The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-10-02October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 000149 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 2, 1996, at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arriving at 9:02 a.m.), Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.(arriving at 12:32 p.m.), Mr. Charles S. Martin (arriving at 9:04 a.m.), 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. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 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. There were no other matters brought before the Board. Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. Certificates were presented to: Ms. Blanche Steppe was one of the original members of the Charlottes- ville/Albemarle Children and Youth (CACY) Commission. She served from December, 1990 to June, 1996. She was active in the development of the 1992 Comprehensive Plan for Children and Youth and she played a major role in the creation of the Teen Center. Ms. Steppe's dedication and wisdom will be missed, but she leaves behind a legacy of service to the children and youth of the community. Mr. F. A. "Tony" Iachetta for service as Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority from June 9, 1990, to September 11, 1996, and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority~ from August, 1990 to September 11, 1996. Ms. Humphris said she believes all present this morning know the trials and tribulations Mr. Iachetta has had, and how beautifully he has handled it on behalf of all of the citizens of the community. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Iachetta has served the community for many decades, becoming an elected official in the early 1970's and he has been at it ever since. Ms. Humphris said she does not know what the Board would do without the people who volunteer their time for positions on these volunteer boards. Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.19 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: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Item 6.1. FY 1995-96 Year-End Adjustments, $65,598.00 (Form $95089) . It was noted in the staff's report that a review of FY 1995-96 opera- tions showed several departments/projects with expenditures in excess of appropriations at June 30, 1996, for the following reasons: SCHOOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: Expenditures for the Stony Point School project exceeded the appropriation. Funding for this is recommended to come from surplus funds appropriated in the Murray School project. October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) GENEP~AL FUND: County Executive: Salaries exceeded the appropriation due to mid-year position reclassifications. County Attorney: Unanticipated legal expenses related to reversion and health insurance. Board of Election: Salaries exceeded the budget projections. Inspections: Unanticipated use of overtime. Soil & Water: The original budget contained the conversion of a part- time position to full-time but failed to include the related costs for retirement eligibility. Refunds: Basically all refund items exceeded projections (tax refunds, decals, business licenses, etc.). The largest amount was for business licenses. Transfers: underbudgeted. Debt Service for lease purchase of voting machines was EDUCATION: Expenditures in the Administration, Attendance and Health categories exceeded appropriations and can be funded by transfer from the Facilities Operations category. Staff recommends approval of an appropriation in the amount of $65,598.00 from the General Fund Balance and the transfer of appropriations as detailed on Form ~95089. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NLIMBER: 95089 FUND: VARIOUS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1995-96 YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1900060211312350 STONY POINT END/PL~LNNING 1900060303800605 MURRAY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AMOUNT $7,958.29 (7,958.29) 1100012010110000 1100012040300203 1100013020110000 1100034000120000 1100082030221000 1100092010580304 1100093010930011 COUNTY EXEC SALARIES COUNTY ATTY SPECIAL LITIGATION BOARD OF ELECT SALARIES INSPECTIONS OVERTIME SOIL & WATER RETIREMENT REFUNDS BUSINESS LICENSES TRANSFERS DEBT SERVICE 7,072.00 35,400,00 270.00 7,239.00 1,204.00 13,715.00 698.00 EDUCATION EDUCATION ADM/ATTEND/HEALTH FACILITIES OPERATIONS TOTAL 49,926.00 (49.926.00) $65,598.00 REVENUE 1100051000510100 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUND BALANCE $65,598.00 TOTAL $65,598.00 Item 6.2. FY 1995-96 School Capital Projects, $1,712,050.40 (Form $96021). It was noted in the staff's report that the reappropriation of prior year funds is required annually to authorize the expenditure of funds for projects, etc. that remain uncompleted at year-end. These appropriations are limited to projects that were funded in the prior year and purchases of goods or services that were on order but not delivered as of June 30. Funding for all projects is currently available in the Fund Balance or is reimbursable on completion of the project. October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) OOOi l (Page 3) By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96021 FUND: SCHOOL CIP PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FY 1995-96 SCHOOL CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1900060100800665 1900060100950042 1900060100950087 1900060202312350 1900060203312350 1900060210800605 1900060210800901 1900060210800949 1900060212312350 1900060213800901 1900060214312350 1900060251800949 1900060252800901 1900060253800901 1900060254800949 1900060255800200 1900060255800605 1900060301312350 1900060301312375 1900060301800605 1900060301800903 1900060302312350 1900060302312375 1900060302800605 1900060302800605 1900060302800903 1900060410800605 1900060510800901 1900061101800700 1900062420800703 1900061101800704 1900062190800700 1900062420800663 1900062420800672 1900062420800685 1900062420800949 1900062420800949 1900064010800700 1900064010800710 SCHOOL BOARD SCHOOL BOARD SCHOOL BOARD BROWNSVILLE CROZET ELEM STONE ROBINSON STONE ROBINSON STONE ROBINSON WOODBROOK YANCEY ELEM CALE ELEM BURLEY MIDDLE HENLEY MIDDLE JOUETT MIDDLE WALTON MIDDLE SUTHERLAND SUTHERLAND ALBEMARLE ALBEMARLE ALBEMARLE ALBEMARLE W ALBEMARLE W ALBEMARLE W ALBEMARLE W ALBEMARLE NEW HIGH SCHOOL C.A.T.E.C. VEHICLE MAINT CLASS / INST CLASS/INST CLASS / INST ADM/TECHN FACILITY MAINT FACILITY MAINT FACILITY MAINT FACILITY MAINT FACILITY MAINT DEPT OF EDUC DEPT OF EDUC DESCRIPTION ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES UNDERGROUND TANKS ENERGY ~LANAGEMENT ENGINEERING/PLANNING ENGINEERING/PLANNING CONSTRUCTION BUILDING RENOVATIONS MAINTENANCE PROJECTS ENGINEERING/PLANNING BUILDING RENOVATIONS ENGINEERING/PLANNING MAINTENANCE PROJECTS BUILDING RENOVATIONS BUILDING RENOVATIONS MAINTENANCE PROJECTS FURNITURE & FIXTURES CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/PLANNING CONCRETE/STEEL TESTING CONSTRUCTION ASBESTOS REMOVAL ENGINEERING/PLA/CNING CONCRETE/STEEL TESTING CONSTRUCTION ASBESTOS REMOVAL ENGINEERING/PLANNING CONSTRUCTION BUILDING RENOVATIONS ADP EQUIPMENT MEDIA CENT/LIB/COMPUTERS SCHOOL NETWORKING ADP EQUIPMENT CARPET REPLACEMENT CHILLERS HVAC IMPROVEMENTS VDOT-LAMBS ROAD PROJECT MAINTENANCE PROJECTS ADP EQUIPMENT DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE TOTAL AMOUNT $100,134.76 1,467.45 14,489.01 22,828.08 27, 755.00 1,200.00 24 694.71 3 076.00 49 365.60 4 581.92 7 881.16 52 412.46 38 521.58 32 046.35 27 247 97 4,328 94 807 00 8,664 91 500 00 602,526 77 19,105 95 15,097.46 5,362.62 143,574.95 2,656.00 196,051.76 1,423.25 3,641.65 95,348.07 60,611.60 4,502.46 7,953.13 35,950.89 15,000.00 17,739.83 6,810.00 40, 000.00 15,561.12 1. 129.99 $1,712,050.40 REVENUE 2900024000240265 2900051000510100 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT VEC-COMM ARTS-950133 $67,824.54 FUND BALANCE 1,644,225.86 TOTAL $1,712,050.40 Item 6.3. FY 1995-96 General Government Capital Projects, $4,157,728.82 (Form #96022). By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQLrEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96022 FUND: GENEP~AL GOVERNMENT CIP PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FY 1995-96 GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS October 2, (Page 4) COST 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) EXPENDITURE CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1901012140950004 1901012200800700 1901021050331000 1901031010800700 1901031010950005 1901031040312703 1901031040800650 1901031040950085 1901032010800510 1901032010800523 1901032010800710 1901032010950092 1901033020700002 1901033020800665 1901041000800960 1901041000800961 1901041000800962 1901041000800963 1901041000800964 1901041000950011 1901041000950022 1901041000950030 1901041000950035 1901041000950039 1901041000950059 1901041000950072 1901041000950073 1901041000950090 1901041000950091 1901041020950024 1901041020950036 1901041020950051 1901041020950081 1901043100580411 1901043100800665 1901043100800666 1901043100800901 1901051020800901 1901071000800664 1901071000800665 1901071000800668 1901071000800949 1901071000950003 1901071000950006 1901071000950009 1901071000950010 1901071000950015 1901071000950016 1901071000950018 1901071000950019 1901071000950025 1901071000950026 1901071000950028 1901071000950029 1901071000950047 1901071000950079 1901071000950080 1901071002800650 1901073020800949 1901073020950076 1901081010950001 1901081010950002 FINANCE INFO SERVICES JUVENILE CT POLICE DEPT POLICE DEPT EMERGENCY EMERGENCY EMERGENCY FIRE DEPT FIRE DEPT FIRE DEPT FIRE DEPT CORRECTION CORRECTION ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING STREET IMP STREET IMP STREET IMP STREET IMP COUNTY OFF BLDG COUNTY OFF BLDG COUNTY OFF BLDG COUNTY OFF BLDG HEALTH DEPT PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC TOWE PARK LIBRARIES LIBRARIES PLANNING PLANNING ASSESSMENT SYSTEM ADP EQUIPMENT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE ADP EQUIPMENT SATELLITE RECEIVERS E-911 LOCATOR SYSTEM BUILDINGS-CONSTRUCTION E-911 JOINT-CITY/COUNTY SERVICE VEHICLES-NEW FIRE PUMPER-REPLACEMENT DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE FIRE HOUSE REGIONAL JAIL ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES STREET LIGHTS ST LTS-HYDRL/COMMONWLTH ST LTS-HYDRL/GEORGETWN ST LTS-WHITEWD/GEORGETWN ST LTS-GEORGETWN/CMATWLTH HYDRAULIC ROAD SIDEWALK ASPHALT PATH-GEORGETOWN SERV RD-WILMS/DICKERSON NORTH BERKSHIRE ROAD MEADOWCREEK PKWY ENGR KEENE LANDFILL CLOSURE PARK ROAD EXTENSION SIDEWALK-FIFTH STREET IVY ROAD BARRACKS RD SIDEWALK LANDSCAPING-29 NORTH BERKMAR DRIVE EXTENDED AVON ST/RT 20 CONNECTOR REVENUE SHARING ROADS ADA COMPLIANCE STUDY ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES FACILITY MAINTENANCE BUILDING RENOVATIONS BUILDING RENOVATIONS SECURITY SYSTEMS ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES ADA CHANGES-SCHOOLS MAINTENANCE PROJECTS CROZET PARK IMPROVEMENTS CROZET/GRNWD FLD IMPR SCOTTSVILLE COMM CENTER CHRIS GREENE LAKE WALTON TENNIS COURTS CALE BASKETBALL COURT WHITEWOOD ROAD JOUETT TENNIS COURTS GREER RECREATION IMPR RIVANNA GREENWAY RED HILL RECREATION IMPR WARREN FERRY BEAVER CREEK PARK STONE ROBINSON RECR IMPR HOLLYMEAD RECR IMPR BUILDINGS-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE PROJECTS NORTH BRANCH LIBRARY HYDRAULIC/RIO BIKE PATH OLD BROOK RD SIDEWALK TOTAL REVENUE 2901015000150101 2901024000240430 2901051000512023 2901051000510100 DESCRIPTION INTEREST VDOT-250E LAATDSCAPING TRAlqSFER FROM E911 FUND B~J~ANCE TOTAL ooo 2 &MOUNT $185,426 05 70 71 3,683 87 22 473 76 35 841 29 159 032 23 339 978 90 530 343 12 3 496 00 250000 00 24060 00 400,000 O0 207107 28 35,250 O0 40 000 O0 16 000.00 16 000.00 12 000.00 16 000.00 32 978.30 13 000.00 51 257.00 3 800.00 103 584.61 376 976.35 41 000.00 78 000.00 1,667.00 11 000.00 3 000.00 56 079.39 114 015 75 101 372 90 65 940 81 88 144 05 33 510 80 5,943 50 80,799.28 10,000.00 235,234.43 102,587.11 11,947.30 318.70 1,806.85 12,868.21 5,859.00 12,400.00 2 359.00 30 000.00 12 400.00 16 656.02 25 000.00 16 781.10 20 000.00 2,739.70 1,946.69 5,169.90 18,334.70 6,252.71 4,223.10 43,000.00 1,011.35 $4,157,728.82 D~4OUNT $100,000.00 44,234.00 1, 029,354.25 2, 984f 140.57 $4,157,728.82 October 2f 1996 (Page 5) Item 6.4. (Regular Day Meeting) FY 1995-96 Storm Water Projects, $997,639.54 000:1.53 (Form %96023). By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96023 FUND: STORMWATER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FY 1995-96 STORMWATER PROJECTS EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1910041000800975 1910041000950093 1910041035312400 1910041035800975 1910041036312400 1910041036360000 1910041036800750 1910041036800975 1910041039800975 1910041040800975 1910041041800975 1910041043800975 1910041049800975 1910041050800975 1910041053800975 1910041054800975 ENGINEERING ENGINEERING FOUR SEASONS FOUR SEASONS BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE LICKINGHOLE BERKELEY LYNCHBURG FOUR SEASONS WOODBROOK PEYTON DRIVE RICKY ROAD DESCRIPTION AMOUNT STORMWATER CONTROL IMP $49,000.00 DRAINAGE STUDY/PLAN 194,070.86 PROF SER ENGINEERING 12,164.54 STORMWATER CONTROL IMP 75,053.70 PROF SER ENGINEERING 1,546.45 ADVERTISING 300.00 PURCHASE OF LAND 3,000.00 STORMWATER CONTROL IMP 85,100.00 STORMWATER CONTROL IMP 207,800.41 STORMWATER CONTROL IMP 685.98 STORMWATER CONTROL IMP 17,500.00 STORMWATER CONTROL IMP 20,000.00 STORMWATER CONTROL IMP 53,000.00 STORMWATER CONTROL IMP 82,075.60 STORMWATER CONTROL IMP 156,447.00 STORMWATER CONTROL IMP 39.895.00 TOTAL $997,639.54 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2910015000150101 INTEREST $20,000.00 2910051000510100 FUND BALANCE 977,639.54 TOTAL $997,639.54 Item 6.5. FY 1995-96 General Fund Projects, $241,762.84 (Form %96024). By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NLTMBER: 96024 FUND: GENERAL FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FY 1995-96 GENERAL FUND PROJECTS EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1100012013350000 1100012141310000 1100012141800700 1100012141800700 1100021010800101 1100021030800733 1100022010800700 1100031013580904 1100031020601000 1100031020800500 1100032011800100 1100032011800201 1100041000130000 1100041000312700 1100041000950023 1100041021332300 1100041021332300 1100042040390001 1100042040390001 DESCRIPTION COMM RESOURCES FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE CIRCUIT COURT MAGISTRATE COMM ATTORNEY POLICE SHERIFF SHERIFF FIRE/RESCUE FIRE/RESCUE ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING STREET SIGNS STREET SIGNS SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE AMOUNT SERVICE GUIDES $1,400.00 PROF SVC-AUDIT 3,100.00 ADP EQUIPMENT 963.65 ADP EQUIPMENT 20,656.22 MACH & EQUIP 595.00 VIDEO EQUIPMENT 11,575.00 ADP EQUIP 707.70 DARE EXPENSES 1,568.00 POLICE SUPPLIES 473.00 MOTOR VEHICLES 17,066.00 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 15,000.00 FURNITURE/FIXTURES 3,298.56 PART/TIME-INTERN 5,000.00 PROF SVC-CONSULTANTS 2,940.00 AUTOMART RD/SOIL EROSION 15,920.00 STREET SIGNS-REPLAC 1,050.91 STREET SIGNS-REPLAC 950.09 KEENE LAATDFILL 5,419.00 KEENE LANDFILL 30,000.00 October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) 1100042040510430 1100042040510430 1100043001332100 1100043002331200 1100053011800710 1100053012800700 1100053013800700 1100071011390000 1100071012332200 1100071016601300 1100081010312385 1100081010800700 1100081040800300 SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE STAFF SERVICES STAFF SERVICES VPA VPA VPA PARKS & RECR PARKS & RECR PARKS & RECR PLANNING PLANNING ZONING REVENGE 2100051000510100 FUND BALANCE TIPPING FEES TIPPING FEES MAINT CONTRACTS REPAIRS & MAINT ADP SOFTWARE ADP EQUIPMENT ADP EQUIPMENT PURCHASED SERVICES MAINT CONTRACT. EDUC & RECR SUPPLIES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY ADP EQUIPMENT COS~I/NICATION EQUIP TOTAL 00 54 10,200 00 2,800 00 910 00 4,200 00 1306 00 1627 13 2 091 13 11 050 00 6.425.00 1 151.80 60 050.00 1 747.25 521.40 $241,762.84 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT $241,762.84 TOTAL $241,762.84 Item 6.6. General Fund - FY 1995-96 Carry-Over Requests, $250,213.00 (Form #96025). By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NLTMBER: 96025 FETND: GENERAL FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION FOR REQUEST FOR USE OF CARRY-OVER FUNDS EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1100012144800501 1100021010130000 1100021010520100 1100021010580900 1100021010601200 1100021010800101 1100021020580000 1100021060350300 1100021060800101 1100021060800200 1100021060800200 1100031012580000 1100031012580000 1100031013601101 1100053011800700 1100053012800700 1100053013800500 1100053013800700 1100053013800710 1100053014800700 1100071011390000 1100071012332200 1100071012800101 1100081010130000 1100081010160801 1100081010312700 1100081010350000 1100081010800100 1100081010800101 1100081010800200 1100081010800201 1100081040800901 1122781030130000 1122781030800901 1211461320282030 FINANCE CIRCUIT CT CIRCUIT CT CIRCUIT CT CIRCUIT CT CIRCUIT CT GEN'L DIST CT CLK CIRCUIT CT CLK CIRCUIT CT CLK CIRCUIT CT CLK CIRCUIT CT POLICE-ADM POLICE-ADM POLICE-PATROL VPA-MGT VPA-BENEFITS VPA-SERVICES VPA-SERVICES VPA-SERVICES VPA-EMP PARKS PARKS-MAINT PARKS-MAINT PLANNING PLANNING PLANNING PLANNING PLANNING PLAAINING PLASTNING PLAATNING ZONING HOUSING-SEC 8 HOUSING-SEC 8 MEDIA CENTER DESCRIPTION MOTOR VEHICLE-REPL PART-TIME WAGES POSTAL SERVICES JURORS & WITNESSES BOOKS & SUBSCRIPTIONS MACH & EQUIP-REPL MISC EXPENSES INDEXING SERVICES MACH & EQUIP-REPL FURNITURE & FIXTURES FURNITURE & FIXTURES GRANT MATCHING FUNDS RCIN-GRANT UNIFORMS ADP EQUIPMENT ADP EQUIPMENT VEHICLE ADP EQUIPMENT ADP SOFTWARE ADP EQUIPMENT PRIDDY CREEK SURVEY MSV PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY TOOL REPLACEMENT PART-TIME WAGES COMP-WORK STUDY PROF SVC-CONSLTLTANTS PRINTING AND BINDING MACHINERY & EQUIP M_~CHINERY & EQUIP-REPL FURNITURE & FIXTURES FURN & FIXTURES-REPL RENOVATIONS PART-TIME WAGES RENOVATIONS QUIP TRAINING TOTAL AMOUNT $14,000.00 800.00 1,500.00 2,300.00 1,600.00 1,500.00 4,500.00 1,500.00 2,700.00 1,680.00 1,400.00 26,897.00 10,000.00 5,400.00 750.00 2,625.00 14,000.00 750.00 2,690.00 250.00 11,050.00 6 425.00 5 263.00 9 300.00 4 950.00 30 000.00 12 000.00 15 790.00' 450. O0 2,500.00 13,140.00 12,000.00 9,503.00 6,000.00 15,000.00 $250,213.00 October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) REVENUE 2100051000510100 2122751000510100 2200051000512004 DESCRIPTION GENERAL FD-ATD BALAi~CE HOUSING-SEC 8 FUND BALANCE EDUC-MEDIA CTR TRANSFER FROM G/F TOTAL TRANSFERS 1100093010930001 2100051000510100 DESCRIPTION TRANSFER TO SCHOOL FUND GENERAL FUND BALANCE 000 L55 AMOUNT $219,710.00 15,503.00 15. 000.00 $250,213.00 AMOUNT $15,000.00 15,000.00 Item 6.7. Capital Improvement Program/Education, $657,900.00 (Form #96030). It was noted in the staff's report that the Virginia Department of Education has been authorized by the General Assembly to conduct an Education Technology Grant Program in the Spring of 1997. The funding mechanism for this program will be provided by the issuance of five-year bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority. Payment of these bonds will be made by the Virginia Department of Education. Grant funds in the amount of $657,900.00 are available to Albemarle County in FY 1996-97 and it appears that a similar amount will be available in FY 1997-98. The primary purpose of this program is to provide for networking, retrofitting and upgrade of existing school buildings; network-ready multimedia microcomputers for classrooms; and network-ready microcomputers for student use. The Department of Education has approved the allocation of funds to each locality and the expenditure of these funds by the locality. However, the actual bonds will not be issued until the Spring of 1997 which will require each locality to adopt a reimbursement resolution. Federal regulations require that tax-exempt organizations formally express their intent to use tax-exempt financing prior to expending any funds. In order for the School Division to proceed with purchasing equipment for the current school year, staff recommends that a resolution be adopted and an appropriation be approved. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NLTMBER: 96030 FD-ND: CIP-SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 1996-97 COMPUTER NETWORKING GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1900061101800707 TECHNOLOGY GRANT EQUIPMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $657,900.00 $657,900.00 REVENTJE 2900024000240294 DESCRIPTION TECHNOLOGY GRANT FY 96-97 TOTAL AMOUNT $657,900.00 $657,900.00 Ms. Thomas asked the cost of this grant to the County. She understands the County has to front the costs of the program and then be reimbursed at a later time. Mr. Tucker said the grant has to be appropriated first. He does not know if the County will actually expend any funds before the actual money is available to the County. Mr. Melvin Breeden said there is that possibil- ity, but it would not be a significant amount. Item 6.8. Resolution acknowledging the County's intent to reimburse itself from proceeds of the VPSA Educational Technology Grant. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF ONE OR MORE GRANTS MADE BY THE COMMONWEALTH 000i56 October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) OF VIRGINIA FOR CERTAIN EXPENDITURES MADE AND/OR TO BE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle (the "County") is a politi- cal subdivision organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the County through the Albemarle County School Board has paid, beginning no earlier than August 15, 1996, and will pay, on or after the date hereof, certain expenditures (the "Expenditures") in connection with the acquisition of computer networking equipment (the ~Project"); and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the ~Board") has deter- mined that the money previously advanced prior to the date hereof and to be advanced on or after the date hereof to pay the Expendi- tures are available only for a temporary period and it is neces- sary to reimburse the County for the Expenditures from the pro- ceeds of one or more grants to be made by the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Grants") from the proceeds of its tax exempt equipment notes (the "Notes"); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Board hereby declares the County's intent to reimburse the County with the proceeds of the Grants for the Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after August 15, 1996, which date is no more than 60 days prior to the date hereof. The County reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Grants. Section 2. Each Expenditure was and will be of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure). Section 3. The maximum cost of the Project is expected to be $657,900.00. Section 4. The County will make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the County that evidences the County's use of proceeds of the Grants to reimburse an Expendi- ture, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The County recognizes that excep- tions are available for certain "preliminary expenditures", cost of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by ~small issuers" (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for construction projects of at least five years. Section 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. Item 6.9. Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Grant, $50,000.00 (Form #96031). It was noted in the staff's report that the 1996-97 Unified Planning Work Program was prepared by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization. The program includes transportation studies and on-going planning activities, including a Transportation Improvement Program which lists road and transit improvement for the upcoming three years, and the 20-year Charlottesville Area Transportation study updated every five years. Other activities address traffic congestion reduction, city-County bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and public-private transit development. The work to be performed by the County of Albemarle will be funded by a $40,000.00 Federal grant, a $5000 State grant, and a $5000 transfer from the Planning Department's approved budget~ October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96031 FUND: MPO GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 1996-97 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1120881301110000 1120881301600100 1120881301600400 1120881302110000 1120881302600100 1120881302600400 1120881309110000 1120881309600100 1120881309600400 DESCRIPTION SALARIES-REGULAR OFFICE SUPPLIES OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES SALARIES-REGULAR OFFICE SUPPLIES OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES SALARIES-REGULAR OFFICE SUPPLIES OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $3,800.00 200.00 375.00 37,125.00 500.00 500.00 7,000.00 200.00 300.00 $50,o00.o0 REVENUE 2120824000240500 2120833000330001 2120851000512004 DESCRIPTION GRANT REVENUE-STATE GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND TOTAL AMOUNT $5,000.00 40,000.00 5.000.00 $50,000.00 Item 6.10. Crime Analysis Unit Grant 97-A9169, $38,700.00 (Form $96032). It was noted in the staff's report that the Department of Criminal Justice Services has approved a grant to establish a crime analysis unit providing multi-agency services. Funding is requested for a crime analyst, crime analysis software and a high grade personal computer. This position will collect data and assess criminal justice needs for the County of Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. The crime analyst will be funded by a $29,025.00 Department of Criminal Justice Services grant and a $9675 local match. The local match is funded by $3225.00 each from the County, the City and the University. The County's match will be funded from current operations. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96032 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 1996-97 CRIMINAL JUSTICE CRIME ANALYSIS GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1152029411110000 SALARIES-REGULAR 1152029411210000 FICA 1152029411312700 CONSULTANTS 1152029411800100 EQUIPMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $31,500.00 2,400.00 2,300.00 2,500.00 $38,700.00 REVENUE 2152019000190207 2152019000190219 2152033000330405 2152051000512004 DESCRIPTION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CRIME ANALYSIS GRANT TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND TOTAL AMOUNT $3,225.00 3,225.00 29,025.00 3. 225.00 $38,700.00 October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) O00 $ Item 6.11. Innovative Child Health Improvement Grant for Stone Robinson Bright Stars Program, $5,000.00 (Form #96033). It was noted in the staff's report that the Martha Jefferson Hospital has awarded a $5000.00 Innovative Child Health Improvement Initiative grant to the Stone Robinson Bright Stars program to do the following: To improve the dental health of the children enrolled in the program. Approximately $3200.00 will be used to purchase dental services for the 16 children enrolled in the program. Regular follow-up instruction will become part of the daily classroom routine. Parents will also receive education relative to dental health and nutrition through family nights partially sponsored by the Child Health Partnership. To provide a focus on physical fitness and nutrition in order to develop a solid foundation for building healthy lifestyles for these children and their families. The remainder of the grant, approximately $1800.00, will be used to purchase services from The Little Gym, which will bring a mobile unit to the school to provide physical education instruction to the children. The Martha Jefferson Hospital grant provides $5000.00 for the school year to be used to provide the above contracted services. There are no local funds involved in the project. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96033 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TIVE FUNDING FOR MARTHA JEFFERSON'S INNOVA- CHILD HEALTH IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1155361129201210 BRIGHT STARS-CONTRACTED SERVICES TOTAL AMOUNT $5.000.00 $5,000.00 REVENUE 2155218129181222 DESCRIPTION M J CHILD HEALTH INITIATIVE TOTAL AMOUNT $5.000.00 $5,o0o.oo Ms. Humphris said it is a wonderful thing that the Martha Jefferson Hospital has awarded this grant to the Bright Stars Program. She asked if the County should give them some official thanks. Mr. Tucker said staff will do that. Item 6.12. To take Empress Place (SUB-92-087) in Forest Lakes South Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South Subdivision (SUB- 92-087) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 2, 1996, 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 requirements 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 Transporta- October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) 000: 59 tion to add the roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision as de- scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 2, 1996, 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 re- corded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Empress Place from Station 0+12, right edge of pave- ment of Ashwood Blvd., 213.09 lineal feet to Station 2+25.09, left edge of pavement of Empress Place as shown on a plat recorded 7-5-94 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1416, pages 117-128, showing a 50 foot right-of- way, length 0.04 mile. 2) Empress Place from Station -0+35, left cul-de-sac of Empress Place, 409.66 lineal feet to Station 3+74.66, right cul-de-sac of Empress Place, as shown on a plat recorded 7-5-94 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1416, pages 117-128, showing a 50 foot right-of-way, length 0.08 mile. Total length - 0.12 mile. Item 6.13. To take Claymont Drive (SUB-90-152) in Claymont Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Claymont Subdivision (SUB-90-152) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 2, 1996, 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 ~requirements 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 Transporta- tion to add the road in Claymont Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 2, 1996, 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 re- corded 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: October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 1) 00.0 60 Claymont Drive from Station 0+09, right edge of pave- ment of State Route 664, 4380.90 lineal feet to Sta- tion 43+89.90, edge of the cul-de-sac, as shown on a plat recorded 3/22/93 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1295, pages 737-740, showing a 50 foot right-of-way, with additional plat recorded 9/16/96 in Deed Book 1564, pages 26-29 RD, length 0.83 mile. Item 6.14. To authorize the County Executive, or his designated agent, to sign Stormwater Maintenance/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreements and Road Sign Maintenance Agreements on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. It was noted in the staff's report that Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreements are required by the County's Engineering Department as part of the site plan/subdivision plat approval process. This was initiated in 1992 to ensure that stormwater facilities required by County ordinance are constructed in accordance with the approved plan and adequately maintained by the developer or the landowner(s) benefiting from the develop- ment. Once the agreement is signed, it is recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The intent of the agreement is to put to record the responsibilities assumed by the developer and subsequent landowner(s) to preclude the County becoming involved with the maintenance of on-site storm- water facilities. This will enable potential purchasers to understand the long-term financial responsibilities that come with the stormwater system at the time they consider purchasing property rather than when the stormwater system has failed or needs repair. In order for the conditions within the agreement to be enforceable and binding, the Clerk's Office has advised that both parties must sign prior to recordation. Therefore, since it is necessary for the County to sign these agreements, the Board is requested to adopt standing resolutions authorizing the County Executive, or his designated agent, to sign stormwater mainte- nance/BMP maintenance agreements, and also road sign maintenance agreements, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted a Resolution to Authorize the County Executive to execute Stormwater Maintenance/BMP Facili- ties Maintenance Agreements, and adopted a Resolution to Authorize the County Executive to execute Road Sign Maintenance Agreements, as follows: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO EXECUTE STORMWATER MAINTENANCE/BMP FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle routinely requires that a Stormwater Maintenance/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement (hereafter ~Agreement") be entered into between a developer and the County as a requirement of the site plan or subdivision plat approval process; and WHEREAS, the Agreement, attached hereto as Attachment %1, is a standardized document setting forth the responsibilities of the developer and the rights and remedies of the County to assure the maintenance of the facilities; and WHEREAS, the efficiency of government would be improved by delegating the authority to the County Executive to enter into and execute such Agreements on behalf of the County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors authorizes the County Executive to enter into and execute Stormwater Maintenance/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreements on behalf of the County provided that such Agreements are substantially in accord with the attached Agreement identified as Attachment #1. RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO EXECUTE ROAD SIGN MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle requires developers or landowners desiring special road signs to enter into a Road Sign October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 000 6 . Maintenance Agreement (hereafter '~Agreement") with the County as a requirement of the site plan or subdivision plat approval process; and WHEREAS, the Agreement, attached hereto as Attachment #1, is a standardized document setting forth the responsibilities of the developer or landowners and the rights and remedies of the County to assure the maintenance of the special sign system and WHEREAS, the efficiency of government would be improved by delegating the authority to the County Executive to enter into and execute such Agreements on behalf of the County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors authorizes the County Executive to enter into and execute Road'Sign Maintenance Agreements on behalf of the County provided that such Agreements are substantially in accord with the attached Agreement identified as Attachment #1. Item 6.15. To participate in the State's Fall River Renaissance Program. It was noted in the staff's report that the Governor has invited Virginia localities to participate in the Fall River Renaissance program officially running from September 21 to October 19. Localities are encouraged to designate time during this period to engage in efforts to conserve, improve and protect rivers, lakes and ponds. The State's Department of Conservation and Recreation or Department of Game and Inland Fisheries can provide addi- tional information to citizens, governments, organizations and businesses interested in planning and developing volunteer activities. Also, local citizens have an opportunity to participate in organized activities with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority's litter clean-up effort of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's Rivanna Basin project commencing on October 26. Residents are also encouraged to conduct events of their own initiative throughout the Fall. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Albemarle County is blessed with abundant rivers, lakes and ponds; and WHEREAS, Albemarle rivers and waterbodies provide sustenance to her citizens, their communities, and their businesses, which are important for their quality of life and prosperity; and WHEREAS, such rivers and waterbodies are vital natural resources, providing important benefits to fish and wildlife and their habitats; and WHEREAS, Albemarle's rivers and waterbodies provide opportu- nities for public recreation for residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County and her citizens should endeavor to conserve and enhance our rivers and waterbodies so as to ensure their benefits, both now and for future generations; and WHEREAS, individual citizens, businesses and organizations, through their voluntary efforts, can accomplish the most to conserve our natural resources and provide long-term environmental benefits; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth's Fall River Renaissance campaign will encourage local caring citizens to help clean-up and restore our local waterways; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby recognize the month of October, 1996 as Albemarle County's opportunity to participate in the Fall River Renaissance, and urges citizens, businesses and organizations, October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 000 6; private and public, to observe and participate in this campaign to clean-up and restore rivers and waterbodies in order that we may enjoy a more beautiful, healthy and prosperous Commonwealth. Citizens, businesses and organizations can participate in the Fall River Renaissance through organized activities, such as the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority litter clean-up and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Rivanna Basin project kick- off on October 26, 1996, or through events of their own initiative throughout the month of October. Ms. Humphris said she thought the County should do something to publi- cize this effort. There was a lot of information sent to the Board, but it was received too late to organize anything specific. Ms. Thomas said the Planning District Commission is appointingparticipants to the Rivanna Round table. There are two things occurring with the Rivanna River study. One is that people will go out in canoes along some of the tributaries and actually do water testing several times in the next year. There is a group that will meet in the Roundtable to discuss standards they would like the River to obtain, and prioritize the problems. Item 6.16. In appreciation of personnel who worked above and beyond the call of duty during Hurricane Fran. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appreci- ation was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Albemarle County was inundated on September 5 and September 6, 1996, by approximately seven inches of rain along with heavy winds from Hurricane Fran; and WHEREAS, these severe weather conditions played havoc on the County causing widespread flooding, coupled with a loss of elec- tric power to thousands of citizens; and WHEREAS, we, the members of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors know that the community could not long survive without the efforts of so many dedicated people helping during emergency times. NOW, THEREFORE, on behalf of all the citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, we do hereby express wholehearted thanks and appreciation to those persons who worked during this trying time, often above and beyond the call of normal duty; particularly to the members of our volunteer fire and rescue squads, to the personnel of Virginia Power Company, Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, Appalachian Power, Allegheny Power, the Albemarle/ Charlottesville/ University of Virginia Emergency Operations Center, the Albemarle County Police Department, the County Parks and Recreation Department, and the Virginia Department of Trans- portation. AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be spread in the minutes of the Board in order that the official records of the County will show the generosity of these people. Item 6.17. Proclaiming October, 1996, as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. By the recorded vote set out above, the Proclamation proclaiming October, 1996 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month was approved. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH WHEREAS, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, 29,854 women and 9,977 children sought domestic violence services from July, 1994 to June, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle community is committed to restoring the right to freedom from fear in our own homes; and October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 000.163 WHEREAS, in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by perpetrating violence, we must also meet the needs of battered women and their children who often suffer grave financial, physical and psychologi- cal losses; and WHEREAS, the crime of domestic violence violates an individ- ual's privacy, dignity, security and humanity; and WHEREAS, the impact of domestic violence is wide-ranging, directly affecting women and children and society as a whole, crossing all economic, racial and societal boundaries; NOW, THEREFORE, in recognition of the important work being done by domestic violence programs, I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of OCTOBER, 1996, as DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored by the Shelter for Help in Emergency to work toward the elimination of personal and institu- tional violence against women. Signed and sealed this 2nd day of October, 1996. Item 6.18. Proclaiming October, 1996, as Crime Prevention Month. By the recorded vote set out above, the Proclamation proclaiming October, 1996 as Crime Prevention Month was approved. CRIME PREVENTION MONTH WHEREAS, the vitality of Albemarle County depends on how safe we keep our homes, neighborhoods, workplaces and communities; and WHEREAS, crime and fear diminish our trust in others and in our institutions, threatening the community's health and prosperity; and WHEREAS, people of all ages must be made aware of what they can do to prevent themselves, their families, neighbors and co-workers from being harmed by drugs, violence and other crimes; and WHEREAS, the personal injury, financial loss and community deterioration resulting from crime are intolerable and require action by the whole community; and WHEREAS, effective crime prevention programs excel because of partnerships among law enforcement, other government agencies, civic groups, schools, businesses and indi- viduals as they help to rebuild a sense of communal responsibility and shared pride; and WHEREAS, crime prevention initiatives are more than self-pro- tection and security, but must promote community partnerships, healthy neighborhoods, and positive alternatives to youth delinquency and drug use and engage youth to improve communities; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby recognize October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) 000±64 OCTOBER, 1996, as CRIME PREVENTION MONTH and urge all citizens, government agencies, public and private institutions, and businesses to increase their participation in our commu- nity's prevention efforts and thereby build more productive communities and improved quality of life for all. Item 6.19. Proclaiming October, 1996, as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month. By the recorded vote set out above, the Proclamation proclaiming October, 1996 as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month was approved. TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION MONTH WHEREAS, the consequences of pregnancies to teens (between the ages of 10 and 19) and teen parenthood tend to lead to a greater chance of the mother's dropping out of school, obtaining a poorer job and becoming dependent on welfare; and of poorer health and school perfor- mance of the child; and of increasing public expendi- tures to provide welfare services; and WHEREAS, the teen pregnancy rate in Albemarle County rose between 1980 and; and WHEREAS, of the 123 pregnancies to girls, aged ten to nineteen, inAlbemarle County in 1994; 107 (87 percent) were out of wedlock, four were to girls aged 14 and under, and 44 (35 percent) ended in induced abortions; and WHEREAS, of the total number of teens who gave birth in Albemarle County, one in four already had at least one birth; and WHEREAS, in the 1992 Virginia Youth Risk Survey half of all ninth and tenth graders reported already having had sexual intercourse, and among eleventh and twelfth graders the number increased to nearly three-fourths of the surveyed students; and WHEREAS, teens sexual activity leads not only to unwanted pregnancies but increasingly to sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS; and WHEREAS, a community needs assessment conducted by The Council On Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention indicated that although clinical family planning services for teens in our community are excellent, they are under-uti- lized; and WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to increase knowledge and awareness of issues related to teen pregnancy among young people, parents, .youth leaders and others; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby recognize OCTOBER, 1996, as TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION MONTH and call its importance to the attention of all our citizens. October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 0001~ (Page 17) Item 6.20. Letter dated September 19, 1996, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: status of work on Route 614 related to damage sustained during Hurricane Fran, was received as follows: "Please be advised of the status of work on Route 614 related to damage sustained during Hurricane Fran on September 6, 1996. Road damage along Route 614 was minimal and repairs to shoulders, embankments and pavement are complete. The middle and last bridges still need proper repair and our proposal is as follows: Replace the middle bridge (structure No. 6015) adjacent to and upstream of the existing bridge. The proposed structure will be approximately 65' long and 18' wide with a salt- treated timber deck and rustic railing. Additional right of way will be required and purchased if necessary. The re- placement and relocation is necessary in order to maintain traffic during construction, minimize work in and around the river, and minimize cost. This bridge has a collapsed wingwall and cracked abutment and has been temporarily rein- forced to allow emergency access until final repairs can be undertaken. The existing bridge impedes the river channel and future ordinary high waters will continue to undermine the approaches. The entire structure must be replaced. The last bridge has settled and also impedes the normal flow of the river channel. An overflow pipe east of the bridge continuously breaches the integrity of the roadway, there- fore, we are proposing to replace this pipe (48" x 54") with a structure. The proposed bridge will be approximately 30' 45' long and 18' wide with a salt-treated timber deck and rustic rail. Temporary easements will be needed for traffic control and construction but no additional right of way will be required. At this time, only conceptual sketches are available. During the next two weeks we will complete emergency survey work and design plans prior to advertising for a public hearing to be held in early/mid November. After consideration of all public input, including comments from the Moorman's Scenic River Advisory Board, we will advertise and award a contract to start repairs in January or February, 1997. The public hearing advertisement must run for a 30 day period, during which time we will meet with the Moorman's Scenic River Advisory Board to discuss concerns they may have. All repairs will be emergency funded. Please share this information with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bill Mills and Mr. Charlie Williams will be prepared to discuss this matter at the October 2nd Board meeting." Board members asked that this item be discussed during Agenda Item 8c. Other Transportation Matters. Item 6.21. Letter dated September 19, 1996, from Mr. Jimmy T. Mills, State Location and Design Engineer, Department of Transportation, addressed to the Chairman, providing notice that the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the location and major design features for Route 631 in Albemarle County as proposed and presented at the March 14, 1996, public hearing (Project 0631-002-185, C-501 from 0.093 mile south of Hydraulic Road [Route 743] to 0.321 mile north of Route 29), was received for information. Item 6.22. Copy of letter dated September 10, 1996, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, to Roger Ray, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NTJMBER OF PARCELS - Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 55, Parcel 84 (Property of William H. White, III and Virginia R. White), was received for information. Item 6.23. Copy of propOsed resolution by Adelphia Communications Corporation to the Federal Communications Commission in response to complaints October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) filed against Adelphia regarding the rates charged for cable programming service offerings, was received for information. Ms. Thomas said Adelphia Cable was asked if they had any interest in televising the meetings of the Board of Supervisors. She heard that they do not have any interest because the County has no licensing responsibility over them. Mr. Tucker said he had talked with someone from Adelphia who said they would be willing to look at how it might happen in the Board Room. The room itself is a problem in that it was not designed for that type of coverage because of where speakers at public hearings stand. Staff will do more investigation of the question if directed to do so by the Board. Item 6.24. Copy of Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly Bond and Program Report for the month of August, 1996, received as information. Item 6.25. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for September 17, 1996, received for information. Item 6.26. Copy of 1995 Development Activity Report as prepared by the County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development, received as information. Item 6.27. Preliminary June 30, 1996 Financial Report, was received and accepted. It was noted that this preliminary report for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 shows County operations completing the year with $2.4 million more than was budgeted. The surplus resulted primarily from a higher than anticipated collection on the first split-billing of the real estate tax. Due to numerous uncertainties related to the split-billing of real estate, the revenues for FY 1995-96 were conservatively estimated at only $15.0 million, with all being allocated to Capital Improvements. The mid-year review of revenues indicated that the split-billing would result in an additional $2.0 million. Funding for FY 1996-97 Capital Improvements antici- pated this additional revenue and the budget was prepared accordingly with a transfer of $16.5 million to the Capital Improvement Program for the new high school. Reappropriations of funds for uncompleted FY 1995-96 projects totaling $240,363.00 is being requested at the October 2, 1996, Board meeting. The surplus from Self-Sustaining operations and grants totaling $193,563.00 are anticipated to be reappropriated after further review. Although the surplus is primarily from the split-billing revenues, the continued growth in other revenues shows the result of favorable economic conditions. Item 6.28. Copy of minutes of the joint meeting of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Board of Directors and Rivanna Solid Waste Author- ity (RSWA) Board of Directors, and the regular meeting of the RWSA Board of Directors for August 26, 1996, was received for information. Item 6.29. FY 1997-98 Proposed Operating Budget Calendar was distrib- uted for information. Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: January 3 and September 17, 1996. This item had been removed from the agenda. Agenda Item No. 8a. Transportation Matters: Route 29 North Bypass Resolution adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Discussion of. Mr. Tucker said that at the Board's meeting in September it was re- quested that there be some discussion of the resolution adopted in July by the MPO, and that the local representatives on the Commonwealth Transportation Board be invited to attend. Neither Mr. Myers nor Mr. Roudabush were able to attend this meeting. They have suggested December 4 as an alternative date. October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) Mr. Tucker said he had sent a copy of the MPO's resolution along with other pertinent information to the Board members for this meeting. He was not prepared to make any kind of a formal presentation, but suggested that Ms. Humphris or Ms. Thomas (both members of the MPO) might answer questions from Board members. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Marshall raised the issue at last month's meeting, and he is not present this morning. Mr. Martin said he read all of the information and he understands why the MPO took the action it did. His only comment is the courtesy issue of giving the Board members some advance notice of such a major decision. Ms. Humphris said a meeting with Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush will be worked out for the December date. Mr. Tucker said there should be a formal agenda developed for the meeting. They would like to talk about other highway issues and are willing to bring other VDOT persons with them. Ms. Thomas said she is agreeable as long as delaying until December does not look to anyone at the Federal level as if the MPO is not being coopera- tive. Mr. Tucker said he was trying to focus on a day meeting, but if the Board decided to do so, the meeting could be held in the evening. Ms. Humphris said she thinks a day meeting is better. Just as long as the record shows clearly that the Board of Supervisors scheduled this meeting, but that December 4th was the earliest time that it could be arranged to meet with some of the major players. Mr. Tucker said he will work out something for that time. Agenda Item No. 8b. Transportation Matters: Naming of Route 29 Western Bypass, discussion of. Ms. Humphris said that earlier this year, the Board of Supervisors requested that Route 29 Bypass Design Citizens Advisory Committee solicit and review proposals from the public for a name for the proposed bypass. That report has been received, and the list of names was creative and sincere. The recommendation from the Committee turned out to be simply that the road be named the ~Route 29 Bypass." They said that in other areas of Virginia where a bypass is located, a different road name is not used. Directions for through travelers using Route 29 would appear to detour them onto a road with a different name and that could be confusing. Also, several of the proposals reflect a great deal of respect for the citizen or natural feature involved. Given the long and continuing history of community concerns over neighborhood and environmental impacts of the proposed bypass, it seemed inappropriate at this time to link the name of a subject of local pride with a project which generates such strong concerns. Ms. Humphris said she believes the letter from the Chairman of the Committee speaks for itself. She asked for discussion or a motion. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to accept the recommenda- tion of the committee that the road be named the "Route 29 Bypass" and to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors was advised earlier this year that it might consider recommending to the Commonwealth Transportation Board a suitable name for the Route 29 Bypass; and WHEREAS, the Board requested the Route 29 Bypass Design Citizens Advisory Committee to solicit and review proposals from the public for a name for the proposed bypass; and WHEREAS, the report of the Committee was received on Septem- ber 10, 1996, and the Committee recommended that the road be October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) referred to simply as the "Route 29 Bypass" (a copy of the Commit- tee'~ report is attached herewith). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby recommend to the Commonwealth Transportation Board that the road be named the ~Route 29 Bypass". Agenda Item No. 8c. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Bill Mills and Mr. Charlie Williams from the Virginia Department of Transportation were present. Mr. Mills mentioned that survey work is presently being done on Route 614 (Item 6.20 on the Consent Agenda) in the hope of having a public hearing by mid-November. Ms. Thomas asked if any action is being requested of this Board at this point. Mr. Tucker said VDOT is requesting public input on their proposals for the bridges. Ms. Thomas said there is an agreement that nothing is to be done to the River without involving Albemarle County as the agent of the scenic river designation. She knows V]DOT has been talking with the County's Water Resources Manager, so that loop is being closed. She said it seems to be a good idea to have a public hearing so it can be discussed Mr. Mills said that after VDOT has the plans, their staff will meet with the Scenic River Advisory Committee. Mr. Tucker asked if that will be prior to the public hearing. Mr. Mills said they are flexible and the meeting could be held prior to the public hearing. Mr. Perkins said he met with some VDOT people on site several weeks ago. They crawled under the bridge and looked at it. The upper wing on the far side of the bridge abutment was removed and there is a crack in the remaining abutment. He said that unless it is fixed, if there is another significant flood, it will eat into where that wing was and probably take out the road. At the upper bridge, because of the tremendous amount of debris (trees, rock, etc.) that were recently moved by the high waters, the existing bridge is in the wrong location, and is almost lower than the road. The River jumps out of its banks and goes by the bridge, so the bridge is in the wrong place. Ms. Thomas said that is due partially to the fact that a new channel was dug when the River was being used as a borrow pit. Mr. Perkins said he does not think that had an effect. There is a natural bend in the River there. Ms. Thomas said centrifugal force pushes it that way, but that is also where the new channel was dug. Ms. Humphris said she believes there will be a lot of citizen input when VDOT has its meeting. She was interested in a report from a citizen that the surveyors working there had been told they are not to answer questions from citizens about what they are doing. Mr. Mills said there is generally a letter sent to owners saying the surveyors will be in the area. Highway Department administration does not like for the surveyors to answer questions because the surveyors really do not know all that is involved. They are basically surveyors and know about the work they do, but not all of the things that go on around them. Administration prefers for the citizen's questions be directed back to the local office of VDOT. Ms. Humphris said she understands that, but wants to know what the people are being told. When the survey marks show a whole different location for one of the bridges, and the citizens talk to the local office and are told that doesn't mean anything, it seems that they should get a clearer answer. She thinks all remember that during one of the floods last year, one of the major problems to do with this particular area, was communication. She thinks all would have learned a good lesson from that occurrence. Everything needs to be open and up front as to what is happening out there now. Mr. Mills said he has not received any calls, but he knows the surveyors do not answer those questions. Ms. Humphris said she thinks the calls have been going to Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams said that even before the surveyors started, VDOT called all of the affected property owners and some of the citizens who were concerned over last year~s experience. They were told that VDOT is just collecting prelimi- nary data for a concept for replacing those two structures. They were told that when there is something on paper, they will get in touch with them to share those plans. October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) Mr. Mills said he went through Route 682 yesterday. There was a concern expressed about that project at last month's meeting. He looked at some of the siltation controls and they appeared to be in good shape yesterday. Ms. Thomas said when she drives through Route 682 and talks with some of the residents, they are unanimous in their praise for the VDOT people on the job. They have been very considerate of the through traffic on the road. Ms. Humphris said that sometime ago she gave a letter to Wayne Cilimberg and VDOT, a copy of a letter from Dr. Hoel, about what had happened to the Georgetown Road Task Force and its recommendations. In reply, she got a copy of a letter from Angela Tucker to David Benish saying that after September 16 a meeting would be set up to revisit the issues and update the Task Force. Mr. Mills said he is not aware that any meeting has been scheduled at this time. Ms. Humphris requested that she be notified when there is another meeting of the Georgetown Road Task Force. Ms. Humphris mentioned a flyer she found in her paper box about a neighborhood meeting concerning the extension of Greenbrier Drive. It was to be held at the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department. She was concerned because it contained several statements which she feels are misleading. She said she hates to see something like this get started without having the facts. She thinks that all need to know there is concern among the residents there. She met with some representatives a month or more ago, and they have gotten a lot of information from staff. In spite of that some of the informa- tion on the flyer does not mirror why the Greenbrier Drive Extension needs to be built. Mr. Mills asked for a copy of the flyer. The Board was ahead of schedule, so Mr. Tucker suggested they discuss Agenda Item No. 12 next since no one was to attend the meeting to discuss this item. Agenda Item No. 12. Request approval of Finalized 1997 Legislative Program. Ms. Humphris said when the Board discussed this item the last time, it had asked for two pieces of legislation; dark skies and the Juvenile Court. Mr. Tucker said those have been drafted and will be Albemarle County legisla- tive requests. The others items dealt with changes the Board suggested, and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission made some changes to the region's legislative package. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board members agree with the 1997 Legislative Program as submitted to the Board by staff today. Ms. Thomas said she has a question about supporting the change in the Business, Professional, Occupa- tions License (BPOL) Tax, HB 383, from gross receipts to net profit. Unfortu- nately, Mr. Marshall is not present to discuss that one. Mr. Tucker said while Mr. Marshall is opposed to the BPOL tax, he believes he supports this version over taxing on gross receipts. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the BPOL is a very small sales tax and sales tax does not depend on whether a profit is made. It is a cost of doing business, and four and one-half percent of gross receipts is the sales tax for those companies which pay sales tax, and of course, for service companies that does not apply, but the BPOL does apply. Initially she had felt it would be fairer to have the tax on net profits until someone asked why a company that is managing its business well and making a profit, has to pay this tax when it's a cost of doing business, and some company that is not making a profit would not have to pay the same tax. She was persuaded by that argument, so has not been in favor of changing it to net profits, and the Board has not discussed that type of change. Ms. Humphris said she had hoped the General Assembly would choose the model ordinance supported by the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO). In H.B. 383, after changing from gross receipts to net profits, it says "we support an amended version of the bill that would eliminate any revenue loss from this change by raising rates." She does not know which is more fair to business owners, but looking at it from the needs of local governments, as long as it contains a stop-loss provision, she is willing to support it just for that reason. She does not feel qualified to discuss the basis on which that tax should be levied. She asked Mr. Bowerman for his thoughts on this matter. October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) 000i?0 Mr. Bowerman said the BPOL tax is a cost of doing business and his firm does receive benefits from the community. Mr. Martin said he does not know that much about it. If the tax is to be taken away, he is concerned that something be put in its place. Ms. Humphris said she is comfortable with the statement that this Board is Supporting an amended version as long as there is a stop-loss provision for the C0~nty. Mr. Tucker wondered how people would feel if the sales tax were simply increased. That is a good analogy. It is part of doing business, and it is not questioned. Mr. Bowerman said the sales tax is directly passed through from the public. The BPOL Tax comes off of a person's gross receipts. The vendor does not normally figure the sales tax into their cost structure. The money collected goes straight into the State each month. Ms. Thomas asked about opposing H.B. 70 which expands the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act to those localities which lie west of the fall line. That would include Albemarle County which already imposes most of the same aspects in the County's soil erosion control and land use controls. She would like for the Board to be stronger in its language than just saying Albemarle wants to be grandfathered in and not affected if this legislation takes effect. If Albemarle does it, it is being done for the sake of the quality of the water. She realizes it is partly because it is the quality of the drinking water, and it is easier to picture what is being done to the water. The principle holds because as the Rivanna River continues downstream, it becomes someone else's drinking water. This Board was farsighted and adopted controls, and it looks like this statement is saying Albemarle opposes adding this to anybody else's responsibilities, and if it is added on we want to be sure nobody touches Albemarle. That seems far less environmentally concerned than when the Board originally passed the regulations. Mr. Bowerman asked the significance of the regulations as they affect an area for soil erosion and runoff because the County basically just included streams. He has heard people who are covered by these regulations say they are quite extreme measures. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know the details of the resource management area (RMA) which is the other major component. During 1990-91, staff discussed including resource management area designa- tions as well as resource protection areas (RPA). RMA's would apply to a larger area of the County and could apply to the entire County if the County chooses to do so. It includes such things as site plans for any development over 2500 square feet and soil erosion permits for anything over 2500 square feet. As a regulation, it touches more area and is much more comprehensive than the RPA. There is a major aspect of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act that the County chose not to impose in 1990. Mr. Davis said the way the present law is written, the County can impose as much of the law as it chooses to. Albemarle chose to implement the things which were felt to have the greatest impact on the environment. The locali- ties that are required to adopt it have lots of additional rules and regula- tions mandated by the Act. Included is a mandatory pump-out of septic tanks every five years and implementing a system where you have to monitor that locally and enforce the pump-outs. Ms. Thomas said that not taking care of one's septic tank is a main contributing source to contaminated wells. She said that is one of things she has urged this Board to do. Mr. Davis said he is not saying it is not important. He is mentioning the impacts that were mandated on localities to implement and that one was really significant. The other was putting in an erosion and sediment control plan that instead of applying to 10,000 square feet of disturbed area applies to 2500 square feet of disturbed area for every piece of property in either a RPA or RMA which would probably cover a large portion of the County if meeting the criteria for slopes in relationship to streams. Mr. Bowerman said the County can impose these regulations. Mr. Martin said that is key to the opposition. Albemarle can do this if it wants to, but to have it mandated is not his idea of how the General Assembly should work. Ms. Thomas~said the bottom of Page 6 contains some awkward wording. The phrase dealing with the Dillon Rule should read "we support legislation to enhance the ability of local governments to provide services required by their October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) citizens, etc." There are no municipal powers articulated in the Dillon Rule, which is just a ruling by a judge whose name was Dillon. It is the opposite of Home Rule and there is nothing on the books in Virginia that is a Dillon Rule. ~ Mr. Tucker said the Board is suggesting that the words ~to relax to the extent necessary articulated in the Dillon rule" be dropped. Ail agreed that was the intent. Ms. Thomas said on Page 7 there are two things dealing with sheriffs, H.B. 1105 and H.B. 1299. They both say that sheriffs don't have to have a grievance procedure for their deputy sheriffs. The Law Enforcement Officers' Guarantee Act is one which the County Police Department has to abide by, and the sheriffs have wanted themselves excluded. This allows sheriffs to hire and fire people on political grounds, whether they are supported during elections, all the things which sheriffs have traditionally done. She does not know why this Board would join with the sheriffs to oppose these two bills when the issue is providing deputies more professional job security. She asked how the other board members feel about these pieces of legislation. Mr. Bowerman said it is not something he would have included. Ms. Humphris said that usually the Board does not reach down into things which are in an elected, constitutional officer's ~turf." Ms. Thomas said she would not want this Board to support this, but would prefer being neutral unless some of the other counties in Planning District 10 feel strongly about the issue. Mr. Tucker said this is the TJPDC's package, so he would suggest that Albemarle's representatives take this to them and discuss it further. Ms. Thomas said she needs to know if the other Board members have concerns. Mr. Martin said he has no strong feelings about it, but if this Board does have a say, he would delete it. It is a piece of legislation which he feels will have no affect even if passed. He knows the deputies would like to have a grievance procedure, but who would make the ultimate decision. On the State level if a grievance is filed and heard by a three-member panel, all have to follow that panel's decision because they can all be hired or fired. In the case of a sheriff, no matter what the panel said, who can order the sheriff to do something. Mr. Davis said the sheriff is bound by that panel. If the grievance panel reinstates someone, that person would have to go to the Circuit Court to have the court order that the panel decision be implemented. Mr. Martin said he feels this Board should be neutral. Mr. Martin said he understands what Ms. Thomas is saying about the Dillon Rule and it does make it clearer, but he thinks it would be best to leave some reference to the Dillon Rule because when people hear it, there is an immediate reaction. Mr. Davis said he would suggest that the Board just delete the words "municipal powers articulated in" so that it reads" "We support legislation to relax, to the extent necessary, the Dillon Rule to enhance the ability of local governments to provide services required by their citizens and allow local governments to meet their responsibilities in state/local partnerships." Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to delete the words "municipal powers articulated in". Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Mr. Marshall. Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the finalized Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission legisla- tive program. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. Mr. Marshall. October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:01 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 9. Public hearing on a request to abandon a public road (Route ll04/Tebbs Lane a road .04 mile in length at the Holiday Inn South), which is no longer deemed necessary for the uses of the secondary system of highways. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on August 28 and September 2, 1996.) Mr. Tucker summarized the request which is set out in the minutes of August 7, 1996. The public hearing was opened. The applicant was present, but did not wish to speak. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Davis said there was a discrepancy between the length of road as noted on the agenda (0.04 mile), and the length as noted in the resolution (0.06 mile). The resolution is correct. Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adopt the following resolution to abandon a public road (Route ll04/Tebbs Lane - a road .06 mile in length at the Holiday Inn South), which is no longer deemed necessary for the uses of the secondary system of highways. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Bowerman. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a public notice was posted as prescribed under §33.1-151, Code of Virginia, announcing a public hearing to receive comments concerning abandoning the road described below from the secondary system of state highways; and WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation was provided the prescribed notice of this Board's intent to abandon the subject road; and WHEREAS, after considering all evidence available, this Board is satisfied that no public necessity exists for the contin- uance of Secondary Route 1104, Tebbs Lane, of .06 miles of road- way, and hereby deems that road is no longer necessary as part of the Secondary System of State Highways. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board abandons the above described road and removes it from the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-151, Code of Virginia. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 10:04 a.m.) Still ahead of schedule, the Board went to: Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Request from the City of Charlottes- ville Dixie Little League to fund a Little League Field at McIntire Park. Mr. Tucker said the Dixie Little League presented a proposal to City Council requesting space at McIntire Park for the development of an additional baseball field. The development was to be privately funded by the League with anticipated use beginning in 1997. The proposal was complicated by the use of the desired space by several organizations, the most notable being the Dogwood Festival. In July, City staff requested the County to take a position on the moving of the Dogwood Festival to Towe Park. The County's position was that Towe Park could not accommodate the Dogwood Festival. The County did support consideration of the League~s expansion at Towe Park. It is the League's October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) desire to have two fields at the same site to maximize concession revenues, and for the convenience of participants. Mr. Tucker said that after much discussion, the City decided to pursue an option that will allow for a second little league field at McIntire Park without impacting other interests or activities. This option will require reorientation of the existing field in addition to the construction of the new field. The total cost of this option is estimated at $100,000, which is $60,000 beyond the funding capacity of the Dixie Little League. The City is proposing that this $60,000 be shared by the City and County and that the share be allocated by the general population or Dixie Little League participa- tion levels, both resulting in 60/40 splits with the County assuming the higher share of $36,000. According to League officials, actual participation in the League is 63 percent County residents. Mr. Tucker said the request is unusual in that it seeks majority funding from the County in a facility that would have no County ownership or control. It is also unusual in that while operating costs have been allocated according to usage in past City/County ventures, capital costs have traditionally been allocated 50/50. The third development phase of Towe Park is an exception to this with 58 percent of the capital development to be funded by the County. This is due to the original agreement negotiated in 1986 between the City and County regarding the joint park and represents a compromise between estimated population (City position) and 50/50 (County position). Mr. Tucker said despite the request being unusual, there are several good reasons to support the additional field. 1) Both the City and County recognize the need for more playing fields; 2) Membership in the various leagues is cross jurisdictional and it makes sense that the solution to the field shortage problem should be likewise; 3) Since the Dixie Little League will be investing in the project, there is very little chance the City could alter the use of this field, so there is little reason to be concerned about the need for County control to protect its investment and the right to fair and equitable use of the field by County residents in the future; 4) Since the Dixie Little League will be the major user of this field for games and practices, and 63 percent of the League membership is County, the 60 percent share is not unreasonable, but could be precedent-setting, even though the City will be absorbing the annual operating costs of the new field; 5) Information provided by the Dixie Little League shows that in 1996, 56 percent of the total field time was provided by the City, 16 percent was provided by the County, and 28 percent was provided by the jointly-owned Towe Park; and 6) The Dixie Little League has grown 31 percent the last four years and is currently at capacity with existing field space. Options for locating new field space, which is difficult anyway, is further complicated by Little League district boundaries. This is also a field that can be lighted in the future with no impact on County residents. Mr. Tucker said the County's Parks and Recreation Director is recommend- ing funding of this proposal at the level requested by the City with the source of the County's share coming from the existing Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Program. Staff recommends that the Board approve funding of $30,000 based on historical consistency and agreements to maintain a 50/50 split on capital items as has been the case on numerous other capital pro- jects. Although Phase III of Towe Park was agreed to differently in 1986, all agreements prior to and since then such as, the Jail, Emergency Communications Center, Health Department, Juvenile Court, libraries and, previously the landfill when it was jointly operated by the City and the County, have been funded on a 50/50 basis for capital expenditures. Mr. Martin asked if there will be a impact on whether the field is built if the County chooses the 50/50 split. Mr. Tucker said it will not. Mr. Martin said he feels the type of split is symbolic. Mr. Tucker said the City has supported the funding for this type of item based on either population or usage. That has always been done on operational costs, but, traditionally, the 50/50 split has been followed on capital costs. Mr. Martin said that in reality, the City will be taking Care of most of the operating costs. Mr. Tucker said "yes". The City will still own the property. The County would have no ownership in the property, or in the revenues that would be generated from that field. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the County should do something closer to the 60 percent. She understands the 50/50 split where it is not known what the usage may be. In this case, that number is fairly sure. There is no reason 000 '74 October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) to believe the County's usage will be less in coming years. It is a facility that will be appreciated by residents of the County, and there are not a lot of alternative locations. Mr. Tucker said the County did offer that it be located in Towe Park, but without lights. Ms. Thomas said they do want lights. Mr. Tucker said this split would be a change in policy. The most recent discussion the Board had along these lines was the Jail, and it was suggested that funding of the Jail be based on usage for both capital and operating. The Board chose to keep the 50/50 split for capital, and the operational costs are to be based on usage. Ms. Humphris said she wants to be fair about this, but the idea of precedent does concern her. She does not hear a justification for departing from the precedent. To do that, she believes there should be a well-founded reason for changing that long-standing and reasonable policy for 50/50 on capital needs. She needs to hear a reason for a different funding formula for capital needs. Ms. Thomas said she does not think precedent is so binding that what is done on this request will cause the Board to change to a 60/40 split on every request in the future. She said in this case, the level of usage is already known, the County did not want the facility, the City will have it with its attendant traffic, noise and lights much of which will come from the County, and they will be paying the operating expenses. She does not see any reason to stick with the 50/50 split except that it has been a long-standing tradi- tion, and will make it more difficult when faced with a similar situation, but she does not think tradition itself is a justification for not looking at each item as it is presented to the Board. Mr. Perkins said a great number of City people use County parks, so he thinks the City should be paying a percentage for building County parks. They have not been asked to do that, but they are asking the County to help build a ballfield which will be located in the City. He does not object to that, but believes the Board should keep the 50/50 split. As far as #3, he feels the County needs some protection of the investment being made in the City. If the County spends this money in the City, what guarantee does the County have that the ballfield will be there next year or in the future for the benefit of the Dixie Little League and the kids. Mr. Martin said he wants to be sure this field is built. He thinks the issue of the 60/40 versus the 50/50 is a $6000.00 issue, and it really is not an issue. It is a question of whether the Board wants to stick with tradition or set a precedent. The main thing is to get the field. He does not know what the whole concept of reversion is, but he thinks that four or five years from now the Board will be doing business with the City differently than what is being done now. He has no strong feelings either way. Mr. Tucker said in reference to Mr. Perkins suggestion, staff can try to get some assurance as to use. He said the Dixie Little League is also putting $40,000 into this project, and it is the League which draws kids from the City and the County. They will not bar County kids from using it because they need the funds generated by those kids. Another issue is the Comprehensive Field Analysis and Study that is being done now. He believes the City will want any funding they provide based on a population or a usage split rather than on a 50/50 basis. The new fields are desperately needed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin to approve the appropriation recommended by the Parks and Recreation Department which is a 60/40 split, with the County paying $36,000 toward the new field. Ms. Humphris asked if Mr. Martin would add to the motion that this is being done with the under- standing that this is not intended to be a future precedent for funding of capital needs. Mr. Martin said he would add those words, and also add that it is being done with the understanding that the facility will remain available for County residents in the future. Ms. Thomas said there is mention of the field being lighted. With the County's concern about lighting destroying the dark skies over the County, she would like for the County to have some say in the type of lighting on the field. She said there are good ways to light big fields. Actually, in McIntire Park, the City is doing a good job. Mso Humphris said the Board recently discussed some material that there is new ballfield lighting which is even less obtrusive than what is in McIntire Park now. She thinks the City should investigate that. October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Mr. Bowerman asked if the City will show the lighting plan to the County's Planning staff before installa- tion. Mr. Tucker said that request will be made to the City. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. Mr. Perkins. Mr. Marshall. (Note: The motion reads in its entirety. "Approve the appropriation recommended by the Parks and Recreation Department which is a 60/40 split, with the County paying $36,000 toward the new field, with the understanding that this is not intended to be a future precedent for funding of capital needs and with the understanding that the facility will remain available for County residents in the future, and that the County be allowed to review the lighting plan.") (Note: The Board recessed at 10:22 a.m. and reconvened at 10:36 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 10. Annual Presentation by Dr. Deborah DiCroce, President, Piedmont Virginia Community College. Ms. Humphris recognized Mr. Phil Sparks, new Board member from the County, and Mr. Joe Henley who is Vice-Chairman of the PVCC Board of Direc- tors. Dr. DiCroce said she would like to highlight some of PVCC's services to the County, along with giving her annual report. She said that last year was a good year. They served 6998 students. Enrollment grew by two percent, with the growth primarily in their targeted service to business and industry, as well as outlying counties and minorities. Overall, the profile for the college student body was 83 percent part-time, 63 percent women, 16 percent minorities (of that number, 12 percent were African-American), and 68 percent were returning students. Dr. DiCroce said that last year PVCC continued with their strategic plan, which she has discussed many times while making these presentations. There are four thrusts: partnership, technology, community outreach and multi-cultural diversity. Virtually everything that has been done since the Strategic Plan was adopted in the early 1990's, reflects on those thrusts. The strategies and objectives of the plan have been refined and modified, but the core of the four thrusts has remained constant. In addition to continuing with those four thrusts, they also began implementation of their agenda for change. Last year was their restructuring supplement to the strategic plan. Among other things, it put a focus on a two-pronged mission core for the College as it shapes itself for the next century. That dore is work force development and preparation for college transfer. Everything else they do is viewed as feeding into these two focal areas. In a time when community colleges are being asked to do everything, it helps them to focus and not lose sight of where the heart must be in these times. Dr. DiCroce said they have continued with some national recognition for college transfer. She is amazed at how much recognition they get. The most recent piece was a citation in a publication that spotlighted 10 community colleges across the country for model general education programs. PVCC is one of the ten, the only one in Virginia, and one of only two in the south. She said they will continue to move in a direction of promoting and refining that college transfer focus. That is partly what the agenda for change is all about. Dr. DiCroce said there has continued to be growth in the Center for Training and Work Force Development. There is a great need for computer training. Software applications are changing dramatically and the Center is in the middle of that. They continue collaboration with the four-year institutions and with K-12. The Old Dominion University (ODU) Tele-Technik Program is very popular. Of all such programs in the state, it is the largest one. ODU has mentioned expanding into other degree programs, and PVCC is interested in considering that. PVCC would have to provide the first two years of the baccalaureate study, and then ODU through satellite technology comes in and provides the last two years. In terms of collaborating with four-year institutions~ PVCC has a strong partnership with the University of October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) 000i'7 Virginia (UVA) which is their primary transfer institution. The most recent addition to that collaboration is the Honors Link where students who are accepted, enrolled and do well in the Honors program may apply for early admission to the University of Virginia. Provided the student meets UVA's requirements, they have an early admit status for up to one year while the student's work is completed with PVCC. There have already been a couple of students accepted for that transfer next year. PVCC shares facilities with UVA and engages in community collaboration, most recently with the College Neighborhood Center. PVCC's relationship with Mary Baldwin College remains strong and provides an option for a cooperative adult degree baccalaureate program for students who wish to remain in the area and take advantage of a part-time approach to baccalaureate study. Dr. DiCroce said in reference to some of their collaboration with K-12, most of that takes the form of dual enrollment, particularly in the outlying counties. All of the schools are actively engaged in the Tech-Prep initia- tive. There was an industry exchange during the summer months involving teachers. That was under the auspices of the Central Virginia Tech-Prep Consortium which is a Federally-funded program administered through PVCC. It provides a link between vocational education in the public school sector and PVCC's occupational-technical programming, so there is no duplication of effort and, at the same time, a student could conceivably start in a Voca- tional Education program in one of the business technologies and move with credit in hand to one of PVCC's degree or certificate programs for advanced study. It is one of the best programs that the Federal government has funded, and PVCC hopes the program will continue. The Central Virginia Tech-Prep Consortium has received national recognition for its efforts and has been cited often as a model on how to do the program. The State also uses it as a model. There remains a strong collaboration with the four-year institutions and with K-12. Dr. DiCroce said this past year there has been an increasing emphasis on internationalism. For example, it is now possible to have an international emphasis tagged onto any program taken at PVCC which has moved into faculty and student exchanges in all kinds places. PVCC has also become sort of a primary host for groups and individuals from other countries wanting to learn more about two-year colleges. This past year they hosted groups from the United Kingdom, China, Russia, Republic of Ireland, and just this week hosted a group from OEDC (Organization for Economic Development Cooperation) which consists of 18 participating countries along with the United States and Canada. It is based in France. It had its start through the U.N. This group was doing a whirlwind tour through the country looking at two-year and four- year institutions, and PVCC was one of the colleges they visited. Dr. DiCroce said there is an increasing emphasis on a service which takes the theory of classroom instruction and links it to civic responsibil- ity, community service, and the like. That is a national movement. They think it is a major enhancement to the way they deliver instruction and the curriculum in general. There has been a huge embracing of technology as a key strategy to the future in both curriculum and college operations. PVCC was the first community college out of the 23 such institutions in Virginia that was on the World Wide Web. That was in thanks to the University of Virginia, and they have moved deliberately and consistently beyond those stages. Three years ago PVCC did not have an E-Mail capability, was not on the Web, did not have Voice Mail, or a direct telephone dialing capability. PVCC has all of that now. They are engaged in using technology as a means of delivering instruction (distance learning). They are delivering courses via technology as a receiving institution, technically speaking, to anyone in the world who has the capability of receiving that signal. The strategic institution is the one that is positioning itself to compete in what will be a very different environment. The days of looking at geographical boundaries as defining who you serve will be gone. It may not happen in the next five years, but it will happen. The big challenge with technology is staying current and finding the money to stay current. Dr. DiCroce said PVCC continues its focus on community outreach. Their general work in the outlying counties is a good example of that. More recently, they established the College Neighborhood Center which is doing very well under the leadership of John Baker as coordinator. The Week-End College has been expanded, and they now offer classes on Friday evenings and Satur- days. Sunday classes will go into effect this semester. The whole idea is not to tag onto the latest gimmick, but to reach individuals who want to take October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) 000 77 advantage of what PVCC has to offer but can't do it any other way. They have been told that it solves child care problems for lots of people. Dr. DiCroce said that ground has been broken for the Humanities and Social Sciences Building. They have all $7.1 million in the bank at this time. The contract is secured, and the dirt is turning. Early in 1998, they will begin to move in. It will be done with great fanfare. She thanked the Board for its support of the site development. She said that is a key role played by localities in the development of Virginia community colleges. Dr. DiCroce said that leads to the question of what comes next. PVCC will continue with an emphasis on everything she has outlined. They have started some significant initiatives over the past several years. The challenge is to continue to move forward. They will continue with everything she has mentioned, and do it very deliberately. In addition, they will move to a new level with the new building, to deliberate programmatic planning which will begin to effect a model for visual and performing arts programming for the college and the community. That will hit all aspects of visual and performing arts, particularly the fine and commercial arts, theater, music and dance. It is an exciting piece of where Piedmont is headed in this next century. The 1998-99 academic year will have a spectacular series of events the likes of which Charlottesville has never seen. Where PVCC goes next is the occupational/technical area. The core of the occupational/technical programs for the new century is being done via bench marking. They have identified five institutions across the country that have a first-rate reputation in this type of programming. They will borrow from them and see were PVCC should go. Dr. DiCroce said she does not think most institutions in Virginia are in occupational/technical programming where they should be. A piece of it is forming the right questions, and not worrying about the right answers. By next year, she will have a substantive report on what that core will look like. With the construction of the new building in progress they turn to Phase II of that project which are the renovations to the existing facility. She will ask the General Assembly in 1997 for renovation moneys of about $1.0 million. Renovations will not just simply take place, but first the question: "What ought that building, the existing building, look like for a community college for the Twenty-First Century" must be answered. It ought to look somewhat different than it does now. They are looking at infrastructure as well as programmatic renovations. That may be done in a couple of phases, but the focus is to look at the renovations as preparing the facility for the next century. Dr. DiCroce said they are still in the early stages of their $1.0 million unrestricted endowment campaign. To date, they have raised $300,000. They hope to be at $700,000 by this time next year. She said the budget for this year is a good news-bad news story. The good news is technology. They received from the General Assembly $700,000 in money for the 1996-98 biennium specifically targeted for technology. Salary increases were also given in the past year. As to the bad news, they received no money for additional operat- ing costs. Because of that, maintenance items are beginning to suffer. Eighty-six percent of the budget is for personnel items, four percent in fixed costs, and five percent in mandated costs. That leaves little for everything else. The core operating piece is critical to securing the future of PVCC, and they will begin to promote that more with the Legislature than has been done in the past. It has been a full and challenging year for PVCC and they look forward to the future. Dr. DiCroce said she would like to highlight some items pertaining to Albemarle. During the past year, 2405 Albemarle residents attended PVCC and that accounted for 34 percent of all students enrolled and three percent of the County's total population. The Fall '98 profile for Albemarle County students shows: 83 percent part-time, 62 percent women, seven percent African-American and, 73 percent returning students. Compared to the student body as a whole, more Albemarle County students were returning, fewer were African-American and about the same percentage were women or part-time students. An interesting statistic from Fall '95 is that of all the County residents enrolled in a Virginia college or university, 47 percent of them were at PVCC. If you look at PVCC's service area, 44 percent of all students attending State institutions of higher education were at PVCC. The college continues to make a dramatic impact on the lives of not only Albemarle County residents, but the residents of PVCC's entire service area in terms of higher education. This past year, PVCC enrolled 28 percent of the '95 Western Albemarle High School graduating class, and 26 percent of the '95 Albemarle October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) 000:178 High School graduating class. PVCC has a strong relationship with the Albemarle County public schools and remains excited about the partnering possibilities with the Monticello High School. PVCC is part of the planning committee for the school, particularly programmatically. There is an opportu- nity to develop a model in cooperation and collaboration that will benefit everybody and probably save a little money. PVCC continues with the Tech-Prep Partnership. The County Schools have been leaders in that effort for the last several years. They continue to work with business and industry, committed to the economic vitality of the area. Their primary role in economic development is training. They work with the Chamber of Commerce and are involved with the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development. They see the raw economic impact PVCC makes on the area in terms of dollars. Annually, it is about $24.0 million. The bottom line is that PVCC remains committed to meeting the needs of Albemarle County and they invite the comments of the Board and those they serve in helping them to do it better. Dr. DiCroce said in conclusion, there remain exciting and challenging times for the College. Some of that is driven by money, of which there never is enough. The other piece of the challenge is simply the world in which we live, the pace, and the change, and the College's responsiveness to the change. She thanked the Board members for their collective and individual support of the College. She, the faculty and staff, and the PVCC Board look forward to working with the Board and the County in general as all prepare for the next century. Ms. Humphris thanked Dr. DiCroce for the report. She said Albemarle is fortunate to have the College here and to have the outstanding leadership that Dr. DiCroce and her administration provide, and the PVCC Board, and the Board appreciates everything that is done. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 11:08 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing to receive comments on the proposed exchange of property between the Tandem Friends School, Inc. and the County of Albemarle in connection with the construction of the road serving the Monticello High School. An 0.08 acre parcel located in the northwest corner of the Tandem School property is needed for road right-of-way. In addition, a strip owned by the County (1.3 acres) is segregated from the high school site on the Tandem side of the road. The parcel is not usable and will be a maintenance responsibility that will not be assumed by VDOT at the time the road is taken into the state system, therefore, this land exchange is contem- plated. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 16, September 23 and September 25, 1996.) Mr. Tucker summarized the request which is set out in the minutes of September 11, 1996. The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Davis said an agreement may no longer be necessary because of the timing of this exchange. It is possible that it can be done by an exchange of deeds only. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 11:10 a.m.) Mr. Martin said he had one other issue about this exchange that he wanted to discuss, but he will wait until Mr. Marshall is present later in the day. Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adopt the following resolution authorizing the County Executive to sign the Deed between the County of Albemarle, Virginia, Grantor, and Tandem Friends School, Inc., a Virginia nonstock corporation, Grantee; a deed between Tandem Friends School, Inc. and the County of Albemarle, Virginia; and, an agreement between Tandem Friends School, Inc., and the County of Albemarle, Virginia. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) OOO±79 (Note: The resolution as adopted is set out in full below.) RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the construction of the connector road serving the new Monticello High School project will require the acquisition of certain property for right-of-way purposes currently owned by the Tandem Friends School, Inc. and consisting of approximately 0.08 acres in size located in the northwest corner of the Tandem Friends School property; and WHEREAS, the County owns a 1.3 acre parcel of land separated from the new high school site and located on the same side of the proposed connector road as the Tandem Friends School, and the land will not be usable by the County and will not be maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation at the time the road is accepted into the state system; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has held a public hearing to convey and exchange the aforementioned parcels pursuant to Section 15.1-262 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Tandem Friends School Board of Directors has approved the proposed exchange of the aforementioned parcels, with no additional consideration required from either party, and the Board of Supervisors has determined that the exchange is in the best interests of the County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the exchange of the two parcels and further authorizes the County Executive to execute the necessary deeds and other closing documents in connection with the exchange. Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker requested adoption of a resolution appointing the Director of Finance as the County's fiscal agent for the disaster relief fund from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). He said the resolution has to be adopted each time there is a disaster. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the following resolution: DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of Albemarle County, a public entity established under the laws of the State of Virginia, this application and to file it in the appropriate State office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance under the Disaster Relief Act (Public Law 299, 93rd Congress) or otherwise available from the President's Disaster Relief Fund. THAT Albemarle County, a public entity established under the laws of the State of Virginia, hereby authorizes its agent to provide to the State and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for all matters pertaining to such Federal disaster assistance the assurances and agreement printed on the reverse side hereof. Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) O00iS9 Ms. Thomas stated an interest in having television coverage of Board meetings. She said when the Neighborhood Association met at the County Office Building, this subject was discussed. Even the fact that cable television does not go into all sections of the County did not deter their interest. That was when the staff made a preliminary inquiry, and she wonders if the lack of interest at the time was definite. She has received requests from citizens at other times also. Mr. Bowerman said he has also received re- quests. Mr. Martin said he thinks it is a good idea. Ms. Humphris agreed, but said she has a few reservations. This has been discussed many times at VACO Board meetings, and different counties have reported varying degrees of success with such a program. She thinks the pros and the cons have to be weighed carefully. Although, she wants the public to know what goes on in Board meetings, she does not want it to be a platform for making the meetings longer than they need to be. Ms. Thomas said the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has asked if they can do a composting program at the Ivy Landfill which will be an improvement if the amount of waste to be buried is going to be reduced. There has been concern expressed about what type of composting will go on. What has been proposed is a common practice in Europe, but is not well known in this country. When composting is done in the open it produces all kinds of odors. The method they are proposing is open sometimes, and closed at other times (closed means putting a tarp on top of it). There is some legitimate concern about whether this means that every time it is opened all the smells which have been accumulating are released, or whether it works well and none of that happens. That is why it is regarded as a pilot project. The Authority wants to find out whether it will be a problem. The neighbors have said the Solid Waste Task Force actually had in mind a closed-container composting and not the semi-open, semi-closed system. These citizens would like for the Rivanna Board to look at the closed containers which are like long trailers and can be as fancy as one wants. These containers can be leased so it is not a big capital expenditure. Once it is determined that they have enough waste to produce a compost that is sellable the Authority could go into this program in a serious fashion. Ms. Thomas said this Board established the Solid Waste Task Force and one of their recommendations was that composting not be done in the open, but that composting was very important and should be done. For this Board to not pay any attention to the statement that composting not be done in the open makes it appears that this Board is not paying any attention to the recommen- dations of the Task Force. Mr. Bowerman said composting cannot be done in the winter because of the temperature. If it was outside, he does not know what the Authority would do with the compostables in the Autumn, Spring and Winter months. Ms. Thomas said the alternative to using closed containers is to hire a ~watch dog person" to look at the process. Some months ago she talked with the person in Amelia County who performs this task. Amelia hires a person on County staff to just drop in and see what is going on in their mega landfill, which is run by a private company. That is working well because Amelia County was not as enthusiastic as some were about the landfill. Every member of their board of supervisors who voted for the landfill was voted out of office at the next election. That just shows that the citizens were not overjoyed to have this landfill in their midst. There was a lot of distrust. The County's response was to hire this person who just hangs around and has permission to look at everything going on. In that way, the County citizens have a feeling that they know what is actually happening. There are lots of bad smells that happen in rural areas, and the Board would actually be protecting itself from the charge that every bad smell emanates from whatever type of composting goes on. Ms. Thomas said the precedent for this is that when the Greenwood soil was being moved to Red Hill, the EPA hired someone from UVA's Environmental Institute and they dropped in unannounced at all sorts of hours and gave a written report of what was going on. It helped to be able to tell the neighbors there was someone like this. If others agree with this, she would suggest that the Rivanna Board and staff make sure they have looked into leasing of the more closed system, and if they determine that is out of the question (maybe this Board would like to be in on that determination), having a person who keeps an outsider's close eye on what's going on is an alterna- October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) 000±8 tive that might help the pilot project proceed in a way that would make people more comfortable. Ms. Humphris asked if anybody remembers if the Solid Waste Committee mentioned investigating the closed containers in the report they made on composting. Mr. Tucker said it was never the intent of the RSWA staff to have any program of this type continue after the pilot program is completed. If it seems to be feasible, they would look at some type of closed structure, container, or whatever. For the pilot project, they were looking at something that was more reasonable in cost. He does not know anything about the cost of leasing, but RSWA could look at that. He has heard that another public hearing would be required with the Department of Environmental Quality because it is a different process than what was requested for the pilot program. Ms. Thomas said she did not believe that had been made clear to people. That might be helpful, because what she has heard (she has attended all of the meetings) is that it is a pilot program, but that can be extended for several years. People believe that if it produces a good product, that method would be continued. Mr. Tucker said part of the experiment is to see what odors and what problems are created. At this point, that is not known. Everyone is saying it is going to create odors, but that really is not known. He believes there would be some odors when they are turning the material, even though it is under a tarp. The real key is how to distinguish those odors from those emanating naturally from the landfill. He said he will take this idea back to the Rivanna Board to discuss and determine costs. Ms. Humphris said another contingent of Ukrainians is coming to visit, and she and Mr. Tucker have been invited to participate in the opening reception on October 20, 1996, and the final dinner at the Bavarian Chef on October 31, 1996. She said she enjoyed the experience greatly last time and feels obligated to ask if another Board member would care to attend this time. Mr. Perkins said he is interested, and Mr. Martin said he can attend the reception. Ms. Humphris said she had a communication about the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service meeting at the Sheraton Inn on November 21 and 22, 1996. She had been asked to be present to provide input on the future of their program.. She said she is not sure what valuable input she could give them for two days, and asked if someone had any advise for her. Mr. Tucker said staff will work with Ms. Humphris. Mr. Tucker said there is a formal program and all Board members are invited to attend. Staff will talk with Ms. Humphris and also Mr. Dave Vaden to see what the Extension Service is expecting the County to present. Ms. Humphris said she did not know that Mr. Charlie Goodman had left Albemarle County. 'Mr. Tucker said he is not the Unit Chairman anymore. He has been moved to Fluvanna County for horticultural purposes. He still serves this region. Mr. Vaden stayed in Albemarle as the Farm Manager and will also serve as the Unit Chairman. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Mark Reisler is a County appointee to the JABA Board and his term is up soon. He has expressed a desire to be reappointed. Mr. Gordon Walker wrote a letter asking that Mr. Reisler be reappointed, so he will offer motion to reappoint Mr. Mark Reisler to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging for a term that will expire on October 10, 1998. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 11:35 a.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn into executive session under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344A under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters concerning reversion. October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. (Note: Mr. Marshall joined the Executive Session at 12:35 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Executive Session. As 2:00 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to 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: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 14. "Home Page" Demonstration. A demonstration of the County's Internet capabilities re: a "Home Page" was presented by Ms. Lee Catlin. Not Docketed: Mr. Martin said that at Tandem School the County is cutting across the entrance to their school. He understands the County first decided to do this because of the slope, and the County was willing to construct a road for them on the back side of their property. Then the County said the entrance would be left as it exists, and they could connect on the County's new connector road. That construction is on a ten percent or greater slope. Tandem wants the County to reconsider. Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, was present with a drawing of the site in question. She said the new connector road nips the Tandem School site and leaves a small slice of property which the Board recently deeded'to Tandem. The current road into Tandem comes off of Route 20 and winds uphill over fairly steep terrain. The new connector road will bisect that road and then continue. Initially, the County had to angle the road to cut across that road since they could not go straight along the property line. At that time, in a spirit of cooperation, Tandem wanted an entrance to access the front of their building. The County said it made no difference and worked with their landscape architect a number of times. Tandem brought in a master plan which showed additional parking and it showed tieing into the entrance a road winding through their site up to the front of their building. During all of their discussions, the subject was about an entrance. The issue has now changed. If the entrance is put where Tandem wants to connect, they also need a road to go up their hill into their site. At no time did County staff talk about doing anything outside of the road right-of-way. Mr. Tucker said an entrance is actually a curb cut, or access to the road into their property. Ms. Higgins said in this case, one site would require a turn lane and a commercial entrance. At the other site, it would be only a transition into their gravel road. What staff is worried about is timing. Tandem's landscape architect did a plan of on-site improvements that would tie into the County's road improvements. She asked what the cost of that would be, and was told it could be from $25,000 to $40,000 provided no rock was encountered. The on-site improvements along the path were something not programmed into this project, because there is an existing road. Mr. Martin said he is bringing this to the Board because he thinks it would be neighborly to at least negotiate with Tandem so the County would provide some of the funds to bring the road down to the connector road. Ms. Higgins said staff worked with Tandem to design an entrance that would suit their future development on their site. After designing it, when they got to the details, she felt there was a breakdown in communications between their landscape architect and the other people representing Tandem School. They never talked about anything outside of the road right-of-way. October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Martin to explain what public interest would be served by the County participating in the second access road. Mr. Martin said because the County bisected their road and they have worked with the County in terms of the land the County needed to use which was basically their existing road. In his opinion, it would the neighborly thing to do. He just wanted to bring this to the attention of the Board members. Mr. Marshall said he thinks Dr. Charles Hurt should pay for it. He said it will be commercial property and if he can get that easement back, it will be worth much more than $40,000 in commercial value. Mr. Davis said that would be a matter between Tandem School and Dr. Hurt. Mr. Marshall said he believes Tandem should negotiate with Dr. Hurt before this Board enters into it with taxpayers' funds. Ms. Thomas asked at what point this Board has to decide which entrance it will be. Ms. Higgins said the project is out to bid. Staff has been working for several months through the County Attorney's office to come up with an agreement with Tandem and has not been successful. If Tandem presents a master plan which intensifies the use of their site, the old entrance on Route 20 would have to be improved because there is no turn lane now and it is basically a blind entrance. There is a sign that says ~entrance above". She said the value of the intersection being approved and brought in even to that point is going to save them the money they would have to spend on this entrance. Mr. Tucker said they will be responsible for future maintenance. Ms. Higgins said they have to maintain the whole gravel road, and by taking it out of service, the little short piece they have left comes around behind their building. Mr. Bowerman said it sounds like they don't like the aesthet- ics. Mr. Martin said there is a slope there and Tandem is concerned that the parents coming in on snowy days will have to stop where before you just continued. Ms. Higgins said the entrance is much improved for turning out and for stopping to turn in. It will not be acceptable if Tandem intensifies the use of their property. They are coming down a hill. The other entrance was an issue because it came down a slope and there was a lot of dirt to be moved. Mr. Tucker said Ms. Thomas was asking when the Board would need to make a decision for Ms. Higgins to know which entrance is preferred. Ms. Higgins said staff is opening bids on Thursday the 29th on the project and it would have to be an addendum to change back. Staff was not successful with the agreement and it was not within her authority to spend any County money on private property. Mr. Davis said it could conceivably be a change order at some appropriate point during the project but that gets cumbersome. Ms. Higgins said staff would need to get the price for what the improvements along the road would be, but she does not have a design or a cost or a way to get what it would cost to go into what they want. Mr. Davis said that would be Tandem's responsibility. Ms. Higgins said if the Board decides to take it a step further, building that particular road might be less expensive. Mr. Martin said he was just talking in terms of the Board looking at what it would cost to build an old fashioned straight road and then if Tandem wanted to build something that is going to add $20,000 or $30,000 to the cost that is their business. But, he felt the Board could at least discuss the possibility of helping them out. He is not pushing this. He just brought this to the Board to see what the other members thought. Mr. Davis said there would be a couple of legal restrictions that would have to be addressed. One is that the County can't expend money making improvements to private property unless it has been identified for some public purpose which may be difficult to identify in this case. Since this is a nonprofit corporation, the County could give a gift of funds to this entity, but that would be a gift which the Board would have to decide by separate resolution. VPSA borrowed money could not be used for this purpose. It also would have to come out of General Fund money. He is not sure what portion of this roadway is being built with VPSA money, but that is part of the pot of money that is being used for this total school project, including the roadway. The County can't just decide to make improvements'on private property. It would have to be done in the form of a gift of some sort. That is possible in this instance because it is a non- profit school. It is not a religious school, I don't believe. Ms. Thomas said it is Quaker. Mr. Davis said it is an incorporated entity, but he does not believe it is a church entity. He would have to look at that. Ms. Thomas said if the County gave them a gift it would be for Tandem's design. The County might give them what it thought was enough for a straight October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) road and still not have given them a road. Ms. Higgins said there is no possibility of building a straight road because of the elevation. The County is cutting through the ridge and laying it back into their site. There is no way to do it straight because, if it doesn't meander somewhat, the grade restrictions can't be met. Her issue with the one design she saw is that it was very gradual and it meandered more than what are considered maximums. Ms. Thomas asked if there is any advantage to having the entrance to the two high schools across from each other. Would there be a time or place where a stop light would be needed? Ms. Higgins said it has to be either lined up or separated by a significant distance. Ms. Thomas asked if there is any reason to have it lined up. Ms. Higgins said there are pros and cons on both sides. Busses will be coming in one entrance, there is a student entrance, and then there is one more entrance. She does not know that there is a specific advantage to the school. Mr. Martin said Tandem is mad at the County to some extent. They have their own version of what was said. There was a perception that the road was coming through, and the only reason he brought up the issue is for a good neighbor kind of thing. Ms. Thomas said it sounds like State law keeps the Board from being a generous neighbor. Either way, she thinks the County is being good to them, but they seemed to think the County was going to build Tandem a new road. Mr. Martin said that is what Tandem's Board members said. He does not know about their architect who may have been the miscommunication part. Ms. Higgins said at one time Tandem's landscape architect contacted Bob Tucker and staff not only set up a meeting for him with the County's archi- tect, but met with him on several occasions. He brought his plan to the table so County staff could be sure his plan matched with the County's plan. It wasn't until the members of the Tandem Board were involved that they started asking more detailed questions. County staff said ~no", it has always been Tandem's site, and the County's site. It would have involved things like easements right up to Tandem's front door. It would have involved other details that were never considered. Ms. Humphris asked if it is possible that it was just wishful thinking on Tandem's part because they had never actually considered they were going to have to pay for the road. Ms. Higgins said County staff talked about ~a road project", and maybe in Tandem's mind that meant a road. She said she has in her files a drawing of Tandem's master plan which basically shows a road coming in and winding up with parking lots stretched around. On Berkmar Drive development was occurring as the County's road project took place, but in each case those developments, even where there is a turn lane, paid for it before it was done. The County never entered over the right-of-way onto their sites to do any work. The hesitancy about that is the precedent it may set. Mr. Tucker said that is the reason he wanted Ms. Higgins to define what she meant by ~entrance". He is fearful that when someone hears that they wishfully think it means the entire thing. That was never the intent. There is no money to do that. Mr. Marshall said Tandem School can negotiate with Dr. Hurt. He thinks it should be worth $40,000. Ms. Higgins said that the land is zoned residen- tial at this time. She had talked with Dr. Hurt at the beginning of the project and told him the cost of the entrance, and he said ~I will contribute $2,000." That was just in a telephone conversation. She had said ~I will convey that to the Tandem folks, but they need to be in touch with you." Mr. Martin said he will pass on to members of the Tandem Board that they need to negotiate with Dr. Hurt. It might be good for Mr. Marshall to talk to some of them also. Ms. Humphris said it sounds like it would be a logical thing to do. She can't believe that any Tandem Board member could have possibly expected Albe- marle County to build that road. Mr. Martin said he is not speaking for anybody or saying that they felt that way. He does not want that to go out in the press. He is only saying that people were upset and he thought there was some misunderstanding and he would bring it to the other Board members to see if the members were interested. MS. Humphris said she thinks the next step would be for Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin to promote this idea as a good solution. Tandem could get an entrance road, the County would not absorb any additional costs and Dr. Hurt would get the abandonment of the road that would greatly increase the value of his property for development. Mr. Marshall said he will tell Dr. Hurt that the County will not do it and he needs to enter into negotiations with Tandem Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date 2.aitials October 2, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) in order to get that road built. The County is willing to put the entranceway in, but, by law, can't commit County funds. Ms. Humphris asked if that is agreeable with everybody. By consensus, the Board members expressed agree- ment. Mr. Davis reminded the Board members that the property is just zoned R- i. It is not commercial property. Mr. Marshall said he knows what is planned for the property. At some point in time, the County will be asked that the property be rezoned to commercial. He will not indicate to Dr. Hurt that he will support such a request. Ms. Thomas said she has been hearing very good reports about the kind of stormwater/runoff/sustainability land planning sort of things that are going on at the high school. Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. At 2:30 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Chairman