action taken by its Board on the use of the grant funds. Upon receipt of this certification, which is due September 30, the State Board will distribute the funds to the School Division. Since the County's capital transfer and debt service contributions to the School Division Capital Improvement Program have grown so rapidly in the last several years, particularly for Monticello High School, the School Division and the County Executive's Office have agreed not to use the addi- tional school construction funds to add new capital projects over and above the approved Capital Improvement Program. Although several options are available, which include reducing either debt service or the capital transfer to the School Capital Improvement Fund to free up local dollars for other priorities, staff recommends using these funds in FY 1999 for land acquisition and preliminary engineering for the new northern elementary school. Although funds have been shown in FY 2000 for site acquisition, engineering staff is now recommending land purchase in the 1999 fiscal year if the school is to be completed by August, 2001. If site acquisition needs to occur in the 1999 fiscal year, there are no additional funds available except from the Fund Balance. Using these additional school construction revenues for this purpose would minimize the need for Fund Balance revenues and would then free up additional dollars for school projects in the FY 2000 Capital Improvement Program that have already been committed to site acquisition for the new elementary school. As recommended by staff, by the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved use of FY 1999 School Construction Funds in the amount of $393,496.00 for site acquisition and preliminary engineering costs for the proposed northern elementary school. Item 5.9. Albemarle Housing Committee's Affordable Housing Definition. It was noted in the staff's report that the March, 1995 Housing Commit- tee report to the Board of Supervisors, The Albemarle County Action Plan, identified the need to define affordable housing. There is currently no standard definition of affordable housing in the County development ordinances and plans. The Housing Committee began work on the definition in the Fall, 1995 and continued throughout 1996 and 1997. The challenge to develop a definition that could provide clear and concise guidance and result in the actual production of affordable housing required several elements. The first element of the definition was to examine a family's ability to pay. Therefore, the Committee adopted the definition generally accepted nationally, "Affordable housing is decent and safe housing at a cost that does not exceed 30 percent of monthly household income." As this definition covered the entire population, the Committee next focused its efforts on who had the greatest need and to whom limited resources should be first directed. This effort resulted in the second element, the development of Targeted Income Groups. Three ranges of income groups were selected: September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) PERCENT OF MEDIAN INCOME ($49,300) A1TNUAL INCOME RANGE I: 0 - 35% median Income 0 - 17,255 RANGE II: 35 50% 17,255 - 24,650 RANGE III: 50 80% 24,650 39,440 MONTHLY INCOME Available for Housinq @ 30% $ 0 - 431 431 - 616 616 - 986 After much discussion the Committee agreed that the private sector could serve families with incomes above 80 percent of the median without substantial local government support. This second element included the monthly income available to "purchase" housing at 30 percent of median income. From these numbers, the cost or "affordability', of rental housing is available. A third element was required to identify the price of "for sale" housing. Further the Committee believed it was realistic only to establish "for sale" prices for families in Income Range III (For many reasons, those in the lower two ranges may need affordable housing other than home ownership.). Accordingly, the Committee, after much research, adopted the range of $75,000.00 to $125,000.00 for Income Range III as the current annual cost range of affordable for sale housing. This range will change annually as the median income is revised. It is the recommendation of the Housing Committee that the Board of Supervisors adopt for guidance and assistance in their deliberations and decisions with the residential development community: 1) the general defini- tion of affordable housing, 2) the three targeted Range of Income groups, as annually amended, and, 3) the current annual cost range of for sale afford- able housing costs. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Housing Committee has defined affordable housing as decent and safe housing at a cost that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of monthly household income; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Housing Committee has adopted the following three (3) targeted household income ranges to prioritize for the delivery of affordable housing initiatives: PERCENT OF MEDIAN INCOME ($49,300) RANOE I: 0-35% median income RANGE II: 35 - 50% RANGE III: 50 - 80% ANNUAL INCOME $ 0 - 17,255 17,255 - 24,650 24,650 - 39,440 MONTHLY INCOME Available for Housing @ 30% $ 0 - 431 431 - 616 616 - 986 WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Housing Committee has adopted the range of $75,000 to $125,000 as the current affordable "for purchase" housing price range. This range serves households in Income Range III of the fifty (50) to eighty (80) percent of median household income. This range will change annually upon the publication of the revised Median Household Income Limits by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Housing Committee believes that the private market can deliver, without assistance, housing units that would serve households in Income Range IV of eighty (80) to one hundred (100) percent of median household income and above; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby adopt the foregoing as guidance and assistance in their deliberations and decisions with the residential development community. Item 5.10. Telecommunications Consultant Update (Status of RFP-97-23 and RFP-97-24), was received for information. It was noted in the staff's report that the Board of Supervisors recently approved funding a project (RFP-97-23) to hire a consultant to assist the County in the preparation of a Wireless Telecommunications Policy. September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) O00191 (Page 9) For this project, the firm of Kreines and Kreines was selected. The contract has been signed by the vendor and is being returned to the County for a signature. Staff is currently working on the contract for RFP-97-24 which will involve the hiring of a consuItant to assist the County in the technical review of individual applications. The contract for RFP-97-23 with Kreines and Kreines will provide the County with information which can be used by staff in the preparation of a Wireless Telecommunications Policy. The assistance of an outside consultant is costing the County $72,250.00. The first meeting between County staff and the consultant and between the consultant and representatives of the wireless industry is scheduled for September 29 and September 30, 1998. It is antici- pated that receipt 'of the first products from the consultant will occur around the first of January, 1999. Completion of the consultant's work is anticipated in March/April, 1999. After the consultant has completed all required work, staff will prepare a Wireless Telecommunications Policy which will be for- warded to the Board for review in May/June, 1999. The contract for RFP-97-24 is recommended to be with the firm of Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. This contract will provide the County with independent engineering information which can be used by the County in the review of individual applications for wireless telecommunication facilities. It is intended that this work be undertaken prior to the completion of the Wireless Telecommunications Policy. However, after the adoption of such a policy, the contents of the policy will be incorporated into the engineering analysis. Currently the assistance of an outside engineering consultant is anticipated to cost a minimum of $5,000.00 per site. Additional cost could be incurred in individual applications if the County requests analysis above the standard level of review anticipated necessary in all cases. Application fees charged for wireless telecommunication facilities may offset the cost of the consultant. Raising the application fee to offset the cost of the consultant review may be appropriate due to the complexity of the review of these types of applications even though the fees would be much higher than the review fees for other types of special use permits (the nature of these wireless facili- ties is such that staff is unable to address concerns raised by the public and the Board without the assistance of an outside consultant). While negotiations continue, it is anticipated that the contract with Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., will be finalized in September and forwarded to the Board for approval in October. Staff is concerned about the high expense/fee associated with each application. Any guidance the Board provides regarding the contract with Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. will be welcome. (Ms. Thomas said staff wants some guidance on this subject from the Board even though this item was listed on the Consent Agenda as information only. She knows there is concern about how much each application may cost. She understands Albemarle has a reputation as being a difficult county for applicants for cellular towers. She thinks that is due to the staff which asks good questions. It also has a citizen volunteer who feeds the Board some good questions to ask. She feels that having this firm help the Board early on might reduce the amount of help needed on subsequent applications. This will be the one person who gives the Board guidance on individual specific applications. The Board won't get a policy for at least a year. (Mr. Tucker asked if Ms. Thomas is suggesting that staff move forward more quickly on the RFP for the second consultant and get some help from them initially. The contract is in their hands now. Staff hopes there will be something to approve in October. He said staff wanted the Board to know that this will not be an inexpensive thing to do. (Ms. Thomas said she thought the guidance the staff wanted was how to deal with the fact that it is so expensive. Her suggestion is a way of making it less expensive, not anything to do with the contract, but how to use the consultant once the contract is finalized. She thought using them thoroughly on a couple of early applications might set a tone. Already, the Board will not get simulated pictures because County staff has ~blown the whistle on that." Everything that is done helps subsequent applicants bring in more of what the Board needs to know. (Mr. Martin asked if the Board will get another chance to look at the fee. The staff's report left it open as to whether it would go to the 000 .92 September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) applicant, or whether the County would cover it. Mr. Tucker said that is a decision the Board will have to make at a later date. (Ms. Humphris said she has no problem with the fee. The Board is granting special use permits which will allow a company to make large amounts of money. If it takes $5000.00, or whatever the fee is, to do the processing and scrutinizing of that application, that is just "a drop in the bucket" to the value they would be given. She hopes it can start as soon as the contract is completed so the companies will know the Board has experts scrutinizing their applications. They might then be more circumspect about the information they give the County. In the past, a few have been less than forthcoming. She thinks this will have benefits and she does not see any down side. Mr. Tucker said it is certainly a part of their doing business. Ms. Humphris said that amount of money might seem large to most, but "in the big picture" of money to be made, it is not. (Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board needs to discuss the fee. In the bigger picture, it sets the precedent for very large fees for permits. That may well affect other people who cannot afford those fees. To look at it just as this particular group of people having the money to pay the fee is not looking at the big picture. Ms. Humphris said what the Board is supposed to be doing is charging the applicant only what it costs the County to process the application. She assumes that is the way all fees are structured. It has been mentioned that if it does not cosn what is being charged up-front, the applicant would be reimbursed. Ms. Thomas said that gives them an incentive to be very helpful. (Mr. Martin said when the County first raised its fees a couple of years ago, the County wanted to charge the cost, but there was some consideration for how much it did cost. He is saying that all of a sudden, the County will have a fee which is large (and it is going to be paid primarily by people who can afford to pay it), but he is concerned that another consultant needed in another arena that deals with people who may not be able to afford such high fees. Ms. Humphris said the County will not be charging these people more because they can afford to pay more, but because the, staff time and consultant time is greater. (Mr. Martin said that is his concern. The County is not worried about how much they can afford, only how much it costs. What happens if the County needs a consultant to deal with "family divisions." At that point, the Board may be talking about a situation where the people who would pay the fee, may not be able to pay it. He thinks the Board needs to look at not just whether or not something costs "x" amount and whether or not the people being charged the fee can pay it, but also at how much the fees costs. (Mr. Bowerman said he understands the principle. (Mr. Marshall said he thinks Mr. Martin and Ms. Humphris have valid points, and it should be discussed thoroughly when the time comes. (Mr. Davis said there is one issue to keep in mind. Before the fee can be imposed, it will require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The date the consultant will begin work needs to be anticipated, so there is enough time to have a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board to address this exact issue. (Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board needs to move ahead on the question of the fee. (Mr. Bowerman said he would like to offer a couple of things first. The actual cost the applicant may be required to pay is going to be based on the amount of information the applicant presents in the beginning. He thinks the fee should be based on things required in order to make an intelligent decision. He does not think there should be a set fee. Once the Board gets into this, it will probably want to know about alternate sites, and certain things about those sites. The applicant can either provide that in a form the County's consultant can use or the County will have to hire someone to do it. That would be at the applicant's expense. It could be on a fee basis or on the basis of what each individual site requires in order to make an adequate determination. He does not think an average can be used unless it is in a formula which recognizes in the ordinance that the information can come from different sources and can be paid for by different sources as long as it is provided. That is his problem with a fixed fee. September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) {Mr. Cilimberg said one of the reasons staff went to the second poten- tial consultant was because of concern that the information furnished the applicant might be biased, so there was need for a third party to be involved. In the beginning, staff does not know if that can be done. It will take time for applications to be made and to have consultant review completed. In the beginning, whether or not the County tries to recover the whole cost, there will need to be a full range of consultant assistance on several applications just to know what it means. (Mr. Tucker said staff knows the Board's concerns, and there have been good suggestions made this morning. As soon as staff is at a point where it can bring some information to the Board, it will try to address all of these things and how to deal with the fee.) Item 5.11. Comparison of FY 1997/98 2002/03 and FY 1998/99 2003/04 Final Allocations for Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway System - Albemarle County Projects. It was noted in the staff's report that the FY 1998/99 - 2003/04 Primary Road Allocation Plan has been adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. A copy of the final Primary Road Allocation Plan will not be available from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) until mid- to late- September. Some allocations may change in that final plan. Staff has attached to this report a table (on file) comparing planned allocations to Albemarle County on selected projects for the five common years in each plan. The sixteen projects in the table are listed below with additional comments related to each project. 4 o 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 1-64 Fog Detection System, Afton Mountain fog detection upgrading. 1-64 Rest Area, sewer upgrade of the rest area near Ivy. Route 29, widening from the City line to Rio Road. The project is complete. Route 29, widening from four to six lanes from Rio Road to the South Fork Rivanna River. The pro3ect is complete. The total cost of this pro3ect increased by approximately $2.0 million. Route 29, widening from the South Fork Rivanna to Airport Road (Route 649). The project is in the preliminary engineering stage with VDOT. Funding for this project over the five common years has decreased by approximately $5.8 million. The total project cost has increased by close to $7.0 million. Route 29, bridge replacement at the South Fork Rivanna River. Project total cost increased by approximately $1.0 million. Route 29 Western Bypass, total cost increased slightly from 168.428 million to $168.472 million. Over the five common years, the total allocation to this project did not increase. Route 29, access management study from Airport Road (Route 649) to the Greene County line. The funding is for preliminary engi- neering only. Route 29, improvement to vertical alignment near Route 641. Route 29, bridge replacement at the South Fork Hardware River (southbound lane). Route 20 South, bridge replacement at the Hardware River. Route 20 South, widening to four lanes from Route 53 to Mill Creek Drive. Preliminary engineering only. Route 250, intersection improvement at Route 809. Route 250, connector road to the University of Virginia (four lanes divided). Prelimznary engineering only. Route 631, widen shoulders to improve horizontal alignment, construct turning lanes and install a guardrail. Although this is a secondary road, it is receiving hazard elimination safety improvement funding. The funding for this program is based in the primary system. Route 682, install flashing light and gate 0.23 miles south of Route 250. Although this is a secondary road, it is receiving hazard elimination safety improvement funding. The funding for this program is based in the primary system. In the 1997/2003 Plan, 16 Albemarle County projects were listed to receive $50.710 million in funding over the FY 1998/2003 period (five common years of both plans). Sixteen projects are listed to receive $50.296 million in funding over the same five years in the 1998/2004 Plan. Three projects 000194 September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) were added to this year's Primary Plan final allocation: 1) Route 29 Bypass, complete third lane northbound and southbound from 1-64 to Fontaine Avenue, $185,000.00; 2) Route 53, bridge replacement over Buck Island Creek, $1.0 million; and, 3) Route 22, realign intersection at Route 250, $440,000.00. (Mr. Bowerman asked about No. 2, 1-64 Rest Area, sewer upgrade of the rest area near Ivy. He understood this project was on hold. Mr. Tucker said it is in VDOT's plans. He asked Ms. Angela Tucker if they planned to go forward with the project. Ms. Tucker said she is not aware of any schedule change. The project is in the design stages at this time. (Ms. Humphris said she still has not gotten the answer to some of the questions she asked back in July about the reason for the timing changes, and why Albemarle's dollars decreased. She has not had time to go through the report carefully and find out what those changes are, but she' will submit her questions to Mr. Tucker to get those answers. She said the County needs to know not only how much money has been lost, but why it was lost. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is aware of the need to determine why there were changes. It ms noted here that the final primary road allocation plan will not be available until mid- to late-September. One of the things staff does not know at this time is how much additional Federal money is coming in on these projects. There is the potential to be some real changes. Staff would like to see that and then come back with an additional report where changes in construction schedules might be addressed. He thinks the numbers in the report are tentative. Ms. Humphris said when several millions of dollars are lost on different projects, it doesn't matter at what point in time the Board takes stock to find out where, she understands that the new T-21 monies might change things significantly, but she thinks the Board needs to know now why this was done to Albemarle. Then, when the new numbers are received, that will be .a new ball game. She said when the County gets so much less, and the time schedules are stretched out so much further than anticipated, the County should find out why. Mr. Cilimberg asked that the Board request Ms. Tucker to provide that information to staff. There has been difficulty getting that information sometimes.) Item 5.12. Copy of letter dated August 20, 1998, 'to Mr. Don Franco from Ms. Janice D. Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning Administrator, re: Tax Map 31, Parcel 26 - Official Determination of Zoning - part PRD and part RA. This letter was received as information only. (Mr. Bowerman said the only parcel he can determine that this letter addresses is Teledyne Industries. He asked in what magisterial district this parcel is located. Mr. Martin said he thinks more information should be included in all of these letters. There is no way to figure out where the parcels are located. Mr. Tucker said a tax map can be provided with each letter. Ms. Humphris said there needs to be a tax map at a scale that can be seen. Mr. Bowerman suggested that a full size tax map be posted on the wall at the meeting. (Ms. Thomas said there are two issues here. A lot of the reproductions furnished to the Board members with their packets are barely readable. That is a separate issue which is worth the Board "putting its foot down on." The other concerns the items referring to tax maps, and the Board members do not know where they are located. (Mr. Bowerman said he searched the memo trying to determine where the parcel is located, and the only clue he got was from the "copy" notation.) Item 5.13. Copy of letter dated August 20, 1998, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, from Mr. Robert H. Connock, Jr., District Construction Engineer, Department of Transportation, providing notice of a public workshop concerning the Route 29 Pedestrian Study from Barracks Road to Airport Road (Route 649), City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, was received as information. The workshop is scheduled for Thursday, September 10, 1998, between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. at the Senior Center. Item 5.14. Copy of Supts. Memo. No. 6, dated August 7, 1998, from Mr. Paul D. Stapleton, Superintendenu of Public Instruction, to Division Superin- September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 000195 tendents, re: Certification of Adequate Budgeted Funds in 1998-99 to meet the Required Local Expenditure for Basic Operations Costs, was received for information. (Mr. Bowerman asked the meaning of this memo to the County. Mr. Tucker said he thinks they are informing the County of what can, or cannot, be done with regard to providing adequate funds for standards of quality. He does not remember seeing this requirement before, so is not sure if it is new legisla- tion. He suggested that Mr. Davis speak about this memo. Mr. Davis said he does not recall seeing this before, but there is a State Code requirement referenced in the memo which says the county is obligated to provide the minimum amount necessary as required by the State for meeting the standards of quality. Albemarle.County far exceeds that amount, so this memo has little meaning to Albemarle. It has been an issue in the past as to whether some of the poorer counties provide enough money to meet the standards of quality. (Mr. Martin said it would have been nice if before this went into the packet, someone had stated that "this is what is required and Albemarle County exceeds it." He said it was difficult going through it and at the end not getting an answer. Ms. Thomas said it needed an executive summary. Mr. Tucker said it is a little confusing because it talks about when the ADM changes. He does not think there is any danger of there being any trouble for Albemarle unless there were a massive change in the ADM. He said the staff will provide an analysis of these types of memos in the future. Mr. Martin said one sentence would have done it.) Item 5.15. Monthly Bond Program Report for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) for the month of July, 1998, was received as informa- tion. Item 5.16. Compensation and Benefit Survey Project. It was noted in the staff's report that in FY 1995-96, the School Divi- sion and Local Government contracted with Charles Hendricks & Associates to conduct a salary study for the two entities. Based on this study, a revised salary structure for teachers and classified/administrative employees was implemented July 1, 1996. Since that time, an update of the market data from that study has not occurred. In addition, that study did not address issues related to benefits, an area which generated a great deal of discussion during the FY 1998-99 budget process. Further, questions concerning salary competi- tiveness of a number of positions (technology support, bus drivers, custodians and other classified positions) have been raised and discussed at various times since 1996. In light of this, an update of the Hendricks study including collection of data on benefits would be beneficial as the FY 1999-2000 budget season is approached. School Division and Local Government staff recommend that the updating of salary data from the Hendricks study, and data collection on employee benefits for both the public and private sector in the region, be done by an outside firm. This should provide an unbiased external perspective at a cost of approximately $12,000.00. The process should be completed in time for the data to be used in developing a compensation proposal for the FY 1999-2000 budget. The information is expected to be presented at a joint Board of Supervisors/School Board meeting in early November, 1998. Funds for the project will be secured from salary lapse money left over in the Human Resources budget from the last fiscal year. This information is presented for the Board's information and comment. If there are no concerns from the Board, staff will proceed to engage an independent review as outlined. (Ms. Thomas said she thinks it is a good idea to look at the benefits package. Mr. Perkins asked if the County would do an RFP at an expected cost of $12,000.00. Mr. Tucker said staff has some individuals in mind for this review, but no one has been selected yet. Mr. Perkins asked if staff had talked to Mr. Hendricks again. Mr. Tucker said staff could talk to him also.) September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 000196 Item 5.17. Copy of minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board for July 27, 1998, was received for information. Item 5.18. Copy of minutes of a joint meeting of the Boards of Direc- tors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Rivanna Solid Waste Author- ity for July 27, 1998, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: March 13(A), 1995; September 1996; February 19, 1997; May 6 and June 10, 1998. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of September 4, 1996, pages 1-29 (Item #10) and found them to be in order. Mr. Marshall had read May 6, 1998, and June 10, 1998, pages 1-20, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Presentation of Pave-in- Place Program. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, said she had forwarded to Ms. Carey a letter dated August 28, 1998, in which the following information concerning this program was included: "At the August 5th Board meeting, we discussed Route 707.and the potential to pave this in place as early as next summer. The Board requested that we consider all roads eligible for pave in place applications in order to assess Route 707's priority. As you will note, in mid-1996, we forwarded a list of those gravel roads that me~ the pave in place criteria of traffic volumes (50 - 250), road length (1 mile or less) and are dead end travelways. This list contained 29 roads. "The current Pave mn Place program allows for improving gravel roads with traffic volumes between 50 - 750 vpd and does not specify a minimum length nor that the road dead end. ~Under this criteria, all but approximately 20 of the 220+ miles of gravel roads throughout the County are preliminarily eligible. Ultimately, our office would need to review each road in the field in order to assess whether the horizontal and vertical geometry lends itself to improving the road within a 30' easement. "It is noE feasible to proactively review every gravel road for its eligibility for the Pave in Place program. We suggest that as gravel roads are added to the Six Year Plan priority list, they be assessed for Pave in Place. If they meet the criteria, the road could potentially be given a high priority on the Second Six Year Plan because no additional right of way would be required. We should continue to weight the-priority of the pave in place projects against those projects currently in the Six Year Plan with dedicated rights of way. "Our suggestion at this time is to include Route 707 as a priority for improvement under pave in place guidelines after those projects in the Six Year Plan that have all right of way dedicated. I will discuss this matter in more detail at the next Board meeting." Ms. Tucker said the change in the policy that occurred last year would generally encompass all but 15+ gravel roads in Albemarle County. In essence, since the length of the road, and the traffic count on that road is no longer September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) a restriction, almost all gravel roads could potentially be eligible for pave in place. Mr. Martin asked about the gravel roads already shown in the Six- Year Plan. He asked if they can be paved in place with the same priority and cover more roads with the same amount of money. Ms. Tucker said the cost savings is not significant. The savings come for the fact that the roads which are eligible for pave in place require less grading. Even though they meet the traffic volumes, it requires VDOT to review the roads in the field to see if the grading is subtle enough so that when slopes are tied back, it does not exceed the 30 and 40 foot rights-of-way required under pave-in-place. She said the policy adopted required no more than 40 feet of right-of-way, but pave-in-place can work with a 30-foot right-of-way which is also the 30-foot prescriptive easement. In a lot of cases, owners would not need to dedicate right-of-way. Ms. Thomas asked if some of the roads which are now a low priority in the Six-Year Plan could be significantly impacted because the road no longer needs additional right-of-way. Mr. Martin said there are a lot of people who have a road they want on the list, but have not been able to get the needed right-of-way. This change in policy is good on the one hand, but it also changes the way this Board has set priorities in the past. Mr. Perkins said the vertical and horizontal alignment on many roads is such that they cannot be paved in place. Major grading is needed, so that takes them out of the possibility of pave-in-place. Ms. Tucker said that is the majority of the roads in the County. Route 707 is an exception. Route 702 is a gravel road with one of the highest traffic counts, and there has been a problem getting right-of-way on that road. That road is not a candidate for pave-in-place. Mr. Martin asked if someone called him about a road which is not on the long-term list, and they want to see if the road can be paved-in-place, should he tell them to call VDOT. Ms. Tucker said that is correct. VDOT will then go out with this person and drive the road to determine its eligibility. If it is eligible, they will send that information to the Board. Mr. Martin asks what the Board does with the information. Ms. Tucker said the road should be added to the list after the projects which have dedicated right-of-way. Mr. Marshall said it then becomes a funding problem. Mr. Martin said as soon as this policy was announced, he began to get telephone calls, but it actually did not mean anything at that time. Now that the policy has been changed, it means something. He believes there will be a lot of such requests received, and he thinks the Board needs to decide how they will be handled in order to be sure requests are handled equitably. Ms. Tucker said requests for this program should be referred to her office, and VDOT will make a determination as to whether the road qualifies and then notify the Board officially in writing as to whether'the road qualifies for the pave-in-place program. If the Board chooses, the road can then be added to the Six-Year Plan. Mr. Bowerman asked if it would require a new public hearing of the Six- Year Plan. Ms. Tucker said if it happened outside of the annual revision process. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Board would want to use the process that is already scheduled. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Perkins asked V/DOT to check on the railroad crossing just west of ConAgra in Crozet. The crossing is used by ConAgra, a church and six or seven homes. He has been requested to see if there is any possibility of the State taking the crossing into the Secondary Highway System. Mr. Perkins asked how speed limits are set on rural roads. He knows that VDOT does a traffic study to determine how fast the traffic is moving on a particular road. He had asked about the speed limit on Miller School Road and VDOT went through the process of seeing how fast the traffic is moving on that road. He said Morgantown Road has a speed limit of 35 mph and Owensville Road a speed limit of 40 mph. He asked how this occurred. Ms. Tucker said a number of factors are considered, such as: the speed at which 80 percentile of the vehicles are traveling, roadside character, number of entrances, residential nature, unusual settings along the route, and accident history. September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) 000 .98 Mr. Perkins said a number of people have expressed concerns about the drop-off of the shoulder along Route 250 and a number of other roads where the shoulders have deteriorated. Ms. Tucker said shoulder drop-offs are one of VDOT's highest priorities in trying to maintain a safe roadway. They will give that immediate attention. Ms. Thomas said some of the residents on Morgantown Road are interested in greater traffic calming measures. The speed limit is 35 mph, but it is an old residential neighborhood with small houses very close to the road. The Police Department is putting up the "Smart Sign" to help with the speed limit , but there is an obvious place for a three-way stop sign at Grassmere Road. She asked the process to follow for this request. Ms. Tucker said she will have a technician look at it and give a report as to whether.it meets multi- stop conditions and if any extenuating circumstances might apply. First, VDOT needs to look at the road, access its accident history, traffic volumes, the general geometrics and the speeds. Ms. Thomas said she previously suggested that some notice concerning the physical design of the road off of 1-64 at Ivy be given for large trucks exiting the interstate at that point. She said it is not necessarily a neighborhood concern, but she would ask that some advisory sign be erected saying there is no access for the large tractor-trailers to Ivy. Ms. Tucker said she will follow up. Ultimately, on a Secondary Road, the Board has the opportunity of requesting a through-truck restriction. One criteria is that there be a reasonable alternate route. Ms. Humphris thanked VDOT for the paving of Georgetown Road. It is now completed, and lined. The inadvertent stripes are no longer there. She has not noticed that people are traveling faster because of the smooth, evenly paved road. That is a benefit. Ms. Humphris mentioned a letter she received (from Mr. Newman) concern- ing the stop lights at both ends of Mill Creek Drive. She does not know if the light at the Avon Street intersection is functioning yet. Mr. Marshall said it was working this morning. Ms. Humphris said there is also a question as to why there is no stop light on Pantops at the intersection of Rogan Court and Route 250 (at the Amoco Station and the Montessori School). The other day she received another letter from Ms. Bern regarding the Montessori School on Pantops. Ms. Bern seemed to think that the County provides crossing guards. Ms. Humphris said she understands that all schools, private or public, arrange for their own safety protection. Ms. Tucker said that is true. The school works with VDOT under a permit to place flashing school signs. Ms. Humphris said she will reply to Ms. Bern's letter. Ms. Tucker said she will also follow through on the letter. She did speak with the writer of the first letter, Mr. Newman, and explained about the status of the Rogan Court signal and the potential for it to be installed and functioning within a year and a half with the develop- ment of the Pantops area. Mr. Marshall mentioned signage for the James River Runners. He met with Scottsville Town Council about the signage and Ms. Tucker solved that problem yesterday. He asked Ms. Tucker for a report. Ms. Tucker said the James River Runners adopted the section of Route 726 from the intersection of Route 1302 down to the Route 625. Route 1302 was the section of road where they lost their right to install a commercial sign. Under the "Adopt-A-Highway Program" VDOT added a small arrow to the sign to help keep people on the right path. It is an official highway sign, and the owner is satisfied. Mr. Marshall asked for an update on the four-laning of Route 20 South from Route 53 to the new road at Monticello High School. Ms. Tucker said this project has been funded. The funding is for preliminary engineering only. The survey for the project has beguh. She recommends that the Board continue to place this project as a very high Albemarle County priority at the Annual Primary Road Preallocation Hearing so it can continue to be funded, and go to construction within the next six years. September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) 000 .99 Mr. Bowerman asked the length of the project. Ms. Tucker said it is almost two miles in length. It is going to need quite a bit of realignment. Mr. Marshall asked for a guess as to when it might be funded. Ms. Tucker said there was no additional money put into the last plan. She had hoped there would be additional funding included each year. Mr. Marshall said the first day of school he got a call from a parent saying a student had rear-ended another car coming out the school. He suggested there be a deceleration lane on Route 20 turning onto Route 53 instead of having the stripping that guides drivers into the left lane. There would then be a right-turn lane to go onto Route 53. People coming off of Route 53 onEo Route 20 northbound come into the right-hand lane and it should be an acceleration lane to give people time to get into traffic. People are in a hurry to get out of Route 53 and it makes it a dangerous intersection. There is a great deal of traffic coming out of Route 53 in the mornings on the way to work. The accident he mentioned occurred at that intersection. (Note: Since the Board was running way behind the published time schedule, it moved to the matters which had been advertised for public hearings.) Agenda Item No. 13. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on the use of a Law Enforcement Block Grant in the amount of $44,340.00 awarded by the Department of Justice to Albemarle County proposed by the County to primarily be used for enhanced neighborhood policing in the Esmont and Scottsville areas. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 17 and August 24, 1998.) Mr. Tucker said the Department of Justice awarded Albemarle County $44,340.00 in Federal funding with a required local cash match of $4,926.00 for a total of $49,266.00 for public safety initiatives. This funding is for the two-year period of FY 1998 and FY 1999. The purpose of the grant program is to reduce crime and improve public safety. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends using these funds to pay overtime to currenu officers concentrating their efforts in the southern area of the County, particularly the Esmont community which has been identified as having a number of order, maintenance and crime issues. The area is small enough that any additional police presence should be recognized by the citizens of the community and have an effect on crime and public safety. In addition, staff believes the Scottsville area would benefit from the increased presence of an officer. Mr. Tucker recommended that, following the public hearing, the County Executive be authorized to execute the appropriate documents for the grant. Mr. Marshall said he is grateful for these funds which will be used in his district. He said if there were no comments from the Board members, he would open the public hearing at this time. Ms. Nancy Luck said they need this Police program in their community. Lately, there has been a lot of crime in Esmont. They really need this protection in their community. Chief Miller said the Department feels it has been successful in Esmont with the number of things under way. They helped with renovation of the Ward Center. They helped with the formation of the Southern Albemarle Organiza- tion. There have been a number of seminars in the area. They have done drug interdiction in the last couple of months. There has been a lot of traffic enforcement. The Community Partnership Esmont citizens has with the Police Department exceeds expectations. Mr. Marshall said he attended a lot of those meetings at Yancey School, and he wants to thank all who participated, and the cooperation the Police has given to the community has been wonderful. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to authorize the County Executive to execute the appropriate documents for the grant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) 000200 AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 14. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to grant a temporary easement to the developer of the Southside Shopping Center to construct a temporary erosion control basin for the proposed development. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 23, 1998.) Mr. Tucker said the Southside Shopping Center is a "Planned Development Shopping Center" located on the east side of the intersection of Mill Creek Drive and Avon Street. The development currently has an approved Erosion and Sediment Control plan for rough gradinH the site occupying the southeast corner. To address the concerns and comments from both the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the developer located the primary entrance (Mill Creek Drive) close to the rear property line, and as far from Avon Street as possible. Mr. Tucker said due to this layout and the topography of the site, the erosion control basin for the project must be constructed at the location near the primary entrance he just described. Erosion control regulations require that the basin remain in place until the site improvements are constructed and all disturbed areas are stabilized. Only then could the basin be filled and the primary entrance constructed. He said that Hranting the easement proposed will not have an impact on the County's ability to develop its property in the future. However, construction activity will remove trees that would normally serve as a buffer between the County property (zoned R-15) and the shopping center (zoned PD-SC) . Any approval of this request should be conditioned on the easement being replanted with the quantity of trees (4-foot to 5-foot high everHreens) necessary to restore the buffer. Mr. Tucker said that following this required public hearing, staff recommends that the County Executive be authorized to execute the easement once all legal issues with the developer are resolved. Mr. Marshall asked if the Board members had comments. Ms. Humphris said she had a question about trees. She said the staff report describes the area as being densely buffered now. She wonders if the trees recommended are the optimum size for planting. She said it will be a long time before they replace any of that existing buffer. Mr. Tucker said this is the normal requirement in any development for buffering purposes. The trees that will be removed, in staff's opinion, are not mature trees, it is more of a scrub type area. After these new trees mature, there will be a better buffer than the existing buffer. Staff will require white pines, or something that is dense in foliage. Mr. Marshall said cedar trees grow rapidly and take over an area. Ms. Humphris said they may seem common, but they really are a dense buffer. Ms. Thomas said she remembers that there was a concern about pedestrian access to this shopping center. She wants to be sure the Board does not do anything to reduce that pedestrian access. Mr. Tucker said that will be dealt with on the site plan for the shopping center. Approval of this will not affect that situation at all. Mr. Davis said there are sidewalks on that side already. Mr. Marshall said if there were no further comments from the Board members, he would open the public hearing. Mr. David Collins, Roudabush & Gale, engineers for the site plan spoke first. He said they request the temporary detention basin primarily because the topoHraphy warranted that this would be the best place to catch everything from the site. This will allow the road to be built and the site to be developed, and allow the detention basin to stay in place for the entire period of construction. That is what was done on the north side for the Food Lion site. It is easier to maintain and easier to police. He requested approval of the easement. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to authorize the County Executive to execute the temporary easement for the developer of September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 00020 the Southside Shopping Center to construct a temporary erosion control basin for the proposed development once all legal issues with the developer are resolved. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 8a. Overview and Presentation of Albemarle County Department Improvement Process. Mr. Tucker said a continuous Quality Improvement Program (QUIP) has been implemented for all Local Government departments. Recently, department improvement plans were developed for the calendar year 1998. A copy of "Albemarle County Department Improvement Process" as prepared by the County Executive's Office dated September, 1998 has been forwarded to the Board members. Eventually, these department improvement plans will be incorporated into the overall County Strategic Plan which staff hopes will be ready for review in October, 1998. He asked Ms. Roxanne White to give more detail on the individual department plans. Ms. White said the individual improvements plans were developed over the last six months as the culmination'of the QUIP Program which has been in existence since 1992. Staff is excited about the plans and is committed to going forward with the plans. For some of the departments, this was the first time they had ever had sessions which allowed the entire department's staff to come together as a group and decide how they could be a more productive and responsive business unit. Staff found that County employees from all levels of the organization are eager to improve their services to the citizens. These plans are important because they actually outline what the employees in the department feel is important to the implementation of the department's goals. Ms. White said five common themes came up. First was customer service. The employees identified ways to be more responsive to customers; use of public surveys, developing slide shows, better brochures, having round table discussions with citizens, and placing an information desk in the lobby. The second theme concerned the use of technology. Employees want to know about new technology and want the ability to keep themselves updated and use that technology. The third theme was human development. A major focus was that the County insure having a stable, highly-skilled work force. They recognize that in order to motivate employees, continuous training is needed as well as other incentives: job growth, rewarding work, responsibilities, achievement and recognition. The fourth theme was communication. This was recognized by all departments as being essential to productivity and working with the community. The fifth theme is continuous quality improvement. There was strong emphasis placed on strengthening the County's service delivery system, becoming more effective and more efficient. This would involve a variety of organizational changes. Ms. White said a major reason for starting these plans were questions from the QUIP Quality Council last year. They asked how to determine if the QUIP Program is effective and if it is making a difference in service deliv- ery. Staff realized that department improvement plans were needed. The plans set out specific actions various departments will take over the next eighteen months. Performance will then be measured to see the successes and things which still need work. Ms. White said some things have already occurred from the quality initi- ative program, such as: establishment of the Neighborhood Team; establish- ment of a Site Review Team to focus on improving the development review process; a team composed of employees from the Finance Department and Informa- tion Services developed a process for the new car tax collection; there is collaboration between Social Services and community agencies to develop the At-Risk Four-Year Old Program and to develop a Family Support Program; a Customer Service Manual has been developed that sets out county-wide standards and performance measures to use in dealing with the public; there is a build- ing directory to make it easier to access the County Office Building; there is improved signage in the County office Building; there is a Customer Comment Card to get customer input; there is an Advanced Leadership Institute which September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) 000202 gives leadership training to all supervisory staff; there are a series of sessions on customer service which all staff may attend; mandatory training programs have been expanded; and, there is now a core of County-facilitators who have been trained to help departments and other groups facilitate their meetings. Ms. White said the Classified Employee Evaluation form has been modified creating benchmarks and performance measures. A new program called "Off To A Good Start" is the new employee orientation program which is to get new employees involved in QUIP and customer service during their first week of employment. Staff is proud of its accomplishments under the QUIP program. It hopes the Board sees the benefits of these changes, and the initiatives which have been undertaken. She said there are a number of department heads present today, along with the County Executive's staff, who have worked together to put the plans together. Mr. Tucker said it is important to remember that the main component of the QUIP program is the employees who are counted on each day to render effective service. Agenda Item No. 8b. Presentation of Department Improvement Awards. Mr. Tucker asked to share with the Board some special recognitions of individuals and teams which have recently earned them from State and National organizations. First is the County's Customer Service Team represented by Eric Morrisette and its subgroup the "New Employee Orientation Team" which is headed by Judy Gough. These groups designed a new employee orientation process which expanded the existing process to include an in-depth overview of the County, advanced customer service training, designed a mentoring program, and a handbook for supervisory staff. The "Off-to-a-Good-Start" Program was awarded a National Association of Counties (NACO) Achievement Award at the 1998 Annual Awards program. Mr. Marshall then presented the awards to Mr. Morrisette and Ms. Gough. Mr. Tucker said the County has been recognized for several years for sound fiscal operations and management by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States (GFOA) for both Financial Reporting and for Budget Presentation. Mr. Marshall then presented to Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. Mr. Tucker said this award also goes to Anne Murray and Ed Koonce of the Finance Department. Next, Mr. Marshall presented the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to Anne Gulati, Management Analyst in the County Executive's Office. Mr. Tucker thanked Ms. Gulati for her work in planning for and preparing the County budget. He also congratulated Roxanne White for her supervision of the budget preparation process. Mr. Tucker said an award was also received from the National Association of County Information officers as part of the 1998 Awards of Excellence Competition for the brochure on reversion. The brochure was produced as a collaborative effort between several offices. Mr. Marshall presented the award to Larry Davis and Lee Catlin for their efforts on this publication. Mr. Tucker said this is the end of the presentations. He appreciates the opportunity to highlight some of the ways employees have been singled out for attention at the highest levels. The department improvement plans presented this morning and the QUIP program are designed to support County employees as they strive for outstanding service. He then said that Ms. Catlin had a brief presentation to make. Ms. Catlin said that on behalf of the Customer Service Team, they would like to thank Mr. Marshall for being a good sport and helping them out at the County Fair tonight. Having experienced the "Dunking Booth" personally, they would like to give him a pair of goggles. Mr. Marshall said he looks forward to it. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it is appropriate to note that yesterday was Mr. Robert Tucker's 25th Anniversary as a County employee. A lot of people present today joined in wishing him good luck at a party yesterday. Mr. September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) 000203 Tucker said he enjoyed the party. It was a complete surprise as he had no idea that it was being planned. Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Virginia Film Festival Funding Request. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:45 a.m.) Mr. Tucker said Richard Herskowitz, Director of the Virginia Film Festival, has requested a $10,000.00 contribution for their annual event which will take place from October 29 to November 2, 1998. The funding would be used advertising in national publications ($5,000.00) and photographing and recording the event for their Website and other publication materials for national distribution ($5,000.00). For a total operating budget of $256,418.00, the Virginia Film Festival receives approximately 45 percent of their needed funds from the University of Virginia, 25 percent from entrance fees and sales, and the remaining 30 percent from the private and public sectors including businesses, foundations and government grants. The Film Festival is also requesting a $10,000.00 contribution from the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Tucker said if the Board decides to fund The Virginia Film Festival request, funds could be secured from the County's Tourism Fund which currently has $126,985.00 in undesignated funds set aside for tourism-related projects. Funding for the Film Festival could also be made contingent on receiving comparable funding from the City. Ms. Humphris said she supports the funding request. She also supported the request from "Festival of the Book". She believes there is a strong tourist component attached, and she cannot think of a better way to use the funds from the tourism-related income the County has. What speaks in favor of the Film Festival is that it has worked through "thick and thin" for more than ten years, and she feels it has proven itself. It is a huge cultural benefit to the community, as well as a significant tourist draw to the community. She then offered motion to fund the request from The Virginia Film Festival in the amount of $10,000.00, and that it not be contingent on funding from the City. Mr. Martin said if it were money coming from the General Fund, it would be different. Given where the financing is coming from, he thinks it is appropriate to use the Tourism money to do what promotes tourism. He than gave second to the motion. Mr. Marshall said he agrees and looks forward to serving on the Film Festival's Board. With no further discussion of the request, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (Note: The actual appropriation will come to the Board for approval in October.) Agenda Item No. 10. Budget Request: Soil and Water Conservation District. Mr. Tucker said a request has been received from Kat Imhoff, Albemarle County's Director for the Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), for an additional $14,172.00 (adjusted to $14,782.00 to reflect actual cost) to increase the Administrative Secretary's position from a .6 FTE to a full-time position. The letter addresses the increased funding and program responsibil- ities taken on by SWCD since their FY '99 budget request. Mr. Tucker said although mid-year budget requests, particularly for additional staffing, are not recommended on general principle, the Soil and Water Conservation District had several program changes that were not antici- pated during the normal budget process. Staff does recommend approval of $14,782.00 in additional funds to support a full-time Administrative Secre- tary. If the Board approves the additional funding, an appropriation form will be brought to the Board at its next meeting. September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) 000204 Ms. Humphris said she understands their dilemma and it was not of their making. They are fortunate in that they got more revenues for services that Albemarle County is availing itself of, and although this is out of sync with the regular budget considerations, it is justified. Mrs. Thomas said she got a booklet entitled "James River Basin Tributary Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Strategy" which will depend heavily on SWCD to implement new protection strategies. She thinks this is an organization the County will be increasingly dependent on so that makes this an appropriate request. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the additional funding request, with the actual appropriation to be made at the Board's next meeting after the appropriate form is received. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 10:52 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 11. Presentation: Region Ten Community Services Board FY 1999 Performance Contract. Mr. Tucker said that the 1998 General Assembly passed H.B. 428 which amends and reenacts §37.1-194-202 of the Code of Virginia. This section requires local governing bodies to approve its Community Services Board's (CSB) performance contract by a formal vote prior to September 15, 1998. The performance contract is the annual agreement negotiated by a CSB with the State Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, which provides State and Federal funds for mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse service to CSBs. Until now, boards and city councils could review a CSB contract, a complete agency budget submitted by the CSB, or only the city or county budgets that appropriated the local government matching funds, the latter being the previous process in Albemarle. Mr. Tucker said since the performance contract is a lengthy and compli- cated document to review, a guide prepared by the State Department to help local government officials understand the contract was included with the Board's papers for this meeting. Because this is not a contract between the County and Region Ten, and subsequently the County is not party to the performance contract, the state recommends that if the County has any particu- lar concerns or issues that it wishes to resolve with the Community Services Board it would be more appropriate to address those concerns in a separate agreement between the county and the CSB rather than trying to include them in the performance contract. Staff has reviewed the contract and recommends approval of the FY 1999 Community Services Board Performance Contract. Mr. Marshall said he deals with people from Region Ten on a daily basis and they do a wonderful job for the community. It is under funded and understaffed, so given what they have to work with, what they accomplish is extraordinary. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the FY 1999 Community Services Board Performance Contract, as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Request to Adopt Resolution Ratifying the Filing of an Application to the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for a Loan in a Principal Amount Not to Exceed $7,600,000. Mr. Tucker said that funding for the FY 1998-99 Capital Improvement Budget anticipated the issuance of $4.245 million in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for various school projects, and an additional $3.0 million for construction of the Piedmont Regional Education Facility (PREP). Participation in the bond issue requires that both the September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) 000205 School Board and the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution authorizing application to the VPSA. It is anticipated that the School Board will adopt the resolution at its meeting on August 24, 1998, and the Board of Supervisors on September 2, 1998. The required application has been submitted to VPSA because there is a September 2, 1998, deadline for the filing. A number of actions (resolutions, public hearings, approvals) will be required between now and November, 1998 to meet the requirements of VPSA and to maintain their time schedule. The required documents will be submitted to the Board as received by the Director of Finance from the County's bond counsel. Mr. Tucker said the authorization maximum being requested is $7.6 million, which is approximately five percent more than the principal amount of the bonds required. Representatives of VPSA are considering new methods of structuring local bond financing, including the possibility of allowing original issue discounu bonds, and have advised staff to add a five percent cushion to the amount authorized. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution. Mr. Perkins asked if $3.0 million is the total cost of the PREP facil- ity. Mr. Tucker said it is the maximum amount they anticipate. He is not sure that amount is sufficient. Mr. Perkins asked how the County shares the cost with the other entities. Mr. Tucker said the County is the fiscal agent, and the agreements with the other localities call for reimbursement as part of their funding based on a per capita for debt service. Mr. Marshall asked abut the five percent cushion. Ms. Thomas said that is almost $400,000. Mr. Davis asked that Mr. Breeden explain the ~'cushion". Mr. Breeden said it is unlikely the requirement will affect Albemarle County. A number of localities want to issue shorter term bonds dealing with equip- ment, which has a shorter useful life. In some cases, they will want to issue "original issue discount bonds" which will require that the bond issuer be of a larger size in order to have a net proceeds ouu of the bond issue. Realis- tically, for Albemarle County it has no impact, but at the recommendation of bond counsel everybody is to include that in their resolution in case it does have any affect. The County actually needs $7.2 million, and that will be the amount of the bond issue. Mr. Marshall asked if the five percent has to be included in order to make it work. Mr. Breeden said the State is issuing these bonds, so Albemarle doesn't have any say so in the matter. This has been the State's recommenda- tion to everybody. Mr. Bowerman asked if the bonds are resold. Mr. Breeden said ~'yes". Mr. Bowerman asked if this could be part of the conditions to make them marketable. Mr. Breeden said that is what the State hopes for. They are envisioning some benefit of being able to get a cheaper rate in certain areas. Mr. Bowerman suggested the Board follow the advise of counsel. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following resolution ratifying the filing of an application to the Virginia Public School Authority for a loan in the principal amount not to exceed $7.6 million. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY FOR A LOAN IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,600,000 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia, (the "County"), in collaboration with the Albemarle County School Board, has determined that it is necessary and desirable for the County to undertake various capital improvements for its public school system; and BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 000 06 September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) 1. The Board hereby ratifies the filing of an application with the Virginia Public School Authority for a loan to the County in a principal amount noE to exceed $7,600,000 to finance various capital improvements for its public school system. The actions of the County Executive, in collaboration with the other officers of the County and the Albemarle County School Board, in completing and delivering an application to the Virginia Public School Authority are hereby ratified. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately. (Note: At this time, the Board moved ahead to Agenda Item No. 16. Agenda Item No. 15 will follow discussion of this item.) Agenda Item No. 16. Presentation of "An Acquisition of Conservation Easements' Program for Albemarle County", dated September 2, 1998, from Albe- marle County's Purchase of Development Rights Committee, Phase I Report. Mr. Marshall invited Ms. Sherry Buttrick, Chairman, Purchase of Develop- ment Rights Committee, to speak about this Phase I report. She said that in April, 1997 the Committee was charged to develop program goals, criteria and a funding mechanism for a possible Purchase of Development Rights Program for Albemarle County. They were to develop a consensus in the community, and to create the informational literature the program would need. The first phase of that work is complete. They need some direction from the Board at this point before going forward with work to develop a community consensus on the particulars of how such a program would work. They studied existing programs in other states and other localities. The only existing program in the Commonwealth is a program in Virginia Beach. Ms. Buttrick said the Committee concluded that it is desirable and feasible to have such a program for Albemarle County. It decided that in contrast to the agricultural farmland protection programs which most locali- ties have put into place, an open space program is more suitable to Albemarle County. The County's Comprehensive Plan deals with a broader base of natural resource goals. They feel it would be better to not target just farmland, but rather the spectrum of open space resources. The criteria developed reflects what the Committee thinks those resources should be in deciding which properties would be selected for participation in this program. Ms. Buttrick said the mechanism for purchasing development rights is a conservation easement. For that reason, the Committee suggested that an Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program, is needed. It must be made clear from the outset that this is a conservation easements programs, and that is always the mechanism that will be used to purchase development rights. It was an assumption of the Committee that the purchase of develop- ment rights program would be just one method to protect rural areas. The intent is to supplement the land use planning regulations already in place, the gift of conservation easements program already in place with the Out- doors Foundation, participation in Ag/Forest Districts and parklands fee simple acquisition. The Committee does not want this program to be thought of as a replacement for any of those programs. The Committee wanted a flexible program which would allow a wide range of properties to apply. For that reason, the eligibility is very minimal. It is expected that a broad spectrum of properties would apply, so a point system for ranking the properties has been developed. Points would be assigned for natural resource values such as size of property, frontage on a scenic road or a scenic river, biological or historic resources, whether it is a working farm, etc. The point system would also establish what is appropriate to pay for a conservation easement. Ms. Buttrick said she will go over the mechanisms for how the Committee thinks the program should be organized. This is a conceptual discussion at this time and some of the particulars may need to undergo change in the months to come. The program would be organized as a program within the County Planning Department, especially for the first couple of years. The Committee anticipates the need for a portion of a person for staff. They do not believe it would take a full-time employee for the program. The staff would have to market the program and seek grants from foundations and also private contributors to augment any appropriations from the County. The easement holder would be the Public Recreational Facilities Authority of Albemarle County. That body is set up to do exactly what should be done and to be an independent holder in the County. That qualifies under the Open September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 000 07 Space Land Act and is well-suited to do this. The Committee approached the Authority and they are willing to hold these easements if directed by the Board of Supervisors to do so. The Committee contemplates there being an Oversight Commission, something like the Committee that now exists. Its purpose would be to make adjustments in the criteria from time to time to be sure the criteria flow with the new Comprehensive Plan, and to ensure fairness and maximize efficiency of the program and to harness some of the energies in the private sector now doing volunteer work on this effort. The Committee contemplates there being easement terms. The most important would be a density of no more than one house per 100 acres. That could still be adjusted somewhat in terms of exactly how that would be put together, whether it be minimum 100 acre lots or simply a 100-acre density, so five acres could be cut off leaving a residual as a larger farm. Ms. Buttrick said for a financing plan, the Committee recommends that the zero coupon installment purchase plan be pursued. This is the plan that Howard County, Maryland (they were the pioneers in this program) has used, and that Virginia Beach, Virginia, has adopted. The Committee recognizes that the financing plan will have to be modified for use by a county in Virginia. She has been working with Mr. Davis and Mr. Breeden to figure out how that adjust Mr - a$~;~ - ment should be made. · ~owerman~e~ that is in terms of future obligations to future boards. Ms. Buttric~%~'~heW~m~ajor problem with counties in Virginia is their being unable to incur long-term debt. Should it not be possible to adapt the zero coupon mechanism, which has enough positives that it is worth trying, it would be possible to run a purchase of development rights program on a pay-as-you-go, cash basis. It would mean that only ease- ments could be bought with the amount of money the Board appropriated each year. It would not be as good as the other program. Mr. Marshall asked if it would be a one-time payment. Ms. Buttrick said "yes." The property owner would lose those installments over time that put off the capital gains tax. It may be the only way to do the program. Mr. Marshall said if the County made that one-time payment to an individual, what length of time would that one-time payment cover. Ms. Buttrick said if the County has to go with a pay- as-you-go cash basis, the entire financing year-to-year, long-term plan in the report, must be foregone. Mr. Marshall asked if the plan is then only good for one year. Mr. Bowerman said it only moves that land into the program. Ms. Buttrick said it is then an outright purchase instead of purchase over a period of time. Mr. Marshall said in that case, the land can never be developed. Ms. Buttrick said that is correct. Mr. Bowerman said it is paid for in year one in totality. Ms. Buttrick said it is then over and done with in the first year. Mr. Marshall said he understood the program was going to be more of a rent-type program. Ms. Buttrick said that is the financing plan the zero coupon bonds would enable. Mr. Marshall said that would then be on a year-to- year basis. Mrs. Thomas said it would be a permanent purchase at the time, the payment would be made year to year. Mr. Marshall said it would guarantee an income for an individual for a year. Ms. Buttrick said the Committee recommends a funding level of $1.0 million a year. They believe this is the most conservative approach to creating a meaningful program. Virginia Beach has a program of $3.0+ million. The Committee is aware that most existing programs are funded at a higher level. Land in Albemarle County is slightly less expensive than in some other localities. The Committee did not want to create a program which would necessitate a tax increase. They do caution that a token program funded at a significantly lower level would do more harm than good and should be avoided. Mr. Martin asked the reason for that recommendation. Ms. Buttrick said the Committee feels it creates false expectations if a program is advertised and when applications are received, nine out of ten people are disappointed. The program then gets a bad reputation for being a false expectation. Mr. Marshall said there is a cap on the income of people so it will not make the rich richer. Ms. Buttrick said it is not exactly a cap, but in the criteria the Committee has suggested financial considerations would be given a double set of points. They propose that only those applicants of a median income or less for Albemarle County be given maximum points, and that if someone is at 70 percent of that median, they would receive additional points. She person- ally had to defend before the committee that the gift of conservation ease- ments program of the Outdoors Foundation not be discouraged. That program has been successful over the last 30 years. The Committee does not want to pay for something which has been given freely up to this point. The income tax deduction is a good incentive for one sector of the market. It is inappropri- September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) 000; 05 ate for other sectors of the market. It is those family farms to whom a lower scale income tax deduction is non a benefit that they were trying to target through this program. Ms. Buttrick said whan has been presented today is a conceptual render- lng of the program. The next step is to refine the technical details with staff. She is working with County staff to get information to run examples to see how the criteria would actually work. She hopes to have information from the Zoning Department in the next week or two. The Committee would like to refine the details with staff, run some examples to see how they work, and then take this program (if the Board decides to do so) to any individual or group that is interested to see if a consensus can be developed on the details of the program. Ms. Buttrick then introduced Mary Heinricht from Virginia Beach to discuss their program. Ms. Heinricht said people from Howard County, Mary- land, and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, came to Virginia Beach to explain to Council how their programs worked. Virginia Beach adopted its program in May, 1995. It was done during the budget process that year, and created a dedi- cated financing source to purchase development rights from prime agriculture land and forest land. Virginia Beach is in quite a different situation being the largest city in the State and the fastest growing city on the Eastern seaboard. In 30 years, Virginia Beach grew from 80,000 in 1983 to 430,000+ at the moment. Half of Virginia Beach's farmland disappeared during that time. At the time that Council started to consider the program, there were only 32,000 acres of farmland left in active agriculture and it was under great development pressure. Virginia Beach has the largest concentration of military bases in the counnry, and so has a constant pressure for growth. If something was not enacted that created a permanent situation, they knew there would be no farmland left. Virginia Beach had ~dopted a "green line" urban service boundary in 1979, and that was the limit where Council agreed they would not provide publicly-funded infrasEructure beyond that point. That was coming under great pressure to be breached under this continuing development pressure. They looked for programs that would be another tool to help with the comprehensive plan, the green-line zoning, etc. They looked around the country for a program that worked. They found that agricultural conservation easements was successful. It was started in Long Island. California has significant programs, but mostly states in New England were the early pioneers of the program. Ms. Heinricht said they found that programs are used for different uses. Martha's Vineyard has a purchase of development rights program to preserve the visual character of the vineyard. They are preventing subdivision of the larger lots so that it will always look like Martha's Vineyard. In Boulder, Colorado, they adopted a program to create a recreation belt around Boulder. Beyond that point they have their rural land. The Virginia Beach program was done at a point where it had to do everything. If the program had begun 20 years earlier, it might have been quite a different program. They pay full market value for the easements. There is an appraisal system and then they subtract the farm value from that which is $900 an acre, and they pay full value for the easement. They use the installment purchase agreement process. Doing that they spend about 20 cents on a dollar so at the beginning of the program, they were able to buy more lands than had been anticipated. Since the program began, over 5000 acres have been approved for permanenE easement. Another 1800 acres are in the review process now. There has been a constant supply of applications. A few applicants have not accepted the offers made, but they are generally small parcels which back into Back Bay and are below a five-foot elevation. They have little development potential and people thought that land was worth more than it ms worth. Some of the oldest farms in Virginia Beach have come into the program. Virginia Beach has much smaller parcels than those in Albemarle. Their average parcel is about 55 acres. They don't have large vistas, they have only prime soils. They don't have stones or hills because they are mainly flat. The program has been well received, and they hope that some other localities in the State will adopt similar programs so everybody can go to Richmond and get a State program adopted. Ms. Heinricht said she has been speaking around the State. She has been to New Kent, Hanover, Powhatan, Loudoun, Albemarle counties, and the city of Chesapeake. She offered to answer questions. Mr. Martin asked about the $900 figure for farmland. Ms. Heinricht said at the beginning of the program, they had two appraisers go through some September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) 000209 practice appraisals to be sure the system was correct. They tested the point system, and they did a study throughout the United States looking at incomes from farmland, values, comparable sales in the Virginia Beach area, at its land use taxation system and $900 was what they felt was a fair value for assessment purposes. Everyone recognized that in the Virginia Beach area no one could buy an acre of farmland for $900, so it was a mean point between what they felt was fair market value and the land use assessment. Mr. Marshall asked the assessed value for farmland in Virginia Beach. Ms. Heinricht said they have paid from $1400 an acre (actual value $2300 an acre) up to $5400. They have a new property which has come in for evaluation which has been appraised at $16,000 an acre. It is right against the develop- ment line at the corner of Sandbridge Road and Princess Anne Road. There is an elementary school across the street. There is very high density housing next to it and it is some of the best farmland in the city. Virginia Beach is now looking at whether to have a cap on the program for that very developable area. They have an area called a transition zone where they knew not everyone would want to be in the program. It does allow some limited development, but they wanted the program for the few farmers in that area who wanted their children to continue to farm. Mr. Steve McClain, the Committee member from the Chamber of Commerce, spoke next. He said from the perspective of the Chamber, the proposal is well-crafted and well-thought out. He hopes it will be used as a tool to help protect some of the rural character of the area which has eminent public value as well. Mr. Marshall said he supports this idea. His only concern is where to get the money without raising taxes. Mr. Tucker said staff will have to look into that question, and he believes it will be able to offer some options for the Board to consider. Mr. Perkins said the Board owes Ms. Buttrick a great deal of debt for the work she has done. She has managed to keep the Committee headed in one direction, and did a tremendous amount of work putting all the information together. He said there are a lot of questions which need to be answered. He thinks the Committee is asking that the Board accept this report as Phase I and then proceed to Phase II to try and work out such things as financing. Mr. Marshall said he believes a consensus of the Board is needed stating that the Board wants to go ahead with this program so Mr. Tucker can find the $1.0 million needed to get the program started. Mr. Bowerman said if the Board thinks this is in principle a good idea and decides to take this to the next step, the funds would be generated from an 'increase in property values and existing tax rates, etc. He said that in order to implement a program like this and to stay consistently at some level, there may be the possibility that additional funds will be needed. Mr. Marshall said for every house built in Albemarle County, the $1.00 in taxes that house pays costs the County government $1.50 in infrastructure. There- fore, the County will save a considerable amount of money by limiting the number of houses being built through this process. Mr. Marshall said he is willing to commit himself at budget time to $1.0 million. He believes that in the long-run it create a tremendous savings for the County. He is looking forward to getting other counties to do the same thing, and then maybe getting some support from the State either being able to levy an additional tax or even in funds directly from the State. In order to get it started, he believes the Board needs to make that commitment. Mr. Bowerman said the Committee made a valid point that there is whole quiver of arrows" that are necessary in order to deal with the land use problems this community is facing. The County needs as many as it can get, and needs as much from outside of the County as possible. The Board also needs to demonstrate that there is an internal commitment. Mr. Martin said there are many arrows, but this is the first one where the County would be "putting its money where its mouth is." He believes this is important and he is more than willing to make a commitment. Mr. Bowerman said he is hearing that the Board cannot commit to just one year. There has to be some mechanism that this can be implemented over a series of years. Ms. Thomas said that is the sort of technical thing the September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) 000210 staff will have to work out. Mr. Davis said if the Board chose the zero coupon bond route, that is a complicated procedure to get out of. Basically, the Board would be locking future boards into doing a level of commitment to this program from a financial standpoint. Mr. Marshall said staff just needs a consensus from the Board that that is what it wants to do. Mr. Tucker said he believes staff has gotten a consensus today that all of the Board members are supportive of doing some- thing. Staff will continue to work with Ms. Buttrick and the Committee to refine some of the technical issues and then start looking at options for funding. At that point, if it doesn't come to $1.0 million, the Board can decide if it wishes to support it beyond just the revenues currently projected for the General Fund. Ms. Humphris said based on cost benefit and what the citizens have said they want the Board to do, this is now a win-win situation even though the Board would be spending tax dollars of one kind or another. The Board has said for a long time that it wanted the right to do this, then it got the right, and has now slowly crept up on the doing. She thinks the public would be pleased with this program as one of the arrows the Board hopes to exercise. Mr. Bowerman said this report on the first phase of the Committee's work is in line with what the Board needs to do before the Committee goes further. The Board needs to recognize the work which has been done, and buy into the concepts that have been presented. Ultimately there will be detail changes as the work proceeds. Ms. Thomas said she appreciates the Committee's work on this program. This seems to be a good program after a lot of false starts. Mr. Marshall said he does not hear anyone saying they are opposed to the concept. It appears there is a consensus from the Board to proceed. He thanked all of the Committee members who were present at the meeting. Mr. Perkins said the Committee has done what they were instructed to do. That was, to bring in a program using existing State law. He said the existing State law is antiquated, it is complicated, and he thinks the Board needs to work on the General Assembly to get some laws changed. (Note: At 11:45 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:55 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 15. Presentation: Albemarle Housing and Development Program (AHIP) Strategic Plan 1998. Ms. Theresa Tapscott, Executive Director, was present to thank the Board for its support of AHIP and its programs. She said they want to show a video made possible by Hantzmon Weibel & Company, First Virginia Bank and an anonymous AHIP Board member. Mr. Nick Munger, President of AHIP s Board, said Ms. Tapscott is now the Chairman of the Virginia Housing Coalition which is the most significant organization of volunteer affordable housers in the state. She is also Chair of the newly-formed State Trust Fund Committee which is trying to build an affordable housing trust fund on a statewide basis. He said that as President of AHIP and in working with Ginnie McDonald of the Housing Office, he would like to say how important it has been that the Board acknowledged the need for finding new sources of funding in the housing area, and the Board or Supervi- sors commitment to the County housing trust fund. It is a substantial first step for the County to take, and is something AHIP can point to when working regionally with neigh-boring counties in cooperation with the Piedmont Housing Alliance and other regional groups. Albemarle County is a forerunner in the state in its support of affordable housing. Mr. Bowerman said he appreciates AHIP putting what the Board does in perspective. The only thing this Board can view is what it does and what it ms criticized for not doing enough of. Mr. Martin agreed. Mr. Munger said the video touches on that briefly. AHIP has been around for 20 years and it has been thought of as an improvement program for existing housing, emergency repairs and rehabs. In just the last year or two, as the new certification plan has pointed out, AHIP has changed organizationally even to the point of contemplating a change of name. For the first time, this is September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) O002: .:L an organization where initiatives are being taken in different directions than just fixing existing housing. Just yesterday, AHIP got a letter from VHDA committing $400,000+ for financing for a nine-unit scattered site, rent-to-own project they have applied for several times. The Board probably does not realize how exceptional it is in terms of supporting housing on a statewide basis. Ms. Humphris said that is very refreshing to hear. Ail the time she hears that Albemarle does nothing in the area of affordable housing. Every person who says that to her, she find~ ~e~ey know absolutely nothing about what the County's programs are, and the distance the County has come in the eight years since she has been a Board member. AHIP is now a totally differ- ent organization. Many strides have been made in positive direction toward home ownership and rehabilitation. She thinks all the players should be congratulated. Mr. Munger said Ms. Tapscott is trying on a statewide basis to make sure the Board of Supervisors is recognized for its efforts. The video was then reviewed by the Board. Mr. Bowerman asked how the video will be used. Ms. Tapscott said AHIP does have one ma]or fund-raising event coming up. They are going to raffle off a house. The Kessler Group has agreed to work with them to find a lot in a good subdivision. Vito Cetta, one of the Board members, is going to build the house for cost, and they will raffle it off. This idea will be taken to community groups, civic organizations, churches and businesses and market the house raffle, and let people know who they are. Mr. Bowerman asked if AHIP had approached the public television stations about running the video. Ms. Tapscott said they will. The producers of the video are working with the new Charlottesville television station, and they are interested. Mr. Bowerman asked what commercial time would cost locally. Ms. Tapscott said they have not gotten that far yet. Mr. Tucker suggested using the public access cable channels. Mr. Marshall said he is glad to see the video. He has seen a lot of it. in his lifetime, and that is one reason he is sitting on this Board. Mr. Munger said that AHIP Board members who have connections back to the neighborhood will be asked to assist in taking this video to different committees, etc. Mr. Marshall said there are a lot of people in the County who live like this, and the vast majority of people do not know about those situations. Ms. Tapscott said there are a lot of people throughout Virginia who live like this. Mr. Marshall said Albemarle is one of the wealthiest counties in the state. Ms. Tapscott said one of the objectives statewide is selling housing as an economic development tool, as well as an educational tool. They believe that everything starts at home. If you don't have a home, it is hard to keep a job. If you don't have a place to study, it is hard to excel in school. Ms. Thomas said it is a fact that rural housing is almost always hidden when there is substandard housing. In 1975 when the first housing survey was done in Albemarle, she drove around the County and saw the most incredible housing conditions. Mr. Martin asked where land comes from for the houses AHIP builds. Ms. Tapscott said it comes from the family, or they try to find affordable lots they can buy and hold for a short time. Mr. Martin asked the average size of a lot. Ms. Tapscott said in the rural areas, it is two acres. Mr. Marshall said he knows that a lot of people in the City of Charlottesville live in worse conditions. Ms. Tapscott said it is everywhere, although the problems are different in the City. There are not the indoor plumbing problems in the City that exist in the County. Mr. Bowerman asked about the interface between the Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) and AHIP. Ms. Tapscott said PEA is still in the developmental phases. There are resources available sometimes that are not necessarily available just to Albemarle County. These funds might be available on more of a regional basis. PHA is an organization specializing in housing. It is trying to become a clearinghouse for those types of resources. AHIP is more of a bricks and mortar implementer of programs and direct contact with clients. PEA is more of a receptacle for resources. September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) 000 .2 Mr. Bowerman said they made a request to the Board to approach it more on a regional basis' and to coordinate the different activities currently going on. The Board of Supervisors agreed that was a good way to do it. Ms. Tapscott said there are housing organizations in all of Planning District 10. Over the past three or more years, these organizations have come together as a group. PHA is to provide the funding for these activities. AHIP, which is the largest organization and has the most experienced staff, shares its expertise through hands-on consulting with some of the smaller groups. Mr. Marshall thanked everyone for coming and presenting this report for AHIP. Agenda Item No. 18. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. At 12:30 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 (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Executive Session. At 2:46 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: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion: Virginia Coalition of High Growth Communities. Mr. Tucker said that on June 19, 1998, a group of several hundred elected and appointed staff members from various cities and counties across the Commonwealth gathered in Fredericksburg, Virginia, to explore the possi- bilities of forming a coalition of high growth communities to more effectively present their issues and recommendations on the impacts and solutions to growth-related issues to the General Assembly. Subsequent to that meeting, several additional organizational meetings were held by the High Growth Coalition which has now begun to formulate specific issues and draft legisla- tion for consideration. Mr. Tucker said that on August 5, 1998, this Board passed a resolution of general support for the High Growth Coalition indicating its willingness to work together. On August 9, 1998, the High Growth Coalition met to begin reviewing special legislative directions the Coalition wanted to support. Under consideration at this meeting were five specific pieces of legislation: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Impact fees for school construction; Adequate public facilities; Limitation on the use of special exceptions in certain counties; Vested rights; and School construction funding. Mr. Tucker said it is the staff's opinion that the County's efforts should focus on an achievable agenda. The likelihood of the General Assembly advancing the broad legislative package identified by the Coalition is September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) 0002:1.3 doubtful unless it can be embraced statewide by a much broader coalition of interests. Although each of the issues are important, the proposals, as presented, have serious flaws that hinder either their adoption or implementa- tion. The one idea which merits greater analysis is the issue of school construction funding. A common problem of all high growth communities is the challenge of building new or larger schools. It would be advantageous for the Coalition to advance a proposal which would allow the General Assembly's support of education to be directed at financially assisting the building of schools in the growth localities which are, in fact, generating a significant amount of the Commonwealth's revenue growth. There is optimism that this issue could be favorably received in the 1999 General Assembly. Staff believes the Coalition should focus on that issue. Mr. Tucker said staff recognizes that Albemarle County faces significant challenges in its attempt to reasonably manage growth and to require that growth be supported without substantial property tax increases. It is likely that under current enabling authority, growth management will continue to be a difficult task and the County's fiscal stress will continue to increase. However, compared to other high growth localities, Albemarle County's growth management successes and tax rate are very favorable. Staff believes it may be easier for other high growth localities to more dramatically make the case for the Coalition's agenda. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board continue its support of the Coalition but seek to have the Coalition narrow its 1999 legislative focus on legislation that will increase school construction funding for high growth localities. The broader legislative agenda should be further studied to develop a strategy to increase its base of support so that it can be success- fully advanced in future years with legislation that is viable and effective. The Board and staff should continue to provide input to the Coalition and participate in the formulation of strategies. Mr. Tucker said Ms. Thomas met with this group yesterday and he asked her to give an update. Ms. Thomas said the group talked in terms of strate- gies. The meeting on the 25th is not an invitation-only event. The group wants to make a presentation to Delegate Keating's Committee which is looking at the impact of population growth on communities. The strategy is to have each county which wants to do so, give a short presentation on what growth is creating despite what is being done to manage growth. Then there will be a request to the General Assembly to look at the bills which are pending; the ability to turn down a development where public facilities are not ready in that area, the ability to assess impact fees, particularly for the building of schools; a special use permit issue which is in front of Fauquier County; a clarification of the vested rights bill that passed last year which eliminates the county's ability to deal with changed conditions; and, more money for school construction. The main emphasis would be on more money for school construction. The umbrella organization will say it does not support or even regard all five of these issues as equally important, but these are the kinds of things it is interested in the legislature looking at. If the Board wants to participate, that is what it would be part of. Mr. Tucker said Albemarle County may not want the legislation as currently written for impact fees even if the legislation were successful. Staff will develop some language for this one. Ms. Thomas said if VACo is successful, all of these pieces of legislation would be a local option. Mr. Marshall asked what the Board is to do with the report today. Mr. Tucker said staff needs directions. Ms. Thomas is willing to make the presen- tation. Staff will develop language for whoever is going to present it and let the Board members see it before the 25th. Ms. Thomas said the Keating Commission wants certain facts and figures in writing by the llth but that does not have to be the County's presentation. Ms. Humphris said the interesting thing to her is that the same people who complain about the tremendous growth rate are recruiting growth and development. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board will receive a codification of this from the subcommittee that is working for the coalition, or is this the final version. Ms. Thomas said the Board will get a copy after the fact. This Board will only receive a copy of Albemarle's presentation. Ms. Thomas said the five basis issues were in the staff's report. September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) 000£14 Ms. Humphris said she found the staff report to be very insightful. It pointed out that the Board should not "jump in feet first" but should go slowly and easily so the County does not show up in a bad way. In her mind it will take a lot longer than between October and January to put a legislative package together properly with the focus that they are talking about. What they are talking about is having the elected representatives be the major lobbyists in Richmond on the various bills that will be introduced. She does not believe there is sufficient time to do that properly and effectively. She does not want this group to "fall flat on its face" and fail. She does not think there is enough time to do all of those things for this next session of the General Assembly. Mr. Tucker said staff does not need any action. The consensus he has heard from Board members is that the Board is generally supportive. Staff will bring back a couple of statements for Ms. Thomas to present on the 25th. Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to appoint Ms. Martha R. Tarranu to the Regional Disabilities Services Board for a term to expire on July 1, 2001, to replace Mr. Thomas Jakubowski whose term had expired. Mr. Martin offered motion to appoint Mr. David T. Paulson to the Jordan Development Corporation for a term on August 13, 1999, to place Ms. Lisa Glass whose term had expired. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Perkins said he had talked with several volunteer firemen who expressed a concern about rumors they had heard about funding. He would like for the Board to have an update on the fire and rescue function, and a list of plans for that division. Ms. Thomas mentioned the regional planning summit to be held on Septem- ber 10, 1998, from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. at Westminster-Canterbury. They hope to get some of the outlying counties acquainted with Albemarle, and vice versa. Albemarle zs a little more sophisticated in its land use planning, so it should be useful all around. There seems to be quite a bit of interest in this meeting. Ms. Thomas mentioned a proposal by ValuAmerica to build a new building just west of Piedmont Tractor Company and employ 1500 people who would be using Route 250 West for ingress and egress. Staff is talking to them about various alternative ways to get people into and out of that site without just building a large enough parking lot for people to park there. She does not know what ability staff has to negotiate with them as to the number of parking spaces they have to build. The number of spaces is probably already set by the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said there is a standard requirement based on square footage depending on the type of use. It would actually require some type of Board of Zoning Appeals amendment in order to offer a reduction in that standard. There would need to be a basis for that, unless the ordinance were amended. Without the parking being provided, people will park on the curb, or off the road, or anywhere they can stop a vehicle. Mr. Bowerman asked if an application had been filed. Mr. Perkins said it is a by-right use. Mr. Cilimberg said they have not applied yet, but have just been making Inquiries. Ms. Thomas said it is a question of whether the County's own ordinances will make it difficult to get alternatives at the beginning of the project. September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) 000215 Mr. Martin said he looks at what goes on in the City. At his place of employment there is only 40 percent of the amount of parking needed. The only thing that happens is that people block people in. Lots of time when he is late to this meeting on Wednesday mornings it is because he went to work early, and when it was time to leave, he had to ask 10 people to move their cars. Not having adequate parking spaces doesn't stop anything. He does not think you can ask people to do what you don't do yourself. Ms. Humphris said it is easier if there is a transit system in place that works. Mr. Marshall said there needs to be a uniform work schedule for all of the employees also. Ms. Thomas said she did not want to be totally specific on this company. It was just an example of whether or not the County has the ability to deal with this sort of situation. Mr. Marshall said he would not be present for the September 9, 1998, Board meeting. Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. At 3:15 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.