HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-03December 3, 1997 (Regular Da? Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 3, 1997, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris,
Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert, W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the
Chairman, Ms. Humphris.
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.
Mr. Vernon Fisher, representing the Tax Coalition, said the Coalition
has a problem with Albemarle County's taxes. He called Mr. Marshall and
expressed his concerns about the meals tax or any other increase in taxes.
There have been increases in property tax assessments, and he realizes the
County officials are trying to run a nice County and give people the things
they need such as educational services, etc. However, at this point there
needs to be an open and frank discussion about the point where any taxes
become counterproductive to the people and families in this County. Every-
thing has a limit, and he thinks the limit has been reached for some of the
citizens. He indicated that he told Mr. Marshall his feelings, and Mr.
Marshall told him to bring his thoughts to the Board of Supervisors.
He then showed the Board members a petition which he had taken to the
polls at Piedmont Community College. He said people were literally down on
their knees .signing the petition. He and everybody who signed the petition
are asking for two things. First, they are requesting a study relative to
when taxes become counter-productive. The citizens know they must have a
government, and the government is going to do certain things, which have to be
supported with taxes. He reiterated, though, that at some point taxes become
counterproductive, and for a lot of citizens it has already happened. He said
most people will never be out of debt, and it is not a healthy situation. He
added that most Americans might make it three to six weeks without a job,
before someone forecloses on their houses and takes their cars. He and others
came up with the idea to bring the problem to the Supervisors and remind them
that they are the citizens' leaders. He said because of this they would like
for the Board members to develop something to give the citizens a guarantee
that at some point taxes will stop, and Albemarle County will not be the straw
that breaks the camel's back.
Secondly, he asked the Board to formally survey the citizens once a year
in a similar fashion as L. F. Payne did for the Fifth District. The survey
should include regular items such as whether taxes should be raised, lowered
or kept the same, as well as how much they should be raised or lowered, etc.
He stated that other projects and issues should be shown on the survey, and he
referred to the FYI information being sent to citizens. He appreciates this
publication, but it should be improved and at the same time, citizens should
be given a vehicle to respond to the County officials, so they know the
citizens' needs, opinions and desires. He next told Mr. Marshall that he
hopes he will continue to champion the needs of the citizens in his district.
Mr. Fisher again noted the hundreds of signatures on the petition.
Ms. Humphris stated that usually Board members do not respond at the
time items are brought up, if they are not on the agenda. However, she
realizes how sincere Mr. Fisher is, but she reminded him of the Board's open
budget process. She pointed out that included in the Supervisors' packets
today is the operating budget calendar for the year, and on it is listed all
of the public hearings for both the capital improvements budget and the
operating budget. She hopes all of the people who signed the petition will
let the Supervisors know their feelings at that time because it is the forum
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
000a.43
provided for this purpose. Any ideas the people have will be welcomed, and if
growth stops in Albemarle County, then there will be a different situation.
She added, though, as long as this is a growing County, there will be growing
expenses. She then inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak
about matters not shown on the agenda.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he wanted to speak to this topic. He
basically told Mr. Fisher the same'thing as Ms. Humphris. He said it is
important for Mr. Fisher to bring people not only to the public hearings this
Board has, but also to the School Board meetings.
Mr. Fisher said he is interested in changing the process because it is
not working very well for a lot of people. It is nice to have these meetings,
but there are some people under serious time constraints.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas,
seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.10 on the consent
agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Item No. 5.1. Resolution to prohibit the use of through truck traffic
on Rio Road (Route 631)from the Charlottesville City limits to Hillsdale
Drive (Route 1427). (Deferred from November 12, 1997.)
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, received a request from the Virginia Department of
Transportation to consider the prohibition of through truck traffic
on a segment of Rio Road (Route 631) as a means to address safety
concerns; and
WHEREAS, combinations of Route 29-Seminole Trail and Route 29-
250 Bypass are reasonable alternatives to trucks now traveling Rio
Road to the Charlottesville City limits or Route 29.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, does hereby request that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board prohibit the use of through truck traffic on
Rio Road (Route 631) between the Charlottesville City limits and
Hillsdale Drive (Route 1427). This prohibition shall apply to any
truck or truck and trailer or semi-trailer combination, except a
pickup truck or panel truck. A truck shall mean every motor vehicle
designed to transport property on its own structure independent of
any other vehicle and having a registered gross weight in excess of
7,500 pounds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does support this request and states its
intent that it will use its good offices for enforcement of the
proposed prohibition by the Albemarle County Police Department and
any other appropriate law enforcement agency.
Item No. 5.2. Resolution to accept roads in Dunlora Subdivision, Phases
lB, lC and iD (SUB-12.354) into the State Secondary System of Highways. In a
memorandum dated November 18, 1997, the Department of Engineering certified
that the roads serving Dunlora Subdivision, Phase lB, lC and iD (SUB 12.354),
are substantially complete and ready for VdoT acceptance.
By the above-shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgi~a,
in regular meeting on the 3rd day of December, 1997, adopted the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
000 144
WHEREAS, the streets in Dunlora - Phases lB, lC and 1D (SUB
12.354) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
December 3, 1997, 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 Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the re-
quirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add roads in Dunlora - Phases lB, 1C and 1D as described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 3, 1997, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to§33.1-229, Code
of Virginia, 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 Department of
Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
Charter Oaks Drive from Station 39+65.81, right edge of
pavement of State Route 1177, to Station 37+00, end of road
construction, 265.81 lineal feet, as shown on plat recorded
12/1/89 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1078, pages 566-75, with a right-of-way
width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.05 mile.
King William Drive from Station 10+10, left edge of pavement
of Charter Oaks Drive, to Station 33+00, rear edge of pavement
of cul-de-sac, 2290 lineal feet, as shown on plat recorded
12/1/89 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1078, pages 566-75, with a right-of-way
width of 50 feet, with additional plats recorded 12/27/89 in
Deed Book 1081, pages 426-30; 7/28/93 in Deed Book 1328, pages
746-7; 8/11/97 in Deed Book 1633, page 220, for a length of
0.43 mile.
Barclay Hill from Station 10+10, left edge of pavement of King
William Drive, to Station 16+37.61, rear edge of pavement of
cul-de-sac, 627.61 lineal feet, as shown on plat recorded
12/1/89 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1078, pages 566-75, with a right-of-way
width of 50 feet, with additional plats recorded 8/11/97 in
Deed Book 1633, page 224; 11/12/97 in Deed Book 1654, pages
545-7, 548-50, 551-3 and 554-6, for a length of 0.12 mile.
4)
Pendleton Court from Station 10+10, left edge of pavement of
King William Drive, to Station 11+90, rear edge of pavement of
cul-de-sac, 180 lineal feet,' as shown on plat recorded
12/27/89 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1081, pages 426-30, with a right-of-way
width of 50 feet, for a length of 0.03 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.63 mile.
Item No. 5.3. Authorization to proceed with sale of Trigon stock to be
used to offset health costs.
In February 1997, Trigon converted to a public-traded stock company at
which time all policy holders received common stock based on their premium
history with the company. As a result of this, Albemarle County received
23,758 shares of stock as of August 5, 1997.
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
0001.45
Due to the complexity of this issue involving most Virginia localities,
special legislation was adopted in the 1997 General Assembly governing the
allocation and distribution of the stock and/or proceeds from the sale of the
stock as well as any investment income. The main issues addressed by the
legislation are as follows:
Allocation - In localities such as Albemarle, where all employees;
general government, schools, and other agencies, are covered by a
joint policy; the stock must be allocated to each group based on
premiums paid during FY 96/97. Allocation of Albemarle's stock
is:
Shares %
General Government 4,668 19.65
Schools 17,619 74.16
Jail Authority 746 3.14
Service Authority 487 2.05
CATEC 238 1.00
Total 23,758 100.00%
2 o
School Allocation - At least fifty percent of the School stock or
proceeds must be used to offset health insurance premium expenses
incurred on behalf of school employees. Any. remaining School
stock or proceeds must be used for school construction, mainte-
nance, or debt service. All of the School stock or proceeds may
be used for health insurance instead of construction, etc.
Liability for Retaining Stock - Since common stock is not an
allowable investment of local funds, certain statutory protection
has been provided for the Treasurer or Director of Finance respon-
sible for local investments. Basically, to take advantage of this
protection, at least one-third of the stock must be sold each
year, with August 5, 1998, being the end of the first year. All
stock may be sold immediately.
This stock was originally issued at $13.00 per share, has been as high
as $27.00 per share, and is currently selling at $26.125 (11/20/97). The
current value of Albemarle's stock is $620,677. A fee of approximately $1,200
will be incurred to sell the stock.
Based on the main objective for local investments, safeguarding of
principal, it is staff's recommendation to sell all stock in the near future.
Although the stock market can be very unpredictable, there is a general
consensus that Trigon stock will stabilize around $25.00 per share. It is
staff recommendation that this stock be placed with a brokerage firm with an
order to sell as long as the price per share is above $25.00. Should the
price drop before the sale can be completed, the stock price will be tracked
on a regular basis and the Executive Health Committee will re-evaluate this
recommendation if the stock does not reach this value within a reasonable
time. Staff also recommends that the entire proceeds be allocated to the
Health Insurance Reserve Fund. Based on projected increases of 8 to 10
percent in health costs, this amount would offset a large portion of the
increase for FY 98/99. Representatives from each group on the Health Insur-
ance Executive Committee has tentatively agreed to this approach, however, a
decision to use the entire proceeds for health insurance will require official
agreement by the Board of Supervisors, the School Board, and other agencies.
Staff requests the Board's authorization to proceed with the sale of the
stock to be used to offset the health costs after obtaining the consent of the
other parties. This authorization requires adoption of the attached resolu-
tion which is required by the brokerage firm prior to the sale of the stock.
By the above-shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
I, Ella Carey, in my official capacity, hereby certify: that I am
Clerk of the County of Albemarle, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia duly organized and existing under the laws
of Virginia; that at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors, duly and
regularly convened and held on the 3rd day of December, 1997, at
which a quorum for the transaction of business was present and
acting, the following resolution was duly and regularly adopted, and
O0014G
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
is still in full force and effect, and appears as follows in the
minutes of the meeting:
RESOLVED: that Melvin A. Breeden, who is the Director of Finance of
this County is hereby authorized to sell, assign and transfer the
following:
the execution of Trigon stock
and to execute any and all instruments necessary, proper or
desirable; further, that any past action in accordance herewith is
hereby ratified and confirmed; and further, that any officer of this
county is hereby authorized to certify this resolution to whom it
may concern.
I further certify that the foregoing resolution is not contrary to
any provision in the county or state code and that I have been duly
authorized to make this certificate on behalf of this county. In
witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of this
county this 8th day of December, 1997.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County,
Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, has determined that it is desirable for the County
to sell its Trigon stock;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA:
That Melvin A. Breeden, who is the Director of Finance of this
county is hereby authorized to sell, assign and transfer the
following:
the execution of Trigon stock
and to execute any and all instruments necessary, proper or
desirable; further that any past action in accordance herewith is
hereby ratified and confirmed; and further, that any officer of this
county is hereby authorized to certify this resolution to whom it
may concern
WITNESS my signature and seal of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, this 8th day of December, 1997.
Item No. 5.4. Voluntary Early Retirement request for FY 1998-99.
Albemarle County Personnel Policy §P-63 provides for voluntary early
retirement for County employees who have been employed by the County for ten
of the last thirteen years and who are at least 50 years of age and currently
employed. Staff has received one request from an employee who has been
employed with the county for the prerequisite minimum number of years and has'
indicated his intention to retire within the current fiscal year (2/1/98).
The associated employee costs will be absorbed into the FY 1997-98 budget.
County policy requires the Board of Supervisors to approve all early
retirement applications upon recommendation of the County Executive. Staff
recommends that this request be approved with the budgetary implications
absorbed within the current departmental FY 1997-98 budget.
By the above shown vote, the Board approved the application for partici-
pation in the County's Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program from Mr.
Robert A. Shaw, with retirement to begin February 1, 1998.
Item No. 5.5. Request for additional funding of $37,732 to complete
Dixie Little League project at McIntire Park.
On October 2, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved County funding for
$36,000 to participate with the City of Charlottesville and the Dixie Little
League in the construction of two little league fields at McIntire Park. The
project included the demolition and reorientation of the existing field to
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000i47
(Page 6)
make room for the second field. The City of Charlottesville estimated the
cost of this project at $100,000. The Dixie Little League raised $40,000 for
the project, with the remaining $60,000 coming from the City and the County.
Since 60 percent of the participants in the Dixie Little League are County
residents, the County was asked to provide 60 percent of this amount.
The City's original estimate was made without the benefit of topographi-
cal surveys or plan details and was based on actual cost data from a recently
completed ballfield at Tonsler Park. During the early part of the design
phase, it became apparent that the grading and utility components of the
project were more extensive than the Tonsler Park job and would require most
of the allocated budget. The City decided to adjust the scope of work and
proceeded to bid and award a contract of $89,000 for the'grading, seeding, and
utility component of the project. This base bid amount along with Architec-
tural and Engineering fees and other incidental expenses have exhausted the
original $100,000 project budget.
A complicating factor in trying to determine the true cost of the
project was that the original site plan included elements of the Phase II
Master Plan for McIntire Park. With all of these costs associated with the
project the development cost estimate soared to $318,000. A lot of effort has
gone into isolating what costs should be fairly associated with this project
and hence shared by the County a~d Dixie League, and what costs would have
occurred in the future, regardless of this project, and should be the sole
responsibility of the City of Charlottesville. City and County staff and
Dixie League representatives have agreed that costs associated with the access
road, parking area and associated curb, gutter and utility work are peripheral
to the ballfield project. These improvements, estimated at $60,000, were
planned for the future, but have been accelerated by this project. The City
has agreed to assume full responsibility for these costs. The County and
Dixie League will only share in costs directly associated with the development
of the two ballfields and concession stand which will be primarily used by the
Dixie League program.
The Dixie League has identified the following elements totaling $97,980,
in addition to the base bid work, as required to open the fields for play in
the Spring:
Concession Building: $35,000
Fencing: $28,000
Infields: $10,000
Dugouts: $16,000
Bleachers: $ 4,000
Seeding: $ 4,890
Total: $97,890
The League has raised an additional $35,000 toward these costs. The
City is proposing that the remaining $62,890 be funded as the original request
was at 60 percent County and 40 percent City. The respective contributions
for these additional components therefore would be $37,734 (County) and
$25,156 (City).
The Parks and Recreation Department has recently completed interviewing
representatives from the various area athletic organizations to determine
current and future athletic field needs. The Department submitted a list of
those needs in priority order with its 1998/99 2002/03 CIP requests. Based
on the Dixie League's needs, the current status of this project, the City's
commitment, and the tremendous efforts made by League volunteers, the comple-
tion of this project is listed as the %1 priority for funding. The Parks and
Recreation Department currently has funding available of $70,000 for the
athletic field needs study and development.
Staff recommends that the Board approve additional funding of $37,734
from the existing Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Program for the
completion of the Dixie Little League Project at McIntire Park. This appro-
priation is recommended with the understanding that any additional costs
associated with the completion of this project, will not be the responsibility
of the County of Albemarle.
Ms. Humphris said when it was discovered that the grading, seeding and
utility component was going to use up all of the amount budgeted for the
project, City officials decided to adjust the scope of work, but they decided
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
to adjust it with the County's money. She wondered about the process as far
as why this matter was not brought back to the Supervisors so they could
determine if they were willing to go ahead under the changed circumstances.
City officials knew, at that time, they were not going to be able to do the
project with the amount of money appropriated from the County.
Mr. Tucker answered that neither the County nor the Dixie League intends
to fund this portion of the project. The County's funding will focus primar-
ily on the field expansion and related uses for the Little League needs and
not on the roadway, curb and gutter nor other items the City will have to
provide.
Ms. Humphris emphasized that this is not her point. She went on to say
her point relates to the fact that before any work was done, it became known
that the $100,000 planned for the project was not going to cover it. It would
only cover the initial grading and seeding, and the City officials were going
to try to acquire another $40,000 from the County. She mentioned Mr.
Mullaney's memo, as well as a letter from Leon Churchill and Bill Letteri,
from the City of Charlottesville, to this Board dated November 14, 1997. She
noted that City officials found this out during the early part of the design
phase, but they went ahead with their plans without communicating with the
County. Mr. Tucker responded that he notified this Board when the staff got
notification of the problem.
Ms. Humphris referred to the last paragraph of the November 14, 1997
letter from the two City officials which states that, "This project represents
a true partnership of public and private entities." She truly admires the
people associated with the Dixie Little League because not only did they do
the part they had planned to do, but they are raising another $35,000 from the
private sector. This is admirable. Her problem is that in this true
partnership of public and private entity, the County got left out of the
planning for its responsibility of 60 percent of the money which now has to
come from the tax budget.
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, remarked that this
is a good project, and if the project had started off with the costs appearing
now, funding would still have been recommended. He added that there was a
problem with the process, because even though it was learned that more money
was needed for the project, it was started anyway. This was a wrong decision
because everybody should have met at that time as a group and been informed
that funds were not available to complete the project. He stated that funds
should always be there before a project such as this is started, but it is the
only thing in this project that did not happen correctly. He could give some
reasons as to why this happened. He recalled that the whole project was
thrown together very quickly, and it had a terrible time frame. The Dixie
League was trying to get the project done, and, at the same time, there was a
problem with the Dogwood Festival. All these things combined, led to the
problem of the City officials proceeding with the project when the funds were
not there in the hopes the funds would come. He said this was a bad decision.
Ms. Humphris stated that it is obvious this is not the way the County
does business, and she hopes the Supervisors will not see anything such as
this again.
Ms. Thomas remarked that she is interested in Mr. Mullaney's position
that even with this price tag, it is a project that would have been
recommended to this Board, anyway. She said there certainly is an increase in
the funding than what was expected by this Board, but it also seems as though
it is a good project.
Ms. Humphris agreed that there is no question it is a good project.
is just the process with which she has a problem.
It
Mr. Tucker concurred that it is a good project, and he reminded Board
members that without this project being done jointly, the County would have to
provide those fields. He believes that is why Mr. Mullaney thinks it will be
money well spent.
Ms. Humphris stated that no one is questioning the value of the project.
She reiterated that it is admirable the Dixie Little League representatives
have been able to raise the amount of funds they have. She thinks this shows
how sincere they are because they are doing more than their fair share.
However, she hopes nothing of this nature happens again.
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
000149
By the above-shown vote, the Board approved the additional funding of
$37,734 from the existing Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Program
for the completion of the Dixie Little League project at McIntire Park. This
approval is with the understanding that any additional costs associated with
the completion of this project will not be the responsibility of the County of
Albemarle.
Item No. 5.6. Appropriation: School Division, $26,743.74 (Form
%97030).
At its meeting on September 22, 1997, the School Board approved
appropriations for several school grants.
Appropriation of $1,500.00 from the Virginia Department of
Education. The Virginia Department of Education designated
$1,500.00 to Albemarle County for assistive technology equipment.
These funds will be used to purchase adaptive equipment for
students with disabilities.
Re-Appropriation of $4,391.59 for Project Unite Funds. The
Virginia Department of Education awarded Albemarle County Schools
$14,000.00 for the Project Unite Grant in July, 1996. These funds
were not fully expended in the 1996/97 school year. These funds
will be used for expenses incurred during our summer school
program for remediation.
Appropriation of $5,600.00 from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation.
J. T. Henley Middle School has received a grant award from the
Frederick S. Upton Foundation. These funds will provide an
introduction of Henley Middle School's students to an
interdisciplinary arts program. This will include 3 artist-in-
residency performances. The performances are Masque, with Larry
Hunt; The Storyteller, with Dylan Pritchett; and African
Percussionist, with Darrell Rose. The programs will involve the
entire school in assemblies and several large groups in
interactive activities to include hands on learning experiences
with performing, visual, and musical arts.
o
Appropriation of $500.00 from the Virginia Association of Science.
The Virginia Association of Science Teachers (V.A.S.T.) has
awarded Linda D. Hutson, a teacher at Woodbrook Elementary School,
a mini-grant in the amount of $500.00. The mini-grant will fund
project S.K.I.F.F. (Science Kits Intended For Families).
S.K.I.F.F. will provide a chance for families to explore theme-
based, hands-on science kits at home, with investigative kit ideas
such as: Magnets, Color, Sound, Chemistry, Light, Life Cycles, The
Human Body, Nature and Scientific Investigation. Each kit will
include materials supporting the topic and will be housed in the
school's media center available for families to check out for two
week periods. S.K.I.F.F. goals are designed to promote science
both at school and at home and encourage families to spend quality
time while enjoying science together.
Appropriation of $11,785.00 from the Virginia Department of
Education. Albemarle County Public Schools has received a grant
award in the amount of $11,785.00 from the Virginia Department of
Education's Office of Vocational and Adult Education Services.
This grant will fund the program entitled Reading Together to
Reach the Stars. This program will develop and implement a model
program of training targeting low income, undereducated adults to
become tutors for children in grades K through 4 who need reading
support and to increase the reading comprehension and vocabulary
levels of both the adult tutors and the children receiving
instruction. Tutor packets will be developed with the support of
the At Risk specialist to assure that the contents and activities
are appropriate.
Appropriation of $2,967.15 from the Foundation for Excellence in
Public Education. The Foundation for Excellence in Public
Education has made grant awards to several teachers in the
Albemarle County Public Schools. The awards made were to Steve
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9) ........
000'150
Gissendanner, Broadus Wood Elementary School, in the amount of
$497.75, Jennifer Ferguson, Crozet Elementary School, in the
amount $494.45, Amy Vail, Lisa Frazier, Gayle Reed, and Kedra
Hauser, Greer Elementary School, in the amount of $300.00, Anne
Straume, Meriwether Lewis Elementary School, in the amount of
$174.95, Brian Maznevski, Stony Point Elementary School, in the
amount of $500.00, Linda D. Hutson, and A~ne Scherer, Woodbrook
Elementary School, in the amount of $500.00 each. These funds will
support projects in Science, Social Studies, Reading, History,
Geography, and Math developed by the teachers such as Geography at
Lunch, Colonial Day, Math Activities to take Home, Picture
"Research" in First Grade and Science Buddies, etc.
Staff recommends the Board approve the appropriations totaling
$26,743.74 as detailed on form ~97030.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following ReSolution Of
Appr°priat~0n:
FISCAL :YEAR: 1997./98
NI3MBER: 97030 ~ . :~
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE ~F APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR VARIOUS SCHOOL GRANTS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1211261102800701 ASSISTIVE TECH. ADP EQUIP. $1,500.00
1350961102132100
1350961102138100
1350961102210000
1350961102420100
1350961102600200
1350961102601700
PROJECT UNITE
SALARIES-TEACHER
SALARIES-WORK STUDY
FICA
FIELD TRIP MILEAGE
FOOD SUPPLIES
COPY SUPPLIES
1,942.80
1,375.79
260.62
548..92
99.26
164.20
1310460252312500
1310460252550400
1310460252601300
UPTON GRANT
PROF SER-INSTR.
TRAVEL
INSTR. MATERIALS
4,925.00
475.00
200.00
1310460212601300
1312663328111400
1312663328210000
13126633282.21000
1312663328231000
1312663328232000
131266332824'1000
1312663328550100
1312663328550400
1312663328601300
.1312663328601700
1350260201601300
1350260203601300
1350260204601300
135'0260206601300
1350260211601300
1350260212601300
SCIENCE MINIGRANT INSTR. MATERIALS
LEARN & SERVE GRANT SALARIES
FICA
RETIREMENT ''
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
LIFE INSURANCE
TRAVEL-MILEAGE
TRAVEL
INSTR. MATERIALS
COPYING
EXCELLENCE GRANT
INSTR. MATERIALS
INSTR. MATERIALS
INSTR. MATERIALS
INSTR. MATERIALS
INSTR. MATERIALS
INSTR. MATERIALS
TOTAL
REVENI3E DESCRIPTION
500.00
8,6~0o ~ 90
659.90
500.00.,
15.75
30.10
497;75
49'4.45
174:95
500.00
1 , 000.00
-$26,:743.. 74
' AMOUNT'
2200024000240210 ASSISTIVE TECH. $1,500.00
2350924000240243 PROJECT UNITE 2,041.49
2350951000510100 PROJECT UNITE FUND BALANCE 2,350.10
2310418000181221 UPTON GRANT 5,600.00
2310418000181224 V.A.S.T. MINIGP~ANT 500.00
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
2312624000240306 LEARN & SERVE GRANT
2350218000181223 EXCELLENCE GRANT
TOTAL
000 .5 .
11,785.00
2,967.15
$26,743.74
Item No. 5.7. Appropriation: Emergency Communications Center, $5,364
(Form ~97034) .
The Emergency Communications Center recently received $5,364.00 from the
State Department of Emergency Services. This money will be used to purchase a
laptop personal computer to assist ECC employees during disasters which may
occur in our area. Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the
amount of $5,364.00 as detailed on form #970034.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1997/98
N-UMBER: 97034
FLIND: E.O.C
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1410031041800700 ADMIN.-ADP EQUIPMENT $5,364.00
TOTAL $5,364.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2410033000330211 DEPT. OF EMERGENCY SERVICES $5,364.00
TOTAL $5,364.00
Item No. 5.8. Authorize County Executive to sign lease of Old Jailer=s
House to City of Charlottesville for the Community Assessment Center.
The Virginia Juvenile Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) has funded several new
programs that will be housed at the Old Jailor's House adjacent to Juvenile
Court. The Community Assessment Center, which will be a point of entry for
youths coming into the juvenile justice system, has 1.5 full time employees
and the First Time Truant Offender Project, which will work with early truancy
offenders in both Albemarle and Charlottesville, has 1.5 full time employees.
Also housed at this location will be a full-time Juvenile Justice Coordinator,
who will oversee and report on local juvenile justice programs.
The lease rents the Old Jailor's House to the City of Charlottesville to
be used to house these staff members for a term of twelve months. The City of
Charlottesville is the Lessor for the Jailor's House, since the City is the
fiscal agent for the VJCCCA funds.
Staff recommends approval of the attached lease with the City of
Charlottesville for the use of the Old Jailor's House for one year.
By the above shown vote, the Board approved the following lease with the
City of Charlottesville for use of the Old Jailor's House for one year.
THIS LEASE, effective the first day of November, 1997, by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereafter designated as "Lessor",
and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, a municipal corporation of the
Commonwealth of Virginia hereafter designated as "Lessee":
W I T N E S S E T H :
WHEREAS, the Lessor owns certain property within the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia, known as the Old Jailors House, and has
agreed to lease a portion of the same to the Lessee as provided
herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual
covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties do hereby
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
covenant and agree a~ f~ll~wsi ~
O0015Z
1. LEASED PROPERTY: The Lessor hereby leases and demises
to the Lessee, and the Lessee hereby leases and hires from the
Lessor the following described property for use by the Community
Assessment Center, to wit:
409 East High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia
Rooms B, J, K and L
in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, hereafter designated as
the "Property." The leased area contains approximately 633 square
feet, and the location of the rooms is shown on the attached sketch.
2. TERMS OF LEASE AND TERMINATION THEREOF: This lease
shall be effective from the date of its execution and shall continue
for a term of twelve (12) months, to expire on November 1, 1998.
Thereafter this lease shall continue on a month to month term unless
terminated as provided herein. The Lessor may terminate this lease
by giving the Lessee notice in writing of its intention to terminate
thirty days prior to the termination date. This lease shall not be
renewed if the Property is determined by the Lessor to be necessary
for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 15.1-258 of the Code of
Virginia. Upon termination of the lease, all improvements erected
thereon shall revert to the Lessor and shall be free from any
encumbrance at the time of such reversion.
3. RENTAL RATE: The rental rate for the Property is
$382.44 per month, based on a rate of $7.25 per square foot to be
paid in advance by the tenth day of each month to the County of
Albemarle, Director of Finance. The rental rate may be increased
for any new term of the lease if Lessor gives notification to the
Lessee in writing sixty days prior to the beginning of the lease
term.
4. ~SE: The Lessee shall use and occupy the Property
solely. Parking is on a first come-first served basis and no spaces
are provided or guaranteed as part of this lease.
5. UTILITIES: The Lessee shall pay its proportional share
of the electricity (Virginia Power) within ten (10) days after
notice by the Lessor to the Lessee of the proportional amount owed
for the month. Utility accounts will remain in the Lessor's name.
6. MAINTENANCE ~ CARE OF PROPERTY: The Lessor shall
maintain and keep the Property in its present physical condition.
Janitorial services are the sole responsibility of the Lessee.
Upon the termination of this lease, the Property shall be returned
to the Lessor in good repair, ordinary wear and tear expected. If
the Lessee desires to make any repairs, improvements or changes in
the Property, the Lessee must first obtain the written permission of
the Lessor. Repairs, improvements or changes, if approved by the
Lessor, are to be made at the expense of the Lessee. The Lessee
agrees to be responsible for any damages which the Lessee or any
person the Lessee pe~uits to be there, caused to the Property.
7. FIRE INSURANCE: The Lessor shall maintain adequate fire
insurance on the Property.
8. DAMAGE TO LESSEE'S PROPERTY: The Lessor shall not be
liable for any loss or damage to any of the Lessee's Property in or
on the Property, regardless of how such loss or damage may occur.
The Lessee, in placing its Property in and on the leased Property,
does so at its own risk.
9. INDEMNITY: The Lessee shall indemnify and save harmless
and provide a defense for the Lessor, its agents, officials, and
employees, from any and all liability, damages, expenses, causes of
actions, suits or judgments, which may accrue against, be charged
to, or recovered from the Lessor, its agents, officials, and
employees by reason of or on account of damage to the Property of,
injury to or death of any other person arising from the Lessee's use
and occupancy of the leased Property.
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
ooo .sa
10. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY: If the Property
shall be damaged by fire, act of God, war, or any other casualty or
catastrophe, so as to make them untenable, this lease shall
terminate unless the Lessor shall, within thirty (30) days after
such damages notify the Lessee of its intention to restore the
Property to a tenable condition. The Lessee shall not be obligated
to pay rent for the period of time during which it is unable to
occupy and use the Property as a result of such damage. The Lessor
shall be under no obligation to repair or replace the Property or
any portion thereof which may be changed or destroyed by fire or
other casualty.
11. MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL: The Lessor and the Lessee shall
have exclusive control of the management, assets, and offices of
their respective institutions. Neither party by virtue of this
agreement, assumes liability for any debts or obligations, either
financial or legal, incurred by the other party of this agreement.
12. ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE: The Lessee shall not assign this
lease or sublet the Property or any portion thereof without the
prior written consent of the Lessor.
13. NOTICE: Any notice required under this lease to Lessor
shall be by ordinary mail, addressed to the County of Albemarle,
Director of Finance, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596. Any notice required under
this lease to the Lessee shall be by ordinary mail addressed to City
of Charlottesville as Fiscal Agent for the Community Assessment
Center, Post Office Box 911, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.
14. MODIFICATION OF LEASE: This agreement of lease, when
executed by the parties hereto, constitutes the final and entire
agreement between the parties and they shall not be bound by any
terms, conditions, statements or representations, oral or other, not
herein contained. This agreement of lease may be modified or
amended from time to time by written agreement executed after the
day hereof and signed by all the parties hereto. Such written
modification or amendment shall be attached to and become a part of
this agreement.
This agreement is executed in triplicate.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
Witness
By
Date
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
(Seal)
Approved as to Form:
County Attorney
Witness
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
B~ (Seal)
Date
Item No. 5.9. Resolution to readopt the Emergency Operations Plan
developed by the Emergency Operations Center ManagementBoard which includes
emergency operation procedures for the'County, City and University of
Virginia.
In a memorandum dated November 24, 1997, Mr. Kaye Harden, Emergency
Services Coordinator stated that the State of Virginia requires that all
jurisdictions pass a resolution adopting a local Emergency Operations Plan
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
every four years. As the County's last adoption was in 1993, he is requesting
readoption of the Charlottesville,'Albemarle County, University of Virginia
Emergency Operations Plan.
Ms. Thomas said this item indicates that County officials are saying
they have a good emergency operations plan, but the Board members will have to
take Mr. Tucker's word on this procedure. She went on to say if there was a
great disaster, and the County responded poorly, people would be asking who is
responsible for the situation.
Mr. Tucker stated that a copy of the Emergency Operations Plan can be
provided to the Board members. They do not have to approve this plan today,
and he does not want them to feel uncomfortable with it. This is a joint
City, County and University plan that the Emergency Operations Board has
adopted, but it also requires the localities to adopt it, as well.
Ms. Thomas said more iu~ortant].y than getting the Board members a copy
of the plan is Mr. Tucker's judgment that it is a good plan. If she has a
copy of it, she still will not know if it is a good plan. The plan is worked
out with the professionals, who try it out and renew it.
Mr. Tucker responded that it has been the same plan for years, and there
are periodic mock disaster drills using this plan as a basis. No plan such as
this is fail safe because every emergency cannot be foreseen in a situation.
He is not going to tell the Board members that everything is always going to
run smoothly, regardless of the plan. It is just a plan, and most of the work
occurring is a lot of judgment that has to take place by individuals in the
emergency responding group. It is not going to be perfect, and he is not
going to stand in front of this Board and say that it is perfect~ However, it
is probably one of the best plans this County can have, and a lot of work has
gone into it by all three entities to make sure it is the best. He said it is
refined during the mock disaster exercises, and there is a debriefing after
each one to decide how the plan can be improved. He added that this is the
purpose of the mock exercises.
Ms. Humphris inquired if there is still a Board representative on the
Emergency Planning Committee. She served on the committee for awhile in the
beginning, and Kaye Harden was the Emergency Coordinator. This Committee was
developing a plan, but that was eight years ago. The Committee was starting
from scratch except for what Mr. Harden and the local professionals knew.
Mr. Tucker responded that he is unsure if a Board member is currently
serving on the Emergency Planning Committee. He noted, though, that the plan
to which Ms. Humphris referred is the plan which continues to be used, and it
is updated periodically. He said the Committee has not met for awhile, but it
is probably because the plan has not gone through a significant change. He
stated that i~ ~is just refined~from the'o~igihal ~la~ ................
Ms. Humphris recalled that it was an interesting proceSs of trying to
brainstorm the "what if" situations. She said Committee members knew they
could not anticipate everything that could possibly happen, because something
new happens a lot of the time.
Mr. Tucker suggested that he could arrange for Kaye Harden to meet with
this Board next month to review the plan so the Supervisors will have some
familiarity with it. Ms. Humphris agreed that this is a good idea. She said
most people probably do not even realize there is a plan.
Mr. Tucker next told Ms. Thomas that he did not want her to feel
uncomfortable with adopting the plan. Ms. Thomas responded that she was glad
for this brief conversation, and it has been sufficient, because the last
thing she wants to do is request more reports to read. Ms. Thomas said, too,
she is not sure if she saw the plan, she would have any comments about it.
However, she felt uncomfortable, initially, being asked to acknowledge that
the County had a good plan, without first having Mr. Tucker's advice that this
is a fact.
By the above shown Vote, the Board adopted the' f011owing reS01Uti0n:
WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors is
concerned with the health and well-being of its citizens and desires
that the best possible emergency service be available to them; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Services and
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000155
(Page 14)
Disaster Law of 1973 requires that each city and county develop and
maintain an' Eme~ency operations P1an which addresses its Planned
response to emergency situations; and
WHEREAS, such a plan has been develoPed by County staff in
coordination with the Virginia Department of Emergency Services with
input from local agencies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, on this 3rd day of De.cember, 1997, does hereby
officially readopt the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle
and University of Virginia Integrated Emergency Operations Plan, to
include plans and procedures for both peace time and war-caused
disasters.
Item No. 5.10. Resolution of Support For The James River Heritage
Partnership's Nomination of the James River as one of Ten American Heritage
Rivers.
The American Heritage Rivers Program is a new federal program
administered by the Council of Environmental Quality. The first step in the
program is to designate ten initial "American Heritage Rivers." There will be
no new regulatory or budget programs set up to support the American Heritage
Rivers. However, existing federal programs will be refocused and leveraged in
support of projects connected with designated river corridors.
A public/private effort, the James River Heritage Partnership, has
formed for the purpose of nominating the James River as one of the first ten
American Heritage Rivers. The Partnership has developed a nomination report,
and is now seeking resolutions of support from localities along the James.
The Partnership is particularly interested in the designation for purposes of
promoting riverfront development and revitalization efforts, recreational
development, and resource conservation.
To date, the following localities have adopted resolutions in support of
the James River nomination: Richmond, Williamsburg, Ashland, Surry County, and
Isle of Wight County. The following localities will be considering
resolutions of support and will have voted on the resolutions prior to the
December 3 Board meeting: Portsmouth, Newport News, Norfolk, Lynch_burg, Prince
George County, James City County, Buckingham County, and Virginia Beach. The
Partnership is also actively seeking the support of other jurisdictions along
the river.
Botetourt County and Henrico County have decided to not support the
nomination. Botetourt County feels that the nomination is not specific enough
with regard to benefits. Henrico County is concerned about'what the federal
designation may mean for local land use authority. The James River
Partnership stresses that they have taken pains in the nomination packet to
respect both local government authority and private property interests, and
that the federal program guidelines also respect these rights. The
Partnership also assures localities that designation will not require any
financial obligation on the part of local governments along the river
corridor.
The James River nomination application is due in Washington, D.C. on
December 10, and the Partnership is seeking local resolutions prior to that
date. The James River Partnership nomination report and an Albemarle County
resolution of support are attached.
Staff recOmmendS that the Board adOp~ the a~tached Resoluti0n' of ~pp0rt
for the James River to be designated one of ten American Heritage Rivers.
Mr. Tucker said Ms. Thomas has suggested some additional language, and
he has asked the Clerk to make sure the additions are included. He added that
the Board members will probably want to adopt the amendments Ms. Thomas
suggested, but they can wait to do so after they have had a chance to look
over them.
Ms. Thomas commented that the amendments were not exactly hers. She and
Kaye Slaughter, Mayor of the City of Charlottesville, took part in a radio
program Monday morning, and Ms. SlaUghter said she was going to have City
Council members add language to their resolution. She then gave Ms. Thomas
000 $6
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
the wording they were going to use. She said the language simply added the
Rivanna River as a major tributary whiCh runs from the BlUe Ridge MOuntains
through Charlottesville, Albemarle County and Fluvanna County, past Monticello
and other properties owned by Thomas Jefferson. She said the Rivanna River,
as a tributary to the James River, is being added in hopes that when the
designation is made, the historic tributaries to the James River will also be
recognized. She has no idea about the process and whether this will affect
anything, but adding the Rivanna River seems to bring the situation into
Albemarle County more than the James River.
Mr. Tucker verified with Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager,
that there would be no problem with the resolution if this language is added.
He added that if it is the Board's ~concurrence with Ms. Thomas' suggestion,
then when the Consent Agenda is adopted, the amendments can be a part of it.
Ms. Humphris pointed out that on Page Four of the material relating to
the nomination, the operation of ferries across the river between Jamestown
and Surry County has been noted, as well as the fact that it is popular with
tourists. It seems to her the Hatton Ferry should have also been mentioned.
Ms. Thomas agreed that the Hatton Ferry is historical, and it should have been
mentioned'. Mr. Tucker responded that the Hatton Ferry can be included with
this resolution.
Ms. Humphris also referred to Page Four of the material where it
mentions the Piedmont Hills. She recalled that her fourth grade Virginia
History Book has Piedmont Hills capitalized, although she is unsure if this
has been changed in recent times. She also mentioned that on Page Eight, in
referring to the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, the "s" is left
off of Hampton Roads. Ms. Thomas suggested that Ms. Humphris share her
corrections with the Clerk. Ms. Humphris also noted the correct spelling of
the word, "Monacan."
Ms. Humphris next explained that when the Board received the citation as
the Chesapeake Bay Partner Community and the award was given, a cap and a T-
shirt was handed out, with the promise of more to come for Board members. She
said the Supervisors are unsure if they will ever see any more, so they
thought the T-shirt and hat should belong to the man who did the work on the
application, as well as a lot of work for the award. She asked Mr. Hirschman
to come forward, and she thanked him for all of his work.
By the above shown~vote, the Board adopted the folloWing ReSolUti°n:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SUPPORTING DESIGNATION OF THE
JAMES RIVER AS THE FIRST AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVER
WHEREAS, local governments, corporations and non-profit entities
along the James River desire to collaborate through a public-
private partnership to identify and pursue common goals; and
WHEREAS, the American Heritage Rivers InitiatiVe assists broadly
supported community-based efforts to revitalize local rivers
and their related communities and waterfronts; and
WHEREAS, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is responsive to
the diverse needs of different kinds of communities, from
central cities to rural areas; and
WHEREAS, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative integrates state,
local, federal and private expertise and resources to achieve
community identified complementary goals, including economic
development, natural resources management, environmental
protection and historic preservation; and
WHEREAS, designated American Heritage rivers and their riverfront
communities will receive improved access to federal support,
information and financial and technical assistance; and
WHEREAS, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative will not be a
regulatory program; and
WHEREAS, the James River is America's River, where our nation began,
the cradle of democracy, the home of numerous Presidents and
000157
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
American leaders' and the birthplace of private ownership of
land; and
WHEREAS, the Rivanna River, a major tributary of the James River,
runs from the Blue Ridge Mountains through Charlottesville and
Albemarle County (and Fluvanna CountY) and past Monticello and
other properties owned by Thomas Jefferson; and
WHEREAS, the Rivanna River has a rich history including its role in
the life of early native American tribes, especially the
Monacan Tribe, and the historic canals (that were) developed
adjacent to the River to support commerce and trade with the
lower James at Richmond and Williamsburg; and
WHEREAS, the Rivanna River has been the subject of a citizen's study,
the Rivanna River Roundtable, for the past year; and
WHEREAS, the James River far exceeds the criteria for American
Heritage Rivers because of its rich history, culture, natural
and scenic resources, economic development and community
involvement; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle supports the designation of the James
River as an American Heritage River and urges the President of
the United States to declare the James River as the first of
ten American Heritage Rivers to be designated in 1998.
Item No. 5.11. Budget calendar for FY 1998-99 County Operating Budget,
was received as information.
Item No. 5.12. Abstract of Votes cast in the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, at the November 4, 1997 General Election, was received as
information.
Item No. 5.13. Letter dated November 17, 1997, from Mr. Jay Roberts,
Environmental Engineer, to the Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris, re: Public
Notice of Draft XrWp Permit #97-1454, was received as information.
Item No. 5.14. Copy of memorandum dated November 14, 1997, from Ms.
Hannah Twaddell, Senior Planning, Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan
Planning Organization, to the Honorable Maurice Cox, Charlottesville, City
Council, providing a printout of costs for projects in the draft CATS 2015
Plan, was received as information.
Item No. 5.15. 1997 Third Quarter Building Report as prepared by the
Department of Planning and Community Development, was received as information.
The report indicates that during the third quarter of 1997, 140 permits were
issued for 140 dwelling units. In addition, ten permits were issued for
mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500 for a
total of $25,000.
Item No. 5.16. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville
Regional Jail Authority Board meeting for September 11, 1997, was received as
information.
Item No. 5.17. Notice of application filed with the State Corporation
Commission by Virginia Electric and Power Company to revise its fuel factor
pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-249.6, was received as information.
Ms. Thomas said she does not understand some of these things, but she
assumes this item is fine as it is. Ms. Humphris responded that this notice
is good because it relates to Virginia Electric and Power Company's intention
to decrease its rate.
000:1.58
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Item No. 5.18. Monthly update on the FY 1997/98 Project Schedule for
the Department of Engineering & Public Works as of November 24, 1997, was
received as information.
Item No. 5.19. Letter dated November 21, 1997, from Ms. Angela G.
Tucker, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey,
Clerk, regarding items discussed at the November 5, 1997.Board meeting, was
received as follows:
"0
Albemarle County has been selected to participate in a Traffic
Calming Pilot Program to begin January 1998 through December
1999. We are meeting with the County Planning and Engineering
Staffs on December 4 to discuss this pilot program.
The Department will conduct speed studies for Dick Woods Road
(Route 637), Buckingham Circle (Route 820), and Morgantown
Road (Route 739) in order to consider what action to take with
respect to speeding problems. We will advise the Board when
these studies are complete.
The Department is reviewing Ivy Depot Road (Route 786) for
signing to alert trucks to physical road restrictions. We
will advise the Board when this review is complete.
We have scheduled the work necessary to address the drainage
problem at 209 Bennington Road. This work should be complete
within two weeks.
The traffic signal to be installed at the proposed realigned
intersection of Route 250/Route 601/Route 809 (Canterbury
Road, Bellair Subdivision) will allow for protected left turns
at all approaches.
A citizen request to review Route 715 for a reduced speed
limit resulted in the following. Two speed monitoring
stations were established within the study area to collect
vehicular speed data. The 85th percentile speeds were 58 and
48 mph and the 50th percentile speeds were 52 and 42 mph. A
review of accident data indicates that 67 percent of the 21
accidents reported from January 1, 1992, to June 30, 1997,
were due to driver inattention. The basic criterion for
determining appropriate speeds is the 85th percentile speed.
Route 715 is currently posted at the 50th percentile speed of
45 mph. Posting speed limits lower than what is reasonable
can result in enforcement difficulties and increased traffic
hazards since most motorists continue to drive at speeds which
they find to be reasonable and prudent with regard to the
prevailing roadway conditions. No reduction in the posted
speed limit should occur at this time.
The Department has completed a speed study on Route 20
approximately 1.7 miles north of Route 742 (Avon Street
Extended). The 85th percentile speed was recorded at 58 mph.
The 50th percentile speed was 52 mph. Approximately 85
percent of vehicles were traveling over the recommended 45
mph. Based upon this data, it would be unrealistic to lower
the present speed limit at this time. We will review this
location again after patterns are established upon opening of
the connector ~oad."
Item No. 5.20. Copy of letter dated November 20, 1997, from Mr. Roy T.
Mills, Assistant State Hydraulics Engineer, Department of Transportation, to
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., re: Route 29 North Bypass - erosion and sediment
control and stormwater management plan, was received as follows:
"The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) administers the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations and the Virginia
Stormwater Management Regulations for State Agency projects. VDOT
must submit annually to DCR, for their approval, the standards,
specifications and criteria for its stormwater management and
erosion and sediment control program.
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
000 L$9
The Route 29 By-Pass Project, throughout its entire length, is being
developed to comply fully with provisions set forth in VDOT's
approved program to address the Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control and Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations. In the
areas adjacent to the Reservoir, additional measures are being
proposed to address concerns for potential impacts to this sensitive
downstream area.
The general details of the erosion and sediment control and the
stormwater management plan have been completed. The plans are
currently being reviewed by Dr. Shaw Yu to determine if additional
enhancements can be utilized to increase the water quality
efficiency of the proposed facilities. By copy of this memorandum,
I am also sending a set of the plans to Mr. DavidHirschman for his
information and review."
Item No. 5.21. June 30, 1997 Financial Management Report, was received
as information. The report indicates that FY 1996/97 preliminary financial
report shows County operations completing the year with $2.1 million more than
budgeted. The major surplus was realized from expenditures being less than
budgeted. In many cases, however, this was due to uncompleted projects which
were carried forward into FY 1997/98 as reappropriations.
Item No. 5.22. September, 1997 Financial Management Report, was
received as information. Preliminary estimates indicate that Personal
Property Tax collections will be approximately $1.8 million less than
budgeted. General Fund expenditure, and Education revenue and expenditure
projections have not been revised at this time.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: February 14, 1996; April 16,
September 3, October 8 and November 12, 1997.
Ms. Humphris had read the minutes of February 14, 1996 pages 15 (Item
#9) to end, and with the exception of some typographical errors found them to
be in order.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of November 12, 1997, and found them to
be in order. Ms. Thomas clarified a point in the November 12, 1997 minutes.
She said she referred to someone as David, and the Clerk thought she meant
David Bowerman. She said, in fact, she meant David VanRoijen who was in the
audience at that time. She noted that this error shows up at the bottom of
Page 11.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of April 16, 1997, pages 15 (Item #10) -
end, and found them to be in order with the exception of some minor
typographical errors.
Mr. Bowerman said he read the minutes of September 3, 1997, and found
them to be in order with the exception of some minor typographical errors.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Other Transportation Matters.
Ms. Tucker said she had no new information. She will answer any
questions from Board members.
Referring to Item No. 5.1 on the Consent Agenda, Mr. Bowerman said he
did not understand that a truck encompassed vehicles down to 7,500 pounds
gross vehicle weight. He owns a delivery truck which is typical of most
retailers. By definition of VDoT that truck is prohibited as is almost all
delivery trucks from these roads. He did not understand that was the intent
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
of the definition for elimination of that type of traffic.
He thought Rio
Road was concerned with large trucks that could not negotiate the "S" curves.
He did not know it would preclude most commercial enterprises in
Charlottesville and Albemarle from using either Georgetown Road or Rio Road.
It does not just involve three axle vehicles, but also two axles of midsize
delivery vehicles and midsize service vehicles.
Ms. Tucker said that wording in the proposed resolution comes directly
from the Code of Virginia. The two axle excludes pickup and panel trucks, and
includes anything that is not one of those and has two axles. There are
larger trucks that run on two axles with more tires.
Mr. Bowerman wondered about the U-Haul trucks. Ms. Tucker answered that
all of these types of trucks are prohibited. She told him to keep in mind
that this is a through truck restriction. Any truck that has a destination
between points for delivery purposes or otherwise is not prohibited. This
resolution states that if that same vehicle can get from "~' to "B" by an
alternate route then it must do so because this road is not the best option.
That alternate route would be the Route 250 Bypass and Route 29.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Humphris if that was her understanding of what
the Board did for Georgetown Road. A panel truck is similar to a suburban
vehicle, but it does not have windows and it has a large area in the rear.
Ms. Humphris replied, "yes". The alternatives for Georgetown Road are so much
more reasonably close. For Rio Road the alternative is not as simple. Mr.
Bowerman said he can live with this. He did not understand this was the
Board's intent.
Mr. Tucker asked if this same truck restriction is prohibited on Park
Street in the City. Ms. Tucker replied"yes". This would match the
prohibition already in place, but rarely enforced on the City portion of Route
631, Park Street. She noted that this is of interest to most people because
the truck that overturned on this street recently should not have been there,
but according to police reports, the driver was not at all familiar with the
area.
Mr. Perkins suggested that maybe the Code of Virginia needed to be
clarified to indicate the length of the truck rather than the weight of the
truck. He said the Code could state if a truck is over 16 feet long, for
instance, it would be prohibited from certain roads and streets.
Mr. Bowerman commented that VDoT is trying to keep out asphalt and
concrete trucks off Rio Road because of the damage to the roadway. Ms. Tucker
replied that is correct which would take into account the weight of vehicles
in addition to their length. The length is of concern because of the sharp
geometrics that are involved. The through truck restriction on Rio Road does
mainly concern safety.
Ms. Tucker said this does not prohibit deliveries or people from doing
business in the area even if it should be a large 18 wheeler moving van.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there are approximately four or five
residences in the restricted section of Rio Road, and vehicles can get to
either end of this area by an alternate route. Theoretically there should not
be any trucks at all between these two points unless it is a moving van or a
truck is making a delivery to one of those homes. He then asked if the public
or Police Department understand this because he did not have a clue. He asked
if there was a definition on the sign that states "no through truck traffic".
Mr. Tucker replied, "no". The sign states "no through truck". Mr. Bowerman
commented that the City is proposing that Meadow Creek have no through trucks,
and they have the absolute say over this issue.
Ms. Thomas wondered if this is something that should be discussed with
the legislators. She reminded the other Supervisors that they will be meeting
with the State legislators this afternoon, and if the definition of truck
comes from State legislation, then perhaps the legislators would be the
appropriate ones to approach about this matter.
Mr. Bowerman replied that this might be overkill because there are many
things which are dependent on this Code section, and he is thinking more in
terms of this community and what this Board intends. He said the situation is
fine, if that is what this Board intended. However, he is raising the issue,
because the effect of it is rather substantial. He noted that Rio Road has
O0016i
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
17,000 vehicle trips a day because it is the shortest point many times between
Charlottesville and Route 29 North.
Mr. Martin asked if this Board can use local discretion in terms of the
definition. Mr. Tucker answered that it will all be based on the enforcement,
and he agreed with Mr. Bowerman that it all comes back to the intent of the
restriction. He thinks everybody knows what they intended, but if someone is
pulled over by the police, they will have to go by the legal definition. The
intent is to try to prevent what just recently happened with the overturned
truck, and it is the multi-axle trucks and trailers to which everybody is
referring.
Mr. Bowerman commented that it is easy enough for him to tell his
employees not to use Georgetown Road. He wondered, though, if everyone is
going to be as enlightened as he is because of this discussion and if they
will know what is required and what is not required.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that he is sure the restriction is already in the
City, because he knows there are no through trucks allowed on Park Street. He
said County officials are really just trying to do what is already being done
on City streets, and enforcement will be the key on the County's section. He
stated, though, that County officials know what they are intending and what
they are hoping to prevent.
Mr. Bowerman asked that something different other than just ~no through
trucks" be put up. He thinks there should be flashing yellow lights on the
top and bottom of the sign at Melbourne Road, and where ever the last place to
turn around is located. He believes it is enough of a safety issue to be
signalized in some fashion so that no one can miss it, especially someone from
out- o f- town.
Regarding Item 5.19, Mr. Bowerman said he is pleased the County was
selected as one of the pilot counties to participate in the Traffic Calming
Pilot He asked if have in the where this will take
Program.
we
input
speed
place. He asked what flexibility Albemarle has in doing the pilot. He
pointed out that some of these measures are being considered for 35 miles per
hour speed streets. Ms. Tucker responded that her office intends to support
consideration of specific locations, and Carrsbrook is one of these places.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that Carrsbrook, Huntington, Northfields and
Old Brook are all 35 mph streets, as well as Forest Lakes South and Hollymead,
etc. If the limitation is just 35 mph speed, then the pilot program might as
well be thrown away, because these are residential streets, and most of them
already have a 35 mph speed limit. Ms. Tucker answered that it has not been
determined that these streets are not eligible for this program. She went on
to say VDoT's Culpeper Traffic Engineer and the people in her office will get
together tomorrow with planning and engineering staffs.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he does not see this pilot program being done
on a street, because it should encompass a neighborhood or neighborhoods.
There will need to be a lot of participation of the communities, and he
mentioned the requirement of 75 percent of the signatures of the people in the
community. When meetings are held in the communities, the total package of
options will need to be known. The County's engineering and planning staffs
will need to be there, as well as VDoT representatives. He then asked if
there is any funding to go along with this program, He noticed in the CIP
that staff has pulled $200,000 out for traffic calming in the five year time
span of the plan. Ms. Tucker responded that there will be a cost
participation plan.
Mr. Bowerman then asked if this program is conditioned to secondary
funds, or is it part of the County's allocation. Ms. Tucker replied that it
is part of the allocation. She said part of the funding will come from
secondary funds and part of it will come from the CIP.
Next, Mr. Bowerman inquired if it is anticipated that the $200,000 in
the CIP will get a match from VDoT. Mr. Cilimberg answered that a match was
not anticipated. He said it was estimated and based on the amount City
officials put into their traffic calming program, which is $50,000 a year. He
recalled that last night the Planning Commission, in endorsing the CIP for
this Board's review, asked that the money be put into traffic calming and
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
taken out of the Ivy Landfill Recreational Access, since traffic calming is a
higher priority item.
Mr. Bowerman stated that in meeting with VDoT representatives, County
officials will be considering the need for this pilot on 35 mph speed streets.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the County staff's position was to look at the
issue in a broader sense to include the 25 mph speed limit.
Mr. Bowerman asked which of the other counties were selected to
participate in this program. Ms. Tucker answered that Prince William,
Spotsylvania and Fairfax Counties were selected, but she does not remember the
others.
Ms. Thomas then referred to Ms. Tucker's letter and thanked her for
responding to the items brought up at the November Board meeting. She
mentioned that she had a call from Mr. Rauzelle Smith about Route 805 in
Covesville because he was under the false assumption this was in Ms. Thomas'
district. She had a long conversation with Mr. Smith, and did not see the
need for Mr. Marshall to have to listen to the problem again, so she would
bring the matter to the Board's attention. She reported that Route 805 is a
very short dead end road which ends at a church, and the church maintains the
last 100 yards of the road. There is concern about the condition of the road,
mostly during the winter months. It is apparently not too bad now. However,
when brush is cut down, it piles up in the ditches, and the road becomes the
ditch, and it gets washed out when the weather is bad. The residents there
were also concerned about what they would have to do to get it paved, and she
explained about the lengthy Six Year Plan. She commented that they are having
a meeting on December 13, and she wondered if someone from VDoT's office could
telephone Mr. Smith, whose phone number is 924-4469 at work, to discuss the
steps necessary as far as rights-of-way are concerned to get the project into
the Six Year Plan, or if the Pave In Place Program would be appropriate. Ms.
Tucker commented that the Pave In Place Program still competes for the same
funds.
Ms. Thomas asked if it could still be put on the Six Year Plan. Ms.
Tucker answered affirmatively. She said, though, it depends on the process as
to whether the project could be inserted as a higher priority rather than at
the very end. Ms. Thomas remarked that this is not a safety issue, and it is
more of a convenience issue, so she does not know if it should be put higher
on the list. On the other hand, it is a very short road, so there may be
something that could be done.
Mr. Martin asked if Ms. Tucker is saying the Route 805 project could be
given a higher priority and moved up on the list. He noted that he has told
people this could not be done. Ms. Thomas concurred that this was also her
understanding. Mr. Martin said he has told people over and over again that
their projects need to get in line, and he thinks everybody needs to adhere to
this rule. Ms. Tucker responded that she was only suggesting that this is the
Supervisors' decision as to whether or not they want to move the project up on
the priority list. However, she advised that it is not good to move projects
around, because there is a long priority list, and there are many roads with
rights-of-way available which have been waiting some time.
Mr. Marshall reported that on Monday he drove on the new Mill Creek
Drive, between Avon Street and Route 20, and it looked to him as though the
primary grade is finished all the way through. He talked to several truck
drivers and the County Engineer was also there. Traffic on Route 20 needs to
be slowed down. He explained that if a vehicle is coming out of Mill Creek
Drive to take a left on Route 20 going toward Charlottesville, a person could
get broadsided from a vehicle coming from the south because traffic is moving
at a speed of 55 miles per hour. He noted that a short distance up the road
the speed limit is reduced to 45 mph because of the curve. He does not know
what can be done, but something is going to have to be done when school opens.
He suggested that perhaps a sign could be installed with flashing lights
noting a 25 mph speed limit when school opens, but he thinks this is needed
before that time. He pointed out that the road is going to be picking up a
lot of traffic from Mill Creek South and Foxcroft as well as Lake Reynovia,
and people are even coming off of 1-64 to go to Cale Elementary School. He
stated that it is a dangerous intersection, even for the trucks. If his car
had been less powerful, he would have gotten hit coming out of there on
Monday. He inquired if flashing lights could be installed now, so people
O00::i.6a;
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22 )
would be used to this change before the road is four laned and the curve taken
out of it.
Ms. Tucker responded that the installation of the lights has been
discussed, but it hasn't been determined whether they will go on Route 20, the
connector road, Avon Extended or a combination of all three. This situation
will continue to be examined, and she will keep Mr. Marshall advised. She
said officials have to be careful that the traffic control established in this
area has a reason behind it. Otherwise, it will draw people's attention, but
they will not understand why.
Mr. Marshall stated that vehicles need to be slowed down, so people are
not broadsided when traffic comes through that area. He said whatever needs
to be done has to be done.
Ms. Tucker pointed out that VDoT recently conducted a speed study on
this section of Route 20 surrounding the connector road, and 85 percent of the
traffic was traveling at a speed of 58 mph, which is slightly above the posted
limit. She does not know how fast the other 15 percent of vehicles were
traveling, or if they were traveling at an excessive speed. The sight
distance at the Route 20 connection, though, is based on vehicles traveling at
a speed of 55 mph.
Mr. Marshall reiterated that vehicles cannot get out onto Route 20 from
Mill Creek Drive fast enough to cross the road and make a left hand turn and
avoid traffic coming at a speed of 55 mph.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the sight distance traveling south on Route 20.
Mr. Tucker answered that it should be 550 feet in both directions. Mr.
Marshall said whatever it is, it is not enough. He noted that the truck
drivers are also complaining about it.
Ms. Tucker agreed that trucks do not have the acceleration capability,
so the truck drivers would have a valid concern. She noted that on the
technical side of the issue, drivers traveling at a speed of 58 mph would need
a reaction time equivalent to 580 feet sight distance. She said the 30
additional feet might mean the difference between vehicles coming into view
around the curve.
Mr. Bowerman noted that some of the vehicles are traveling at a speed of
65 mph.
Ms. Tucker stated that VDoT should coordinate whatever is going to be
done there closely with enforcement. The issue is not all enforcement, and it
is not all signing and lights. It is a coordinated effort between the two,
and she does not think that these things should be considered as mutually
exclusive. She said whatever is finally done there will be mathematically
based on people driving by design.
Mr. Marshall commented that it looks to him as though Mill Creek Drive
will be open by the first of the year. He asked if something can be done by
that time before the additional traffic starts.
Mr. Bowerman said there has been ample warning that this could be an
issue.
Mr. Tucker asked if temporary signs could be installed indicating that
trucks were entering the road, etc., until the school opens. There will be
heavy trucks and traffic that will not be able to get out of Mill Creek Drive.
He stated that something needs to alert people before they get to the curve
that slow moving trucks are entering the road, and they need to be cautious.
Ms. Thomas suggested the signs which indicate there has been a change in
traffic pattern. Mr. Marshall mentioned that school buses will be going in
and out of that road. Ms. Thomas agreed, but she said this should not be
mentioned, until the school buses are really traveling there. Mr. Tucker said
something needs to be done to help the trucks get out of that road, and then
there will be signs, possibly with flashing lights, indicating that vehicles
are approaching a school intersection.
Ms. Humphris noted that when school signs are installed, it should be a
true situation, so people won't doubt it. Ms. Tucker pointed out that school
buses won't be much more speedy than trucks. Mr. Tucker concurred. He said,
though, there will be a different signage or lighting when the school opens.
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000164
(Page 23)
Ms. Tucker stated that there can be signs indicating trucks are entering
the highway as an interim measure, until the school zone and signage and the
actual posted speed through that section have been decided.
Mr. Martin commented that there is going to have to be serious police
enforcement throughout this portion of Route 20. He recalled that going
through Madison County on Route 29, everybody slows down to 35 mph. He said
there is always a policeman there who pulls people over,'and they soon get the
message. Ms. Humphris mentioned that this is also happening on Georgetown
Road. She said it is quite amazing because people really drive 35 mph there.
Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Tucker can contact the Police Chief to make
sure this area of Route 20 has police enforcement available. Mr. Tucker
answered affirmatively. He said some of this has already taken place there,
but it is a sporadic thing, and the police need to be consistent.
Ms. Thomas reported that she keeps hearing from people on the part of
BroadAxe Road that is not paved, but she does not know what can be done about
this situation. She recalled that Ms. Tucker was going to see if there could
be some spot or other type of minor improvements made. Ms. Thomas said she
understands the people along this road chose not to have the road paved when
the option was before them, and rights-of-way were not made available, etc.
Now, they are seeing the impact of their decision. She asked for this
situation to be considered, although it may be nothing more than a maintenance
issue.
Ms. Humphris asked who to contact for a major pothole repair on
Colthurst Drive. There is one in the travel lane, and it cannot be avoided if
another vehicle is approaching. This pothole is on the right when vehicles
are traveling south, and after the "T" intersection after going around the
curve. Ms. Tucker stated that she would take care of this.
Mr. Bowerman commented that a compliment is in order for the
signalization and timing on the light installed at Old Brook Road which is
coordinated with Hillsdale Drive. He has heard nothing but complimentary
comments, and it seemed to work very well from the beginning. This is not
necessarily always the case, because it usually has to be fine tuned, but this
one seems to be working.
Ms. Tucker remarked that signalizing two secondary intersections will be
reviewed in the near future, but she is unsure if the actual projects will
take place early next spring or early next year. She said the first one is
the four way stop sign which was placed at South Pantops and Riverbend Drive.
This situation has multi-lane approaches, and it is somewhat confusing. She
said the multi-stop condition was an interim measure to an intersection that
meets warrants for signalization. She added that there should be some
developer participation in this signal, and V DoT officials want to take
advantage of this participation.
Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Tucker to explain the proposal relating to this
intersection again. Ms. Tucker replied that VDoT officials are proposing
signalization for this intersection. She explained that now there is a four
way stop sign, and there are multi-lanes on each approach. She said it is a
confusing situation that warrants traffic signals. She went on to explain
that the second location is on Route 250 East at the intersection of Route 729
which is close to Stone-Robinson School. This location meets signal warrants.
However, she noted that there is concern about the Route 250 East Corridor
Study which has not been initiated, but it is to be done within VDoT. In the
meantime, traffic control is badly needed at this location, so it will be
prioritized for signal installation.
Mr. Martin inquired if these signals would be working all the time, and
not just when school buses were coming and going. Ms. Tucker answered
affirmatively. She said it will likely not require that the signal change, if
there is no one on the Route 729 piece of the intersection.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the traffic count on Route 729. Ms. Tucker was
unsure about the number, but she said it meets the warrants for a traffic
signal. She added, though, that peak hour traffic counts are probably
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000165
(Page 24)
driving these warrants. She said another location to receive traffic signals
is the 1-64 and Route 250 East interchange on both off ramps. She reported
that these will work in a similar manner to the signals now installed at
Barracks Road and the Route 250 Bypass. She said although this will not
happen before the Route 250/I-64 location, the Fifth Street interchange is
another location to be prioritized for signals. She stated that both ramps
would receive signals, and the signals would be coordinated.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the timing for the Fifth Street signals. Ms.
Tucker answered that the first three locations will be receiving these signals
during the beginning of next year.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if it is possible to have developer contributions
for the Fifth Street signals. Ms. Tucker replied affirmatively. She said
there is a back-up problem on the interstate at the 1-64 and Route 250 East
interchange, and traffic needs to move off of those ramps.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Airport Plan Presentation, Bryan Elliott.
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Director of Aviation, Stated that he was going to
focus on three specific areas involving the Airport Plan[ He would talk about
the enhancement, as well as preservation of the Airport's infrastructure, the
efforts the Airport is making on its commercial air service initiatives, and
he would bring the Board up-to-date on the aviation activities at the Airport.
First, as far as infrastructure is concerned, Mr. Elliott explained that
several preservation projects and several capacity related projects were
implemented by the Authority last year. The overlay of the main runway was
completed, as well as construction of a new "T" hangar development area which
will allow for construction of private individualized "T" hangars. He also
mentioned that Airport officials entered into a grant and obtained a
construction contract for repaying of the taxiway and a portion of the general
aviation parking ramp and constructed a new aircraft deice saver. He
explained that during winter operations, the deicer will accommodate aircraft
for deicing purposes and subsequent to the deicing of the aircraft, it
provides for the collection of the deicing fluid for either recycling or
retention on Airport premises.
Airport officials are in the process now of trying to seek funding from
the FAA and the Virginia Department of Aviation to complete construction and
rehabilitation of the general aviation ramp. He said the pavement in that
area is the original pavement when the Airport was constructed in 1950, and it
is long overdue for rehabilitation. These projects represent approximately
$4,000,000 of capital investment that the Authority has made through its own
funds, Federal Aviation Administration funds and Department of Aviation Funds
in the past year.
As far as capacity related issues are concerned, Airport officials are
beginning to consider launching a study of the air carrier terminal building.
If they are successful in attracting more airlines to serve the market, they
will need to be prepared as to how they will accommodate these airline
operations in terms of additional tiCket counter space and holding space
inside the terminal buildings. This study will focus on how the building
could be expanded, as well as the cost of the expansion. He added that this
is something they hope to launch in the first quarter of 1998.
Mr. Elliott then referred to a parking analysis that was completed
earlier this year which considered the projected growth trends of passengers
relating to the number of automobiles that are coming to the Airport. The
study determined that based on the projection of passenger growth between now
and the year 2014, the Airport showed a total of close to 800 additional
parking spaces for automobiles. In November, the Authority Board members
adopted a recommendation to move forward with Phase One of this program which
would provide 300 of 700 spaces. However, prior to moving forward to the more
capital intensive element of the remaining 400 to 500 spaces which would
involve possibly a deck, they will look at alternative means of transportation
to the Airport. He said possibilities are a shuttle operation, through JAUNT
or some other private operation, to try to reduce the number of automobiles
coming and going to the Airport. The first phase of construction of the 300
spaces will get underway in 1998, and in 2004 or 2005, the studies should be
in place which will represent recommendations and thought on what can be done
to help reduce automobile traffic to and from the Airport.
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
O0016G
He mentioned that Airport representatives have been working very closely
with the Department of Transportation as well as the County Planning office
and the County Engineering Office on Route 649. Based upon this Board's
actions last month, they are now in the position to begin the preliminary
engineering design work on that project. He complimented Wayne Cilimberg,
Angela Tucker and Larry Davis and everyone else who worked to get the three
party agreements in place that were needed between VDoT, the County and the
Airport Authority. A location hearing for this project has been preliminarily
scheduled in late January or early February where two potential corridors or
alignments for Route 649 will be presented for public comment and input. He
said subsequent to the public process, Airport officials will come back to
this Board, as well as the Commonwealth Transportation Board. He remarked
that the goal for 1998 is to establish what the corridor will actually be. In
conjunction, the Airport Authority is seeking Federal Aviation Administration
funds and Department of Aviation funds for the Route 606 relocation in front
of the terminal building that is scheduled to complement Route 649, and
construction is being considered for the year 2000 or 2001. He said they
continue to invest the Airport's own capital funds and those of the FAA and
the Department of Aviation to both satisfy the preservation of the
infrastructure as well as meet some of the potential capacity issues the
Airport will be facing during the next 10 to 20 years.
He then talked about commercial air service, where he said they are on
track to have a record year in 1997 in terms of the number of passengers
utilizing the Airport. The traffic is up approximately 10.4 percent over the
previous year, and the Airport is exceeding State and national trends in terms
of passenger utilization in the sense that 8.8 percent growth per year is
being experienced since 1990, which exceeds State and national levels. He
reported that the Airport currently has approximately 30 flights a day,
involving four carriers to six airport hubs, and there have been some
significant changes in the air service make-up this year. Some incumbent
carriers, such as U.S. Airways Express, began to emphasize Philadelphia so the
Charlottesville Airport gained Philadelphia's service this year. U.S. Airways
is making an international hub, and the announcement was just made that this
carrier will be going to Amsterdam through Philadelphia, and they already go
to London and many other European destinations. He also mentioned that
Charlottesville's New York connection became a continental connection which
has greatly enhanced its capability, too. Throughout the year Charlottesville
Airport representatives have made visits and presentations to potential
carriers, and they have had three visits already this year. Mr. Tucker
accompanied them on one of those visits, and at least two more are scheduled
for this month and perhaps one next month. Me added that they are actively
out and trying to gain additional service for their market and their citizens.
He said one phenomenon in the regional airline market of which the Board
members should be aware is the growing development of the regional jet which
is a 50 seat jet aircraft that many of the carriers are bringing on line. The
demographics and growth of this market fit into the terms of this type of
aircraft utilizing Charlottesville. In terms of promotion of Charlottesville
and Albemarle County as a tourist destination ConAir, which is the Delta
carrier to Cincinnati, will provide a highlight feature of this region in its
in-flight magazine for the November/December issue, and copies of this
magazine will be provided to the Supervisors. This feature will be exposed to
approximately 750,000 ConAir passengers in November and December. The
Charlottesville Airport has the entire cover of the magazine and there is a
four page article on features of this County and the region as a tourist
destination. The Airport is being actively promoted, and this latest brochure
will be provided to hotels and tourist places in this region promoting the
Airport and its services.
Mr. Elliott next spoke about general aviation where, during the last
year, the Charlottesville Airport has been very fortunate to attract a full
service fixed base operator which is Piedmont Aviation Service. He noted that
it has been in business for almost 50 years to provide hangar fuel sales and
aircraft maintenance. This locality is fortunate to have two very strong
flight schools and aircraft rental operations in the form of the Blue Ridge
Flight Center and the Charlottesville Flight Center. This segment of the
industry is also growing, and the Airport is very fortunate to have such
qualified businesses provide service there.
He remarked that 1997 has been a very busy year for the Airport, and
many challenges remain for 1998. The federal authorization for grants for
airports expires, and Congress will be taking up the re-authorization. He
pointed out that this is the time for everybody in the Airport business to
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
000:1.67
wait and see what is going to occur and to work closely with the congressional
delegation on the re-authorization. Growth will continue to be an issue that
will have to be addressed, and Airport officials look forward to this Board's
continued support. He added that they appreciate all the Supervisors have
done particularly relating to Route 649.
Ms. Humphris mentioned a communication she received from Kaye Slaughter,
a City Councillor, whose concern was that planning was not being done for
transportation back and forth from town to the Airport. Ms. Humphris said she
informed Ms. Slaughter that she thought this was a distinct part of the
Airport's plan.
Mr. Elliott concurred. The Authority Board, when it reviewed the
parking analysis, adopted in part the parking recommendation. The Airport
currently is in a situation where six of the past seven weekends there has not
been enough parking, and automobiles have been shuttled to a remote lot. He
stated that over the Thanksgiving holidays, there were close to 120 vehicles
which had to be shuttled in such a manner. The recommendation and the action
of the Authority Board is to move forward with meeting this immediate need.
However, the Authority Board will hold off on the second phase, which is the
more expensive project, to consider what can be done in terms of additiOnal
transportational services. The action was to take care of an immediate
pressing need in terms of parking capacity, but also to consider what can be
done for long term needs. Some surveys have been done on rental
transportation. The Airport serves approximately a 4,000 square mile area,
and the bulk of the people are Albemarle County residents. Approximately 45
percent are from Albemarle County, 15 percent from the University of Virginia,
11 percent from the City and the remainder come from jurisdictions all around
this area. The key is to work with the University in its spring and fall
breaks to try to provide alternative means of transportation to and from the
Airport. However, long term consideration will have to be given to a private
or public operation to transport people to and from the Airport.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Elliott to communicate his explanation to Ms.
Slaughter. Mr. Elliott replied that he will also be making a presentation to
the City Council later this month.
Ms. Thomas said studies are showing that the time to get alternatives to
the single occupant automobile is when parking is tight. She noted that it is
a lot more effective than when there is just congestion, and it is also most
effective if the transit users can be given some advantages. She suggested
that people who come on the University of Virginia vans be given the ability
to park in front of the building to unload their belongings, or someone could
carry bags for people who come from retirement homes in vans. She said an
advantage is more effective than just an alternative, because Americans are
not very good at taking alternatives to their single car. She added that part
of it is not an infrastructure question, but it relates to the advantages that
can be given to people who come in vans. The private industry should be
providing these alternatives, and it should be a great opportunity for
somebody. She reiterated that there needs to be some reason for people to use
alternative means of transportation, and if people can't find parking places,
that is a good reason. She encouraged the type of consideration the Airport
Authority is already giving to the parking problems.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: PREP Financing.
Mr. Tucker reported that since 1992, the Piedmont Regional Education
Program (PREP) has operated a regional day program for students with serious
emotional disturbances, and since 1995, the program has been housed in five
modular units on the CATEC site. The site has always been considered as
temporary with a commitment to relocating the facility by the end of FY 1998-
1999. He said 22 of the 48 students currently enrolled in the program are
from Albemarle County. The per pupil cost is $18,000 compared to an annual
cost of $30,000 per student if placed in a similar private facility.
The School Board has approved use of land on the Albemarle High School
site for construction of a new facility, and it has als° endorsed funding for
the project. The best option for funding appears to be a lease/purchase for
the two-year construction period, and depending on the direction of interest
rates, the lease/purchase would be repaid during the two year period by the
issuance of a VPSA loan. He said it is anticipated that the annual tuition
cost per student will increase from $18,000 to $22,000 to cover the debt
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meetin9)
(Page 27)
000168
service, which would continue to be well below the $30,000 annual per pupil
cost for private placements. Based on 22 students, Albemarle County's
increased annual cost would be $88,000.
Mr. Tucker said staff is presenting this information in preparation for
the project and associated agreements required to move forward to be presented
in January. He noted that Mr. Breeden, Director of Finance, and Mr. Frank
Morgan, from the school system, are present at this meeting in order to answer
Board members' questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if the comparison to private institutions is realistic,
and she wondered if they are only daytime institutions. Mr. Morgan stated
that the $30,000 represents a daytime only private fee. He added that some
students require this type of placement, but it is a last resort. The school
system goes through every other possible step to meet the students' needs
prior to going to residential placement, but there a couple of students in
this type of situation. He said, though, that a residential fee is much more
than $30,000.
Ms. Humphris reported that a residential fee is around $150,000 per
year. Mr. Morgan responded that there are a lot of variances in the fee, if a
placement can be found. He stated that finding a placement in a private
situation, even if the $30,000 is available, is sometimes problematic.
Mr. Davis then referred to the financing of the PREP facility. He said
the short term loan package would probably be approved by the School Board
rather than this Board. The key element for the Supervisors will be at the
end of the short term financing when they will be asked to approve the VPSA
bond offering so the short term loan can be repaid. That is the commitment
this Board needs to understand as this project is undertaken.
There was no further discussion.
of.
Agenda Item No. 9. FY 1996/97 Preliminary Audit Report, Presentation
Mr. Breeden first discussed the June Financial Report which was included
in the Board members' packets and was a part of the Consent Agenda. He said
the Audit Report presents the School Fund somewhat differently than the way
staff presented it to this Board in that a lot of federal programs were merged
into the School Fund which the staff accounts for separately. The General
Fund ended up for the last fiscal year approximately $384,000 more in revenues
than anticipated, which is somewhat less than the County has experienced in
the past. County officials must be cautious, though, because the County has
$965,000 less in property taxes which primarily relates to personal property
taxes. He noted that expenditures for the same period last year in the
General Fund are shown at $1,200,000 less than was budgeted. It needs to be
kept in mind that a lot of this resulted from projects which were incomplete
as of June 30, 1997 and were carried over to the current fiscal year and have
been reappropriated since July 1. The School Fund was approximately $52,000
over revenue projections and $445,000 under expenditures. There is a
$2,100,000 surplus for this previous year, but since July 1, or at least
including the original budget for July, $845,000 of the surplus was already
budgeted for this year. He said this primarily resulted from the initial
split billing of real estate, and approximately $768,000 went into the
school's CIP Fund. He went on to say the reappropriation of the projects
carried over from the previous year was $589,000, and the additional
appropriation for Avon Street project was $627,000, so all but $73,000 of the
surplus has been used.
He then referred to the June 30, 1997 Fund Balance Report where the
beginning balance for the last fiscal year of $32,000,000 was projected to
decrease to $14,000,000. He said normally the Supervisors get information
showing the beginning balance and appropriations made during the year. It was
anticipated the Fund Balance would drop to $14,000,000 primarily because of
the large transfer of the $17,000,000 to the CIP Fund from the split billing
collection for the first time. He emphasized, though, that the Fund Balance
will actually end up at approximately $16,300,000, but he cautioned that the
line representing "Accounting Adjustment - Sales Tax Accrual" of approximately
$663,000 in the General Fund and $535,000 in the School Fund are accruals. He
said there was a change in accounting principles requiring these two accounts
to accrue one additional month's sales tax as of June 30, 1997. He explained
000169
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
that if the May sales tax actually collected by merchants is mailed to the
State in June, the State will send it back to the County in July. He said
this has always been approved because it was within the 45 day accrual period
which is required by State. He said the June sales tax collected by merchants
goes to the State in July and comes back to the County in August, after the 45
day period so it normally has not been accrued. However, there was a change
in guidelines which says if it was owed to the County on June 30, it needs to
be reported. This is being added to the Fund Balance, but County officials
have to be very cautious that it does not change the cash flow position.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if this is an accounting improvement or will it
just help the State. He wondered about the purpose for this change. Mr.
Breeden answered that he does not think it is either one. He said there is a
general move by the Government Accounting Standards Board to try to make
governmental accounting financial reports more like a business financial
statement.
Mr. Perkins stated that it would be an asset, even though the funds are
not available. Mr. Breeden concurred. He added that for cash flow purposes
available to spend there will be twelve payments during the year. He then
referred to a business with an accounts receivable as an example. He said the
money is owed to the business, but the business does not have it on a
particular day to spend. He was cautioning the Board members because the Fund
Balance has always been looked at as a measure as far as the balance needed as
of June 30 to handle the cash flow. His comparison is similar to a person
looking at his or her net worth on a personaI financial statement. He
commented that it is only good at two particular times, either as a personal
basis when the person dies or to a business when it goes out of business. He
added that there are a lot of assets shown which cannot be spent today, but
the person needs to know how much cash he or she has in the bank. He
explained that the $13,000,000 represents approximately $10,000,000 in cash
flow which is needed to make it through the slow periods of the year as far as
revenue is concerned. He referred to the $1,000,000 shown in the Fund Balance
including both the school system and the general government. He stated,
though, that this does not give the County any more cash because although it
has been indicated that $13,000,000 is needed, actually a $14,000,000 Fund
Balance will probably be needed to maintain the cash flow at the same level as
it currently is. He asked Board members not to think they have an extra
$1,000,000 to spend, because if this happens, the County is going to have cash
flow problems which will have to be corrected.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if payments merchants sent in during December are
going to be received by the County from the State in February. He asked if
they used to be received in January. Mr. Breeden replied, "no." He explained
that the payment schedule has not changed. Mr. Bowerman then asked if there
has always been a two month delay. Mr. Breeden answered affirmatively,
although for accounting purposes, the staff recognizes one month because the
payment is received during the 45 day normal period. Mr. Bowerman stated,
then, that the actual payment schedule of receipts coming back to the County
has not been changed, but it is just being accounted for differently. Mr.
Breeden concurred.
Ms. Thomas wondered about the effect this change will have on the
different accounts. Mr. Breeden explained that this is actually being treated
as a Fund Balance adjustment, and it is not going through revenues where it
will affect the different accounts. Mr. Tucker stated that the actual receipt
of accrual payments will be the same. Mr. Breeden agreed. Ms. Thomas noted
that she understands Mr. Breeden's explanation, but she is wondering if a
different 12 months will be involved each year. Mr. Breeden said this is
basically correct because it is a one time situation. He explained that it
changes the Fund Balance position so a little larger Fund Balance is needed,
if this is going to be the number to be used for discussion of the balance
needed to have the necessary cash flow. Mr. Tucker referred to Ms. Thomas'
question. He said when year to year is compared, this beginning year is the
problem, because the Fund Balance shows more money than is actually available.
Mr. Breeden stated that this change will not affect anything from a budgetary
standpoint.
Mr. Breeden next referred to the September Financial Report. He noted
that there are some incorrect totals at the bottom of the preliminary sheet
which was included in the Board members' packets, and he distributed corrected
copies. He pointed out that the $16,100,000 is the starting figure for the
Fund Balance as of June 30, and he noted actions which have been taken since
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
O001?O
July 1, 1997. He mentioned the $770,000 which was the Budgeted Anticipated
Fund Balance, as well as carryovers and reappropriations. He also mentioned
the Avon Street Project at $627,000 and the $150,000 for the Development Area
Study. He noted that all of this is getting close to the $14,100,000 Fund
Balance figure he mentioned earlier as being needed. He then stated that Mr.
Jack Farmer, with the accounting firm of Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, is
present at this meeting to present information to this Board, as well as to
answer any questions. Mr. Breeden pointed out that the County again qualified
for the National Government Finance Officers Association Award which was given
to the County for its comprehensive annual financial report on last year's
audit, and he is anticipating the same award for the current audit. He has an
unqualified opinion on the audit that the County has met all the requirements
for generally accepted accounting principles, and he pointed out that there
are no significant problems presented in the audit for the County.
Mr. Marshall asked when this Board will be voting on the Meals Tax.
Tucker and Ms. Humphris both replied that the Board would be voting on the
Meals Tax next week on December 10, 1997.
Mr.
Mr. Marshall then inquired if the meals tax would be a windfall for the
County between January and July 1, 1998. Mr. Breeden replied that as far as
the fiscal year of 1997-98, since it was not a budgeted item, it will be
considered a windfall. However, for planning purposes as well as considering
next year's budget process, it will be one of the major items to deal with
next year's shortfall.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he understood if the meals tax was passed,
there would be a window between when it was enacted and June 30, 1998. He
also understood that the $2,300,000 estimated from it, which would start July
1, did not include the amount collected between when it was initiated and June
30. Mr. Breeden commented that it is anticipated this amount will probably be
approximately $1,000,000, and it will be a windfall this year. He reiterated,
though, that staff members have considered it as one of the items to help deal
with the shortfalls for next year, which is more than $2,000,000.
Ms. Humphris then asked Mr. Farmer if he would like to speak to the
Board members.
Mr. Farmer stated that it is always a pleasure to come before this
Board. He knows the Supervisors have not had an opportunity to review the
financial statements, so he will not go over all the numbers today. He
encouraged them, though, to read in particular the notes to the Financial
Statements, because there are disclosures which are very important when long
term debt notes, financial statements, retirement issues, commitments and
contingencies are considered. He added that the Director of Finance has done
an excellent job of giving the Supervisors a quick overview between the
current and the prior fiscal years in his letter of transmittal, which is the
introductory section of the report. The Board members can look at the
disclosures relative to revenues and expenditures, as well as the relation to
the handouts which Mr. Breeden has just reviewed with them, and they can get a
capsuled look of what has taken place between the two years. He also
encouraged the Supervisors to review the statistical section of the Financial
Statement in relation to revenues and expenditures. He mentioned that there
is historical trend information available which will give them a capsuled
financial report of where the County has been and where it is headed
financially. He then referred to the change in generally accepted accounting
principles which Mr. Breeden discussed relating to sales tax. He stated that
accounting is an art and not a science, and it is ever changing, so it may be
subject to changes next year as well. He added that the report is in
accordance with the standards and certification which will be applied for this
year with the Director of the Finance Officers Association, and he feels the
County should receive the Certificate of Achievement again. He said this
makes a statement relative to this Board in relation to its fiscal
responsibility to the taxpayers. The report also has two additional opinions
in it dealing with government auditing standards which have to be considered
relative to government regulations on the federal funds and also the
expenditure of the federal revenue funds. He said these are under the
compliance section of the report and they are unqualified opinions. As part
of that, there is a listing of all the federal money, as well as a schedule of
findings and questioned costs. However, there is no reference to any findings
or questioned costs as far as the County's handling of federal funds. He
would be glad to respond to any questions or issues the Board members may
have.
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
000 .?:1.
There were no questions for Mr. Farmer or Mr. Breeden.
(At this time, Mr. Tucker suggested the Board discuss the Comprehensive
Water Resources Ordinance.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Work Session: Comprehensive Water Resources
Ordinance.
(Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 10:41 a.m.)
Mr. Tucker said the County currently has four separate water-related
ordinances, adopted at different times for different reasons. The four
ordinances are: (1) The Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, (2) The Runoff
Control Ordinance, (3) Stormwater detention provisions of the Subdivision and
Zoning ordinances, and (4) Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance. Since
water-related items for development plan review and enforcement have been
found in four different documents that apply variable criteria to different
or overlapping geographic areas of the County, implementation of water-related
items has often been confusing for County staff and especially those regulated
by the programs. In addition, water quality criteria and calculation methods
used in the current ordinances were developed in the early 1980's, and do not
reflect up-to-date practices recently developed for stormwater management.
For the reasons stated above, the Engineering Department has undertaken
an effort, envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, to consolidate all water
ordinances under one cover and to update technical standards and calculations
methods.
This ordinance development process was aided by the "focus group" of
interested parties from the public and private sectors. The focus group was
instrumental in identifying inconsistencies with the current ordinances,
outlining objectives for the comprehensive ordinance, and commenting on
several drafts of the new ordinance. Subsequent to the focus group effort,
the Engineering Department and County Attorney's Office have been working
together on additional drafts of the ordinance to address legal and
administrative details. Comments were also received from interested parties
during this time. Drafts of the ordinance have also been discussed at two
Planning Commission work sessions: on April 29, 1997 and October 7, 1997.
During the ordinance development process, presentations were made to
PACC-Tech, a joint City/County Planning Commission meeting, the Development
Roundtable, and the PACC. It became clear during these sessions that the
ordinance could also serve as a template for a regional stormwater program
that would also apply to the City and University. To that end, City-specific
drafts of the ordinance have been developed and forwarded to City staff for
review, and discussions have been held with the state and University
concerning applying the same stormwater criteria for University projects.
This is certainly a step in the right direction, as all three jurisdictions
are connected by streams and the Rivanna River, and stormwater runoff has no
regard for jurisdictional boundaries.
The objectives of the comprehensive water ordinance effort are to: (1)
streamline the process of development review for water-related items, (2)
update standards and methods for water quantity and quality protection, (3)
allow for use of a wider range of traditional and innovative best management
practices and stormwater techniques, and (4) provide a template for a regional
stormwater approach that would include the City and University.
Another important objective came to light during the focus group
process: the water ordinance should work in conjunction, and not against, the
Land Use Plan. Specifically, since the Land Use Plan encourages development
within designated Development Areas, water resource requirements should not
create disincentives for development within these areas vis-a-vis the Rural
Areas, including water supply watersheds. In other words, it should not be
more difficult and costly to comply with the ordinance in Development Areas
than in Rural Areas. Similarly, the ordinance should not create incentives
for development within the Rural Areas by having few or no water resource
requirements.
Interestingly, the exact opposite of this scenario prevails with current
water programs. At present, Rural Areas outside of drinking water watersheds
000:1.72
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meetin9)
(Page 31)
have no water quantity or quality requirements aside from the Erosion and
Sediment Control Ordinance (E&S). The proposed Comprehensive Water Resources
Ordinance seeks to rectify this inconsistency. Water quantity and quality
requirements are tailored to specific regions of the County--Development
Areas, Water Supply Protection Areas, and Rural Areas--in order to reflect the
objectives of the Land Use Plan. Accordingly, the new ordinance establishes a
water quality requirement County-wide, but the requirement and calculation
procedure vary based on a project's status in the Land Use Plan.
Finally, it is important to note that the ordinance must be reviewed and
approved by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation for
compliance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and Regulations. State
personnel have already reviewed and commented on several earlier drafts.
Mr. Tucker said the attachments to the ordinance are contained in the
"Supplemental Documentation" packet, which includes: an ordinance development
history and time line; a matrix comparin9 the proposed ordinance with current
stormwater practices at the County, City, and University; a record of written
comments received durin9 the ordinance development process and County staff
responses; and other relevant documents and correspondence. A cost analysis
report will be forwarded to the Board under separate cover.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board set a public hearin9 for
February 11, 1998 for consideration of the Comprehensive Water Resources
Ordinance. Mr. Hirschman and Mr. Cilimber9 are present to answer specific
questions. He also asked if Mr. Davis had any su99estions or changes to make
regardin9 the legal aspects of the ordinance.
Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Hirschman and Gre9 Kamptner from the County
Attorney's Office have done a tremendous amount of work on the document. He
said they are still receivin9 a few additional comments from staff reviews so
there could be some minor changes to this ordinance before it is set for
public hearin9. However, they are comfortable that it is basically ready to
adopt. He added that if the public hearin9 is set for February 11, all
comments should have been received, and it should be a very tight document by
that time.
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 10:44 a.m.)
Ms. Humphris commented that if the Western Bypass is built, it will be
the biggest movement of earth to happen probably in the State, which is a real
challenge. She said, though, she has found information in the document
relatin9 to the fact that VDoT is not subject to this ordinance. Mr.
Hirschman answered that this is primarily correct, as VDoT is exempt from just
about everythin9 in all the County ordinances. He noted, though, that there
has been some interaction by County staff through the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority and recommendations for at least a treatment of run-off from the
Bypass have been incorporated. He said he has these plans in his office, but
he has not yet reviewed them. However, he stated that VDoT has voluntarily
accepted the County and Rivanna Authority staffs recommendations for
stormwater.
Ms. Humphris remarked that County officials have already had experience
with the way V DoT takes care of sedimentation, and overall it is not handled
very well. She asked what can be done if this situation starts. She said
although she does not like to personalize things, she knows of a situation in
her subdivision where the residents are goin9 to be faced with a 60 foot high
new mound of earth startin9 in front of their houses and 9oin9 up to the
road. She said a delivery man made a delivery to her house on Monday, and he
asked where the road would be constructed. She stated that she pointed to a
house and told the delivery man that the road would 9o through that particular
house, and there would be a 60 foot embankment. She said he immediately asked
where all the water was 9oing to 9o. She went on to say the drainage system
in this subdivision is not constructed to carry'thiS embankment'S~run-off.
She noted that she is thinking~ahead from the construction erosion
sedimentation problem to the problems occurrin9 when the road is constructed.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Ms. Humphris' subdivision has a pristine pond.
Ms. Humphris replied that the subdivision has a pristine pond now, but it will
be filled with mud. Mr. Bowerman said the pond is where the water will flow.
Ms. Humphris agreed, but she said the water also flows through people!s yards
before it 9ets to the pond. She stated that when she first moved there, it
was a country environment. She said everybody loved their rustic atmosphere
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 0~)0173
(Pa~e 32)
in the country, and there was a lot of under story. She noted that the people
on a hill above her house decided to take out all the under story to make the
countryside more beautiful and just leave trees, etc. However, this action
ruined her driveway, and she had to rebuild it. She cannot imagine what is
going to happen under these circumstances with the new roadway. She asked,
first of all, how will the County officials protect the County when VDoT is
not well known for implementing the appropriate erosion control measures. She
stated also that once this stage is past, there will be a 60 foot high
embankment in place. She said this is true not just in her neighborhood but
also in other areas where 20 foot high embankments are going to be built. She
also noted the plan for a 32 foot bridge across Barracks Road which will
result in enormous embankments at Montvue. She wondered how to protect the
County's streams and water supply.
Mr. Hirschman referred to Mr. Tucker's remarks about a Stormwater
Management Act which has two sections. He said one is applied to local
government and the other applies to State agencies. He stated that VDoT is
subject to this Act, but how well it is implemented or how well the protection
actually achieves the objectives is a field issue. However, because of this
Act, VDoT will have to comply to similar standards as is found in the County's
new ordinance. Ms. Humphris concurred that VDoT has to comply to such
standards, but sometimes the standards don't work. She said for civilians, a
stop work order can be obtained. Mr. Tucker said the question is who enforces
the standards to which the state has to comply. Ms. Humphris wondered who
enforces the State's use of its own standards.
Mr. Hirschman said VDoT has a unique arrangement with the State. He
said every other State agency, whether it is Piedmont Community College or the
Department of Forestry with a facility in the County, has a State inspector
who will provide oversight. He noted, though, that the Department of
Conservation is the regulatory agency for these other State agencies, whereas
VDoT has an arrangement to do its own inspections. He said the question is
how can compliance be ensured, since VDoT has its own inspectors and is
responsible for its own compliance. A lot of frustration is involved when a
State project is in a local government's jurisdiction causing damage, and he
does not know legally if there is much County officials can do. He Said the
only thing that can be done is through the various existing bodies. County
officials can insist on a third party inspection of the Bypass as it is being
built and thereafter. He added that this third party inspection could be done
by someone from the County or somebody V DoT agrees to hire. He said then
there will need to be a commitment on VDoT's part that they will abide by the
results of the third party inspection. He does not know of any other way to
achieve the desired results.
(Mr. Martin left at 10:50 p.m.)
Ms. Humphris mentioned that Art Petrini made a similar request in a
letter regarding stormwater detention, but she also noticed there was never a
response to this request, which is a typical VDoT maneuver. She asked if
there can be some way to ensure a third party inspector, and she asked who
should do it.
Mr. Marshall said a third party inspector will not do any good. He 'went
on to say when the "S" curve was straightened out on Route 20, he and Mary Lee
McCrickard both had ponds. An attorney was hired, and she went to court. He
added that the cheapest figure to clear the silt out of Ms. McCrickard's pond
created through the run-off was $58,000, and VDoT offered her $10,000. He
remarked that he has not received a penny for his pond, and it is now only six
feet deep where it used to be 13 feet deep. He said he didn't go to court,
but he never even got an offer of any money from VDoT.
Ms. Humphris concurred that she is referring exactly to stormwater run-
off. She said Mr. Marshall could probably have anticipated this before the
project happened because her neighborhood is anticipating that in spite of
this wonderful ordinance, it is very likely many people's homes are going to
get ruined by the aftereffects of this roadway. She asked if anything can be
done now with VDoT in the planning stage to deal with the run-off into homes
and ponds along the route of this road.
Mr. Tucker mentioned a letter from Mr. Mills in response to a letter Mr.
Tucker had written to him in which Mr. Mills asked David Hirschman to review
the stormwater run-off problems of this roadway. However, Mr. Tucker wondered
what effect a review will have in added suggestions or enhancement because it
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
ooo .74
always comes back to the implementation and enforcement issue. He said he
does not know what authority one would have in requiring the State to comply,
even if there is a third party involved. He noted that the State would be
hiring its own inspector.
Mr. Davis responded that the only advantage in having an independent
person monitoring the project would be to bring it to everyone's attention
when there is a violation of a State law or regulation. He said when there is
a violation, the courts could be used to stop the project until the problem
was corrected if it was causing eminent danger to the environment. He noted
that private landowners have the same ability if their property is being
damaged by run-off. He said property owners can seek damages from the State
for this type of taking of their property, but it is a very painful process.
Ms. Humphris wondered why people should have to go through such a
painful process if it can be prevented. She said although consideration is
being given to trying to control the stormwater run-off of the road, there is
nothing being said or done about the aftereffects of the change in the
topography the road will create. Mountains cannot be changed into flat pieces
of property without causing huge problems, and VDoT is not dealing with this
matter at all. Mr. Hirschman responded that VDoT will have to deal with this
issue through the State Stormwater Management Act. Ms. Humphris remarked that
she is referring to the future of the neighborhoods after everything is in
place. She said V DoT does not deal with this issue. Mr. Hirschman replied
that VDoT will have to deal with it.
Ms. Humphris explained that the disposal of everything coming off the
mountain has to go through the existing stormwater system in the subdivision.
Mr. Hirschman answered that this happens only after treatment. He said the
way it is supposed to be designed is that all the water draining off the road
or embankments will go through its own stormwater treatment system. Ms.
Humphris responded that she understands this, but she is referring to the new
60 foot high embankment to be built which drains to a drainage system that was
not designed to handle such a situation.
Mr. Hirschman referred to a section in the Erosion Control Ordinance
called Adequate Channel Outfalls where by law excess water that flows out of
existing channels cannot be discharged. He said this is also covered by the
detention requirements in the State Stormwater Management Act. When there is
such a massive land use change anything put in the way in terms of stormwater
treatment is mitigation, and it identifies some of the severest impacts and
tries to remedy them. He said, though, it doesn't identify all of the impacts
and pretend that the post-construction condition is in any way going to
resemble what the pre-construction condition is, so there are inevitable
impacts with such a construction project.
Mr. Marshall noted that when lakes are involved, the age of the lake is
considered, and owners are told that farm ponds get a certain amount of silt.
He added that the landowner above his property clear-cut 400 acres of timber,
and all of this run-off affected his pond. This was also blamed for the silt
in his pond. Ms. Humphris remarked that the best thing to happen would be not
to have the problem in the first place. Mr. Marshall said he has been dealing
with VDoT for five years with his situation.
(Mr. Martin returned at 10:58 a.m.)
Mr. Hirschman said he knows from personal experience, as with any
construction project but in particular VDoT projects because they are so huge,
if somebody is not on site all the time, a small problem can grow into a big
problem.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that a hurricane came through the area and dumped
five inches of water at approximately the same time construction was being
done on Route 20, and V/DoT couldn't control the situation. He said it was an
Act of God, so this entered into the situation, too. Mr. Hirschman said
nothing can be done about this.
Mr. Bowerman stated that a pond is a sedimentation basin. Ms. Humphris
replied that yards are not. Mr. Bowerman stated that these types of
situations cannot really be dealt with, even with the County's ordinance, so
existing ponds inevitably serve as detention basins themselves, and they get
full of silt. Mr. Marshall commented that he has an eight acre lake which
saved everybody below him. Ms. Humphris said it will be a huge problem if
000 .75
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
this road is built. She then referred to Mr. Hirschman's report, and said she
could find nothing he had left undone.
Ms. Thomas agreed that Mr. Hirschman's report is a wonderful compila-
tion, and it covers a lot of things. She was disappointed, though, that it
was purely a surface water document and did not deal with ground water issues.
She recalled a comment from Mr. Tice at a Planning Commission meeting about
there being aspects of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act that aren't picked
up in this report such as the pumping of septic tanks, etc. She mentioned
that half the State lives under these regulations because so much of the
State's population is in the Chesapeake Bay protection area so it can't be
impossible to live with these regulations. She noted that almost half of the
people in the County depend on ground water, and the State's ordinances are
noted as being the weakest in the nation. She said the State's ordinances are
intended to deal with surface run-off, but there is almost no connection to
whether a well is being protected from a septic tank, and very little is being
done in this County about this issue. She noted that Mr. Hirschman was not
really asked to take up this matter, because he was asked to put together
things existing in different ordinances. She inquired if Mr. Hirschman sees a
time when the matter of ground water will be examined, or will this Board need
to instruct Mr. Hirschman to study the issue. She asked if there are any
plans for dealing with ground water protection better than is currently being
done.
Mr. Hirschman mentioned that the new water section.of the Comprehensive
Plan, which is in final draft form, has a whole expanded and enhanced ground
water section. He said the ground water issue will be explored, but this
particular mission was to bring together the surface water components. He
does not recall the exact language in the Comprehensive Plan, but ground water
is addressed, with specific reference to septic systems.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Comprehensive Plan is adopted with its new water
section, then will there be work started toward an ordinance to deal with
ground water. Mr. Hirschman stated that if the Board members see the ground
water issue as an action item, and they would like for the staff to proceed
with some haste, then he can bring the matter back to this Board.
Ms. Thomas next referred to stream side forests that benefit local
communities in the Bay area, and she wondered if buffers are sufficient to be
included in what is being called stream side forests. Mr. Hirschman replied
that one of the changes made with this program specifically encourages
forests along the streams rather than other types of ground cover. He said
one of the things that could be seen more often because of this ordinance is
the replanting of the stream side areas at least in a development context.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that everybody has seen agricultural roads built to
amazingly high standards for the farm implements because they were going to be
subdivision roads in a few months. She asked if Mr. Hirschman feels this
report is the best that can be done in terms of defining an agricultural road.
Mr. Hirschman responded that this is a tricky issue because the staff members
were trying to close the loophole, but they wanted to do it in a way that was
legal and would actually work. However, he is unsure what would actually
work, because the loophole has not been closed before, and several people have
tried to pass through it recently. He said the staff examined several
different ways to do this, and there is a question as to what is going to be
allowed in the current ordinance under the State Code language and regula-
tions. According to the State Code agricultural roads are exempt. He said he
is working with Mr. Davis' office to try to develop a way that won't regulate
bona fide agricultural roads that are built at a reasonable scale. He added
that the staff is trying to affect roads which are causing damage to the
environment because of the scale at which they are built, or by the nature
that they are really subdivision roads but masked as agricultural roads. He
said it has been a hard thing to accomplish, but this might be one of the
details needing work between now and the public hearing.
Mr. Davis stated that he thinks more should be done before this
ordinance is adopted, because it is certainly not desirable for people to be
building cul-de-sacs as farm roads. He said some of this has been seen
lately, so there may be some dimensional restrictions which need to be put
into the ordinance. He added that he thinks this can be.done, because
agricultural roads are not defined specifically in the State Code, and he
thinks it is reasonable for County officials to put some parameters on what
will be called agricultural roads.
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35) ·
Mr. Hirschman commented that he has done this with this ordinance. He
said agricultural roads must meet a certain scale with a certain amount of cut
and fill, as well as a certain cross section where the biggest John Deere
tractor can be taken down them, but these roads couldn't be built on steep
terrain to VDoT standards.
Mr. Marshall remarked that this bothers him. He noted that there are
certain areas on his farm where he has to take his tractor, and he creates a
temporary road, and then the road is overgrown. Mr. Hirschman replied that
this type of temporary situation will not be regulated. Mr. Marshall said if
such a situation was regulated, there would be a lot of trouble in Albemarle
County.
Ms. Thomas stated that she understands the dilemma, but the problem
arises when it is a 50 foot wide road that is paved and ends in a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Marshall said he wanted to make sure the regulations do not affect the
areas of farming such as the one he just described. Mr. Davis indicated that
the staff was sensitive to these types of situations. Mr. Marshall said he
has a 60 horse power tractor, and the wheels are really large. When he is
getting in hay, the tractor is going to make big ruts, if the ground is not
frozen. Mr. Hirschman responded that the ordinance has less to do with ruts
than the scale of construction.
Ms. Thomas remarked that she wanted to make sure County officials were
not legally getting into a situation where they are frustrated with their own
ordinance. She said when this Board was dealing with the Blue Ridge Building
Supply, on Route 250 West, proposal for building right up to steep slopes,
Board members thought they had the legislative ability to do something about
the proposal. However, the ordinance was written in such a way that if the
applicants met the criteria set.up in the ordinance, and the County
Engineering Department staff members said they had met this criteria, then
Board members had no leeway to use their own judgment, and they had to approve
it. She added that there was a room full of people present for the public
hearing thinking they were going to be able to say something that would make
some difference, and they couldn't. She noted that the Board members also
thought they would be able to do something, and they couldn't. She said in
remembering the total frustration of that night, she wanted to make sure this
ordinance is written in such a way that the Supervisors are the ones who give
the exceptions. She stated that if the criteria is met, and the County
Engineering Department says the applicant has met this~criteria, but the
Supervisors have no legislative leeway, then it is a sham being put over on
the public as well as County officials.
Mr. Hirschman read from Page 31 of the proposed ordinance that the Board
of Supervisors in Paragraph B shall grant or deny the request. He said this,
in his mind, gives this Board discretionary authority as well as the ability
to impose reasonable and appropriate conditions.
Mr. Davis stated that the key word in this paragraph is the word, "may,"
whereas in the Zoning Ordinance the section Ms. Thomas was describing involved
a mandatory, "shall." He said if applicants met a certain criteria, then
they could develop on steep slopes. He added that this proposed ordinance is
discretionary, and the Supervisors would not be bound to grant certain
exceptions. However, he clarified that outside of these exceptions this is
not a legislative type of ordinance with legislative decisions made by this
Board. He explained that it is an administrative ordinance, and if applicants
meet the criteria, plans are going to be approved if the land use is in place.
The exceptions involve things not permitted by right and will only be granted
by this Board under extraordinary circumstances.
Ms. Thomas inquired as to where the word, "may," is used on Page 31.
Mr. Davis answered that the word, "may," is shown under Item C where it says,
"A request for exception may be granted provided that:"
Ms. Humphris inquired if there is enabling legislation for the County to
require the pumping of septic tanks. Mr. Davis replied that there is enabling
legislation in the Chesapeake Bay Act for this, but in order to implement it,
the Supervisors would have to declare a Resource Management Area in the County
under the Bay Act to capture these regulations. It is possible to do this,
but there are other things which would have to be done. He said he has been
talking to Mr. Hirschman about enabling authority existing under the Bay Act
and the things that could be done by this County in addition to what is
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
0001??
already in its ordinances. He added that there will be a presentation at a
future work session about this available authority under the Bay Act.
Ms. Thomas next mentioned stormwater detention facilities, and she noted
that when they are privately built, property owners are responsible for
maintaining them. She wondered, though, when the property changes hands, how
does the subsequent landowner know that he has inherited this responsibility.
She asked if this information is in the deed.
Mr. Davis said a recorded agreement is required that is in the chain of
title, and it would be reported to the new landowners when they close on the
property. They should know about it because it is a recorded document.
Mr. Marshall inquired if the stormwater detention facilities are bonded.
Mr. Davis answered that it has been the practice not to bond stormwater
detention facilities when perpetual agreements are involved, but they are
bonded in the short term to make sure they are properly constructed. He said
after this, though, there is not a bond. There is an agreement obligating the
landowner to make reports and do repairs subject to enforcement by the County.
Mr. Hirschman called attention to Page 28 under E - 4 of the proposed
ordinance. When the property is sold, there has to be some legal documents
involved, but also the recipient of the property and the deeded maintenance
agreement provide a certification to the County that the stormwater facility
will be maintained. He said basically the certification is that the original
stormwater management plan will be adhered to by the recipient.
There were no further questions for staff members.
Ms. Humphris announced that the public hearing for the Comprehensive
Water Resources Ordinance is set for February 11, 1998.
Agenda Item No. 10. 11:00 a.m. - Interfaith Roundtable on Sustain-
ability, Presentation by Michael Collins, TJPDC.
Mr. Michael Collins noted that the three speakers today, which is a
diverse group of religious and nonreligious people, will make this group's
first governmental presentation about an understanding of earth, the human
race and people's responsibility to themselves and other life forms. He said
in 1994, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission launched two
separate sustainability initiatives, each designed to work in two distinct
arenas. The first, the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council is a secular
project approaching the movement to a more sustainable future through
information and analysis. He said the project works primarily in the arena of
economic, environmental and social policy and will release its findings of
sustainability accords in the spring of 1998.
The second, which is the subject of this presentation, is the Interfaith
Roundtable on sustainability. He pointed out that this group pursues
sustainability through the establishment of a new integrated ethical tradi-
tion for the 21st century and will appeal to individuals, businesses and
governments through values, ethics and inspiration. The Roundtable is
composed of 13 individuals from a diversity of perspectives, including
conservative and liberal Christians, Jewish, Buddhists, Baha'i, Unitarian,
Universalists and Agnostic beliefs. He then named the members of the
Roundtable. He noted that the project is sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission, and it is funded by the Virginia Foundation for
the Humanities and Public Policy. The Roundtable believes a large portion of
the ethical perspectives held by residents of the region are represented on
the Roundtable, and surveys have shown that most residents of the U.S. have
some type of faith values or beliefs system. Thus, the Roundtable's findings
potentially represent a large portion of the ethical perspectives of many
central Virginians. The mission of the Roundtable is to provide a shared
ethical framework for individuals and organizations to consider the impact of
their policies, objectives and daily decisions on the sustainability of the
region.
The release of the Interfaith Roundtable's first major finding, an
affirmation for interdependence, respect and responsibility, is perhaps the
first tool developed specifically in this region and for this region to
examine issues of the day in light of sustainability. This light allows
people to find their way without telling them which way to go, and it is a
light in which the people can see as much as they are willing to take time to
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
000 .78
find. He commented that people believe in the ability of logical thinking to
solve problems, and science has improved their quality of life in immeasurable
ways. However, he believes that people are now far too clever to be able to
survive without wisdom, and further expansion of this cleverness can be of no
benefit whatever. He went on to say that wisdom is the capacity to grasp
rather than solve the difficult questions of our existence, and it is the
capacity to consider the elements of a worthwhile life; to raise a question of
the purpose of human life on earth among friends or at a public meeting; and
to be able to be taken seriously. The affirmation is a tool to help with the
whys of public policy such as why should or shouldn't Albemarle County work to
increase density in the growth areas and why should or shouldn't the County
increase taxes. To the extent the Supervisors choose to consider sustain-
ability as a factor in their decision making process, it is believed that the
findings of the Roundtable can facilitate choices to lead to a more
sustainable future.
He next introduced Charles Lancaster, former Senior Warden of the Vestry
at St. Paul's Memorial Episcopal Church, who defined the ethical rules of
sustainability agreed to by the group.
Mr. Lancaster said he has reflected back on the Roundtable's work, and
it is interesting to note that he and Mr. Andrew Mackey are the only two lay
people among all the others who are learned in theology with multiple degrees,
many of whom are reverends. He and Mr. Mackey are here to present the
Supervisors with the layman's perspective and also to let them know how
valuable it was for them to be involved in this discussion group with such a
diverse group of people from various backgrounds who have developed quite a
valuable and consensus statement for the Supervisors' consideration. The
goal of the Interfaith Roundtable was to try to define a shared ethical
framework to apply to sustainability decision making, and individuals and
organizations will be able to use this framework when they consider the impact
of their policies on the sustainability of the region. The Roundtable group
envisioned the goal as providing an ethical lens which citizens and decision
makers might use to view public decisions.
He went on to say the Planning District Commission convened a group of
people with diverse faith or belief backgrounds, and they work by consensus to
try to find common themes related to the sustainability issue. He noted that
the discussions were informed by each individual's faith or belief paths.
However, they searched for the place where the personal paths might cross,
where when sustainability decision making is considered, there would be some
commonality. They were hoping for a consensus statement of sustainability
ethics. Sustainability, as defined by the Sustainability Council, is the
ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs. He added that the needs and
desires of today must be balanced with sensitivity for the needs for tomorrow.
He said ethics is the search for a definition of right conduct or a moral
approach to life, so the Roundtable's purpose was to try to articulate the
right conduct t require people to consider if they are concerned with long
term consequences of their actions. He noted that an ethical statement does
not dictate a particular outcome or provide an answer to every question, but
it requires that conscious choices be made and that relevant factors be
considered. He said members of the Roundtable believe that decisions will be
sustainable if they are made with a conscious consideration of the principles
found in the statement made in their affirmation. After much discussion and
advice from experts, Roundtable members agreed on three ethical concepts which
are at the core of the affirmation.
He said the three concepts are interdependence, which refers to the
connectiveness of all life and natural systems where actions which directly
affect one are not isolated but have at least the potential to affect all.
The second concept is respect. He said realization of interdependence gives a
heightened regard for the other creatures in the web of life and society and
the realization that we must act with greater concern for and recognition of
their work. He added that the third concept is responsibility which implies
that we must not only respect but also act out of a sense of duty to the other
members of creation, as well as ourselves, that there is a positive aspect of
service to the preservation of others and a beneficial future for all. He
went on to say Roundtable members found these concepts were common to their
ethical approach to sustainable decisions, and these themes of sustainability
ethics will be seen imbedded in the affirmation. Mr. Mackey would add further
reflections on the key concepts, and he will also inform the Board members how
Roundtable members envision the Supervisors might use this affirmation.
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
O0O179
Roundtable members envision the Supervisors might use this affirmation.
Mr. Mackey stated that the affirmation centers on interdependence with
each other, as well as with other resources, and it addresses the respect
which results from the interdependence. He said it asks people to recognize
their responsibilities to ensure the future sustainability of the earth,
because in the past results of actions were not considered regarding each
other nor the environment, and when resources were used up in one area, people
moved on to a new frontier. He said when other people appeared to be in the
way of the progress they were forced to leave so others could have what they
wanted. He stated today, though, there are not any new frontiers, and if the
resources of the earth are drained, there will not be another place to go. He
remarked that globally other people's needs cannot be ignored, either. He
said with modern technology and super highways events are seen happening
around the world which affect people now, as well as future generations, and
our actions affect them, too. The Roundtable members also realize that people
are unable to live without the limited resources which exist and are truly
dependent on clean air, clean water and a decent food supply. He commented
that the sustainability of each of these resources depends on actions of
people around the world. He said people are dependent not only on other
people but on the planets which provide breathable air and food, as well as
animals which serve the people in so many ways whether for food or
transportation, beasts of burden or in helping to sustain other plants and
animals around the world. People are interdependent with all living things,
and they have a responsibility to others, to the environment and to future
generations.
The members of the Roundtable sincerely hope that the Supervisors will
consider the ethical statement of this document in any public policy decision
they make which affects the sustainability of this area, and that they will
use the concepts it describes as one more filter through which to look at
their decisions whether the issue deals with roads or schools, landfills or
zoning requests or any other environmental or social issues. He asked the
Supervisors to hold the issue in one hand and the affirmation in the other and
to study the affirmation to see how its principles apply to the issue. He
said the Supervisors need to find out if the proposal recognizes the
interdependence with the entire environment, if it demonstrates respect for
each other and the resources, if it will foster mutually beneficial
relationships among the parties affected and if it will responsibly meet our
needs without sacrificing the future of the area's children. He said it is a
balance not easy to determine, but it is a balance which must be achieved if
the resources are to be used wisely in the present and to be sure there are
sufficient resources for future generations.
He then read the text of the affirmation to the Supervisors. He
informed Board members that they can be provided with an original parchment
paper affirmation fully signed by all the members of the Interfaith Roundtable
on Sustainability, if they feel it would be of value to them. He said it
could be appropriately framed and displayed in a location of their choice. He
hopes they will find the affirmation a useful tool in their deliberations.
Ms. Humphris thanked the gentlemen and told them it was a very meaning-
ful presentation.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the affirmation shown to the Board was an
example of the one they will receive. Mr. Collins replied that the Board
members could receive one of ten original prints hand signed by each of the
Roundtable members, but this particular framed print will be presented to
the Planning Commission. He said the question is whether or not the
Supervisors would like for the Roundtable to provide them with a print.
Ms. Humphris answered that the Board members would like to have a print,
and an appropriate place will be found to place it. They appreciate the offer
and all the thought going into it, as well as the beautiful framed statement,
itself.
Agenda Item No. 12. Work Session: FY 1998/1999 - FY 2002/2003 Capital
Improvements Program.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive said the attached
FY1998/99 - FY2002/03 recommended Capital Improvement Program was developed
from department and School Division requests by the CIP Technical Committee,
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
000 .80
which began its review of capital requests in September. The Committee's
recommended CIP was scheduled for the Planning Commission's review on
September 18tn, but due to a full agenda, a second work session was held at
their December 2nd meeting. Any comments and/or recommendations from that
meeting will be forwarded to the Board for this meeting. The Planning
Commission does not intend to hold a public hearing on the CIP.
The recommended FY1998/99 - FY2002/03 Capital Improvement Program totals
$55 million, $34.5 million of which is allocated for School Division projects,
$17.7 million for General Government projects, $0.570 for Tourism Fund
projects and $0.220 for Stormwater projects. The attached document provides
summary financial information followed by specific project descriptions under
their functional areas. School Division summary information is provided
beginning on page 97 of the main document, while individual project descrip-
tions are found in the separate Albemarle County Public Schools Capital
Improvements Program document, which was approved by the School Board last
July. The CIP Technical Committee reviewed the School Division's request with
only one recommendation to reduce the FY03 funding request by $7.1 million to
stay within existing debt service levels. The Technical Committee also reduced
local government projects by approximately $9.1 million from their requested
amounts.
In light of these recommendations, as well as the projected FY98/99
operating budget shortfalls, which were unknown at the time of the Technical
Committee's review, the School Board will be revisiting their CIP at their
November 24th meeting. The Board of Supervisors may also need to re-evaluate
the recommended General Government projects in light of the projected
operating budget shortfall and its impact on the FY 98/99 General Fund
transfer to the CIP. Both School Division and local government debt service is
provided in a separate debt service section beginning on page 117.
Ms. White said the only comment any of the Commissioners had was a
suggestion to switch some of funds that were shown for the Ivy Recreational
Area to the traffic calming project.
Mr. Marshall inquired about a $9,000,000 figure relating to projects
which were moved to years outside of the five year period. Ms. White answered
that this figure is a shortfall due to the fact that there were a number of
projects unable to be funded so they had to be moved to the Out-Years
category. She said this is really to let the Supervisors know that they will
show up again sometime in the future, but they are not actually funded within
the five year period.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that only part of the Meadow Creek Parkway is
included in the Highways and Transportation category. Mr. Marshall wondered
to which road Ms. Thomas is referring. Mr. Tucker answered that she is
referring to Phase II of the Meadow Creek Parkway north of Rio Road. He went
on to explain that Phase I is not included which is the City's and County's
portion from Rio Road to McIntire Road.
Mr. Marshall referred to the $4,000,000 in borrowed funds, and he asked
for an explanation. Ms. White answered that this figure involves borrowed
funds for the Juvenile Detention facility and for the 800MHz Communication
System. She said the County's share of the total cost of the Communication
System is approximately $6,000,000. She noted that this is a ten channel
system, and if the County does not take advantage of this offer by mid-1998,
the frequencies will be lost. She said that is the reason for the project to~
be pushed forward with funding being done by lease purchase agreements over a
ten year period.
Mr. Marshall asked if there are any plans for buying cellular phones for
police vehicles. Mr. Tucker replied that some of the police vehicles already
have cellular phones. Ms. White explained that the problem relates to
operating expenses rather than providing the cellular phones. She said the
Committee did not think there was any reason for the phones to be bought,
because usually a company will give the police the phones.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the Police Radio Simulcast System/ECC Link was
replaced by the 800MHz project. Ms. White answered affirmatively.
Mr. Marshall wondered if the site for the fire station would be on the
land across from the new high school. Mr. Tucker answered that there were
three sites being considered. He said the land across from Monticello High
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
O00181
School is one of the sites being considered. The second site is located on
Route 250 near the Bypass, and the third site under consideration is in the
Hollymead area.
Mr. Marshall asked for an explanation of the $2,000,000 Revenue Sharing
project involving roads. Mr. Tucker explained that this is the revenue
sharing agreement the County has with VDoT where the County provides up to
$500,000, and it is matched by VDoT for road projects throughout the County.
Mr. Martin inquired about the rationale for the Seminole/Pepsi Place
Connector road. Ms. N~nite responded that until this road is put into the
City's plan, it is not reasonable for the County to include it. She noted,
though, that it is recognized in the out-years as a future project.
Mr. Marshall pointed out the high cost of sidewalks. Ms. White noted
that the amount shown for sidewalks relates to a contribution each year over a
five year period.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that if the $200,000 is included for traffic
calming, it will reduce the Ivy Landfill Recreation Access Development project
to $130,000, which will still be enough money for next year's study.
Next, Mr. Martin noted that a lot of money is being spent on computer
upgrades, and it is getting more costly as time goes on. He asked how often
are the computers replaced, and he wondered if there is a schedule, or if it
is technology driven. Mr. Martin indicated that at some point in the future,
he would like to see how the County is staying on top of computer upgrades, as
well as the objectives. Ms. White replied that some of the upgrades are
driven by technology.
Mr. Tucker stated that the local government, as well as the school
system, is involved with computer upgrades. He said this not only involves
upgrading with new software, but the staff tries to expand on what the County
already has. Ms. Thomas commented that she thought the idea was not to use
CIP money for such things. Ms. White said current revenues are being used for
computer upgrades. She said as far as the Library Computer Upgrade project is
concerned, consideration is being given to spreading out'the costs over a
several year period.
Ms. Thomas wondered if results are available from the study on athletic
needs. Mr. Mullaney replied that a lot of the results from the study are
built into the CIP, but the written document is not yet available, and neither
have the final results been confirmed from the different athletic organiza-
tions. He said the staff has interviewed people and has gotten the informa-
tion, but the results had to be pushed ahead of the final report to fit a
reasonable funding schedule in the CIP.
Ms. Thomas stated that she was referring to the Ivy Landfill Recreation
project where there is a great opportunity available to turn the area into
some of the County's needed athletic fields. Mr. Mullaney responded that this
is a major piece of the picture, because soccer is the biggest field user in
the County, and a complex such as the Ivy Landfill does a number of things.
It is not just for teams in Ivy, since all the different traveling teams can
be moved to the Landfill because of its location near 1-64, and people from
all over the County can get to it. He said teams practicing at Meriwether
Lewis and Murray Elementary Schools can be moved to these fields which will
open up the schools' fields for baseball. He said there is a spin-off effect
and having five fields together for the money it will cost is good. He then
made a comparison between the cost of Towe Park and the Ivy Landfill Recrea-
tional project. He said when the County bought Towe Park, it cost $750,000
just to buy the land and $4,000,000 to develop it. The park has four soccer
fields, but at the Ivy Landfill there can be five soccer fields for $330,000.
Ms. Thomas then pointed out that a big portion of the money for the Ivy
Landfill Recreation Access Development project will be lost if the Planning
Commission's recommendation is followed. Mr. Mullaney answered that the staff
is going to apply for Recreation Access funds for this project, and if these
funds are available to the County then the Commission's recommendation is not
a problem. However, if these funds are not available, then it will fall on
County officials to consider other Parks and Recreation projects to see if
there is some way a road and parking area can be constructed in the Ivy
Landfill area. He said the only fear in waiting to construct a road is that
the residents have accepted soccer in lieu of a landfill. If the County goes
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
a great period of time without putting in a road, it becomes a natural area,
and people with a natural area next door are not going to want a more
intensive use. He added that timing is an issue.
Ms. Thomas stated that some of the neighbors never believed the County
would go through with this project, and she would hate to fulfill their
expectations that this project will never happen. Mr. Tucker commented that
the project would just have to be programmed for other years.
Next, Ms. White went on with her presentation, and she noted that the
total of the Tourism Fund is $570,000. Ms. Thomas inquired as to the revenues
available for the Tourism Fund. Ms. White pointed out the revenues to be used
for the Tourism Fund over the five year period. She said part of the revenues
would be used to fund half the projects, and the remainder would stay in the
Tourism Fund to be used for the Visitors Bureau and the Tourism Council as
well as any other tourism related projects.
Mr. Martin mentioned the Stone-Robinson Playfield Replacement/
Development item shown in the list of projects recommended for reduced
funding, and he asked if this was using any of the Glenmore Contingency Fund.
Ms. White responded that the Glenmore profit fund has $500,000 which is
being used for the after school project to offset costs of the school budget.
Ms. White then discussed the School Division portion of the CIP. She
said the Technical Committee basically recommended that there would be no
significant increases in the Debt Service during the first four years. The
recommendation is that there will be no increase to what was already
programmed in the CIP last year.
Mr. Bowerman asked for an example of funds being borrowed for mainte-
nance projects. Ms. White replied that, for instance, there are not enough
significant local dollars to do three or four major roof repairs, so some of
the roof repairs are being funded by VPSA bonds.
Mr. Marshall wondered if the County has employees who can make such
repairs. Mr. Tucker answered that most of the roof repairs are put out for
bid, because roof repairs and replacements are big projects. He added that
some repairs are being done to the County Office Building at the present time.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if vinyl roofing is being used for the County
Office Building instead of tar and gravel. Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of
Engineering and Public Works, replied, "yes." Mr. Bowerman asked about the
life expectancy of vinyl roofing. Mr. Mawyer responded that vinyl roofing has
a 30 year life expectancy, as compared to a tar and gravel life expectancy of
approximately 15 years. Mr. Tucker stated that with tar and gravel there were
constant repairs being needed because of the cracking, etc. Mr. Marshall
commented that he put a membrane type roof on one of his buildings five years
ago, and it has been a nightmare. He said every time someone goes up on the
roof with hard shoes on, the roof tears, and it results in a leak. Mr. Mawyer
stated that special path material has to be used over the roof so people can
walk back and forth to the equipment. Mr. Marshall remarked that the
maintenance on this type of roof is also terrible. Mr. Bowerman stated that
there should not have to be any maintenance with a vinyl roof. Mr. Marshall
said there was no maintenance with tar and gravel. Mr. Bowerman reiterated
that there should be no maintenance with a membrane roof if it is managed
correctly. Mr. Marshall pointed out that the air conditioning units are
located on the top of the building and people will be coming to repair those.
Mr. Tucker emphasized that there are wooden platform walkways which
people are supposed to stay on. He agreed, though, that once people leave the
walkways, they can damage the roof. Mr. Marshall stated that he has even
tried to make repair people liable for the damages they caused to his roof.
He said he does not think the roof is going to be what everybody thinks it is.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he likes the vinyl roof on his building. Mr.
Tucker explained that it isn't just tar and gravel on the County Office
Building. He said it has another type of membrane roof, and the stone on top
is ballast.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he does not have a problem with a 30 year, a
25 year or a 20 year life span of a maintenance project which is really a
capital item. However, he is unsure if a HVAC system, for instance, fits this
criteria. Mr. Tucker noted that years ago there were some carpet repairs and
replacements included with this item. He said, though, these types of items
are not included anymore.
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
000183
are not included anymore.
Ms. White finished her presentation of the school system's CIP. An
alternative scenario is being considered based on the fact that the Technical
Committee's report and recommendations were made before the November revenue
projections. She added that this means the report and recommendations are
based on last March's revenue projections before the decline in the personal
property tax revenues was known. She said the CIP is being examined with the
idea that some changes might have to be made in the recommended CIP due to the
revenue constraints next year. She added that consideration is being given as
to which projects General Government can level fund and transfer to the CIP,
and level funding is also being considered pertaining to Debt Service for
school division projects. She said it is hoped that by level funding certain
projects, approximately $877,000 can be saved for next year.
Ms. Thomas asked if level funding means that funding for this coming
year will be at the same level as the present year. Ms. White answered
affirmatively. She said in 1997-98 approximately $2,900,000 was transferred
in current revenues to the CIP which was made up of $1,800,000 for General
Government, $500,000 for School Maintenance, and $600,000 for the School Debt
Service Reserve. This CIP represents a program to increase the transfer to
General Government projects by $427,000, the School Maintenance Repair Fund
would be increased by $150,000 and the School Debt Service would be increased
by $300,000. She said if level funding is used and only the $2,900,000 is
funded, as was funded last year, then there will be a savings of $877,000.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to what will happen to the projects if level
funding is used. This type of funding makes the information relative to the
different projects obsolete. Mr. Perkins commented that funds can always be
shifted. Me said only the first year of funding has any certainty about it,
anyway, and that is not always certain. Mr. Bowerman clarified that this
proposal for level funding is for the first year.
Ms. Thomas remarked that the funds put into the CIP transfer in some
ways is self-disciplining the County officials, themselves, because it is
always hard to come up with this money in the budget. It is the opposite from
self-discipline to say the way to handle the shortfall in the budget is to cut
back on what is being transferred to the CIP. She may change her mind, but
her initial reaction is that this way seems the opposite from how it should be
done.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it might save some money, but it is foolish,
because projects are being delayed. He said maintenance is very important,
because it could cost more money, if things are delayed. Mr. Tucker
emphasized that this method is not elimination. He said it is just delaying
some of the items. He said some things are just being moved to next year,
which is the beginning year. This situation will have to be dealt with for a
couple of years until the revenue picture changes, which is anticipated.
Ms. White commented that this is not a recommendation, but it is just
showing the worst case scenario. She then discussed some of the options, and
she pointed out some of the major General Government projects which may have
to be considered in order to come up with $427,000.
Mr. Marshall wondered what this will do to the VDoT revenue sharing
project. Ms. White said there is $500,000 in the revenue sharing for VDoT,
and it is a big source of revenue. Mr. Tucker explained that the amount has
dwindled over the past few years because it has become more and more popular
throughout the State. He said the County tries to provide these funds because
it has to be there if VDoT's money is available, but the County does not
normally get the entire amount.
Ms. Humphris noted that if the County doesn't put up the money, then it
will not be matched by VDoT, so $500,000 is lost if the County does not put up
$500,000. Mr. Tucker concurred. He asked the Supervisors to keep in mind,
though, the staff is just suggesting that perhaps funding has to be tightened
up for a year, and things have to be shifted.
Ms. White next discussed the impact of level funding on the school
division. She said if $150,000 is taken out of contributions toward the
school system's maintenance or technology projects, it would reduce its 1998-
99 VPSA borrowing ability from $7,200,000 down to approximately $700,000.
She pointed out that the County contributes each year into the annual reserve
account. She said for the current year it was $600,000, but it is hoped the
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
000 .84
amount will get up to $2,600,000 by the year 2003. She said to get to this
amount the annual contributions have to be increased. She noted that this
account was increased by $150,000 for the current year, and next year it is
programmed to increase by $300,000. She then explained that the total
resources amount to $50,025,000, and $2,000,000, which is what has already
been saved, is added to that amount. She said when this is added in to what
is being done gradually, the total resources over a six year period amounts to
$52,500,000. She pointed out the figure of $52,400,000 which is the amount of
money required from the Debt Service. She said this is balanced by doing the
gradual increase each year. She also noted that by 2003 the transfer has been
increased to approximately the amount that has to be paid in Debt Service.
She added that the new high school and the northern elementary school
increased the Debt Service, so that is one reason the increases have to be
made each year.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is confused because it seems as though
$7,000,000 has been reduced in borrowing for capital projects. However, Ms.
White is saying that $400,000 can be saved by General Government and the
balance from the school system, and if this is done, it will remove another
$7,000,000 in borrowing from the school system. He wondered if it cost
$200,000 to lose $7,000,000 in the out years. He said it seems as though a
very small current contribution drives a lot of capital borrowing. Mr. Tucker
agreed that this is true when borrowing is being done on 20 year bonds.
Ms. White noted that there is the high cost of principal in the first
couple of years, and that is why it is such an expensive proposition. She
said interest is being paid on a fixed principal, so the interest costs are
very high in the beginning, and then they gradually decrease. Mr. Bowerman
inquired if the payment stays the same. Ms. White answered, "no." She
explained that the payment is much greater in the beginning because the County
will be paying the level principal payment, but a greater interest payment.
She said what is being seen is the impact of paying off a $20,000,000 loan in
the first five years, and that is what is driving the high costs, and it will
take a while before the payment comes down. She pointed out a scenario which
showed what would happen if level funding is done for the contribution over
the next five years. She said that some slight variations could be made, but
this will limit the school system's borrowing capability over that period of
time to $28,500,000 as opposed to $48,000.000.
Mr, Bowerman mentioned that one of the suggestions is to take $877,000
out of the transfer to the CIP which would remove the $5,300,000 borrowing
potential down to $4,600,000. Ms. White reiterated that the scenario to which
she referred reduces the amount for the school system down from $7,000,000 it
would be able to borrow to $700,000. Mr. Bowerman stated that this is in
addition to the $7,000,000 which has already been pushed into the out year, so
$14,000,000 will be pushed to the out year to reduce the transfer by $877,000
for this coming year.
Ms. Thomas commented that the County's policy will have to change, if
this happens in the out year. Ms. White said it means a lot of the projects
would have to be deferred. Ms. Thomas commented that it seems the projects
would have to be deferred for a long time, because even though the $3,700,000
could become a little more next year, it is not going to become $14,000,000.
Ms. White remarked that probably the best case scenario is what is seen
right now in the CIP, even though the $7,000,000 is being deferred out of the
fifth year. She said the good scenario requires an increase in the Debt
Service each year, and the other scenario is the worst case, but there are a
lot of variations in between.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he understands now that it is not only the
money saved this year, but the next five years are also involved. He said if
it was only done for one year, it would have a totally different effect. Mr.
Tucker concurred. He noted that Ms. White has shown a scenario of over
- funding for the next five years instead of for one year. He said this makes a
huge difference. Mr. Bowerman commented that if the County is $877,000
dollars short the County could level fund for one year, and the impact would
not be as dramatic as what is being shown here. Mr. Tucker agreed that Ms.
White has shown the worst case scenario.
Ms. White said what would be done in the scenario to which Mr. Bowerman
referred is to probably use more of the County's prior savings next year in
order to pay the Debt Service. This would mean running the payments several
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
000'!85
years out rather than havin9 to pay the additional $400,000 back next year or
the year after that. Mr. Bowerman suggested that in order to really consider
the $877,000 reduction in the CIP transfer, one year could be dropped, and
then everything could be moved back a year. He said if it was done for only
one year it would have a real effect.
Ms. Thomas commented that this funding arrangement relates to the many
critics' charges that the Supervisors are not planning ahead with the County's
money, and they are not recognizing that there are going to be balloon
payments. She had felt good with the initial plan that the Supervisors were
looking ahead and realizing when the huge payments were going to come due.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the public doesn't understand this situation.
He noted that it takes the Supervisors, themselves, a while to understand it.
Mr. Tucker remarked that the staff has been planning ahead even for Monticello
High School. Mr. Bowerman said whatever the staff and Supervisors do is not
enough, according to the criticism.
Ms. White explained that the increases were staggered to make the
increases for next year easier. She said if a contribution is not made this
year and more of the prior savings is used, then in the year 2001, the
contribution is going to be greater. She next pointed out some of the
possible projects which might be deferred in the school division. She said
the Supervisors need to give some sort of direction or recommendation today as
to how to proceed.
Mr. Tucker asked the Supervisors to keep this information in perspec-
tive. They are considering approximately $877,000 that the staff is saying
could be deferred if level funding is used. He said if the Board members
choose not to do that, then there are two choices. He added that if they want
to fund the $877,000 as it was originally programmed, the money will have to
be pulled from operations, or they will have to consider a penny and a half on
the real estate tax rate. He reiterated that the staff is proposing to use
level funding, and just defer some items. A year from now, if this situation
still exists or the County is not recovering, then the matter will need to be
evaluated again.
Mr. Marshall commented that he would personally like to re-evaluate the
situation a year from now and defer it at this time. Mr. Tucker responded
that this is basically the staff's proposal. He went on to say County
officials have been very good about trying to meet the capital needs of this
community, and he thinks even the School Board and school staff realize this,
too. He said he hopes the public does. He feels proud of what has been done
because the County has done a lot of good things in this community with
projects which have been accomplished. However, when a situation happens such
as the one existing now, sometimes County officials have to change their
direction. Ms. Humphris concurred. The school buildings and County
facilities are excellent, and they are maintained very well, which is equally
important.
Mr. Bowerman referred to the $27,000 for the connector road with
Hillsdale. He said it is his opinion that the infill development policy in
the Urban Area won't work without a means to deal with traffic in these
neighborhoods. Wherever there is access to a community through existing
communities, the only way to make it tolerable is to implement something such
as traffic calming. He said people need to be discouraged from cutting
through communities, and the traffic that belongs there needs to be slowed
down, which makes it safer for everybody. It is a liveability issue, and he
thinks to postpone the opportunity to work with VDoT to try to implement some
traffic calming measures would be extremely short sighted. He said he does
not know if the best idea is to take the funding from five soccer fields,
because of Mr. Mullaney's point that there is a snowballing effect. He
commented that there could be a lot more benefits with the Ivy Landfill
Recreational project because of the other schools' fields which could be used
for baseball. He added that he was wondering if all of the revenue sharing
money has to be used, and he mentioned that traffic calming is a highway
related project. Mr. Tucker replied, "no." He went on to say County
officials could put up only $100,000 or $200,000 if they so desire. He said
all of the money does not have to be used.
Mr. Bowerman commented that if the County does not take advantage of the
pilot project, as well as have resources available, there is no point in even
undertaking the project or talking about traffic calming. He mentioned, of
000186
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
course, that a neighborhood and VDoT will have to agree to let the project
happen. Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Bowerman is suggesting using the revenue
sharing funds for traffic calming. Mr. Bowerman answered that he is
suggesting the County's contribution to revenue sharing be reduced and used on
highway related items, because there are thousands of people who will be
affected by these measures. He said if a County road is upgraded, there might
be 700 vehicle trips a day on it. He pointed out that with traffic calming,
County money is still being used to deal with traffic problems and a lot of
people are benefitting plus the Comprehensive Plan is being helped in terms of
infill.
Mr. Tucker referred to the Planning Commission's suggestion of shifting
the funding from the Ivy Landfill Recreational area,-and he noted that Mr.
Bowerman is offering another scenario. Mr. BoWerman remarked that he would
like to find a way to do the traffic calming, and he is suggesting there may
be other funding alternatives other than the Ivy Landfill option.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission decided to take $200,000 from
the Ivy project, but he is suggesting that perhaps $100,000 could be taken
from that project and another $100,000 could be taken from somewhere else.
This type of shifting of revenue can be done to acquire the $200,000 and it
doesn't impact totally one project.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the $200,000 was cumulative over the five year
CIP. He said theoretically the traffic calming could be funded out of revenue
sharing, because these monies can be used for such things. The $500,000
revenue sharing could be lowered by $50,000 a year and the $50,000 could
continue in traffic calming as a fund item separately. In this way, the
fields at the Landfill would not have to be touched. He said the County will
probably not get more than $450,000 of revenue sharing match with the State,
anyway.
Mr. Benish stated that over the years there has been approximately
$880,000 of revenue sharing which has not been matched.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman made a motion to instruct staff to develop a
method to fund the traffic calming project. Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Ms. Humphris stated that Mr. Bowerman's comment makes sense about making
the connection between traffic calming and the ability to sell infill
development.
Mr. Martin remarked that the other side of infill development is the
fact that County officials are required to channel growth into the growth
areas. He said the County has been fairly successful in having the majority
of the buildings being built in the growth areas. However, traffic calming
measures will be needed in those growth areas to help with the success of
keeping people moving into the growth areas.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that another point to keep in mind with the
neighborhood plans and sidewalk construction programs is that they are
important in supporting infill concepts during future years. There are some
sidewalk projects to be done right away, but over time they will continue to
be very important.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker referred to a previous joint meeting with the City Council
relating to the juvenile detention needs in this community, and he presented
the Board members with a resolution which will also need to be approved by the
City of Charlottesville and the County of Fluvanna. He said officials of
these jurisdictions have indicated they will join Albemarle County in a
juvenile detention center in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. He stated
that Mr. Davis drafted the resolution, and it will allow the jurisdictions to
move forward to create a Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission. He said
000:1.8'7
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
the General Assembly will then allow money to be borrowed, and the General
Assembly will share in a per bed cost for this center. The staff can go over
the resolution with the Board members, or they can read quickly through it,
but he would like to have it adopted this month. He also suggested that
perhaps it would be better to adopt the resolution at this meeting rather than
delaying the item to next week because of next week's heavy agenda.
Mr. Marshall asked if the City Council members are going to go along
with this resolution. He said he knows one Council member does not like this
idea. Mr. Tucker replied that he believes the majority of City Council will
support it. He said this resolution will be voted on at a City Council
meeting on December 15 and the officials in the County of Fluvanna will
discuss the item on December 19.
Ms. Thomas wondered if this resolution establishes an authority similar
to the Jail Authority. Mr. Tucker responded that it is a commission, and it
will be separate from the Jail Authority. He said these groups are called
commissions rather than authorities, but it is somewhat similar. He noted
that Albemarle County is already a member of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile
Detention Home, and this is the same sort of commission to be created, but
there has to be General Assembly approval.
Ms. Humphris stated that the resolution looks as though it is a standard
legal document. She asked Mr. Davis if there is something that needs to be
explained to Board members. Mr. Davis answered that the resolution creates an
entity which is called a commission. He said it allows the project to move
forward before the General Assembly to obtain some additional authority.
However, the commission is only a shell entity at this point, and the
resolution will not be binding until the Service Agreement is approved. This
resolution also authorizes the Service Agreement to be drafted, which will
define the obligation.
Mr. Martin asked if this is another step in getting away from the
Shenandoah Valley Commission. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. The
Shenandoah Valley Commission members are waiting for this decision to be made.
At this time, Mr. Marshall made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
adopt a resolution creating the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
Concurrent Resolution
of the
Boards of Supervisors of the
Counties of Albemarle and Fluvanna
and the Council of the City of Charlottesville
Creating the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Home
Establishing the Membership of Such Co=mission,
and Detailing its Powers and Responsibilities.
WHEREAS, a need has been identified for the construction of a
juvenile correctional facility to serve the Counties of
Albemarle and Fluvanna and the City of Charlottesville (the
"Participating Jurisdictions"); and
WHEREAS, a "needs assessment" performed at the direction of the
Participating Jurisdictions indicates that their combined
anticipated demand for juvenile correctional space will be
s~fficient to utilize a 40-bed juvenile detention facility
expandable to 80 beds; and
WHEREAS, preliminary considerations indicate that this need can
best be met by building a new facility; and
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
000 .85
WHEREAS, a program planning study performed for the Charlottes-
ville and Albemarle by Mosely-Harris & McClintock estimates
the total project cost to design and finance the
construction of the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Home (the
new facility) at approximately $6.36 million dollars; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville and Albemarle have requested the
Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice to approve state
funding participation in the design, construction, equipping
and operation of the New Facility, in the maximum amounts
permitted by state law; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Jurisdictions now wish to create a
regional juvenile detention commission, as authorized by Va.
Code §§ 16.1-315 to 16.1-322, to be the appropriate legal
entity to plan, finance, design, and construct the New
Facility;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT CONCURRENTLY RESOLVED BY THE BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTIES OF ALBEMARLE AND FLUVANNA, AND
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, THAT:
The Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Home Commission (the
"Commission") is hereby created and established as a
public body corporate under the laws of the Common-
wealth of Virginia.
The Commission shall have three members, who shall be
the county administrator/executive and city manager of
each of the Participating Jurisdictions. As required
by Va. Code § 16.1-316, the Participating Jurisdic-
tions have consulted with the chief judges of their
respective juvenile and domestic relations district
courts concerning the appointment of the county
administrator/executive and city manager to the
Commission.
The Commission shall have all powers and responsibi-
lities conferred upon juvenile detention commissions
generally by Va. Code §§ 16.1-315 to 16.1-322 or
successor statutes, and by any other state laws.
Without limiting the generality of this delegation of
powers and responsibilities, the Commission shall be
authorized to:
Develop a Service Agreement among the Commission
and the Participating Jurisdictions to establish
the basis on which the Participating Jurisdic-
tions will commit juveniles to custody in the
New Facility.
Take such actions as may be necessary to insure
maximum allowable state participation in the
cost of constructing, equipping and operating
the New Facility.
Upon approval of the Service Agreement by the
Participating Jurisdictions, issue such debt
obligations as the Commission may deem necessary
to fund the development of the New Facility,
including any costs incidental to the issuance
of such debt, the establishment of reasonable
operating and debt service reserve, or any costs
incurred by the Commission in anticipation or
execution of such development or the opening of
the New Facility.
Arrange for interim financing, from one or more
of the Participating Jurisdictions or otherwise,
and agree to reimburse any of the Participating
Jurisdictions for any sums advanced or expenses
incurred on the Commission's behalf prior to the
Commission's securing permanent financing.
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
000189
eo
After securing the necessary financing, proceed
with the design, and construction and equipping
of the New Facility and employ architects,
engineers, financial advisors, attorneys,
contractors and other technical experts as
necessary to complete such project.
Any Participating Jurisdiction may withdraw uni-
laterally from membership in the Commission at any
time prior to its approval of the Service Agreement.
After approval of the Service Agreement and until any
outstanding debt obligations of the Commission have
been fully paid, no Participating Jurisdiction may
withdraw from membership in the Commission without the
unanimous consent of the remaining Participating
Jurisdictions.
Mr. Tucker next mentioned that Loudoun County officials, along with the
Virginia Innovation Group, are trying to gather a forum throughout the State
to discuss growth management issues. He said Albemarle County is being asked
to participate, since it is a growth County. He reported that the formal date
for the forum has not yet been set, although it will probably be some time
next spring. However, it would be helpful at this point.to have some idea of
how many people will be joining this group in the forum. He noted that
speakers from throughout the country will attend, and he would like to make
notification that Albemarle County representatives are interested in
participating. He said a steering committee meeting will be held in Richmond
later this month, and he and the Chair of the Board of Supervisors have been
invited, although they might have a conflict. He then asked for a consensus
of the Board members as to whether or not there were any objections if
Albemarle County participated in the forum.
There were no objections from Board members, so Mr. Tucker said he would
inform this group that Albemarle County would be participating in the forum.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that the Deer Management Committee Report is
asking for input from the public. He noted that he served on this Committee,
and he thinks deer will continue to be a problem in the County's suburban
area. He said he does not know to take care of this problem, and he does not
know if this matter is really addressed in this report. He added that he
advocated some things which did not get adopted, but the deer are certainly a
resource in the State, and there will have to be a better job done of managing
them. He asked the Supervisors to let the Committee know if any of them have
recommendations because they could possibly be implemented into the plan.
Ms. Humphris stated that the plan in her neighborhood has been a great
success. She said this is a plan where the homeowners, if they want to, can
sign an agreement that bow hunters can come on their property. This plan has
to go through the game warden, but it has been wonderfully successful. She
added that the residents have never seen any of the hunters in the neighbor-
hood and have never known when they have been there, but over the last two
years the deer population has decreased tremendously. She mentioned that she
used to have 18 deer in her back yard and now she never sees more than three.
Mr. Tucker remarked that he has asked Captain Scott Hambrick, who has
been doing an analysis and study for the County, to review the report and
submit his suggestions to the Game and Fisheries Commission.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she thinks hunters are more appreciated now
than they have ever been because people are concerned about the deer. How-
ever, there are also people who are afraid of miscellaneous gunfire, and they
don't know who to contact. She said apparently when they call the police,
they are told to call the game warden. She commented that the game warden
says he will put them on his list, but it takes ten days for him to come by
their property. She has a friend who puts orange vests on her children when
they go play in the backyard. She said this friend's neighbor circulated an
unmarked map in different places telling hunters they could hunt there to
limit his deer population. This man has beagles who like to run rabbits, and
he did not want them distracted by the deer. She said there was no deline-
ation on this map to show where her friend's property is located as opposed to
000 ! 90
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
his. She went on to say residents want to know what they can do when they
hear gunfire that seems to be too close and on their own land. She suggested
that maybe Scott Hambrick could include some advice telling people what
already exists in the way of steps to take in such situations. Last week's
fatality brought a lot of fears to the foreground.
Mr. Tucker suggested more staffing help for game wardens. He said
during this time of the year, they are really busy.
Ms. Humphris said it is very true that when people call the game
wardens, they are so busy, they can't get there. She went on to say she had a
phone call yesterday from a man who lives in the Route 710 area where the
recent fatality occurred. She said it was so disturbing, and even though no
one can feel what the residents there are feeling, she has had a similar
incident happen on her own property. She added that twice she has had deer
shot on her two and one-half acre piece of property in a subdivision in an
urbanized area. She said one time the game warden caught the person who did
it, but the other time he did not. The gentleman who called her yesterday
said he really wanted the County to consider banning the use of high-powered
rifles just because of the potential for killing or injuring somebody. She
reported that the man got information from the Internet yesterday and found
that numbers of counties in Virginia have already banned the use of high-
powered rifles. She commented that the gentleman wanted to fax or E-mail her
all of the information, and he told her this information is on the Internet
under the Game and Inland Fisheries Division. She thanked him and told him
she trusted it was there, but she did not want the information faxed to her.
Mr. Tucker noted that this information is given out to people when they
get their hunting license.
Ms. Humphris remarked that a lot of hunters might not like the sugges-
tion that the County not allow high-powered rifles, and she wondered how long
it will be before County officials take a step for prevention when they know
such a tragedy can happen.
Mr. Marshall stated that he has mixed emotions about this matter. He
said he and Mr. Perkins have hunted all of their lives, and he thinks Mr.
Perkins will agree with him. Mr. Marshall commented that if a deer is shot
with a shotgun, the deer will be wounded. He explained that the clip holds
three shots which allows the hunter to shoot three times. He said this means
a person is firing more times with a shotgun, and he will have to run the
animal a long way. Generally, with a high-powered rifle one shot is all it
requires if it is well placed. He went on to say the hunters need to be
educated in the use of high-powered rifles. He added that a slug in a shotgun
can travel a long distance, too, and he thinks to outlaw high-powered rifles
because of this one incident is a mistake. He noted that it is desirable to
eliminate some of the deer population, and the best way to do it is with a
high-powered rifle.
Ms. Humphris pointed out that the residents of her area do not want
people in their neighborhood with high-powered rifles. She said they only
allow bow hunters there.
Mr. Perkins stated that Ms. Humphris and her neighbors would not want
people on their property with shotguns, either, and he agreed with Mr.
Marshall's comments. He said people are viewing high-powered rifles as
terrible things that shoot a projectile forever. He noted that this might be
true in counties which have banned high-powered rifles, because usually these
are the very flat counties, but he thinks a shotgun is inherently more
dangerous than a high-powered rifle. He said a shotgun will be putting from
nine to 27 pellets in the air that will be going in every direction, which is
much more dangerous than one projectile from a high-powered rifle.
Ms. Humphris commented that she understands, but this problem was
presented to her. She recalled that the gentleman she talked to was one of
Mr. Martin's constituents, and when he couldn't get Mr. Martin, he called her.
She told the gentleman she would bring up this matter to the Supervisors, and
she had planned to do so, anyway. She added that no matter what the outcome
is, a lot of thought needs to be given to this issue. She noted that she is
certainly not a hunter, but it is a fact that she has had two such instances
happen on her property. She said it could have been her or a member of her
family who was shot, instead of two deer.
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Perkins mentioned that the Game Commission keeps accident reports
with an account of deaths and injuries, and probably 90 percent of these are
the result of shotgun wounds which happened within 25 to 30 yards of the
discharge.
Mr. Marshall recalled an incident a few years ago on land located behind
his property. He said he believes this land is leased out to a group of
hunters from Maryland, and he has problems every year with them crossing his
fences into his farm. One of these individuals actually'killed his brother on
this property because he saw a piece of red flannel material coming out of his
brother's collar, and he thought it was a turkey. Mr. Marshall also noted
that poachers shoot from Route 20 at all times of the night because there are
a tremendous amount of deer that like to graze in his front pasture. He said
he has reported these poachers every year, but the problem is that the County
does not have the law enforcement people to check out these incidents, and the
people are never caught. More game wardens are needed in Albemarle County.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker what can be done, since there seems to be
no resolution coming from this Board. She went on to say she really believes
some type of information needs to be brought to the Supervisors. She said the
issue is the use of high-powered rifles or not for hunting in Albemarle
County.
Mr. Tucker suggested that, after the hunting season is over, a game
warden could be invited to come to a Board meeting and give the Supervisors
the data to which Mr. Perkins referred. He said the Supervisors could express
to the game warden the fact that more help is needed, although this word needs
to be gotten to the game warden's superiors. Enforcement is the key, and
there are not enough game wardens. He commented that to hear the game
warden's perspective might help Board members.
Ms. Humphris requested that Mr. Tucker's suggestion be followed, She
said the game warden can certainly educate this Board as to what is happening
and what is the best thing to do.
Ms. Thomas asked that the Supervisors also receive information about
what a landowner can do and what steps to follow when there is such a problem.
She noted, though, that there are some landowners who would like for hunters
to know about their land.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that there was a significant increase in the
penalty for trespassing this year. He said if the land is posted, the fine is
more severe.
Next, Ms. Thomas asked again for the employment data report from GE.
She emphasized that this report is not optional, and it was supposed to be
furnished to this Board.
Mr. Tucker said enforcement is needed, because he and other staff
members have talked to GE officials, and have gotten no response.
Ms. Humphris suggested a letter from this Board be sent citing the terms
of the loan. She noted that it was an interest free loan unless the condi-
tions were not met, and if conditions were not met, then the interest is due.
She said a lot of County officials have chatted with GE representatives, but
this has not done any good.
Ms. Thomas mentioned a meeting with Maryland representatives relating to
their housing ordinance. She said this Board was to receive information
regarding a housing ordinance opinion, and she wondered if it had arrived.
Mr. Cilimberg answered negatively.
Mr. Marshall referred to a letter he received from Greg McDonald, with
Michie Tavern. He said every year Mr. McDonald books his tour packages in or
before August, and there are probably 350 bus tours coming to Michie Tavern.
Mr. Marshall said these tour groups have already received a package with the
price of the meals there which did not include the meals tax. Mr. McDonald is
claiming he has a personal problem with this situation, because he is going to
have to pay the four percent meals tax out of his pocket until the next year
when he signs new contracts. Mr. Marshall mentioned that special rates are
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
OOO:[92
given at various times of the year to tour groups because it increases the
amount of business. He said Mr. McDonald is saying it is grossly unfair to
implement the meals tax as of January 1, and he wants to know if it can be
delayed until July 1, or if the Board can make a concession to him based on
the tour groups. Mr. Marshall said he is putting this before the Board as a
matter of discussion to see what can be done. He personally thinks it is
grossly unfair to this particular individual to have to take this money out of
his pocket since the contracts have already been signed.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if Mr. McDonald had any contingencies in the
contracts. Mr. Marshall answered that there was no reason for Mr. McDonald to
have such contingencies. Mr. Marshall emphasized that he would not have put
any contingencies in the contracts if he had been in this same situation. Mr.
Bowerman noted that Mr. McDonald had the option of putting in a contingency in
the contracts.
Mr. Marshall agreed that the option was available to Mr. McDonald, but
the meals tax had been defeated two times prior to this time. He said Mr.
McDonald probably assumed it was going to be defeated again. Mr. Marshall
noted that it passed only by a very narrow margin this time. Mr. Bowerman
wondered if Mr. McDonald had made an inaccurate judgment call. Mr. Marshall
replied that it could be considered a judgment call.
Mr. Bowerman stated that perhaps the Board could delay the meals tax
until July 1, 1998, but an exception cannot be made for one individual. Mr.
Marshall said the Board could possibly make exceptions based upon prior
contracts with tour groups so tour groups that had already been booked prior
to January 1, 1998 would be exempt from sales tax. He said people who walk
into the Michie Tavern or elsewhere in Albemarle County as of January 1, 1998
are going to pay the four percent meals tax. However, if they have already
prepaid the tours with contracts prior to January 1, 1998, then they should be
exempt from the additional sales tax. Mr. Perkins pointed out that most of
the tours come in after July 1, 1998. Mr. Martin mentioned a similar
situation where people who come in for graduation exercises reserve hotel
rooms many years in advance. Mr. Marshall said he is not referring to
reserving rooms. He is talking about people who have actually booked these
tours and paid for them in advance.
Mr. Perkins remarked that he is concerned for Mr. McDonald, but it is
not possible for Mr. McDonald to even know what the price of chicken will be
in June, July or August. Mr. Perkins said all of these types of prices are
based on a person's best guess, and he thinks to make an exception for tour
groups or anybody else, as far as the meals tax is concerned, is a mistake.
He added that it is probably not even legal. He said this Board has had some
discussion as to whether the meals tax will be implemented January 1 or
February 1. He said, though, even if it is not implemented until July 1,
there are tours already lined up for July, August, September and October to
which Mr. McDonald is probably already committed, so he cannot be protected
from everything. Mr. Marshall stated that he was not asking for Mr. McDonald
to be protected. He said he was just bringing the matter before the Board for
discussion.
Ms. Humphris commented that Mr. McDonald had the option of putting this
contingency into his agreement. She said it has been no secret that the
Supervisors were going to try to get the meals tax passed, and if Mr. McDonald
made a judgment call that it would not pass, he was wrong.
Mr. Bowerman then remarked that he is a little unsettled as to how the
Board left the CIP work session, and he wondered what happens next. He
wondered about the proposal from staff about level funding because he does not
believe any closure was reached on this matter.
Mr. Tucker answered that the Board members really did not say whether or
not they wanted to go ahead with level funding. He said the only motion that
was made related to the traffic calming project.
Ms. Humphris stated that she did not realize the Board was supposed to
take action on the CIP at this work session. Mr. Tucker said eventually the
Board will have to have a public hearing on the CIP.
Mr. Bowerman asked what direction should this Board give staff members
beyond what they presented. Mr. Tucker stated that if the staff members do
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
000193
not receive any direction from the Supervisors, they will move forward with
what was presented at the work session, which is basically a level funded CIP
from this current year to next year.
Mr. Marshall reminded the Supervisors that Mr. Tucker had told them if
they did not go along with the level funded CIP, one and one-half cents would
have to be added to the real estate tax. Mr. Tucker concurred that this is
true, unless the needed funding comes from operations.
Ms. Thomas noted that the options will have to be weighed, but this was
a presentation on only one option. She said it is an $877,000 item that this
Board will have to keep in mind as the operating budget proposal is examined.
Mr. Marshall stated that he wants to see where the revenue shortfalls
are going to be and what will have to be done with the tax rate. He said at
this point he is concerned about adding another one and one-half cents to the
tax rate when he does not know what this Board will be faced with in another
couple of months.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman suggested that the staff give the Board of
Supervisors a scenario which does level funding for the next budget cycle. It
would be good for the Board members to have this option to consider, so they
can be aware of the shortfalls and can get an idea of the effect on the
budget. Mr. Tucker agreed that the staff can easily provide this information
for one year. Mr. Bowerman commented that if the Board gets to the point
where it wants to remove $877,000 from the operating budget by reducing the
transfer, the effect of this action will be known. Mr. Tucker explained that
this option is always open to the Board, because the CIP is not adopted until
decisions have been made on the operating budget.
Ms. White asked if the Board would go to public hearing with the level
funding option for one year. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. Ms. Humphris
emphasized that this is the Board's thinking today.
Next, Ms. Humphris made an announcement about a reception that the
School Board is going to have for Karen Powell next Monday at 5:30 p.m. She
said Ms. Powell will be leaving the School Board after seven years of service
and two years as Chairman. She said it would be nice if as many Supervisors
as possible could attend the reception.
Ms. Humphris then announced that she and Mr. Bowerman would be sworn in
to serve another term on the Board of Supervisors today at 3:45 p.m..
Ms. Thomas said she would wait to be sworn in until her children could
attend.
Ms. Humphris reminded the Supervisors about the invitation to the joint
VACo/VML Regional Legislative Dinner Meeting in Harrisonburg, Virginia at the
Sheraton on December 17, 1997 beginning at 5:30 p.m. with dinner at 6:30 p.m.
She asked interested persons to contact Ms. Carey because they should car
pool if they go to that meeting.
Ms. Thomas noted that there is also a Planning District Commission
Legislative Dinner on December 19, 1997 if the Supervisors would like to meet
with the local legislators. She said all the local legislators have agreed to
attend.
Ms. Humphris mentioned a Legislative Day in Richmond on February 5, 1998
at the Marriott. She said registration materials have been received, and it
starts at 1:00 on that day. There are legislative briefings, etc., and a
reception that afternoon.
Ms. Thomas suggested that the staff consider if something should be
planned for the Board and the legislators on February 5. Mr. Tucker said it
would help to know how many people are going to this meeting.
Ms. Humphris answered that she will be going because there is a VACo
Board of Directors meeting first thing that morning, so she will already be
there. She has never stayed over, because she was always alone, and there was
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
a gap in time until the reception, etc.
000194
She said, though, she would be happy
tO stay if someone else wants to attend the legislative meeting.
Ms. Humphris then stated that there will be a meeting next Wednesday
afternoon beginning at 2:30 p.m. held by the Innovative Housing Institute.
She said this meeting is sponsored by the County's Housing Committee, and the
Supervisors have been invited to attend. She suggested that it would be good
for the Board members to attend this meeting.
Ms. Humphris mentioned that it is significantly important for everybody
to know about the vacancies on the Albemarle County Planning Commission and
the Albemarle County Board of Social Services. She noted that the first two
ads in the newspaper were incorrect, but the third ad was correct. She said
these are very significant vacancies for the Planning Commission which involve
the Jack Jouett, Rio and Samuel Miler Districts, as well as a Member at Large
vacancy. She emphasized that people in the districts are being encouraged to
apply, and the deadline for applications is December 12, 1997, although an
incorrect date was shown in the ad. She went on to say there are three
vacancies for the Board of Social Services which include Jack Jouett, Rio and
Samuel Miller Districts. She said it is really important for people to know
about these particular vacancies and if they are interested, they should send
in their applications. She pointed out that this means interviews will have
to be done during the Christmas season, when everybody will be busy, in order
to make the appointments the first part of January.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
At 1:14 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, 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 and to discuss a board personnel matter and the
appointment of an employee and under subsection (7) to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion and
specific legal matters relating to a service agreement. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session.
(Note: The Board remained in executive session to continue with the
School Board. They certified the executive session later in the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 17. Recess and Reconvene in Meeting Room 235.
Agenda Item No. 18. Joint meetin~ with School Board.
SCHOOL BOARD PRESENT: Mr. John E. Baker; Mr. R. Madison Cummings, Jr.;
Ms. Susan C. Gallion; Mr. Jeffrey D. Joseph (arrived at 5:18 p.m.}; Mr. Steven
H. Koleszar; Ms. Karen L. Powell, and Dr. Charles M. Ward.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; Deputy
County Executive, Mr. Richard E. Huff, II; County Attorney, Mr. Larry W.
Davis; School Division Superintendent, Dr. Kevin C. Castner; Deputy County
Attorney, Mark Trank; Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, Ms. Diane T.
Ippolit0; and Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, Mr. Frank E.
Morgan.
Item No. 18A. Call to Order. At 4:06 p.m., Ms. Humphris noted that the
Board was already in session (Note: all Board members were present). At the
same time, Ms. Powell, Chairman, called the School Board to order.
Item No. 18B. Executive Session: Personnel.
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
000195
Ms. Humphris noted that the Board of Supervisors was already in
executive session.
Dr. Ward then offered a motion that the School Board go into Executive
Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under
subsection (1) to discuss the appointment of a Human Resources Director; and
under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regrading
specific legal matters relating to reversion. Mr. Cummings seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
votes:
AYES: Ms. Powell, Dr. Ward, Mr. Cummings, Ms. Gallion, Mr. Koleszar and
Mr. Baker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Joseph.
Item No. 18C. Certify Executive Session.
At 4:30 p.m., the Board of Supervisors and the School Board reconvened
into open session.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, 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. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Baker, that the
School 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. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES: Ms. Powell, Dr. Ward, Mr. Cummings, Ms. Gallion, Mr. Koleszar and
Mr. Baker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Joseph.
(Note: At this time the Board of Supervisors returned to Agenda Item No.
16, Appointments, from their regular agenda.)
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to appoint
Mr. Michael Thompson as the Director of Human Resources, effective January 5,
1998, with an annual salary of $67,000. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
MS. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Motion was also offered by Ms. Gallion, seconded by Dr. Ward, that the
School Board recommend that Mr. Michael Thompson be appointed Director of
Human Resources, effective January 5, 1998, at an annual salary of $67,000.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES: Ms. Powell, Dr. Ward, Mr. Cummings, Ms. Gallion, Mr. Koleszar and
Mr. Baker.
000196
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Joseph.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, to appoint Mr. Steven Gibson to the
Route 250 West Corridor Study and to appoint Mr. David VanRoijen to the
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Committee.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to appoint Mr. Robert Walters to the
Regional Disabilities Services Board to fill out the unexpired term of Elsie
Fryer, to expire on July 1, 1998, and to reappoint Mr. Richard G. Piccolo and
Mr. G. David Emmitt to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority, with
terms to expire on December 31, 2000. Mr. Perkins seconded the motions.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Joint meeting with School Board and State Legisla-
tors to discuss the County's 1998 Legislative Pro,ram.
LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Emily Couric, Delegate Mitchell VanYahres
and Delegate-Elect Paul C. Harris.
Ms. Humphris and Ms. Powell welcomed Senator Couric, Delegate VanYahres
and Delegate-elect Harris.
Delegate VanYahres said he wants to establish a Public Defender's office
for the Charlottesville/Albemarle area.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to support
Delegate VanYahres's efforts to create a Public Defender's office for the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
A copy of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's (TJPDC)
1998 Legislative Program and the Albemarle County School Board's 1998
Legislative Package had been sent to each of the representatives (on file in
both Clerks' office). Ms. Humphris asked if anyone had any comments or
questions.
Delegate-elect Harris said he was pleased to be invited to the meeting
and he looks forward to working with everyone over the next two years. He
believes it is good for him to listen at first, since he is new to the
position. He has no bills to propose at this time, but has some under
consideration. His goal is to reduce the amount of legislation already in
place.
Senator Couric said the school package seems reasonable and moderate.
She asked what items those felt present felt most strongly about. Ms. Powell
said the County's composite index for 1998-2000 has risen to .6363; the figure
previously provided by the State Department of Education had been .6080. Ms.
Thomas said the rise is due to Northern Virginia's real estate values going
down. Since this is a comparative index, despite real estate values in
Albemarle County staying constant, the County will receive fewer state funds.
Two years ago the County received a $2.5 million one-time cushion. She
assumes the County's composite index will continue to increase since Northern
Virginia's property values continue to decline.
Senator C0uric said there have been several bills in the past which
suggested that new mechanisms needed to be developed in assessing the
composite index, but they have not been passed. Dr. Castner agreed and said
the County has continued to grow over the past several years. He noted the
budget has been level-funded for the past five years. However, this year a
two percent increase was provided in the budget. The State funding has gone
from 37 percent down to 34 percent. This upcoming year will be challenging
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
000197
because of factors involving the new Monticello High School, 300 new students,
and the Standards of Accreditation (SOA's) issues.
Mr. Tucker said the TJPDC suggests changing the formula so that the land
use taxation would be taken into consideration, as well as school funding for
construction costs. Virginia ranks poorly in the Southeast compared to other
localities in terms of providing funding from the State for school construc-
tion. Arkansas and Louisiana are the only other states in the mid-Atlantic
that do not provide school construction direct funding. Ms. Humphris said the
formula for the composite index does not take into consideration that
Albemarle County uses land use values taxation, which makes a considerable
difference in the amount of local debt the County is incurring for school
construction due to the large increase in the growth rate. It does include a
factor of the adjusted gross income of County citizens but the County has no
access to the gross income of citizens, so she wonders why that is a factor.
The formula for the composite index is flawed in a number of ways. Factors
ought to relate to what the formula is supposed to determine.
Delegate VanYahres agreed that the composite index formula is not using
the right assessment factors. He noted the Commission on Local Government
has a comprehensive analysis of localities in the state that are most affected
who may need to be visited as a possible vehicle for supporting change. The
commission's analysis is far more comprehensive as to the relative wealth and
the efforts localities can make, such as the ability to pay. He suggested
that the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) and the Virginia Municipal
League (VML) should push this as a basis for the formula.
Ms. Humphris said changing the composite index is important because of
the growth rate and the amount of debt the County has assumed to ensure
excellent educational facilities and low student-teacher ratios. The
educational infrastructure is costing a great deal.
Regarding tangible personal property tax, Ms. Humphris said the County
is faced with having a source of local revenue disappearing, with no
guaranteed dependable replacement of similar funds. Additionally, the current
tax increases over time; the replacement would need to do the same. She said
she was sure the legislators all over the state are being bombarded with
questions and concerns on this matter.
Ms. Thomas said the County did not provide the legislators the figure
for the percentage of local revenue that comes from the personal property tax,
which is 21 percent. She has heard the proposed replacement figure for the
County is 16 percent, which represents a decrease.
Mr. Martin said the County is expanding the Albemarle County Jail and
the Regional Detention Facility. The State is willing to provide 50 percent
of the construction cost. Since this issue is questioned from time to time,
he asked that the representatives guarantee these funds. Ms. Humphris added
it is important that this payment be made timely. In the past, payment has
taken a long time to reach the County.
Regarding deregulation of electric utilities, Ms. Humphris said the
document provides good background showing the different kinds of taxes that
local governments collect from the utilities, as well as what the Commonwealth
collects as revenue. Deregulation could affect state revenues, which would
have a negative effect on education financing. If the County is no longer
allowed to have the revenues that providers pay the County because it could be
paid to another state, this will adversely impact the County. She expects
regulation will come, since it is already in effect in other states, and there
needs to be a way to make up these revenues.
Regarding telecommunication matters, there is concern about the location
of cell phone towers and the ability of the County to maintain its control of
land use and use of public-rights-of-way by private providers. She asked
whether local government still has the authority to control rights-of-way for
the safety and convenience of citizens. She said that VACO and VML have a
task force working on this issue. Federal regulation language defining
"adequate service" is vague. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan states that
people living in remote areas cannot expect the same level of service as those
in urban areas, creating a conflict.
Regarding economic development issues, the County had an interesting
first experience with the Thomas Jefferson Venture, but believes its Regional
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
000195
Competitiveness Program application was good. She mentioned that other
counties threatened to take action if they did not get a portion of the money.
Regarding growth management, the County asked for the tools needed to
manage growth. So far this year, an additional 800 new mailboxes have been
added in Albemarle County, representing an additional 2,000 people, a greater
than two percent growth rate. The County needs to economically and
efficiently manage growth. Delegate VanYahres said it is desirable for the
County to have the authority to regulate land use locally. He is currently
dealing with something at this time which relates to the Right-to-Farm Act and
general permits. He asked if the Board had taken a stand on the Act. Ms.
Humphris said VACO has discussed this, but the Board has not. Mr. Davis said
the County's concern is the nuisance of control over those operations. The
County has no ability, at this time, to do anything except control setbacks
and by-right as they relate to the Zoning Ordinance. The State has effective
taken even nuisances out of the County's hands.
Ms. Humphris asked Delegate VanYahres to do what he could do to protect
the people of the County. The Right-to-Farm Act has created some problems.
Mr. Martin said Albemarle County is very pro-farm. Mr. Marshall said he has
an active farm. There is a feedlot in his district, the only one on the east
coast, and neighbors are concerned about that lot. Senator Couric asked about
the nature of complaints. Mr. Marshall responded that cattle trucks travel on
narrow roads and odor problems are of concern to citizens. Ms. Thomas said
people should be aware of what they are buying into when moving into the area,
because Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan states that agriculture is
paramount in the County's rural areas. She is concerned about the pollution
of streams. The County needs to make agriculture a living pursuit. It is
harder and harder to make a living off agriculture. Purchase of development
rights is one way to help farmers continue to farm prosperously without having
to subdivide their land. Mr. Marshall said he is interested in purchase of
development rights as a way to keep the land in the family. Mr. Davis said
when the Right-to-Farm Act was adopted, the County had to repeal the
restriction on special use permits to operate hog farms. The County would
like to be able to locally regulate these operations.
Regarding finance, Ms. Humphris said the County should have the same
taxing powers as those cities have. There is a demand to provide services,
and the County needs to be able to determine taxes.
Regarding education and the standards of accreditation, Ms. Powell said
the School Board has asked the government to understand that current tests'
requirements are not reasonable. The School Board wants interaction with the
Board of Education in regards to standards. Dr. Castner said the School Board
agrees with the intent of the standards of accreditation, but that it is
necessary for the State Superintendent to have some flexibility in determining
when tests are administered. The testing component of going from 11 to 37
tests will require a great deal of staff time to ensure that tests are
conducted fairly. He encourages the concept of remediation, establishing more
staff development support, consortiums of school systems to work together to
more effectively use resources. The concept of 16 pilot grants that connect
businesses and educators, and discipline options that have the potential of
developing alternative education for challenging students need to be
implemented. Many of the recommendations in the Commission's report are also
found in the Board's legislative positions. The School Board would be happy
to support any efforts required.
Senator Couric said legislators will vote on the Commission's
recommendations on December 11, 1997. The challenge will then be implementing
those regulations. A paper is being developed that will state what it will
take to implement each recommendation. The final report is not yet ready.
Ms. Powell said staff would send a copy of the letter that was forwarded to
Governor Allen, Delegate VanYahres, and Senator Couric regarding the end-of-
year testing concerns to Delegate-elect Harris, along with a copy of the
School Division's Progress Report.
Mr. Koleszar said the Charter School Bill may pass this year. He said
charter schools should be under the control of the local School Board to
ensure accountability. Delegate VanYahres said all the charter bills that
have been proposed so far have that proviso. Dr. Ward said there are three
things in the definition of "best practices" from a proposal by the Norfolk
City School Board. Senator Couric asked if this meant only an existing school
could qualify. Dr. Ward said he was not sure if it was exclusive, but it
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
000199
would not prohibit an existing school. It sounds as though an entire school
division could be made a "best practice" or charter school. Mr. Baker said
the School Board enthusiastically supports any initiative from the State that
increases better performance in the school, but representatives should be on
guard for the potential notion that any of the initiatives are cost-neutral.
(Mr. Bowerman left the room at 5:15 p.m.) Resources will have to be taken
from other projects to implement them.
Mr. Harris asked what "ultimate authority over the operation of the
schools" meant, as it pertained to charter schools. (Mr. Bowerman returned at
5:17 p.m.). Mr. Baker said organizations get their charter from the local
School Board and should maintain control of the activities. They need
flexibility to set aside regulations and restrictions. This does not mean the
school becomes a free agent. Mr. Harris said charter schools must be
accountable to the local School Board. The selection of teachers would be
granted, but the language is not clear.
Mr. Koleszar said schools need the freedom to act, but would have to
perform to standards and correct problems to avoid having the charter pulled.
Mr. Harris asked what was meant by "freedom to act," and Mr. Koleszar said it
would be spelled out in the charter. Dr. Castner said schools do not have the
ultimate authority to pick and choose which students will go to each school.
Students are to reflect the composition of the entire community, but there is
a concern that students would be drained from the public school enterprise.
"Ultimate control" has to do with the important issue of equity. Senator
Couric said the bill that may be passed will likely have a mandate that any
charter school will have a mission determined by lottery, rather than by the
founders' choice, in order to qualify for federal funding.
Ms. Gallion thanked Delegate VanYahres for his assistance with part-time
students funding. However, the funding issue still needs to be remedied and
Delegate Dickinson assures that funding will be provided via the Appropria-
tions Act. She then requested that Delegate VanYahres intervene and draft
language that would include funding for Physical Education and Health classes.
Delegate VanYahres asked the School Board to assist with drafting the desired
legislation. By School Board consensus, it was agreed that Dr. Castner would
draft the language and coordinate such language with Delegate VanYahres.
Ms. Humphris said environmental quality is of prime concern to the
County.
Regarding local government structure and law, Ms. Humphris would like
some relaxation to allow local governments to get beyond some restrictions to
provide required services. The need to provide affordable housing is
important. She asked that there be local government notice of any low-
moderate- income housing projects. Ms. Thomas said the County does not yet
know if it is going to propose legislation, as it is waiting to hear from the
Attorney General regarding the local housing ordinance. The County wants
complexes to include a certain number of affordable housing units in every
large project, but it is not yet known if the County will have the authority
to do this or not. She asked what the deadline would be to get Albemarle
County added to the proposed legislation. Mr. Davis said the County can
simply ask to be added, and Delegate VanYahres said he would need a draft of
the language to review. Mr. Harris asked the County to define "affordable
housing." Mr. Davis said that is clearly spelled out in the legislation, and
added that Fairfax County's legislation is more flexible. Mr. Harris asked
why the County wants this authority. Ms. Thomas said Albemarle County is one
of the most expensive localities in the State, compared to median income.
This would be a means to get mixed income types in large projects. Currently
developers can "buy" their way out by putting money into a housing trust fund
instead. This would also allow the development of communities that are made
up of mixed income levels. Mr. Harris said the County could then approve
requests, but ask that the developer include a set number of units that are
affordable, in cases where a developer has to ask the County permission for
some reason. If someone could by-right build a certain number of houses, this
could not be required. This is not subsidized housing.
Under public safety, Ms. Humphris said the County strongly supports
restoration of funding for the HB 599 program at the level assured when the
program was enacted. It also asks for reimbursement of 50 percent of the
costs for construction of jails and juvenile detention facilities and that
there by timely reimbursements. It is important that the State fully fund its
commitment to regional jails for operations through the Compensation Board.
Approved by Board
Initials ~
December 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
000: 00
The salaries that are allowed by the Compensation Board are falling further
and further behind the market, and most localities are having to subsidize
those salaries at larger and larger amounts.
Delegate VanYahres asked about the status of the Juvenile Detention
facility. Mr. Tucker said that on this day the Board adopted a resolution
requesting funding to create a new Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Facility, and
will be requesting funding for the request. The City of Charlottesville and
Fluvanna County will join in this request to avoid having to transport
juveniles to the Shenandoah Valley facility. If funds arrive, the process
will move forward quickly. A consultant is currently looking at potential
sites. The County has to either expand the Shenandoah Valley facility or
build locally. It is cheaper and more convenient to build here. Ms. Humphris
Said it is safer too, than transporting juveniles every time they need to
leave the facility. Mr. Tucker added that other localities may also join in.
Building locally will mean that the County can provide additional programs
locally that are not available at the Shenandoah facility. Mr. Martin said
juveniles are transported back and forth many times. Forty percent of the
residents of the Shenandoah facility are from Albemarle County, with an
average of 20 to 25 juveniles there every day. Ms. White said the County has
received approval of funding, and that legislation gives the Commission the
authority to borrow, if the budget is approved by the Governor. Each
Commission has to be authorized individually to borrow money as a commission.
She asked that representatives support this, and that staff would provide
wording. She added that the cost estimate for the project is $7.0 million.
Regarding transportation, Ms. Humphris said the County's needs are
different than in urban areas. In the County transportation planning needs to
be much better coordinated with the County's land use planning. The County
strongly supports the new ISTEA reauthorization that provides increased funds
with a new formula, but wants to maintain the plan for designated funds for
enhancement.
Under health and human resources, the County oppose any changes in State
funding that deceases monies for these services. Under welfare reform, the
County will have needs for child care and transportation. These should not
fall to the local government with no increase in the source of local funding.
Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about the poor quality of health care in
Virginia. Under managed health care, care is now out of the hands of health
care professionals and in the hands of non-professionals who sell insurance.
He hopes legislation will regulate this, and he asked that the representatives
support such legislation. Primary care physicians cannot possibly handle
every problem someone has, and there need to be provisions for those who are
not employed.
Regarding economic development, Ms. Humphris said it is important to the
community. She asked that the State define the responsibilities of the State
and local governments. There needs to be a stronger infrastructure to attract
new development, as well as the fair distribution of funding throughout the
State.
Delegate VanYahres observed that this was an historical event. It is
the first time the three delegates from this area have met in one place. He
welcomed Mr. Harris and said he hopes they can get together in the future to
work together to solve problems.
Senator Couric said the three representatives would hold a public
hearing on the budget to hear concerns. Ms. Humphris said it is fortunate the
County is in such close proximity to the legislators.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. There being no further business to come
before the Board and School Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
C'h~rman