HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-07February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on February 7, 1996, at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the
Chairman, Mrs. 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 was no member of the public present to present a matter.
Mrs. Humphris said she had been contacted by the chairman of the Tandem
School Board requesting that this Board put a petition from Tandem School on
the fast track. The Planning Commission will hold its public hearing on March
12, and Tandem asked if this Board could hold its public hearing on March 20.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Bill Nitchmann, of the Planning Commission, had called
and asked if the matter could be rescheduled to follow the Planning Commis-
sion's hearing in March. He had told him that this Board would have to take
some formal action on the request. At the suggestion of staff, motion was
offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to schedule a hearing on
the Tandem School petition for March 20, 1996.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin,
seconded by Mrs. Thomas to approve the consent agenda as presented with the
exception of Items 5.3b, 5.16 and 5.18, for which no paperwork had been mailed
with the Board's packet for this meeting. (Any conversation which occurred
with a specific agenda item will be shown with that item in these minutes.)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5.la. Transportation resolution for the addition and
abandonment required as a result of the construction of Project 0631-002-224,
C502 (Route 631 Fifth Street Extended).
The following resolution was adopted by the vote set out above:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has con-
structed a portion of Route 631 on a 'new alignment under Project
0631-002-224,C502; and
WHEREAS, the project sketch, attached and incorporated herein
as part of this resolution, defines adjustments required in the
secondary system of state highways as a result of this construction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000005
(Page 2)
of state highways those portions of Route 631 identified as Sections
9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 on the sketch, a distance of 0.99 miles;
those portions of Route 780 identified as Sections 21, 22 and 23 on
the sketch, a distance of 0.24 miles; and, a portion of Route 1112
identified on the sketch as Section 24, a distance of 0.04 mile,
pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board abandons as part of the.
secondary system of state highways those portions of Route 631
identified as Sections 1, 2, 5 and 8 on the sketch, a distance of
0.35 miles, and, those portions of Route 780 identified as Sections
19 and 20 on the sketch, a distance of 0.15 mile, pursuant to
Section 33.1-155, Code of Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parts of the secondary system
identified as Sections 3, 4, 15, 16 and 17 on the sketch, a distance
of 0.68 mile, be .renumbered, and Sections 6 and 18 on the sketch, a
distance of 0.10 mile be renumbered, and Sections 7 and 25 on the
sketch, a total of 0.40 mile, be renumbered and added to the
secondary system of highways; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolu-
tion be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
ADDITIONS AND ABANDONMENTS - ALBEM_ARLE COUNTY
Project 0631-002-224,C502
Section to be renumbered
Section 15 0.02 mi.
Section 3 0.48 mi.
Section 4 0.05 mi.
Section 16 0.05 mi.
Section 17 0.08 mi.
Section to be renumbered (Dead End Connection)
Section 18 0.05 mi.
Section 6 0.05 mi.
Section to be renumbered
Section 7 0.37 mi.
Section 25 0.03 mi.
New location to be added (Route 631)
Section 9
Section 10
Section 11
Section 12
Section 13
Section 14
0 21 mi.
0.02 mi
0.33 mi
0.05 mi
0.32 mi
0.06 mi
New location to be added (Route 1112)
Section 24 0.04 mi.
New location to be added (Route 780)
Section 21 0.09 mi.
Section 22 0.06 mi.
Section 23 0.09 mi.
Sections of Route 631 to be abandoned
Section 1 0.21 mi.
Section 2 0.02 mi.
Section 5 0.06 mi.
Section 8 0.09 mi.
Sections of Route 780 to be abandoned
Section 19 0.05 mi.
Section 20 0.10 mi.
Item 5.lb. Resolution to take roads in Dunlora Phase 2B Subdivision
into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County's
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
000003
Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted by the vote set
out above:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Dunlora Phase 2B (SUB 12.354A) de-
scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 7,
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 re-
quirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Dunlora - Phase 2B as described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 7, 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 recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
River Chase Lane from Station 10+11, left edge of
pavement of Dunlora Drive, 819.63 lineal feet to Station
18+30.63, rear edge of pavement of cul-de-sac, with a
right-of-way width of 50 feet as shown on plat recorded
6/3/94 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1408, pages 344-52, for a
length of 0.16 mile.
River Chase Ridge from Station 10+10, left edge of
pavement of River Chase Lane, 576.15 lineal feet to
Station 15+86.15, rear edge of pavement of the cul-de-
sac, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet as shown on
plat recorded 6/3/94 in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1408, pages 344-
52, for a length of 0.11 mile.
Riverbrook Court from Station 10+11, right edge of
pavement of Dunlora Drive, 162 lineal feet to Station
11+73, rear edge of pavement of the cul-de-sac as shown
on plat recorded 6/3/94 in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1408,
pages 344-52, for a length of 0.03 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.30 mile.
Item 5.1c. Resolution to take Highlands Place in Highlands at Mechums
River Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request
of the County's Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted
by the vote set out above:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street in Highlands at Mechums River (SUB-94-103)
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 7,
1996, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
O0OO04
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets 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 Transpor-
tation to add the road in Highlands at Mechums River (SUB-94-103) as
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 7,
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 recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1)
Highlands Place from Station 10+10, right edge of
pavement of Highlands Drive, 1165.53 lineal feet to
Station 21+75.53, edge of pavement of Highlands Place
cul-de-sac, with a 50 foot right-of-way as shown on plat
recorded 5/2/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed
Book 1466, pages 156-157, with additional plats recorded
9/10/91 in Deed Book 1176, pages 438-439, and ~/96 in
Deed Book 1512, pages 714-717, for a total length of
0.22 mile.
Item 5.1d. Resolution to take Glenmore Way in Glenmore Subdivision into
the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County's
Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted by the vote set
out above:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Glenmore Subdivision (SUB-91-117)
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 7,
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 Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Glenmore Subdivision as described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 7, to the secondary
system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia,
and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements
for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1)
~lenmore Way from Station 2+30, right edge of pavement
of U.S. Route 250 eastbound, 2250.56 lineal feet to
Station 24+80.56, edge of pavement at rear of cul-de-
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
000005
sac, with a variable right-of-way, as shown on plat
recorded 5/13/92 in the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle, Virginia, in Deed Book 1224,
pages 447-454, with additional plats recorded 11/27/95
in Deed Book 1505, pages 583-583, for a total length of
0.43 mile.
Item 5.2. Resolution to approve the issuance of Industrial Development
Authority bonds in an amount not to exceed $10.4 million for the University of
Virginia Health Services Foundation.
Mrs. Thomas reminded the Board that she had suggested that the IDA hold
companies obtaining these bonds to some standards dealing with welfare reform.
Mr. Tucker said he believes the IDA is aware of this request, and he will try
to get a formal response from the IDA.
The following resolution was adopted by the vote set out above.
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia ("Authority") has considered the application of The
University of Virginia Health Services Foundation ("Foundation")
requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an
amount not to exceed $10,400,000 ("Bonds") to assist in (I)
financing various acquisition, construction, renovation and
equipment projects of the Foundation as more particularly described
in the notice published in connection with the public hearing
described below and (ii) refunding the outstanding principal amount
of the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Charlottes-
ville, Virginia's $3,300,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bond
(University of Virginia Health Services Foundation), issued on
January 20, 1984 to finance the acquisition, equipping and construc-
tion of the Virginia Ambulatory Surgery Center, all of the foregoing
hereafter referred to as the "Project," and has held a public
hearing on January 29, 1996;
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended (the "Code"), provides that the governmental unit having
jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the
area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private
activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds;
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia ("County"); a portion of the Project
is located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected
governmental unit of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve
the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a
certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have
been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the
Authority for the benefit of Foundation, as required by Section
147(f) of the Code and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia
of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code") to permit the Authority to
assist in the financing.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not
constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of
the creditworthiness of the Project or the Foundation.
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
000006
3. This resolution shall remain in effect for a period of
one year from the date of its adoption.
adoption.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
Item 5.3a. Appropriation: CPS Prevention Grant (Form #95050),
$6,147.43.
Whitewood Village is an assisted rental project developed under the
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program in 1986. The project consists of 88
two-bedroom apartments and 8 one-bedroom apartments. Currently, 83.9 percent
of the units are occupied by single female heads of households, with the
majority having children under the age of eleven. A total of 115 residents
are children. One unit is occupied by the full-time resident manager. When
Whitewood Village was constructed, there was no consideration given to the
provision of recreational areas or an interior meeting space. To alleviate
the problem, management filled in an in-ground swimming pool to create a small
play area for young children. This lot is not suitable for older children and
creating an exterior meeting place is next to impossible on the property.
During the past five years, an increase in drug use and related activity
has occurred. This has been documented through observation by management and
residents, reports from law enforcement, social services and mental health
agencies. In 1994, the Department of Social Services, Whitewood Village and
the Albemarle Police Department joined together to apply for a grant from the
Virginia Department of Social Services to provide specific services to the
residents of Whitewood Village. The grant provided funding for office space
at the complex as well as materials for activities for the children. In
addition, it funded parenting classes through Children, Youth and Family
Services. Approximately 15 families were served by the grant.
This grant was approved for the period October 1, 1994 through September
30, 1995. This appropriation requests approval of the unexpended balance of
the grant for the July 1, 1995 through September 30, 1995 period. There is an
unexpended fund balance of $402.43.
Staff recommends approval of appropriation #95050 in the amount of
$6,147.43.
The following resolution of appropriation was adopted by the vote set
out above.
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95050
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CPS PREVENTION GRANT BALANCE OF PROGRAM
BUDGET
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1155253130310000 SUBCONTRACT
1155253130510000 UTILITIES
1155253130540200 RENT
1155253130600000 SUPPLIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$3,066.00
1,121.00
1,431.00
529.43
$6,147.43
REVENT3E
2155233000300001
2155251000510100
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
FEDERAL GRA/qT $5,745.00
FUND BALANCE 402.43
TOTAL $6,147.43
Item 5.3b. Appropriation: EMS Recruitment and Retention Mini-Grant
{Form #95051), $3,469.
This item was pulled for lack of paperwork and will go back on the
agenda for February 14, 1996.
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
000007
Item 5.3c. Appropriation: Commonwealth's Attorney Office (Form
~95052), $850.
This request was received from James L. Camblos, III, Commonwealth's
Attorney for additional funding in the amount of $850. This amount would be
used to provide his office with on-line access to Virginia Law on Disk.
Staff recommends approval of the request in the amount of $850 as
detailed on appropriation form #95052.
The following resolution of appropriation was adopted by the vote set
out above.
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NI/MBER: 95052
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMMONWEALTH
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1100022010390000 SUPPLIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$850.00
$850.o0
REVENUE
2100051000510100
DESCRIPTION
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$850.00
$850.00
Item 5.3d. Appropriation: Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control
Act (Form #95056), $68,424.
The 1995 General Assembly enacted the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime
Control Act (VJCCCA) through the passage of Senate Bill 1114, which changes
the manner in which the Department of Youth and Family Services will fund
local programs for youth who have come before the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations District Courts. Previously only those localities who operated
block grant residential and non-residential programs received funding, but
under the new law all localities with Board of Youth and Family Services
approved local community pre- and post- dispositional plans will receive
funding from the department. Under a formula that measured the FY 1993 Child
Care Days, Albemarle County is eligible to receive an additional $68,424 for
FY 1995-96. Since the City already receives $565,573 in block grant funds for
the Community Attention Home, they will receive a level amount of funding for
FY 1996.
Through the Children and Youth Commission staff, the City and the County
have provided a joint plan to the state for the use of the VJCCCA funds. The
proposed plan states that the City will continue to use their block grant
funding allocation at Community Attention for the same type of services
provided to City youth in FY 1994-95. The County will use the additional
funds from the state to provide Outreach Services to Albemarle County juve-
niles through Community Attention. The plan proposes that Community Attention
will retain the County's funds, which will in turn be used by the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court for juveniles needing either pre- or post-disposi-
tional care. Under this agreement, the Juvenile Court will be able to use
these funds to purchase outreach services from Community Attention or from any
other, service providers deemed appropriate by the Juvenile Court Services
Unit.
This arrangement for using the VJCCCA funds is supported by the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court and the Court Services Unit and a plan was
submitted to the Department of Youth and Family Services in November for their
approval. The Board approved a resolution at the November 1 meeting giving
approval to this proposed spending plan. DYFS has subsequently approved the
plan and the first quarterly payment has arrived. Appropriation Form #95056
approves the distribution of $68,424 to Community Attention to be used to
purchase outreach services by the Court Services Unit through June, 1996.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #95056 in the amount of
$68,124 to Community Attention for pre- and post-dispositional services for
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
000005
Albemarle County youth who have come before the Juvenile and Domestic Rela-
tions Court.
The following resolution of appropriation was adopted by the vote set
out above:
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95056
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VIRGINIA JIJVENILE COMMUNITY CRIME
CONTROL ACT FUNDS
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1100039000563505 COMM ATTENTION-VJCCCA
TOTAL
~LMOUNT
$68,424.00
$68,424.00
REVENUE
2100024000240445
DESCRIPTION
VA JUVENILE COMM CRIME CONTROL
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$68,424.00
$68,424.00
Item 5.4. Request for Sick Leave Bank (P-85) Policy Waiver.
Policy P-85 of the County's Personnel Policy Manual provides for
employees with extended health problems to access a sick leave bank that
provides an additional 45 days of sick leave for long term health care
problems. The bank is made up of days donated to the bank by its partici-
pants. One of the provisions of the policy is that employees must request
access to the sick leave bank prior to needing to use the banked days. Staff
has recently learned of a situation where an employee has been diagnosed with
terminal cancer and did not request access to the bank prior to needing to use
the days due to his illness.
Staff is currently developing a policy revision to be brought to the
Boards for some leeway to be granted to terminally ill employees. In the
interim, staff recommends that the Board allow an administrative waiver of the
prior approval requirement for this particular instance with the understanding
that a policy will be brought forward as soon as it can be developed and
commented on by the various employee groups responsible for policy review.
Staff recommends that the County Executive be given the authority to
waive the prior notification requirement of P-85 for this particular case in
order to grant access to the sick leave bank for a terminally ill employee.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was given the
authority to waive the prior notification requirement of P-85 in this particu-
lar case in order to grant access to the sick leave bank for a terminally ill
employee.
Item 5.5. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance,
Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for
the month of December, 1995, were approved as presented by the above recorded
vote.
Item 5.6. FY 1996-97 Revenue Update: Request Board approval to
allocate'additional projected local revenues in the amount of $327,523 to the
School Division and General Government operational budgets.
Preliminary revenue projections for the next fiscal year are provided by
the Department of Finance in October with updated estimates provided to the
County Executive's Office in January after tax bills are finalized and a full
six months of data has been collected. The attached (on file) summary page
shows the revised FY 1996-97 revenue projections and a proposed allocation of
$327,523 in additional local dollars to the School Division and General
Government.
Local revenues show a projected increase of approximately $327,523 over
the October estimate, based on slight increases in real estate, personal
property, machinery and tools and reinstitution of the Joint Security Complex
administration fee. This last revenue had been omitted from the earlier
000009
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9) .
projections in anticipation of the new Jail Authority assuming fiscal agent
responsibilities. Now that the County will continue as fiscal agent for the
Authority, administrative fees in the amount of $67,000 have been restored.
When the additional $327,523 is allocated 60 percent to 40 percent for
operations, the School Division receives an additional $196,514 and General
Government receives an additional $131,009, which can be incorporated into
their respective proposed budgets.
Staff recommends allocating the additional $327,523 in projected FY
1996-97 revenues to both the School Division and General Government to be
incorporated into their proposed operating budgets for FY 96/97.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the request to
allocate the additional revenue of $327,523 as $196,514 to the School Divi-
sion, and $131,009 to General Government to be incorporated into their
respective proposed operating budgets for FY 1996-97.
Item 5.7. Authorize staff to make adjustments in Medical Plan Rebate
Program for participants with reductions in coverage.
Last October staff presented recommendations on the status of our
medical plan and wellness programs. As the medical plan had accumulated~
significant reserves, one of those recommendations approved by the Board was
to provide medical plan participants a two month rebate of their insurance
premium. The rebate was based on the employee's deduction as of May 31, 1995.
This rebate was paid to participants in mid-November. In using the May 31,
1995 payroll deduction there were employees who had a higher level of coverage
between October 1, 1994 and May 31, 1995 and for valid reasons changed their
coverage during this period. For example, one employee contributed $263 a
month for family coverage between October and April but in May reduced their
coverage to $82. The rebate was based on the $82. According to our records,
there were at least seven County employees and one School Division employee
who paid higher premiums sometime during this period and thus contributed a
higher amount to the reserve then was reflected in their rebate. The addi-
tional rebate amount would be $1,290.78 for General Government and $474.67 for
the School Division to prorate their rebate fairly.
Staff feels the rebates for employees who contributed at a higher level
should be adjusted to reflect their contributions. Staff requests the Board
authorize it to make these adjustments.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized staff to make
adjustments in the medical plan rebate for those employees who had a higher
level of coverage between October 1, 1994, and May 31, 1995, who had made
changes to that coverage during that period of time.
Item 5.8. Request approval of letter to seek a hold-harmless amendment
to the State budget from the impact of Albemarle's new composite index.
The attached letter (copy on file) is submitted for your approval to be
officially submitted to our legislators. The letter requests that a hold-
harmless amendment be supported that will keep Albemarle County from losing
approximately $586,000 from the impact of the County's new composite index
that went from .5585 for 1994-96 to .6080 for 1996-1998. A budget amendment
has already been submitted by Senator Madison Marye to which Senator Emily
Couric has signed on as a co-patron. Our understanding is that a similar
budget amendment has been submitted in the House by Delegate Tom Jackson.
Staff requests approval of the letter.
By the recorded vote set out above, staff was authorized to send the
letter attached to the staff's report.
Item 5.9a. Letter from Mrs. A. G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, to
Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing the monthly update on highway improvement
projects currently under construction and the quarterly report of projects
under design in Albemarle County, was received for information.
Projects Under Construction
Albemarle County
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
O000 O
February 1, 1996
Route Location Status Estimate Comp.
No. Date
29 From Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743) Construction 98% Feb '96
to N of Rio Rd (Rt 631) complete
240 Rt 240 Bridge Replacement Construction 97% Feb '96
near Iht Rt 250 complete
29 From N of Rio Rd (Rt 631) to Construction 45% May '97
S Fork Rivanna River complete
671 Bridge Replacement at Construction 45% *Feb '96
Millington complete
682 From Rt 250 to 1.7 mi S Rt Construction **Dec '96
787 started Jan '96
*Revised Date
**New Project
Item 5.9b. Letter dated January 24, 1996, from Mrs. A. G. Tucker,
Resident Engineer, to Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk, regarding Route 614, Sugar Hollow
Road, was received for information. (In the letter Mrs. Tucker said Rt 614,
Sugar Hollow Road, has survived recent high water and flooding along the
section that was recently paved. It appears that the work which occurred has
paid for itself and provided continuous access to all property owners. VDOT
has received no calls regarding the maintenance of this road during the recent
snow and subsequent flooding which in itself is a step in a positive direc-
tion.)
Item 5.9c. Letter dated January 29, 1996, from Mrs. A. G. Tucker,
Resident Engineer, to Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk, regarding transportation matters
discussed at the January 3rd Board meeting, was received for information.
"This is in reference to your letter dated January 10, 1996,
regarding transportation matters discussed at the January 3rd
Board of Supervisors' meeting. The following information is
offered in response to these issues.
The Department is requesting that a public hearing to adopt the
current Secondary Six Year Plan be held on Wednesday, February 7,
1996, at the Board of Supervisors' meeting. We will have handouts
available for the public, a Copy of which will he forwarded to the
Board prior to this meeting.
The Millington Bridge project Route 671) is scheduled for comple-
tion March 1, 1996. Please find attached correspondende (on file)
from both the steel manufacturer and the contractor outlining
material delays. While weather conditions have impacted slightly
the delivery of the steel beams, it does not critically impact
their placement. However, weather conditions must be favorable
for the final deck placement, a non-skid surface treatment applied
over a wood-laminated floor. We will communicate progress ver-
bally as needed until completion.
The Route 20 (from 1-64 eastbound) acceleration lane extension to
PVCC entrance is scheduled for a July 1996 advertisement date. If
satisfactory bids are received, we can expect work to begin around
October 1, 1996.
we are currently reviewing the ditch line along Route 627 which
was recently reworked under permit to the Department. We are
discussing solutions that will not impact drainage but enhance
safety. Work will he scheduled as soon as possible, but drier
conditions offer some advantages. If necessary, we can discuss
the exact work to be done directly with the interested citizen."
Item 5.10. Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) Update on Colonnades
Bus Stop on Route 9, was received for information.
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11) · ~ ..~
0000
Item 5.11. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for December 19, 1995
and January 16, 1996, were received for information.
Item 5.12. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority for
October 23, 1995, was received for information.
Item 5.13. Notice of application for certificate of public convenience
and necessity, as a common carrier of passengers, pursuant to Chapter 20 of
Title 46.2 of the Code of Virqinia. for Little Limo, Inc., was received for
information.
Item 5.14, Copy of letter dated January 17, 1996, to Charlottesville/
Albemarle Airport, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, re:
Official Determination of Use - Temporary Asphalt Batch Plant, was received
for information.
Item 5.15. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Bond Program
Report and Monthly Report for the months of November and December, 1995, were
received for information.
Item 5.16. November, 1995 County Financial Report.
This item was pulled for lack of paperwork and will go back on the
agenda for February 14, 1996.
Item 5.17. 1994 Preliminary Sales Ratio Study, was received for
information.
Item 5.18. Letter dated January 19, 1996 from Ms. Julie L. Vosmik,
Manager, Division of Survey & Register, Department of Historic Resources, to
Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, re: Earlysville Union Church, Albemarle County.
This item was pulled for lack of paperwork and will go back on the
agenda for February 14, 1996.
Item 5.19. Memorandum dated February 1, 1996, from Mr. Frank Morgan,
Assistant Superintendent, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive,
entitled "Composite Index Information", was received for information.
Mrs. Thomas thanked Mr. Morgan for the information. She felt this was
the clearest explanation she had received on how the Composite Index impacts
everyone. She suggested that the memorandum be Widely distributed.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the most interesting part of this informa-
tion is that one part of the formula is the County's population income. She
noted that there is no way this can be dealt with as far as taxation is
concerned. The formula really does not make sense in that it takes into
consideration something that County officials are not able to take into
consideration.
Mrs. Thomas pointed out that the information is based on 1990-1992 data
at which time Northern Virginia was in a recession and this area was not. Now
this area is being penalized for something that has been resolved, but it
shows up in the index.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes:
October ll(A) and November 29(A), 1995.
No minutes had been read.
September 19(A), September 20,
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. Va. Transportation Matters: Work Session:
2002 Six Year Secondary Road Plan.
FY 1996-
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Planning Commission's consideration of
this year's Secondary Road Plan and the priorities for all secondary projects
is in the Board members' packets. He said Mr. David Benish, Chief of Commu-
nity Development, would discuss some of this information, and Mrs. Angela
Tucker would hand out some more recent information on the financial portion of
the plan. He next mentioned that there are two other items which have come up
since the Planning Commission meeting relating to the Six Year Secondary Plan,
and this Board will be asked to address them. He said information on the Pen
Park Lane/Rio Road intersection has been provided in the Executive Summary,
and City officials are interested in seeing this project included in the
County's Six Year Plan. He stated that City officials are negotiating for the
possible development of the Meadow Creek sewage treatment property, and if
this property is developed, it would have to take access onto Rio Road via Pen
Park Lane. He added that this is the only practical access, and it will
necessitate improvements to that intersection, based on the kind of develop-
ment envisioned at this point. He said it is an off-site improvement project
and could be arranged through the City's rezoning process for the necessary
funds to be proffered and set aside to make those improvements. He noted,
though, that the developer does not have a right to condemnation and could not
go out and actually purchase the right-of-way unless the property owners are
willing, and this is unknown at this time. If the intersection is going to be
improved, then it will need the County's involvement, and ultimately VDOT
officials, with funding coming from the private sector through the development
process. For this reason, City officials have asked that it be included in
the Six Year Plan. He said the staff has noted a study of a number of
intersections in the County which was done through MPO funding, but the study
did not evaluate this particular intersection. He stated that this overall
list of intersections has not been included in the plan, but it can be
included for next year, as well as the Pen Park Lane/Rio Road intersection, if
this Board so desires. He said they could all be put in a priority listing,
and they would show next year in the Six Year Plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the project can be part of the Six Year Plan, even
if a private developer is involved with the funds for that intersection. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that a private developer would proffer these funds, and
the funds would be turned over to VDOT for the project.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if there were time constraints relating to the
Pen Park Lane/Rio Road intersection. Mr. Cilimberg replied that City offi-
cials are in negotiation now, as well as the next few months, to be able to
reach some conclusion and arrangement with the developer. He stated that the
representatives of this particular company are not only negotiating for the
Meadow Creek property but the company also owns the area in the County to the
north directly abutting this property. He said the property will probably be
developed as a County subdivision, with additional development in the City,
and it will come out to Pen Park Lane. He added that from a timing stand-
point, the rezoning process will take place this year, and if funds are going
to be proffered, it will be known during this process.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the developer is afraid that some of the
neighbors will object to selling their property, because they actually object
to the project. He stated that the project can go forward because City
officials are approving it, and the County residents have no say in the matter
whatsoever. He suggested this Board do nothing at this point, and just let
the project move forward. Once the project moves forward, people will see the
need for highway improvements and will be willing to sell the property. He
remarked that in this way County officials will not have to condemn the
property, and he doesn't think waiting a year will hurt the project.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that there is a letter in the Supervisors' packets
from City officials, as well as Angela Tucker on this project.
Next, Mr. Cilimberg announced that information has been given to the
Supervisors relating to Airport Road, and this project has been desired for
some time. He said the Airport Authority has a great interest in seeing this
project undertaken, but he noted that the Airport Road project will not be
completed until December 2001 under strictly Six Year Plan funding. Mrs.
Tucker informed him today of some new information indicating the project has
been moved up a year, although it would probably be late in the year 2000
before the project is completed. He then mentioned discussions between the
0000 3
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
County staff, the Airport Authority and VDOT representatives regarding the use
of airport access funds to improve Route 649. He remarked that this seems to
be an opportunity to bring additional dollars into the project which could
replace some secondary dollars that have to be spent but, more importantly, it
will expedite the project. He said the staff is recommending that this Board
endorse an application for airport access funds in order to try to expedite
the project. He said this will allow the project to get under design this
year which would be much earlier than the plan originally called for, and it
will allow a plan to be in place next year at no cost. He noted that the
project will be reviewed again in the Six Year Plan process for secondary
monies which might be necessary, along with the airport access fund monies, to
complete the project.
Mr. Martin asked if a motion is needed for this plan. Mr. Cilimberg
answered that a motion is necessary for endorsement for an airport access
funds application, He said Mr. Brian Elliott is present to answer questions.
Mr. Benish highlighted the major changes and recommendations by the
Planning Commission for the Six Year Secondary Road Plan. He said the first
recommendation from the Commission and staff is that there not be any major
changes to the priorities in terms of new projects or significant changes in
the rankings of projects primarily due to the fact that the Comprehensive Plan
and the CATS study are still under review and have not been adopted. He
stated that these are key documents which provide direction as far as projects
to be undertaken in the future. He noted that VDOT's policy now allows the
Six Year Secondary Road Plan priority list to be evaluated every year, as
opposed to every other year, so it allows a review of the priority list next
year to look for major changes that need to be made. He said the Commission
also recommended continued participation in the revenue sharing program, and
VDOT's proposed Six Year Plan reflects full participation in this program. He
added that the staff and Planning Commission have also recommended that the
Board reaffirm the unpaved road policy specifically as it regards the require-
ment for donating rights-of-way for funding for road paving projects. He
explained that this is in part a request from VDOT officials to strengthen
their ability to negotiate with property owners to donate rights-of-way. In
terms of priority changes, Mr. Benish announced that there were two relatively
minor changes to priorities of two unpaved road projects -- Route 711 and
Route 716 at North Garden. He said these priorities have been lowered in the
relative priority to other unpaved road projects. He stated that this change
in priority is consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendations in
the Land Use Plan to delete North Garden as a village. He said one of the
reasons these projects were ranked as high as they were previously is that
they were in a designated growth area, which is one of the criteria in the
rating system, and this increased their ranking. He then mentioned that
another recommendation of the County staff and VDOT representatives was to
increase the funding under the County-wide projects. He said the purpose for
increasing the amount of money in this fund was to provide a larger sum of
money to be used for smaller types of improvement projects such as sight
distance and drainage improvements, etc., which wouldn't require full rights-
of-way acquisition for these construction type projects. He added that a lot
of the school division requests regarding concerns with bus travel along roads
could have been addressed as minor projects, and these funds could have been
used for these problem areas. However, he thinks some adjustments had to be
made to cost estimates and further projects in the Six Year Plan, and this is
the basis for the revisions from Mrs. Tucker. He would ask her to explain
these changes.
Mrs. Tucker handed out a Six Year Plan reflecting an additional fiscal
year which will move into the new yearly program where the plan is revised
every year. She said this is different from the plan included in the Board
members' packets with the absorption of the first fiscal year on the plan and
the addition of fiscal year 2001-02. She stated, though, that it does not
change any priorities or advertisement dates with the exception of accelerat-
ing the Airport Road project, and this advertisement date has been moved up
one fiscal year. She then noted an adjustment to the total cost estimate for
many of these projects, and she said she would name a few fairly substantial
adjustments. She pointed out that Route 743, which is the Hydraulic Road
project, is due for advertisement this year. She stated that the cross
section was recently changed from a four lane cross section to a five lane
cross section and design and rights-of-way costs, as Well as construction
costs increased. She added that this is reflected in the total estimate. She
said funding from the County-wide items has been pulled back, and these items
now reflect County-wide monies this Board saw approximately two years ago.
0000 4
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
She stated that what was thought would be available for minor incidental
projects will only be available if costs are saved or contained on the
secondary projects as they are built.
Mr. Marshall wondered if the two projects relative to Route 20, such as
the acceleration lane off of 1-64, are included in these County-wide items.
Mrs. Tucker answered, uno". She said these projects are handled from a
primary budget, and they are on schedule.
Mr. Marshall next mentioned the widening of Route 20 where the new high
school will be built. He asked if this project is also part of the primary
budget. Mrs. Tucker answered affirmatively. She went on to say attention
will still be given to the Route 633 bridge in the South Garden area, with
work due to occur late this calendar year through next calendar year.
Mrs. Thomas inquired if agreement has been reached with the railroad
officials. Mrs. Tucker replied that there is such a meeting at 2:00 p.m.
today to discuss these details'. Mrs. Thomas said she appreciates very much
the work VDOT representatives have done along these lines.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the new estimate for the Hydraulic Road project is
approximately $3,500,000. Mrs. Tucker answered that this is the total cost,
including plan design, rights-of-way and construction costs. She said these
costs have all been separated, and she noted that construction costs increased
substantially from approximately $1,500,000 to $2,100,000. She mentioned
another cost estimate which changed relating to the Route 601 project,
although this project has not been fully scoped at this point. She stated
that the previous estimate reflected $2,100,000, and it has been increased to
$4,500,000 in hopes that if upgrades are needed to the railroad overpasses,
this cost will be covered. She said the Airport Road project cost has been
increased, as well, from a total cost of approximately $1,200,000 to approxi-
mately $2,500,000. She pointed out that these costs have been upgraded in
some cases for the first time in five years, and they are reflecting some
recent very high dollar construction costs.
Mr. Marshall asked if this is a change in design or just change in
costs. Mrs. Tucker responded that changes in both design and costs are
involved. She said some of the increases are a result of increases in design
costs because of last minute changes around businesses and buildings, as well
as working with property owners. She mentioned the Rock Store, relating to
the Hydraulic Road project, as one example where VDOT representatives at-
tempted to make the project work with this particular property owner.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the Route 682 project is not shoWn because it has
already started. Mrs. Tucker replied affirmatively. She explained that it is
also completely funded.
Mrs. Thomas said she has talked to a number of people in the North
Garden area, and most of them realize that Route 712 will remain in place on
the priority list, while Routes 760 and 711 will be moved down the list quite
a ways. She added that this is consistent with everything else being done in
the Comprehensive Plan. She went on to say everybody is not happy about this
arrangement, but some people are ecstatic, because they don't want the roads
paved. She said, though, everybody agrees that Route 712 is top priority.
She explained that it is a beautiful one lane road but, unfortunately, lumber
trucks and school buses are meeting head to head on it. She noted that Route
688 will move up in priority from fourteenth to Number Seven. She next
referred to communications from the people at Camp Holiday Trails regarding
Route 702. She stated that this project doesn't fit any of the County's
criteria, and it should probably be examined during the discussion of~the
criteria for paving unpaved secondary roads. She said Route 702 doesn't have
a high traffic count, and it is not in a designated growth area.
Mr. Tucker informed Mrs. Thomas that Route 702 is in a designated growth
area, but the traffic count has always eliminated it from consideration.
Mrs. Thomas then mentioned that she has directed Mr. Ralph Taylor to
call Mrs. Tucker about his concern relating to a portion of Route 688 in order
to get the project started in this process. She said this concern started
when the road was plowed during a snow storm. She noted that it has the same
road number as another road on the list, and she doesn't want it to get
confused. She said this must be one of those roads where two portions are
rather widely separated from each other. Mrs. Tucker inquired if Mr. Taylor's
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) O0001S
(Page 15)
concern relates to snow removal operations. Mrs. Thomas responded negatively.
She said the snow removal on this road initiated the call, but the concern
really relates to an unpaved road situation. She explained that it is a short
section of road which is unpaved. She noted that building is increasing
around it, and there are a lot of elderly people living in that vicinity.
She added that there is nothing to distinguish it from 300 other miles in the
County's system where people are wishing for the roads to get paved faster.
She stated, though, the policy directs that the correct one to address such
concerns is Mrs. Tucker.
Mr. Tucker said he has located Route 688 on the priority list, and it is
identified as Midway Road. Mrs. Thomas indicated that this is the section
which has already been on the list for a long time, but there is also another
section of Route 688.
Mr. Tucker referred to Mrs. Thomas' remark about Route 688 moving up in
priority from fourteenth to Number Seven. He said this priority ranking is
for Route 866, which is Greenbrier Drive. Mrs. Tucker explained that there is
a regular project list and a separate gravel road project list, which includes
the portion of Route 688 to which Mrs. Thomas referred. Mr. Tucker said he
just wanted to clarify that the section of Route 688, referred to by Mrs.
Thomas, will be paved earlier.
Mrs. Thomas then mentioned that there are a number of letters in the
Supervisors' packets relating to Route 679 which is Grassmere Road. She said
this road is already on the list, .and VDOT officials have provided some safety
railings which have made this road bearable. She stated that the people there
are very appreciative of these railings.
Mrs. Tucker informed the Board members that the 1994 traffic counts on
Route 702 well exceed the 50 vehicles a day necessary to make gravel road
improvements. She said this should no longer be an issue if cooperation is
received with dedicated rights-of-way.
Mr. Tucker stated that in the past the traffic count has always been
below 50 vehicles, and this is the first time the count has gone over the
minimum to consider improvement.
Mrs. Tucker indicated that no projects have been added, and the Supervi-
sors are probably wondering how estimates have been increased, but costs have
still been covered. She explained that this happened due to VDOT officials'
concern that they have a certain percentage of funds with which to go to
construction. She said VDOT officials actually took the fiscal year and
worked the costs back into the plan where they would do the most good. She
said they felt advertisement dates should be held so the Supervisors could see
this construction happening as it has been anticipated.
Mrs. Thomas suggested that there may be people in the audience who
didn't speak when other matters not listed on the agenda from the public were
discussed. She said they may have thought this was the appropriate time to
discuss road concerns.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if there were any people in the audience who
would like to make comments on the FY 1996-2002 Six Year Secondary Road Plan.
Mr. A. L. Yancey said he appreciates the guardrails on Grassmere Road,
because he once turned his truck over in that area, before the guardrails were
installed. He added, though, that he thinks this Board and Mrs. Tucker need
to be brought up to date about what is happening on Routes 712, 711 and 760.
He mentioned that development of Southern Hills is in process and lots are
currently being sold. He said three lots have already been sold, another is
under contract, and it is expected that the project will really take off in
the spring. He added that Southern Hills Drive is now being constructed, and
it will tie into Route 712. He said it doesn't make sense to him to spend a
lot of money putting in guardrails and tying in Southern Hills Drive to Route
712 when it will all be torn up and everything will have to be started all
over again at the entrance. He noted that he and Mr. Clark are happy to
donate the right-of-way for Route 712 along the entire portion of their
property, and he thinks this probably involves 60 percent of the total length
of the road. However, he said there are a couple of things which have not
been pointed out about Route 712, and they need to be realized. He stated
that the reason for taking these roads off the priority list is because the
village density designation has been taken away from North Garden. He
O000 G
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
emphasized, though, that development has already happened in this area. He
said Southern Hills is being developed, and part of Route 760 is developed
almost as densely as Route 712. He stated that there will be approximately 65
to 75 houses within a mile when Southern Hills is completed, and these people
will use Routes 767, 711 and 712. He went on to say that to do improvements
on Route 712 and delay the other two projects will cause a domino effect. He
mentioned that Route 712 is a shortcut to Route 29, and if Route 712 is done,
it will also be a shortcut to Red Hill School for all traffic. He then
mentioned Route 692 at Trinity Church, where there are two very severe curves
when vehicles are traveling from there to Crossroads Store. He noted that
this is where the school buses and lumber trucks always have problems and
numerous wrecks occur. He said people in North Garden and South Garden are
going to avoid Route 692 and relieve this road, if there is a shortcut
possible on Route 712. He stated that people are certainly going to deliver
their children to school via Routes 712 and 760, instead of going Route 692,
Route 29 and Route 710. He said this is just a matter of timing because a few
seconds means a lot to people in the morning when they are going to work. He
told the Supervisors that Route 760 and Route 712 are very important roads,
and he does not think Route 711 is quite as important. He stated that he is
just trying to enlighten them as far as the density of Southern Hills, and
taking the Village density designation away from North Garden is not going to
alleviate this situation, because it has already happened.
Mrs. Tucker informed Mr. Yancey that Routes 760 and 711 have not been
removed from the plan, but two projects with full rights-of-way dedicated and
available at this time have been moved ahead of them. She said this is to
make best use of the funding as it becomes available. She stated that two
additional gravel road projects have been added to the gravel road segment of
the Six Year Plan beyond the 1994-95 plan. She went on to say the current
advertisement date for Route 712 is October, 1996; the new advertisement date
for Route 711 is October, 1999; and the advertisement date for Route 760 is
October, 2000. She stated that the last gravel road project to show up in the
Six year Plan has an advertisement date of October, 2002. She said it is
hoped that the shift will allow time to obtain dedicated rights-of-way on
these two routes while proceeding with improving routes whicb have waited a
long time on the priority list with rights-of-way available. She stated that
while this plan keeps in line with the Comprehensive Plan, it also provides
incentive for property owners to work with VDOT, so rights-of-way will not
have to be purchased and construction costs can be kept down.
Mr. Tucker referred to Mr. Yancey's remarks about his preference for
having Route 760 improved ahead of Route 711. He said if this is the wish of
most of the people in that area, the funding could possibly be shifted.
Mrs. Thomas said she would like to have either a public hearing or an
informal hearing, because there are strong feelings pro and con about Route
760. She stated that people living on Route 711 think the road is very
dangerous, but it doesn't have a high traffic count. She suggested that some
time before 1998, these projects might be reversed, although she would not
like to make such a decision today.
Mr. Tucker said he was not suggesting that the priority of these two
routes be changed today, but it appears to him that there is some flexibility
between the projects.
Mrs. Tucker added that there is also a flexibility in the annual update,
so it should not be a problem where gravel roads are concerned to switch a
priority which is a full three years away.
Mrs. Thomas commented that everybody is glad Route 712 will be improved,
although there will probably be some rights-of-way problems there, as well as
some re-routing. She said she was told by someone that the road will go right
over her spring.
Mrs. Tucker announced that there is a project on the regular program for
Route 692, and this route runs from Route 29 to Route 712. She said it is not
fully scoped out yet, but there is $75,000 set up for this road, only a
portion of which has been allocated in the current Six Year Plan. She stated
that it has been on the priority list, but it has now moved into the plan.
She added that there will be some attention given to several routes in the
soUthern part of the cOUnty. ~
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17 ) ~ ~...~
Mr. Martin stated that there are several things to be decided by this
Board, such as the Pen Park issue, the Airport access, the Six Year Plan, as
well as the planning process for the Six Year Plan.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned that the Board needs to take action to set a
public hearing on the Six Year Plan, but she is unsure if the Supervisors need
to be making any decisions now.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Board members again that they need to authorize
the staff to move ahead with the application for the State Airport Access
Funds. He agreed, though, that the public hearing for the Six Year Plan is
also important, and he suggested either the March 6, 1996 day meeting or the
March 13, 1996 evening meeting for the public hearing.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas,
to hold the public hearing on the FY 1996-2002 State Secondary Road Plan on
March 13, 1996. The Board's current policy regarding the paving of gravel
roads is to be advertised as an item for discussion at this time also. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to endorse a
resolution applying for Airport Access Funds in the amount of $900,000. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
As to the request from the City to include the Pen Park/Rio Road
intersection in the plan, it was the consensus that staff evaluate this
intersection along with other already studied intersections for inclusion in
the next update of the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan priority list.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transportation Matters: Route 29 Bypass Study
Information.
4WRY. Tucker introduced Ms. Patsy Napier, of VDOT's Location and Design
section in Richmond. He said she will provide a brief introduction and will
introduce the consultants who will share the bypass study information.
Ms. Napier stated that she will report on the findings of the traffic
analysis developed by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc., for the
Route 29 bypass corridor, which is under study. She said the findings of the
study are being provided today for this Board's information. She added that
if based on this information or any other information which may come to light
in the future, intermediate interchanges are found to be needed on the bypass,
this request would need to come from the County officials to VDOT with
necessary action taken to have those interchanges included in the 2015 CATS
plan for the County. She said the VDOT staff members are aware of the
sensitivity surrounding this information, and appreciate the Board's patience
in the development of this information, as well as the assistance they have
~eceived from the County Planning Department to get through this process. She
informed Board members that the presentation will only last approximately ten
or fifteen minutes, and the beginning of the information may generate some
questions, but toward the end of the presentation, some of those questions may
be answered. She asked the Board members to listen to the complete presenta-
tion, and then if they have any questions, their questions will be answered.
She also informed the Supervisors that the first citizen information meeting
is scheduled for this project on Monday, March 11, 1996 at the Sheraton from
2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. She said it will be an open forum style with court
reporters present to take oral comments, as well as comment sheets for people
to provide written comments. She added that this notice will be sent out
soon. She then introduced Mr. Charles Kayton, Project Manager for this
project, whose office is located in the Virginia Beach office of Parsons,
Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc.
February 7, 1996 (Resular Day Meetins) O0001S
(Page 18)
Mr. Kayton introduced Mike Fendrick, and George Elixey, Transportation
Planners with his firm, who have been working on this study, as well as doing
a traffic analysis. He next asked Mr. Mike Fe~drick to provide findings to
date.
Mr. Fendrick said as far as i~term~diate interchanges are concerned, the
study group considered specifically Hydraulic and Barracks Roads, as well as
having both these interchanges together. He stated that there are some basic
assumptions in all of this, and the design year for the project has been
placed at 2022. He mentioned that there were some interchange concepts
involving the southern terminus developed a couple of years ago as part of the
EIS Study. He said the plan can basically fit this concept, but the biggest
challenge involves adequate weaving distance between the Ivy Road interchange
and the new interchange. However, he thinks, in general, the concept should
work.
He then referred to the EIS Study involving the northern terminus. He
said his group has gone into further study with traffic volume which indicates
an interchange is needed at this location, and has reached the conclusion that
it can be done in two phases. He stated that it could be constructed in Phase
I as a Route 29 bypass and Phase Two as a Meadow Creek Parkway which would
come directly into the terminus of the bypass. He said there would be an
effect both on the bypass itself, as well as an impact on local roads. He
went on to say since there is adequate capacity on the bypass without interme-
diate interchanges the basic rationale is that by attracting additional
capacity to the bypass, trips would be diverted from other local roads, such
as Route 29 and Hydraulic Road. He stated that there are two key components
relating to traffic operations on the bypass. He said the bypass with no
intermediate interchanges would carry approximately 21,000 vehicles. He added
that by putting in an interchange at Hydraulic Road only, the volumes of
traffic would increase by approximately 7,000 vehicles. He stated that an
interchange at Barracks Road would increase volumes less, particularly on the
northern end of the bypass, and putting in both interchanges is almost an
additive effect, except for the generation of some traffic between the
Barracks and Hydraulic Roads interchanges. He noted that there can be up to
12,000 trips on the southern portions of the bypass with both interchanges, so
in general, the Hydraulic Road interchange is more effective at attracting
trips to the bypass. He said more detail can be given to the Supervisors with
a handout which was going to be discussed, but in the interest of time, this
will probably not be done today.
He stated that some operations and safety design issues have been
identified, and particularly four lane freeways such as the bypass have been
shown to be adequate under all scenarios. He said there will be adequate
capacity and in either location a standard diamond interchange, which is the
lowest grade of interchange, will effectively serve the traffic. He explained
that the negative factor from an operations and safety perspective is that a
Barracks Road interchange could have some weaving problems with the new
southern terminus interchange, where it is closely located, as well as the Ivy
Road interchange. He then stated that the big purpose of this project is to
divert traffic from Route 29. He commented that today the traffic count is up
to 51,000 vehicles just south of Hydraulic Road, and it could reach 88,000 if
no bypass is constructed. He stated that after five to ten years of comple-
tion of the Route 29 eight lane section, it could be at capacity again, if no
bypass is provided. He next explained that providing a Hydraulic Road
interchange could divert an additional 5,000 vehicles, and this diversion
would increase volumes on the bypass and would preserve some capacity on ROute
29. He added, though, that even with this significant diversion of traffic,
by the year 2022, it is anticipated with the bypass and some intermediate
interchanges, the existing Route 29 would still be at capacity in the southern
portion. However, he said it has been concluded that it is important to get
as much traffic off of' Route 29 as possible He pOinted out that some of the
local roads were also considered as accessi_ng and paralleling Route 29, as
well as where the interchanges connect. He'~-~'~he Hydraulic Road inter-
change will reduce the volumes coming in on Hydraulic Road and Rio Road ~
4,000 to 5,000 vehicles which should help operations on Route 29, in addition
to the local roads. In terms of other local roads paralleling Route 29, the
biggest conclusion was that the Hydraulic Road interchange tends to serve the
majority of its traffic from the urban area with some traffic served from the
west, and a Barracks Road interchange almost exclusively serves traffic from
the west. He pointed out, however, that in no case did the bypass reduce the
number of lanes needed on the local road. He said it would improve the level
of service by a diversion of ten to 20 percent, but the number of lanes remain
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) ~[~0007~.9
(Page 19)
the same. He then mentioned the actual road where a new interchange would
connect, and he pointed out that there will be ~n increase in volume, because
more people are going to come to the location of the interchange. He stated
that there will be a fairly substantial increase in traffic for Hydraulic Road
just east of the bypass toward Charlottesville. He added that there would be
23,000 to 30,000 vehicles, and although this is significant, the four lane
section would be needed in either case and could be provided. He stated that
there possibly would be the need to widen portions of Barracks Road to the
west, which would not be needed if the interchange is not provided. He
explained that basically there are four conclusions. He said the northern
terminus interchange is needed, and its construction can be phased. He
remarked that it has also been concluded, from a purely traffic standpoint,
that the Hydraulic Road interchange provides significant traffic benefits, and
it is recommended from a traffic perspective that it be constructed as part of
the bypass. He explained that the reasons it is believed the Hydraulic Road
interchange should be built is because it provides a significant diversion of
traffic from Route 29; t~ere are pot~l funding advantages, particularly on
possibly a portion of Hydraulic Road just southrof .t~e bypass; it provides a
good spacing of interchanges; and it serves traffic fro~ both inside the urban
area as well as eliminating some of the vehicles coming from the west. He
said he would answer any questions from Board members.
Mrs. Thomas asked what is the significant regional funding advantage.
Mr. Fendrick said the traffic model is showing that volumes on portions of
Hydraulic Road, as a secondary road, are going to need a four lane road,
regardless. He added that these volumes are in the actual interchange area,
and they continue down to loop at Hydraulic and Rio Roads. He said this
project could probably be included with the bypass construction as opposed to
being a secondary roads project and having to compete for funds in that way.
Mrs. Humphris inquired as to what environmental studies are being done
as far as the potential for an environmental impact on the County's watershed
area. Mr. Kayton answered that the project was considered from an interchange
situation and traffic issues relative to that. He said environmental impacts,
construction costs or the overall costs of the project were not considered.
He explained that the interchange at Barracks Road was not recommended from a
traffic standpoint. He said, instead, it was recommended for the reasons
Mr. Fendrick had indicated. He stated that it is not his group's intent to go
any further with the study on interchanges without further direction from
County officials.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the watershed impact as it relates to the
Squirrel Ridge area. Mr. Kayton replied that some modifications to the
alignment may be required, but he doesn't know if there would be any addi-
tional impact to the watershed by a minor shift ~required for a diamond
interchange.
Mrs. Humphris asked when answers to such questions could be expected.
Mr. Kayton responded that this information is being provided to the County
officials relative to the traffic volumes. However, at this point, the
consultants are not advancing the intermediate interchange situation any
further.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if the citizens will have it made very clear to
them at the Citizens Information meeting on March 11, 1996, that this is
traffic data only, and the potential environmental impacts have not yet been
taken into consideration. Mr. Kayton answered affirmatively. He said this
information will be available for the citizens to view, and the study group's
representatives will answer questions relating to the findings of the traffic
study. ~ He said they will make it clear that they have not investigated any
construction implications or construction costs relative to interchanges or
environmental impacts.
Mrs. Humphris stated that the consultants seem to be making a recommen-
dation regardless of not having this information. Mr. Kayton said this
recommendation is based on the traffic studies. -~
Mr. Marshall announced that the Supervisors have turned down these
interchanges, and they are not about to change their decision. He said
neither is Bill Roudabush, Carter Myers nor the Governor of Virginia, and he
has talked to all three of these gentlemen during the last week. He stated
that he is not worried about action being taken against this Board's wishes
because the Governor has assured him that he would replace Board members of
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
( Pa~e 20)
000020
VDOT, if they went against this Board on this matter. He added that the
interchanges may have some merit, and if so, they can always be added after
the environmental impact studies have been done.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the Supervisors would be getting hard copies of
this information for themselves. Mr. Kayton answered, '~yes."
Mrs. Humphris apologized to the study group representatives. She
explained that it was not known until very late that they wanted to come to
this meeting, so not much time could be allowed on the agenda.
Mrs. Thomas referred to a rumor circulating in the community that the
proposed interchanges are only going to be put where there are on ramps and
not off ramps. She emphasized, though, that they are being proposed for both
types of ramps.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there were further questions for the consultants
before they leave the meeting.
No one asked any questions.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Transportation Matters: Resolution opposing
closing of VDOT maintenance facilities in Albemarle County.
Mr. Tucker summarized the Executive Summary relative to a resolution
opposing the closing of the VDOT maintenance shops located at Boyd's Tavern
and Free Union. He noted that the 1995 amendments to the Appropriations Act
recommend that these two VDOT facilities be downgraded to sub area headquar-
ters by June, 1996 with a long range plan of ceasing to use both of these
facilities by June, 1996. He said in reviewing this plan with the VDOT
Resident Engineer's office, it was projected that the proposed savings from
closing these two facilities would be minimal, but the impact on service would
be substantial. He noted the staff's recommendation that this Board adopt a
resolution opposing the downgrading of these two maintenance shops in
Albemarle County.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the resolution opposing the downgrading or closing of any area maintenance
shops in Albemarle County, and recommended that the resolution be forwarded to
the area legislators as well as the Secretary of Transportation, the Highway
Commissioner, and Governor Allen's Office.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman. ~
None.
RESOLUTION
W~EREAS, the 1995 Appropriations Act Amendments submitted to
the General Assembly recommended that two Virginia Department of
Transportation Maintenance Facilities located in Albemarle County
be downgraded to subarea headquarters by June, 1996; and
W~IEREAS, these maintenance facilities located in Boyd's
Tavern and Free Union serve a useful purpose in providing needed
highway maintenance services to much of the County's most topo-
graphically challenging roads; and
W~EREAS, the loss of an area superintendent in each of the
areas will result in greatly reduced management expertise at a
time when demands from the public and requirements to procure and
oversee contract labor to accomplish state goals continue to
increase; and
WI~EREAS, the amendments submitted recommend that the facili-
ties be closed, in the long term, as maintenance facilities in
favor of a new facility being constructed in the Route 29 North
Corridor; and
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000021
(Page 21)
WHEREAS, the capital costs involved with buildin9 a new
facility north of Charlottesville would be difficult to justify
and the locational and land use issues found to be challenging at
best.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervi-
sors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby urges the Virginia
General Assembly and the Virginia Department of Transportation not
to downgrade or close any area maintenance shops in Albemarle
County; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded
to Governor George Allen, Secretary of Transportation Robert E.
Martinez, Highway Commissioner David R. Gehr, Senator Emily
Couric, Delegate Mitchell Van Yahres and Delegate Peter T. Way.
Agenda Item No. 7d. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Perkins inquired as to the policy concerning painted lines on
secondary roads. He has been hearing comments from people about how helpful
painted lines are to them at night because they have been able to see the
road. He said they are talking in particular about Garth Road, because there
is such a difference between the area where the painted lines are located and
where there are none. It is really hard to see certain roads on dark, rainy
nights, particularly for older people.
Mrs. Tucker asked if the roads to which Mr. Perkins is referring,
currently have markings but they are faded. Mr. Perkins answered, "no."
Mrs. Tucker commented that the center line policy was recently changed
to cover all routes with a minimum '18 foot pavement width and a minimum 500
cars per day. She said this limit was dropped from a 1,000 vehicle per day
minimum requirement. She added that there was a substantial number of routes
throughout the County meeting this criteria, but she does not believe they
have yet received the center line markings. She said she will check on the
status of these roads with the Traffic Engineer's Office in Culpeper. She
also reported that this change in policy took place approximately a year and a
half ago, and the work has been put out to contract.
Mr. Perkins referred to some photographs of Sugar Hollow he had already
shared with Mrs. Tucker, but he said he was sure the other Board members would
like to see them. He appreciates Mrs. Tucker's letter indicating the condi-
tion of this road after the recent flood. He noted that the photographs were
taken by Meredith Shifflett, who lives at Crozet, the day of the flood.
Mr. Martin mentioned a curve at the church on Proffit Road. He asked if
some sand could be dropped off there, if there is a truck in that area. He
said a lot of wrecks are happening there.
Mrs. Tucker responded that if Mr. Martin is talking about the current
conditions as a result of the ice and snow, he can consider it done.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that she heard comments from residents of Route 11~
about how well this road is maintained. She said they are wondering, though,
if it is possible to have mirrors installed on some of the blind curves. She
asked if VDOT is responsible for installing these types of mirrors.
Mrs. Tucker answered that the mirrors are put up privately, although she
knows of some instances where they are used.
Next, Mrs. Thomas discussed the end of Morgantown Road near Mechum's
River where there was a fatal accident. She said people continue to be very
concerned about this intersection and how it can be improved.
Mrs. Tucker responded that the VDOT staff has recently gathered accident
history in this area and is looking at potential improvements to the intersec-
tion whether they are improvements to Route 250 or to the secondary route turn
lanes. She reported that sight distance requirements are met, and the VDOT
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000022
(Page 22) ~ ~..~.~,~ - ......
staff is basically assessing the accident data to find out the problem so it
can be addressed with modifications. She does not believe there has been much
discussion of it during the past three to four weeks on this issue, but the
accident information is available. She stated that she will share this
information, along with other Ivy area updates, with Board members in writing
prior to the next day meeting.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he has received some calls regarding the road
going into the Keene Landfill. He said the creek has to be crossed to get to
the last three houses adjacent to the dump, and the creek has washed out.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he has noticed lines added to Hillsdale Road
separating it into a four lane road between Branchlands and Rio Road. He
said, though, there were markers going from Branchlands to Greenbrier and the
lines were not installed there. He wondered if the road is narrower there,
and the lines will not be installed.
Mrs. Tucker answered that this transition was meant for a four lane
roadway to go into a two lane roadway. She explained that the section from
Branchlands over to Greenbrier was formerly used as a two lane roadway.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that some drivers are trying to use two lanes
on the downward section of this roadway, and there is enough room, but people
are feeling crushed when it happens. He said he does not know how to get
around that.
Mrs. Tucker stated that pavement markings were in mind with this
concern, but perhaps some signing or modification of the pavement markings is
also needed. She said the VDOT staff will continue to assess the situation.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that something be done to clearly show drivers
that only one lane is available. He next mentioned that a good portion of Old
Brook Road developed pavement breaks between the first and second snow. He
said he believes the VDOT staff was notified because some crusher run was
installed. He stated that there were some rather large pavement breakup
areas, and the crusher run worked very well, although it was only a temporary
solution. He said it served the community well that this was done, because it
was a very dangerous situation created by freezing and thawing.
Mrs. Tucker recalled the VDOT staff looking at this same stretch of road
last fall because of patching, etc., that was needed there.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that the road has rather significantly deteriorated,
and the VDOT workers acted very quickly to make it serviceable when weather
took its toll. He said appreciates this service.
Mrs. Tucker indicated that the VDOT staff will make sure the overlay
schedules which either surface treat roads fully or put new plant mix on roads
are in line with what the weather has done to the roads. She said she has
already noticed that certain roads which looked better than others before the
weather are now in worse shape. She said VDOT's top of the line maintenance
activity will have to be considered carefully.
Mr. Martin pointed out that Mrs. Tucker and her staff need to be
congratulated for going through the period of time during the last couple of
weeks. He said he can imagine, due to the amount of calls he has received,
how many calls the VDOT staff has received. He stated that he thinks the
roads were put in fairly good shape rather quickly.
Mr. Marshall remarked that the roads were put back in order fairly
quickly after the last snow.
Mr. Martin agreed. He said it took awhile after the first snow, but
sometimes people want things to happen immediately. He emphasized that 20
plus inches of snow doesn't just disappear. He added that he appreciates the
effort the VDOT staff put into this activity, and even though during the first
snow his road wasn't plowed until the third day, he understands the situation.
February 7I 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000~
(Page 23) ~
Mrs. Tucker remarked that she appreciates Mr. Martin's understanding of
the situation. She said she will pass his message along to other members of
her staff. ~
Mrs. Humphris mentioned a bill in the General Assembly, HJ 222, repre-
senting a request by Albemarle County from a few years ago. She said the bill
relates to how VDOT officials select the roads where new routes will be built,
as well as the public hearing process, etc. She understands it would possibly
help the future of this bill, if this Board would ask its delegation to be
sure to vote in favor of it.
Mr. Tucker responded that the County's liaison, Ms. Fronfelder has
already been asked to follow up on this bill.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the bill is out of committee, but JLARC is
conducting the study of route selection, etc., instead of VDOT.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it would help if this Board sent a re-enforcement
of support to the County's delegation. She inquired if it was the consensus
of the Board to do so, and she indicated that there was such a consensus.
Mr. Tucker agreed this could certainly be done.
Mrs. Humphris next discussed a letter from John Moore relative to the
Routes 22/231 issue. She said she heard on the radio this morning that there
had been another accident on Route 22 where a tanker truck overturned. She
noted that Mr. Moore's letter includes a copy of his response to VDOT Commis-
sioner ~'s letter to Delegate Van Yahres about VDOT's intention not to
restrict tractor trailer use of Routes 231 and 22. She said Mr. Moore
expresses disappointment in the content of the letter and the fact that they
have seen no results of any kind from all of the requests for making this a
safer road for people to travel. She said these people believe that VDOT's
investigation was incomplete and its conclusion shortsighted. She noted that
the request from Mr. Moore is that the Board of Supervisors respond to Mr.
~rWs letter and make a follow-up request to the Commonwealth Transportation
Board for a restriction. She said she has copies of all of the correspon-
dence.
Mr. Martin stated that he has not received such a letter from Mr. Moore.
Mr. Tucker indicated that he did not recall receiving the letter,
either. He asked if County officials were sent copies of Mr. Moore's letter.
Mrs. Humphris responded that the letter does not indicate any copies
being sent to anybody, and it doesn't designate her as Chairman of the Board
~%~of Supervisors, although this may have been the intent. She went on to
say
she has copies of Mr. Moore's letter to Mr. ~ of January 16 and Mr. Van
Yahres letter to Mr. Moore of December 28, enclosing his letter from Mr. Geer.
Mr. Martin inquired if the letter from Mr. ~=er was to Mitch Van Yahres.
Mrs. Humphris answered, "yes."Mr. Martin asked if this letter was copied to
anyone. Mrs. Humphris replied, "no."
Mr. Tucker said the staff will be happy to prepare a response for this
Board to endorse.
Mrs. Humphris indicated she would give Mr. Tucker the file so the staff
would be able to see the whole situation. She said she really believes, based
on what has happened, that the matter is deserving of this Board's input. She
stated that the letter from the VDOT Commissioner does not shed any light nor
does it help anything at all.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission has developed a self-guided tour of rural roads called, "Can You
Get There from Here." She said it shows how Albemarle County's problems are
connected by roads to similar types of problems in outlying counties. She
said she hasn't taken the tour by vehicle, but the descriptions in the booklet
are clear. She asked Mr. Tucker to have copies of the booklet made for all
Board members.
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
0000 4
Agenda Item No. 8. Public hearing to solicit public input on local
community development and housing needs and potential projects in relation to
Community Development Block Grant funding for a project in the County.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 22 and January 29, 1996)
Mr. Benish said a meeting is required to solicit public input regarding
potential projects to be funded through a Virginia Community Development Block
Grant. He noted that the County has historically focused the use of Block
Grant funds on housing rehabilitation projects, and such funds have been used
on one occasion for site development regarding an affordable housing subdivi-
sion project. He pointed out that the staff has provided four projects which
could be pursued. He said one is a housing rehabilitation project conducted
by AHIP proposed for the Esmont area; another is for Crozet community improve-
ments; a third is for an Agricultural Center/Farmer's Market; and the fourth
is for a community center in the Whitewood Road/Commonwealth Drive area near a
Section 8 housing project. He stated that after receiving public comments,
the staff will provide this Board its recommendations on a proposed project.
Ms. Teresa Tapscott noted that the County has applied for these funds
for the past two years for the same project in Esmont, and neither proposal
has been funded. However, she said she would point out a few things to make
the project a bit stronger this year, if the County officials choose to go
forward with it. She stated that she understands the County has a group
called "Their Neighbors Team" headed by Lee Catlin, and much of the activity
has been aimed at the Esmont Community, because there is a significant need
there. She said this effort on the part of the County will go a long way with
the' Department of Housing and Community Development since it shows a true
interest on the part of the County in that neighborhood.
Secondly, she noted that the scoring has been changed this year, and it
actually awards additional points to communities which involve nonprofits in
the activity for which they are applying. She said both A~IP and Habitat for
Humanity would be participating in this particular proposal. She also
mentioned County approval of a rezoning so Habitat could develop ten units of
affordable home ownership housing in the Esmont community which is in the
targeted area. She said A~IP would follow through with the rehabilitation
activities. She added that additional points are scored for both the non-
profit involvement and the provision of home ownership opportunities. She
said these are two changes which occurred in the program design this year.
She went on to say a third feature is that the Department of Housing and
Community Development is requiring that housing programs be loan programs as
opposed to grant programs as they have been in the past, so this would afford
the County the opportunity to actually have the Block Grant funds flow back
for future housing rehabilitation activities. She said some would be deferred
loans and may not come back until the property is transferred, but there is a
potential in the future for money coming back to the County.
Mr. Marshall said there are some block grant funds available for people
who cannot afford to access public utilities, such as water. He noted that in
the Oak Hill area, there are a lot of working families who have been living
there for many years. He pointed out that their homes are paid for, but they
don't have any income except for social security. He said Mr. Brent has
indicated that these funds are available, but the people would have to work
through AHIP because they are not available directly to the Service Authority.
He asked Ms. Tapscott's help with this matter.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if Ms. Tapscott is aware of such grants. Ms.
Tapscott said she is not familiar with grants for public utility fees.
Mr. Benish stated that Mr. Brent has discussed with him the possibility
of a block grant application for public utility fees, but unfortunately block
grant funds are typically not used for this. He said they are more oriented
toward construction improvements, so a County application for funds to be used
to offset fees charged to applicants really does not fall into a good competi-
tive project for a Community Development Block Grant. He added that there
might be other sources, though, which could be used to assist people with
their public utility fees.
Mr. Brent arrived at the meeting, and Mr. Marshall informed him that he
was trying to find a way the Block Grant funds could be used to help people
living in Oak Hill with connection fees to public utilities. He said he
wondered how these people could work through A/qIP to get some of this money,
since it is not available directly to the Service Authority.
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25) ...... _....~.~., ~
000025
Mr. Brent answered that he would very much like to work with the AHIP
staff to try to find some relief for people with the projects to be undertaken
during the next several years. He said Oak Hill is one of those projects.
Ms. Tapscott indicated that she has access to the state's indoor
plumbing program which may be a resource that could help these people. Mr.
Brent noted that assistance was provided to some people in Crozet a few years
back. ~
Ms. Tapscott stated that the problem with the particular pool of block
grant money used in Crozet previously is that it can be used to actually
install the laterals and do the work, but it is strictly prohibitive to be
used for fees. She said another source has to be found to help people pay
their fees.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the indoor plumbing project to which Ms.
Tapscott referred. She asked if these funds can be used for fees. Ms.
Tapscott said she would check into the matter, and she believes they can be
used for such things. Mrs. Humphris stated that it would be good to find out
what is available for assisting people with connecting fees.
Mr. Brent said he hopes there is some way to meet these people's needs,
and there are other angles to explore. He added that it would certainly be a
needed benefit to certain people with which the Service Authority staff will
be dealing during the next several years.
Mr. Marshall wondered if action ms needed from the Board of Supervisors
in order for the Service Authority to pursue this matter. Mr. Brent answered
that he does not need the Board of Supervisors' action, but he does not know
what is needed as far as the grant is concerned.
Mr. Tucker remarked that AHIP and the Service Authority staffs need to
work together, and if they run into problems, then they can come back to the
Board of Supervisors.
No other comments were made relative to the Block Grant public hearing,
so Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin asked if the projects need to be prioritized. Mr. Benish
replied that the recommendation is to pursue the AHIP project, because it is
the most competitive and has the best opportunity to meet the competitive
requirements of the Block Grant Program. He said the projects are already
listed in a priority' order based on the feasibility of funding and the
opportunity to provide improvements in the area. He went on to say that most
of the other projects have some limitations, so if this Board wants any of the
other projects to be pursued, then he recommends a planning grant process. He
explained that this would require an application for monies to do the appro-
priate canvassing and surveying to determine the appropriateness, feasibility
and design of the project.
Mrs. Thomas wondered if action is needed from this Board to urge Mr.
Benish's staff to pursue the planning grant. Mr. Benish replied that such
action is needed if that is the Board's directi6n. He recalled that the
Whitewood project was handled in this manner last year. He said the Supervi-
sors were given the preliminary evaluation as it was initially scoped, but it
then came back to them with the recommendation to not go forward at that time.
He added that this Board needs to direct his staff, and the staff will
investigate how to proceed with this project.
Mrs. Thomas commented that they all look like good, needed projects.
She said she recently received some phone calls about the Agricultural
Farmer's Market. She then made a motion to proceed with the CDBG application
for Project Number One involving housing rehabilitation in Esmont with AHIP's
participation.
Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. He went on to say that there are
people who have lived most of their adult life and have retired and are on
social security. He said $2,000 is a lot of money to connect to a utility
system. He said these people thought that the other system would never be
taken away from them, but it was, and now they are being forced to connect to
a Service Authority system, He stated that some of these people will be going
without food on the table.
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000026
(Page 26)
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Benish was indicating that these types of funds may
not be available. He ~added that the deciSion then has to be made as to
whether or not this Board wants to subsidize such fees for the Service
Authority. He emphasized that this action would get into another issue. Mr.
Marshall said he still wants to pursue the matter to see if there are any
federal funds available.
Mr. Benish stated that it is very clear that block grant funds can't be
used to pay for fees. He said other sources of funds will have to be pursued.
Mr. Tucker explained that Mr. Benish will investigate to see if there
are other sources besides the Community Development Block Grant funds. He
said if there are, Mr. Benish will come back to this Board with the informa-
tion. Mr. Tucker indicated that if not, this issue will have to be addressed
at the local level.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that she does not want to mislead anyone that what
this Board is doing today will help with the situation. She said, though, the
request sounds as though it has a better chance this time to be adopted. She
added that the County has not had success with this grant before, and she
appreciates being told why there is a better chance this year.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
(Note: At 10:32 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:41 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 9. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Benish reported that the primary purpose of this work session is to
give the Board an overview of the changes of the Land Use Plan recommended by
the Planning Commission. He said the time would be used primarily to provide
the Supervisors an opportunity to discuss utility issues or questions they may
have. He noted that Mr. Petrini, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority, and Mr. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County
Service Authority are in attendance. He said these two gentlemen will provide
some information to the Supervisors, and they will also be available for
questions. He then summarized the background in the land use Comprehensive
Plan review. He recalled that when the process was begun almost two summers
ago, two areas were prioritized to focus on as the phase one and highest
priority areas to consider in the Comprehensive Plan review. He said one area
was the development of an economic development policy, and the second was to
update the County's land use plan. He stated that the CommisSion completed
these two portions of the plan in December, and the Land Use Plan is now in
the Supervisors' hands for consideration. He then highlighted some of the
major changes recommended by the Planning Commission in the Land Use Plan. He
added that this Board had been provided a staff report in the packets on
Friday that was incomplete, but the Clerk has distributed a revised copy of
this information.
He then discussed the changes which are most significant. He said the
Commission members are very eager to let the Supervisors know where they stand
on these recommendations, because they were essential to their consideration
of the revised Land Use Plan. He stated that there is a new emphasis to
encourage greater utilization of developable land within the designated growth
areas. He also pointed out that the Planning Commission believes the planning
time frame of 20 years is too short for adequate utility, facility and
transportation planning, but too long for Growth Area designation. He said it
is, therefore, recommended that consideration be given to structuring this
chapter with two different time frames -- a short term five to ten years
"development plan" and a long term 20 to 50 years "horizon plan." He ex-
plained that it is not recommended that this be undertaken during this
Comprehensive Plan review, but it is recommended as a priority study item in
the Action Agenda. He said the staff will determine if this is a feasible
approach to planning. He stated that these are the primary and emphasized
recommendations of the Planning Commission, and all other changes will come
from these two recommendations.
000, ,
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Bowerman recalled that the Code indicates a 20 year time frame, but
it doesn't say it has to be limited to 20 years. Mr. Benish agreed. He then
discussed the other major changes as they were shown in the attachment to the
Executive Summary. He said he wanted'to focus most of the discussion on
utility issues, and he noted that the Authority representatives would be more
appropriate to speak on these issues. He pointed out that the section on
utilities shown in the draft Land Use Plan begins on Page 70, and it reflects
some of the changes he has specifically identified.
Mr. Brent said he would give a brief history of how this area's utili-
ties systems have developed. He first introduced Paul Shoop, the Service
Authority's Director of Engineering, and Art Petrini, the Executive Director
of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. He said Mr. Petrini will be
discussing the future water supply, etc., and Mr. Brent will discuss the
history of the urban water system. Mr. Brent stated that he would concentrate
on the urban water system today, since there are no significant changes in the
Crozet growth area, and Scottsville is no longer a growth area. He stated
that in the period prior to the Civil War, the people in Charlottesville
relied on scattered wells and springs to get their water. He said there was
one common town well located in the middle of Main Street at the top of
Vinegar Hill, and it is still there, and serves as the foundation of the
Lewis and Clark statue currently located there. He noted that to the west of
the town was the University of Virginia, and it relied on springs and wells
for its drinking water. He said around 1850, the University developed a
reservoir at the foot of Lewis Mountain near the Chamberlain place, and from
there water was carried through a two and one-half inch pipe to an open pond
just below what is now the University Chapel and the gymnasium. He explained
that from this point there was a steam pump to pump water from the pond to a
storage tank in the dome of the Rotunda. He said there was a colorful
Irishman who operated the steam pump, who had a clever way of using a stick on
a float. He added that by watching the stick go up and down, he would know
when to shut the pump on and off.
It wasn't until 1875 that the City Council hired an engineer to develop
a municipal water system for the City, although it wasn't until 1884 that the
City officials actually implemented the recommendations of the engineer. He
stated that the first reservoir was developed west of the City at the foot of
Ragged Mountain. He remarked that with the increased supply of water, the
growing Population in Charlottesville required a community sewer system. He
stated that in the late 1880s to the early 1890s the City Council hired a
prominent New York engineer to develop the simple sewer system for the City,
and portions of this system still exist today and are in use. He said there
is no historical reference to any treatment, but obviously the sewer system
was piped to a stream and discharged in that fashion for a number of years.
He noted that between 1884 when the Ragged Mountain reservoir was developed
and the 1920s, the population grew and the demand on the water source grew but
the quality of water declined, so in 1921 the~City constructed on Observatory
Mountain the first water treatment plant for the City. He said this is the
site of the present water treatment plant, and it is an important treatment
source for the City and the urban area. He went on to say that in the years
between the building of the Observatory plants, in World War II the City
developed another reservoir at Ragged Mountain, as well as the reservoir at
Sugar Hollow. He pointed out that in the 1950s the City Council recognized
the need for more water. He said the next available source of water was the
South Fork of the Rivanna River, so the South Fork reservoir was developed,
and a water treatment plant was built there.
By this time, Mr. Brent explained that the City had begun extending its
utility lines into the County and County citizens were being served with City
water. He said in 1963 the City annexed a good portion of the developed urban
area around the City, taking with it a good portion of the County's revenue.
He stated that the County reacted in 1964 by creating the Albemarle County
Service Authority to begin developing a water and sewer system in the County
with the hopes of stifling the City's future efforts in annexation. He added
that the County officials and Service Authority staff rapidly went about
trying to develop a water system. He noted that there were a number of
communities in the County which had privately owned and operated water
systems, and the County acquired the water systems in Carrsbrook, Northfields,
Woodbrook, Berkeley, West Leigh, Flordon and Colthurst, as well as others. He
said the County got a lot of customers, but very little water. He stated that
the Service Authority finally decided to build a water treatment plant at the
North Fork' of the Rivanna River at Camelot which consisted of a treatment
plant, a water storage tank on Piney Mountain and a cistern tank on another
000028
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
mountain with a pipe line between the two. He remarked that many places
paralleled the City system, and an attempt was made to pair some of these west
to Ivy into the water system. He said once the system was built it was
discovered it was less expensive to buy water from the City than to use the
County's own systems rather than connecting subdivisions such as Carrsbrook
and Woodbrook into the system which had just been built. He said master
meters were put on the City line, and water was purchased from the City. He
added that while the Service Authority was moving forward with the development
of the utilities system, the State Water Control Board stepped in and told the
City and County they shared a common resource, which is the Rivanna River and
they would be required to develop a common plan for jointly using this
resource.
In 1973, the City, County and the Albemarle County Service Authority
created the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. He said this Authority was
charged with providing drinking water to the City and County and to treat the
waste water coming from these two areas. He stated that this arrangement is
referred to as Rivanna being the wholesaler of utility services, and the City
and County being the retailers. He commented that at this time, the City also
agreed to sell to the Service Authority its customers and its pipe lines
within the County, which the Service Authority acquired. He said now the City
is confined to serving its customers within the City limits and the Service
Authority serves the area outside of the City limits. He stated that then the
merging of the systems began, with the North Rivanna system being tied into
the City system at a number of places. He noted that the system the County
built operated at a much higher pressure than the City's so there had to be
pressure reducing stations installed and a number of mechanical changes made,
etc., and today the systems operate as one. He noted that since this time a
number of changes and improvements have been made to the transmission and
distribution system in the County. He explained that the filter plants at
Observatory Mountain and South Rivanna have been modernized and enlarged; the
transmission lines from the South Rivanna treatment plant at Pantops called
the eastern loop was constructed; and a 5,000,000 gallon storage tank was
constructed on Pantops which allows better service into the system and to the
extending growth area on the eastern side of the City, as well as moving the
water to the south side. He said the entire urban area will be looped with a
water line. He added that the loop is complete, except for the last section
of it which goes to Route 20 over to Route 250. He said from a hydraulic
standpoint, this primarily benefits the City and not the County, and the final
section is dependent on the City officials asking that it be put in place. He
mentioned that a new 3,000,000 gallon storage tank was constructed on Observa-
tory Mountain; a southern loop water line was developed and a storage facility
on Avon Street Extended. He also explained how a line was constructed from
the Observatory treatment plant, around the southern Perimeter of Interstate
64 terminating at the new storage facility on Avon Street Extended. He said
this moved water into the developing area south of Interstate 64, such as Mill
Creek and Redfields, etc. He Commen~d that ~mprovements have been made to
the area west of the City with a 500,000 gallon storage tank being constructed
on Lewis Mountain and a network of transmission lines to improve and enhance
the area west of the City limits to the vicinity of Farmington. He noted that
most recently Rivanna has completed construction of an urban transmission line
which brings water from the South Fork Rivanna plant into the heart of the
City allowing the movement of water between the two urban water treatment
plants. He said in the event there is a catastrophic failure at one, there
will be the capability of supplying the area from the other plant.
Mr. Brent then referred to the sewer system where he said a number of
improvements have been made. He mentioned the Crozet interceptor where a
sewer line was constructed from Charlottesville all the way to Crozet. He
said the Service Authority has installed a collector system at Crozet to
serve, at that time, over 700 homes although many more are being served at the
present time. He stated that interceptors were installed along the Rivanna
River, and he pointed these out on a map. He remarked that sub collection
lines have been installed since then. A few years ago the Service Authority
extended the interceptor to serve Mill Creek and the area developing south of
Interstate 64. He said, unfortunately, at the time when the southern sewer
interceptor was constructed, the planners did not consider much development
south of the City so all of the capacity has been used with just one develop-
ment that was planned into the southern line. He stated that it is recognized
this has to be replaced, and although one section has already been replaced,
other segments of the Moore's Creek sewer line will have to be enlarged and
paralleled or replaced in the years to come. He said, in cooperation with the
Airport development, recently a sewer interceptor was extended to the Airport
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000029
(Page 29) . .~.~..-. .....
in order to serve it. He remarked that the remaining capacity was acquired
at the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant and it was made available to the
developing properties in the vicinity of Camelot. He noted that water and
sewer systems were installed to Glenmore to serve this development, although
it was done at the developer's expense. He emphasized that capacity was
provided to serve the entire Rivanna growth area. He mentioned that both
Rivanna and the Service Authority have a number of other projects on the
drawing board which are intended to meet the future development in the County,
and he feels comfortable that both Authorities are looking toward the future
and are prepared to meet the impact of growth in the County. He then remarked
that the water system was obviously developed so development up and down Route
29 could be accommodated. He pointed out that all of the water treatment
plants are within sight of Route 29, and this gives the flexibility of serving
areas west, east and south of Route 29. He noted that there is adequate
capacity in the Rivanna interceptor, and although there is a capacity problem
at the Moore's Creek interceptor, funds are in the long range Capital Improve-
ment Program to meet the additional capacity required there.
He then mentioned the growth area expansion now being considered south
of existing Neighborhoods Four and Five, which are probably the most remote
from existing facilities. He stated that he would be happy to answer ques-
tions.
Mr. Marshall commented that it seems to him the Planning Commission went
in the wrong direction. He asked if the Commissioners developed the growth
plan themselves, instead of following the planners recommendation. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that the planners considered two general areas, which were
north and south, to try to accommodate additional growth expansion. He said
the commissioners asked for positive and negative reasons for going in both
directions, but the planners had initially recommended both areas. He said,
though, the final staff report that went to the Planning Commission favored
the north over the south.
Mr. Benish stated that it is complicated as to how the Planning Commis-
sion came to this conclusion. He said if the Commission minutes are read,
they will show that there was not a strong consensus on this matter. He said
it took a number of votes to finally determine the acreage and location. He
said his staff had recommended two areas which were the Piney Mountain and
Hollymead area, as well as a southern area. He said his staff felt that a 20
year planning period and beyond was needed to address the long term needs and
the need for predictability of the plan. He said the Commission was concerned
that the total acreage was too much, as well as the location. He stated that
the commissioners asked the staff to prioritize a much smaller area which
would be as low as a 300 acre expansion to replace capacity for the capacity
lost in the villages. He noted that the village scale depicts one unit per
acre, and the neighborhood density in a growth area is three to six units per
acre. He said this is the same residential holding capacity with a lot less
acreage. He added that the staff prioritized a Piney Mountain expansion up to
800 acres.
Mr. Marshall asked how the water and sewer services are supplied for the
Piney Mountain area. Mr. Benish replied that Piney Mountain uses the Camelot
treatment plant on the North Fork of the Rivanna River which is adjacent to
that area. Mr. Marshall inquired if this area has an abundant water and sewer
supply. Mr, Benish answered that the area uses a sewer package plan which
will need to be updated to accommodate the existing growth area at some point
in time, but there is a system adjacent to that area. He said water lines
also run along Route 29 North. He next explained that the other prioritized
area was a 300 to 800 acres area along Fifth Street Extended which included
property south of Redfields. He stated that the total recommendation was for
approximately 3,200 acres but the staff felt approximately 800 to 1,600 acres
was probably the best of the recommendations.
Mr. Marshall asked how efficient is the water supply to the area south
of Redfields. Mr. Benish responded that this area, in the short term, is much
more remote to existing systems because much of the existing growth area
hasn't been built to the fringes yet. He said to get to development at these
areas, lines will have to go through undeveloped areas, and the extension of
lines will have to be much longer than in some other areas. He stated that a
20 year time frame is being considered, and accommodating growth over the next
few years is not being anticipated. He said it is expected that this area is
one where services will be provided and, therefore, at some point, services
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
( Page 30 ) ~.,~.,?: ~ -~..,~-?~- ~.~-~?~ ~
000030
will be nearby. However, he reiterated that services ~n this area are much
more remote than they are in the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that she does not know the zmpact of the word,
~remote," as opposed to a sewage treatment plant which needs more capacity.
She said they both sound similar in constraints to her, and she wondered if
one is a great deal larger constraint than the other. Mr. Brent replied that
on the north end of the County, the constraint is the existing sewage treat-
ment plant. He said the plant has a capacity of 365,000 gallons a day and
currently operates at a third of its capacity. He noted that this plant is
going to have to be removed and an alternate means of providing a permanent
sewage solution will have to be undertaken to meet the demands of the existing
growth area.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that this zs going to be done anyway. Mr.
Brent agreed that it has to be done.
Mrs. Thomas said she was referring to the size of the constraints
because this will also be impacted by the University Real Estate Foundation's
project. Mr. Brent concurred. However, he stated that it is impossible to
know what to plan for unless it is known how big the service area is going to
be.
Mr. Marshall reiterated that the treatment plant will be upgraded
anyway, and it zs just a matter of how much it will be upgraded. He said
there is also a shorter distance to run the line in this area. Mr. Brent
replied that this depends on which option is chosen, and there are a number of
options. However, he emphasized that each option is dependent on how big the
growth area is going to be.
Mr. Marshall stated that if this area was approved, it would be a
shorter distance to run the lines as opposed to the southern end of the
County. He said, though, he doesn't know about the availability of land in
the southern areas. Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Brent discuss the options.
Mr. Brent responded that one option is to put in a pumping station where
the existing plant is located and pump back to Hollymead. He said this is a
simple, easy solution which will take care of everything from the existing
plant west of Route 29, as well as the existing growth area south of Route 29.
However, he stated that it won't handle any additional growth. He explained
that the solution to this problem is to put in a pumping station further down
the Rivanna River and pump back to Hollymead. He said the ultimate solution
would be to send the interceptor all the way up the river, which is the most
expensive option. He stated that this will be a decision of economics when it
has to be made, as far as what can be afforded, as well as the reasonable
expectancy of what might develop in that area: He next mentioned the south
side where the limitation is the pipe line. He indicated that in order to
serve all of the additional area, the section of pipe which was undersized in
1975, will have to be expanded.
Mrs. Thomas wondered how this fits in with the need to expand the size
of the pipe coming from Crozet and Morey Creek.
Mr. Marshall asked how the new high school will affect the pipe line.
Mr. Brent replied that the high school won't affect the pipe line. He said it
is below the undersized line and connects to the line which has already been
enlarged. He went on to say that originally the flow from Crozet was intended
to come around the north side of town and tie into the Rivanna' interceptor,
but this route was not constructed. He said the Crozet waste comes around the
south side of town which has contributed to the need to enlarge the pipe.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that this pipe will have to be enlarged if Crozet
grows no matter how soon growth is designated to the south. Mr. Brent
concurred that the buildout of Crozet will prompt the need to enlarge this
particular pipe.
Mr. Perkins inquired if the pipe will have to be enlarged a long
distance from Crozet. Mr. Brent answered that there is one section of pipe
which will have to be enlarged between Ivy and Charlottesville, as well as the
line around the southern perimeter of the City.
Mr. Perkins then asked if there is any connection between the water
supplies for Crozet and the Charlottesville urban areas. Mr. Brent answered
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31) .............
00003
affirmatively. Mr. Perkins said he has been told that there is a possibility
Con Agra might double the use of Crozet's water in the next several years.
Mr. Brent replied that Con Agra is increasing its demand, but it won't double
during the next few years. He said plans are on the drawing board now to
expand this plant. He stated that Con Agra will be using more water in the
future, but it will be using less than the previous users of the plant which
were Del Monte and Morton's. He added that it is anticipated the supply in
Crozet is capable of meeting the ultimate buildout of the growth area.
Mrs. Thomas asked at what point will this section of the Crozet inter-
ceptor have to be enlarged, and she pointed out that there are planning
options. She said there doesn't have to be Croze5 growth at that point, if
enlarging the interceptor is a major undertaking that otherwise wouldn't be
undertaken. She stated that she doesn't have a feeling for the complexity or
the difficulty of any of these things, and she doesn't know whether the
Supervisors should be trying to keep the Crozet interceptor from being
enlarged, so they would not encourage Crozet to build to its ultimate capac-
ity. She wondered how the Supervisors can judge the magnitude of this
discussion. She stated that she has no idea how to react to this conversation
because it all sounds difficult to her. She said growth is going to entail
costs also, so it appears to her to be a toss up. She asked if this type of
thinking is naive.
Mr. Tucker responded that the staff will have to study this matter with
the help of Mr. Benish to give the Supervisors some analysis of what the costs
and trade-off would be. He said Mrs. Thomas has raised a good question
relating to whether to limit the current design of buildout for Crozet in
order to avoid the cost of upgrading the interceptor. He stated that unless
Mr. Benish already has such information, his staff may have to bring this
information back to this Board.
(Mr. Bowerman left at 11:22 a.m.)
Mr. Benish stated that the Comprehensive Plan lays out the schematic of
where anticipated growth will be accommodated, and there will be financial
costs to doing that. He said as these points of costs are reached, the
Comprehensive Plan will have to be examined again to see if changes can be
made that will create a better financial situation. He added that the
direction now is to try to accommodate what is anticipated for growth over the
next 20 years in the County, which has been accomplished through selected
growth areas. He stated that if the Crozet growth area is limited, it will
have to be replaced somewhere else in the County, and this will also have a
cost. He agreed with Mr. Tucker that an analysis would have to be done,
although an important question is when should it be done. He asked if the
analysis should be done as the threshold is approached in Crozet, or should it
be done now.
Mrs. Thomas commented that she sees all of these things indicating that
wherever there is growth, there will be expensive utility aspects. She said
she doesn't see any one of them as being controlled by one thing anymore than
any other.
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 11:24 a.m.)
Mr. Benish stated that, given the County's Growth Management Policy, as
much growth as possible should be encouraged in growth areas. He said if all
of these growth areas are served with public sewer services, extensive costs
can be anticipated. He went on to say that although the expansion areas might
be remote to existing services, the focus was to consider existing growth
areas and areas where there could be reasonable extensions of services. He
added that this is one of the reasons why other expansions to Crozet were
considered. He said although other possible study areas were considered,
other factors were also involved, but utilities played an important role as
far as which areas were chosen to consider. He remarked that there will
absolutely be significant costs. He noted that one of staff's concerns at the
outset in looking at the Land Use Plan was to address the long term picture in
Piney Mountain and the Camelot Treatment Plant. He stated that this is a
chicken and egg type of thing in how to plan for the ultimate system, but an
alternate picture was needed as far as what is going to happen in that area.
He said, otherwise, the risk would be one of making an incremental improvement
and using the money inefficiently. He said there are strong public feelings
about continuing the growth on Route 29 North, and there are also the traffic
concerns. He stated that some people wonder if the traffic problems are equal
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
0000;32
or a greater concern than providing utilities. He pointed out that the
Planning Commission had a very difficult time grappling with this issue, and
he thinks there was sentiment with the Commission that ultimately there will
be expansion there, but there were concerns in designating that area. He
referred to the concept of having a bigger picture of where growth could take
place, which allows 40 to 50 year utility planning and 20 to 30 years trans-
portation planning of possible scenarios of growth. He said in this manner it
is possible to get a better picture of what the implications are for utility
systems.
Mr. Petrini said the past, present and near term future have been
discussed. He told the Board members that he will make a few comments about
the near term future, as well as the far term future, and he would refer to
some long capabilities available. He went on to say there are three require-
ments to meet the demands of growth. He said ~safe yield" means how much
water is there to draw from safely, and if there is a long drought, how much
water can be consistently drawn to the system under these conditions. He
explained that it is not how much water is available, but how much yield can
be drawn safely from the water. He said the Buck Mountain reservoir is the
primary choice to address this matter because it can be implemented as early
as seven years if the process is begun now, and it can be delayed as long as
necessary depending on when the safe yield is needed for growth. He stated
that a second choice would be installation of a crest control system on the
existing South Fork Rivanna dam by using a device for raising the existing
reservoir level. He said this is a second choice both from an environmental
viewpoint, as well as a cost viewpoint. He explained that the second require-
ment is production capacity for water. He added that there can be all the
safe yield that is needed, and it can be there for use, but if the production
is lacking to process it through the water treatment plant to serve the
public, then it does no good. He stated that, most importantly, peak demands
must be met during the year, which usually occur during a warm spell in late
summer, and there is a high week or month demand. He noted that an average
daily use is significantly lower when a long term such as one year is consid-
ered. He said peak demands can be met for the next five to ten years with the
existing infrastructure, and some filters at South Rivanna can be converted
from low rate to high rate. He stated that this is planned to be done now so
it will be in operation this summer. He explained that one of the filters out
of four will be run for a year, and operational data will be collected. He
said if it is confirmed that everything is working as anticipated, the South
Fork Rivanna water treatment plant can be increased from 8 million gallons per
day to 12 million gallons per day, so there can be a four million gallon per
day increase. He said this is quite a bi of capacity to serve short term
needs such as five to ten years. However, he explained that the infrastruc-
ture is not in place for the time when more water is needed and Buck Mountain
comes on line. He stated that the size of the South Fork Rivanna treatment
capacity will have to be doubled, although the whole treatment plant will not
have to physically be doubled. 'He ~po~ted that this could happen Within a
range of seven years to 20 years from now.
He next discussed the third requirement which is the treatment capacity
for sewage. He said all of the water coming in has to go somewhere if it is
not consumed in business or industry, and the Moore's Creek Waste Water
Treatment Plant will have to be relied upon to handle the County's needs. He
said presently there are 4,000,000 gallons of availability in the treatment
plant, so this matches the planned increase at the water treatment plant, and
short term needs can be met. He referred again to the time when the Buck
Mountain plant will come on line, and he said as more demand occurs in the
future, the treatment capacity at the South Fork Rivanna treatment facility
will have to be doubled. He said there are design provisions to take care of
this situation. He mentioned that the key to everything is the safe yield,
but if there can't be safe yield, then there won't be any usable water, and
the sewage treatment won't be necessary. He stated that in order to find out
how to get the safe yield, a consulting firm has to be hired to do a
prescoping task, and this will occur now. He said this prescoping task will
develop a report at the end of this year or the beginning of next year to
determine two key factors. He reported that the prescoping task members will
consider initially Buck Mountain, and they will determine if there is a Spiny
Mussel endangered species problem, because if there is such a problem, it will
have to be addressed. He said an endangered species cannot be built over
because it will drown its habitat. If it is not there, the situation is much
better, but if it is, relocation of the Spiny MusSel has to be considered for
another area. He mentioned that there is another Spiny Mussel identified in
the South Fork Rivanna reservoir system, so if the Buck Mountain site doesn't
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
0000 3
work for some reason, the South Fork Rivanna reservoir has to be considered,
and the Spiny Mussel issue has to be addressed a second time. He noted that
these are two significant things to be addressed in the beginning before
future safe yield can be assured. He said the second major part of the
prescoping task would be to determine what type of environmental report is
necessary, such as an environmental assessment or an environmental impact
statement. He added that the environmental impact statement is more rigorous,
more costly and takes more time. He said the prescoping is ready to proceed,
and it will be occurring throughout the summer. He stated that he will bring
such a report back to the Authority and this Board.
Mr. Brent commented that the County and City share a common resource.
He said there is no allocation on the water in the reservoir to the City or
the County, and there is no limitation as to how many taps the City residents
can turn on, nor how many taps the County residents can turn on. He added
that despite the best planning efforts, the County officials have no control
over the other user of this common system, and he just wanted the Board
members to be conscious of this fact.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned that leaking is a common way in which water usage
is lost. She asked how the City is keeping up with its pipe maintenance. Mr.
Brent answered that fortunately the Albemarle County Service Authority has a
good water system which historically has used cast iron piping. He explained,
though, that currently duct line piping is being used. He said that in many
older systems a lot of steel piping was used, but steel pipes corrode and cast
iron and duct line pipes do not corrode to the extent that there are breaks.
He stated that there are some leaks and breaks but they are usually spontane-
ous, and they are fixed quickly. He said with steel pipes it is not always
known when they break because they can have tiny pin hole leaks, and over a
period of years the unaccounted for water increases because there is not
always visible evidence of leaks. He added that the Authority has ongoing
programs to upgrade pipes, and the City probably has the same types of
programs. He stated that the Authority staff also constantly monitors for
leaks and has recently acquired a fairly expensive listening device. He said
workers can take this device and listen for leaks in suspect areas where they
may not be visible, but there may be some concern about the integrity of the
pipe possibly in such places as old subdivisions. He went on to say that
leakage in the Authority's system is not as serious a consideration as it is
in many of the older, smaller towns and communities.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that at least one county in Virginia has an
ordinanCe requiring a low flow flush on toilets. She asked if there is
enabling legislation that allows fOr this type of regulation. Mr. Brent
answered that several years ago the building code was changed so that 1°w flow
devices on all fixtures are required. He said there are some areas having
serious problems because of ~etr0~tting requirements, and payments are made
to people to encourage them to retrofit. He stated, though, that there are
some questions about the effectiveness of low flow devices. He went on to say
that some toilets require six gallons per flush, others require four, others
require two and one-half and others require one and one-half. He said the
question is whether or not the lower gallons per flush toilet has to be
flushed twice in order to be effective. He added that there are some good
devices on the market, and there are some which aren't so good. He said if
people are not careful, they might not accomplish what they set out to do
through retrofitting.
Because of the lateness of the hour, Mr. Tucker suggested that the
Supervisors have another work session on this matter before they set a public
hearing, since there is still a lot of information they will need to consider.
He said the decision is up to the Board, but he can offer some suggestions as
to when the work session could take place.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the other Board members felt about having
another work session or setting a time for a public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman cOmmented that he is not ready to set a public hearing.
Mrs. Thomas said another work session is certainly needed. She stated
that she still has lots of comments on the utilities plan, but she agreed
that time at this meeting was limited.
Mr. Tucker remarked that the Supervisors could consider a public hearing
at 4:00 p.m. or 4:30 p.m. on February 14 and/or February 21, which are the
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
000034
next regularly scheduled meetings. Mr. Bowerman said one of these days would
be his choice. Mr. Marshall stated that he would be gone from February 23
until approximately March 5.
Mrs. Humphris then announced that Wednesday, February 14, 1996 would be
the next work session on the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tucker remarked that if the Board does not finish its work on the
Comprehensive Plan at the work session on February 14, 1996, then February 21
can be considered for another work session. He said this gives the Supervi-
sors two more opportunities to study the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that
the work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan need to be finished this month
because there will be work sessions through much of March on the budget.
Agenda Item No. 10. Work Session: ZMA-95-04. University of Virginia
Real Estate Foundation. To rezone approx 300 ac from RA to PD-IP. Property
located S of the North Fork Rivanna River between Rts 29 & 606. TM32,P4B,6,
6A&lg. Site is recommended for Industrial Service in the Community of Holly-
mead by the Comprehensive Plan. Rivanna Dist.
Mr. Keeler summarized the request from the University of Virginia Real
Estate Foundation to rezone approximately 300 acres from RA to PD-IP. He said
this rezoning petition is to increase the size of the North Fork Business Park
and it would also attach a schedule of land uses not existing under current
zoning and would make some additional land uses available. He noted display
maps which he indicated were included in the Supervisors' reports from UREF.
He said the primary map is the zoning application plan. He pointed out that
there has been a lot of discussion about the notes on this plan being somewhat
vague, but the staff believes some of the written proffers submitted by the
applicant address some of these concerns. He also noted descriptions of
various land uses included on the plan that would be available on each of
these parcels. He said almost all of the parcels would have multiple land
uses available, with the exception of parcels B1 and B2 along Route 606, and
these two parcels will be restricted specifically to office uses. He pointed
out the uses which have been requested as special permit uses, and the staff
has highlighted the parcels where they could be located. He showed the Board
members a number of parcels where UREF could locate a hotel/conference center.
However, the proffers restrict the development to one hotel of not more than
250 rooms. He said UREF representatives have a slide presentation to show the
Supervisors, as well as a summary of the proffers which will be distributed to
them. He added that Mr. Dean Cinkala will present the evolution of the
proffers, and many of them were in response to concerns expressed by Planning
Commission members at their November 28 work session. He said by the December
19 work session, the staff was able with the applicant's help, to work out to
the satisfaction of the Commission all proffers with the exception of the
water consumption limitation. He added that"the staff did not feel there was
a good concept of the Commission's concern as to whether or not there should
be a water consumption limitation on the entire development or on individual
land uses. He said the Commission recommended that any use consuming more
than 125,000 gallons of water a day be permitted only by special use permit.
Mr. Tim Rose, Chief Operating Officer with UREF, thanked the Supervisors
for their attention today. He also thanked Mr. Keeler for all of his work on
this matter. He said it is important to go forward with this project in order
to maintain the University's international and national standing. He said
UREF representatives have worked cooperatively with Mr. Keeler and his staff,
and he feels as though they have met the requests of the.Planning Commission.
He noted that UREF representatives have also worked very closely with the
neighborhood next to North Fork, and they are excited that the neighborhood
residents feel that UREF representatives have been very cooperative in working
with them. He then said Dean Cinkala would show slides, at this time.
Mr. Dean Cinkala, with Stonebridge Associates, Inc., gave a brief
overview of the application, as he showed slides. He said the property is
eight miles north of Charlottesville, it is shown in burgundy on the plan, and
it is adjacent to Route 29 and the Airport. He said the current zoning on the
southern 225 acres is PD-IP, there is a small portion zoned for light
industrial shown in orange, and the northern 300 acres shown in blue is
currently zoned RA. He stated that the reZoning request is for the entire 525
acres to be zoned PD-IP Category One so it can be developed under a unified
development plan. He pointed out three access points to the property at Route
29~ Route 649 and Route 606. He said the road network features a major spine
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35) ~
000035
road running from Route 29 through the property to Route 649. He indicated
that it will be a four lane median boulevard road, and it will be built to
public road standards and ultimately dedicated to VDOT. He stated that there
are internal extensions to access the remainder of the land. He said the
yellow area is the development parcel, and the green area represents open
space. He added that the yellow color depicts approximately 275 acres, and
the green area represents the balance of approximately 250 acres of land. He
said it has been proffered that a minimum of 200 acres of open space will be
maintained on this property. He then pointed out a darker yellow color which
depicts playing fields in a recreational area, as well as where a historic
cemetery site is located. He said this is approximately a seven acre site
which will be incorporated into the open space plan. He stated that the ponds
shown on this plan are not only illustrative, but a proffer has been made to
develop a master storm water management system as this property is developed,
and it is proffered to be developed in phases.
He noted that this property is outside of the storm water runoff
jurisdictional area, but UREF officials have concurred with the County staff
that this is an important proffer for the Foundation to make as this property
is developed. He said within the 250 acres of open space, it is proffered to
develop a system of trails such as hiking and biking as well as picnic areas.
He stated that this will also be developed in phases. He went on to say that
this plan is felt to be environmentally sensitive because only 225 acres of
the entire 525 acres is being developed, it is low intensity and the develop-
ment will be capped at 3,000,000 square feet. He said the southern half of
the property alone involving 225 aces could yield 2,500,000 square feet. He
stated that, consequently, this proposal for 3,000,000 square feet over the
entire property is only an incremental 500,000 square feet. He said this is
important to remember in the context of this rezoning request, and UREF
officials believe this is a low intensity request for this property. He noted
the six major uses proposed for the property -- General Office; flex Indus-
trial; Light Industrial; Support Commercial; Hotel Conference Center and
Laboratory Medical/Pharmaceutical. He pointed out that in developing the
zoning application plan, UREF representatives worked closely with the Planning
staff and with the Route 606 neighbors to develop a land use matrix indicating
where and where not specific uses can occur. He said the Route 606 neighbors
did not want to see Light Industrial zoning on the Route 606 properties along
their residential frontage. He stated that UREF representatives agreed that
Light Industrial zoning would not be developed there and only General Office
zoning would be allowed. He said this is reflected on the matrix. He added
that the Planning staff was concerned that Support Commercial zoning as well
as the Hotel Conference Center be internally generated, and the UREF staff has
tried to make the matrix respect this request also. He pointed out that there
is a very specific guiding table to indicate which uses are allowed on which
sites, and this is on the zoning application plan. He stated that there are
other restrictions on nhe zoning application plan and in the proffers that
have been committed to by UREF, as a result of the process with the Planning
Commission. He said agreement has been reached not to develop a hotel before
500,000 square feet exist at the Park or before a'single user internally at
the Park justifies a hotel. He went on to say that this decision on the
latter condition will be at the County's discretion. He added that agreement
has also been reached not to develop any increase in Support Commercial before
500,000 square feet eXist in the Park, and there is also a restriction
relative to 110,000 square feet of Support Commercial zoning throughout the
entire Park.
Mr. Cinkala stated that one of the more important processes in develop-
ing the rezoning application was to develop a set of reasonable transportation
proffers. He said UREF representatives worked closely with the County and
VDOT staffs for ten months in trying to understand, quantify and come up with
a reasonable solution to traffic impacts created by this development. He said
the plan developed allows development to occur in three phases, and each phase
requires certain traffic improvements. He added that the first stage of
development allows up to 980,000 square feet and requires Improvement A, B and
C. He said Improvements A and B are essentially intersection improvements
involving turn lanes and signals, and Improvement C is a contribution to the
intersection of Routes 649 and 29. He noted that these improvements are
detailed in the proffers. He remarked that the second phase of development
allows development up to 1,600,000 square feet and requires Improvement D and
E. He said Improvement D is the connection of the road network from Route 29
to Route 649 and intersection improvements at Route 649 such as turn lanes and
signals. He commented that full development to 3,000,000 square feet can
occur when there is a third southbound lane on Route 29 from the entrance of
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
000036
the property to Route 649. He went on to say t~at commitment has also been
made to dedicate land at the entrance to the property for a grade separated
interchange if a grade separated interchange ever exists at the UREF prop-
erty's front door. He stated that another important area requiring a lot of
study was the impact on the raw water intake on the North Fork of the Rivanna
River. He said his group worked closely with the Department of Engineering,
and field investigation work was done with Mr. Hirschman to try to understand
where the impacts on that area will be, and it is believed there will be a
zero impact. He explained that the drainage area on UREF's property draining
into the raw water intake is 79 acres, which is shown in the lighter blue
color. He said all of this area drains into the North Fork of the Rivanna
River above the raw water intake. He noted that of the 79 acres, 60 acres are
buffer areas which will be undeveloped land or open space. He said this
leaves 19 acres of land, and of the 19 acres of land given the Master Storm-
water Management Plan proffered for this Park, all the remaining land will
drain into the master stormwater management system and ultimately into the
North Fork of the Rivanna River below the raw water intake. He next pointed
out a graphic illustrating the open space system phasing plan for the Park.
He said the phasing of this has been tied to the transportation proffer
phasing. He explained that there are three phases of development correlating
with the three density levels he mentioned earlier. He said this phasing
consists of a sidewalk system along the main spine road, trails throughout the
park, picnic areas and the active recreational area near the historic cemetery
site. He next handed out a four page document to the Supervisors summarizing
the proffers. He said they are fairly detailed proffers, and the first page
is a bullet summary of the proffers. He added that the attached three pages
provides more detail of each of the proffers, but they are still in a summary
form. He then went through all of the proffers shown on the summary given to
the Supervisors.
Mrs. Thomas referred to the covenants and restrictions, and she asked if
UREF officials have simply proffered that this will happen. Mr. Cinkala
responded that they will be prepared and placed on the property, and this has
been proffered. Mrs. Thomas commented that County officials have no way to
oversee these covenants and restrictions, and they only note that UREF
representatives are going to make them. Mr. Cinkala mentioned that the
proffers indicate what the declarations, covenants and restrictions will
address. Mrs. Thomas reiterated that County officials will only be able to
note that these things will be done by UREF. Mr. Cinkala concurred.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that these covenants and restrictions can be
changed after they are made. Mr. Cinkala agreed that they can be changed at
the Foundation's discretion.
Mrs. Thomas next referred to the Stormwater Management System. Mr.
Cinkala replied that there is ~ very specific plan attached to the proffers,
and the Department of Engineering staff has reviewed it. Mrs. Thomas asked if
this is a proffer and not just a covenant indicating there will be such a
plan. Mr. Cinkala answered affirmatively. He said there is a plan attached
to the proffers, and it is a very specific plan. He noted, though, that Jack
Kelsey worked with the Foundation on this plan but final engineering has not
been done on the stormwater Management system. He said the plan will be
subject to engineering, and it has to be done.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that Jack Kelsey is out of town today, but David
Hirschman is present, and both Mr. Kelsey and Mr. Hirschman worked with UREF
representatives on this issue.
Mr. Cinkala mentioned that the Open Space System shown in the slide
presentation is also attached to the proffers.
Mrs. Thomas asked that Mr. Cinkala make this distinction as he continues
with his presentation. She then recalled seeing a $100,000 maximum limita-
tion, and she asked to what this limitation refers. Mr. Cinkala answered that
UREF'S contribution to the Routes 649 and 29 intersection is limited to the
lesser of UREF's pro rata share or $100,000. He said UREF generated the
$100,000 amount based on what it is expected the improvements will cost. He
said estimates were made and UREF representatives took their best guess as to
their share of traffic through this intersection.
Mr. Keeler noted that these estimates were also forwarded to the VDOT
staff for its review. Mr. Cinkala stated that the information he has given
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37) .............. ,~ ......
O000a?
the Board members ms an attempt to help them understand the proffers better as
they read through them.
Mr. Martin remarked that he met with members of UREF last week and had
most of his questions answered.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the Supervisors will work through the UREF
proposal.
Mrs. Humphris responded that a plan to go through this information will
need to be developed, because it is such a large project with a large amount
of information. She then inquired as to whether or not Board members wanted
to use the staff report or the list of proffers for the question asking
process.
Mrs. Thomas stated that the Supervisors have had the staff report in
hand longer than the list of proffers, and her questions are based on this
report.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that she is always interested in traffic reduction
strategies. She noted that UREF representatives have indicated they will work
with the County Housing Committee, and she wondered about a similar offer of
working with the MPO. She said the staff has suggested that the University of
Virginia's representation was sufficient on these committees. She pointed
out, though, that having once served as UVa's representative on these very
committees, she knows the University's interests are so diverse from how to
deal with first year students' cars to this very different real estate
development, that she would be more interested in some larger sign of interest
in traffic reduction strategies. In the same way, she said she was disap-
pointed not to see any response to the Comprehensive Plan's sentence indicat-
ing opportunities should be targeted for employees at the lower income level
as well as hiring employees locally. She stated that this point has not been
addressed anywhere in anything she has seen either from the County staff or
the applicant. She said these two issues might be addressed in a similar way,
and that is why she is tying them together. She stated that there are local
groups dealing with these issues to try to get some kind of commitment from
employers to work with or agree with this issue. She added that it is this
type of thing which shows some sort of commitment to a discreet statement that
was put into the Comprehensive Plan amendment with a good deal of thought.
· She said it would be good to see some kind of response, and although these are
two distinct areas, the sort of response might be the same.
Mr. Cinkala responded that he appreciates Mrs. Thomas' concerns, and
although he doesn't want to speak for the Foundation, UREF representatives are
open to sound recommendations in both of these areas. He stated that he,
Mr. Rose, Hannah Twaddell and Juandiago Wade met several months ago to talk
about transportation issues. He said the conversation was fruitful, but
nothing concrete was accomplished. He added that both parties felt this way
because they are not sure what can be done with this type of development eight
miles north of an urban transit system. As a result of this meeting, they
have tried to build the infrastructure so there will at least be bus stops
built in so once there is a mass transportation system through the Route 29
corridOr, the Park will be friendly to this kind of service. He said Mr. Rose
has tried to start this same type of dialogue with the Housing Authority.
Regarding the employment issue, Mr. Cinkala reported that this has been a
difficult issue for UREF because he remembers specifically when he was
standing in front of the Planning Commission making a request for a special
exception for the hotel, the Commission members raised concern that this Park
was turning into a Park for a bunch .of low wage employees. He said, though,
he thinks there will be a range of employment opportunities at the Park
ranging from lower skill jobs in the support commercial, light industrial and
general office areas all the way to highly skilled and highly educated
individuals. He stated that he thinks this is implicitly addressed in this
kind of development.
Mrs. Thomas commented that there are ways to take this issue seriously,
and there are ways just to say it is going to happen. Mr. Cinkala replied if
there are ways the Supervisors would like to suggest, UREF representatives
would be more than happy to consider them. He said they have tried to do this
all along with the neighbors and other constituencies. He noted that at the
Planning Commission level there have been several recommendations made that
have been accepted into the changes.
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Next, Mrs. Thomas referred to sensitive lighting.
0000.3
She said usually this
involves things closer to the University of Virginia's Observatory, and this
property is closer to the Airport. She stated that she continues to be
interested in this issue, and this Board from time to time has shown the same
interest. She asked if the Board of Supervisors can depend on the covenants
addressing this matter in some way. Mr. Cinkala answered that the design
addresses sensitive lighting. He recalled that when the fixtures needed to be
approved, UREF representatives had to have Airport officials authorization,
and the neighbors within a certain radius had to be contacted.
Mr. Keeler stated that street lights would come under the Engineering
Department's review, and it also must be consistent with the Airport Impact
Area. He said that obviously it would be undesirable to have search lights,
etc., near the Airport.
Mr. Cinkala mentioned that some of the neighbors specifically asked that
the playing fields not be lit. He said he had not even thought about lighting
the fields, but when the neighbors requested that they not be lit, this was
put into the proffers.
Mr. Marshall inquired if the parking lots are lit. Mr. Cinkala replied
affirmatively.
Mrs. Thomas said there is such a variety of ways in which parking lots
can be lit. She stated that the University has done some very sensitive
lighting arrangements as well as some very insensitive arrangements.
Mr. Martin asked if all of these things could be submitted to the County
for approval. Mr. Bowerman responded that on site plans there are certain
requirements, but they are very broad in terms of the types of lighting and
the different ways they can be done. He stated that heights are considered,
as well as how lights are shielded. He mentioned that there are some concerns
along Route 29 now with the current ordinances. He then wondered who the
largest single user would be as well as the type of use it would be with a
125,000 gallons per day usage. He asked if it would work out to a certain
number of gallons per person, and how many people would it involve.
Mr. Cinkala replied that the 125,000 gallons per day usage represents
between 20 and 25 percent projected capacity for the Park. He said if simple
math is done for the 3,000,000 square foot Park, 20 to 25 percent of that
number is 600,000 to 700,000 square feet. He stated that he developed this
number by calling the Albemarle County Service Authority and asking for the
ten largest private sector water users. He added that the range was tremen-
dous with the upper end being Con Agra which actually uses on the order of
over 1,000,000 gallons per day to facilities such as GE Fanuc, Sperry and Com
Dial. He said looking at all of these numbers and considering the context of
the projected overall capacity, he developed the 125,000 gallons per day
number which he thinks represents a reasonable percent of the Park's capacity.
He said this addresses a concern mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting
which was how to furnish protection against a large user coming in and using a
significant amount of capacity on the first day. He stated that he tried to
make the estimate large enough to address the Planning Commission's concerns,
but the Foundation's concerns are not to make the estimate too restrictive, as
well as small enough to make the Foundation feel comfortable. He emphasized,
though, that he does not think there is a right way to do it.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Cinkala can speak to the size of a use as far
as employees on both sides of the range. He said Con Agra would be very low
in terms of the number of employees, but it could be a very high user. Mr.
Cinkala stated that he would talk in terms of rules of thumb. He said in the
Real Estate business, if it is an office user, he typically thinks in terms of
three employees per 1,000 square feet. He said if there is 600,000 square
feet of space, it would represent 1,800 employees. Mr. Bowerman agreed that
this is one way to arrive at an estimated figure. He said, though, that he
was thinking from the point of view that a commercial office worker needs five
gallons per day.
Mr. Steve Blaine said he would try to put this issue in a residential
context. He stated that the design guideline for residential use would be 400
gallons per day per person which would translate to 312 employees. He added,
though, that the usage is much lower.
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000059
(Page 39) ~ ~ .~ .... . ~ ~
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he is trying to arrive at a range of poten-
tial sizes of organizations which could be a single user and could be accommo-
dated by 125,000 gallons per day. He prefaced his remarks by saying he is
very supportive of UREF and what its members are trying to do in this area.
He said he is very aware, however, that the University Real Estate Foundation
has an interest in making this profitable for itself, as well as furthering
the interest of the mission of the University. He stated that within this
context and with the current proffers, etc., it is more or less up to the
Foundation to decide how the property is used. He added that if a certain
company with 2,000 employees comes to the area, and although the company
doesn't require a lot of water, but it brings 2,000 employees to the area, it
will have a significant impact on the infrastructure of Albemarle County. He
stated that he wants to have some level of confidence with the proffers before
this Board that the Supervisors can still protect public interest in terms of
what might happen at this site. He went on to say that there are possibili-
ties where the interest of UREF and the University are on one side to a very
great degree, but the interest to Albemarle County taxpayers is very great on
the other side. He said he is trying to balance this in light of trying to
recognize that this is a good use for the area. He commented that he wants
the Foundation members to do whatever they want to do there and he wants them
to have some flexibility, but he wants to have some assurance that this Board
or a future Board has some oversight to the ultimate user beyond the certain
absolute size. He commented that the Planning Commission is thinking in terms
of water, but he is aware that there are some uses which don't require a lot
of water in the manufacturing process.
Mr. Cinkala stated that the debate is whether or not there should be a
size restriction placed on the user after which a Foundation representative
would have to come back for special approval. He said the 125,000 gallons per
day is clearly a restriction on size regardless of whether the number is
appropriate, after which this Board would have to give special approval. He
referred to the transportation proffer where improvements have to be made at
certain density levels, so there is some protection on the surrounding road
network. He said this is a difficult issue.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he is more interested in protection for the
schools rather than the roads.
Mr. Cinkala stated that he thinks the water usage proffer is unprece-
dented in this community, because he does nQt believe anybody else has ever
done such a thing before.
Ms. Ellen Miller remarked that this issue has arisen before, and
Foundation representatives have gone through it mentally. She said if the
land, itself, is considered, it is very hard to conceive of 2,000,000 square
foot users. She stated that the lots are broken up, and they are divided by
planned roads. She noted that the topography is not very flat, so it is very
difficult to conceive of a single facility of the size being addressed. She
mentioned that the largest site on this property is being predicted at 335,000
square feet. She added that a couple of sites could be combined, but even if
the combination possibility is considered, there will not be the type of
physical property necessary for a 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 square foot user who
would indicate a desire to have a facility there to accommodate 2,000 employ-
ees. She then discussed the concern about limiting the usage. She said it
really isn't to address the intention, but instead it is ko address hOw the
market place works in making choices among sites. She stated that there will .
be occasions when UREF representatives are trying to attract someone here, and
they will be up against other sites in the state, as well as other states.
She added that the minute there are hurdles people have to mount, it adds
another unknown to the equation about whether or not they really could be at
the North Fork Park, and UREF loses a relative position on the scale as people
are making choices.
Mr. Bowerman said he understands what Ms. Miller is saying. He state~,
though, that the community wants to accommodate those users who are good for
the University, as well as the community, but there could be a conflict from
time to time as the site is ~developed. Mr. Bowerman said he is trying to get
assurance for himself and his constituents who expressed concerns to him that
there be some absolute way of gauging the scale of development there, so it
isn't a significant impact to Albemarle County and Charlottesville with which
the taxpayers will have to deal.
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
000040
Mrs. Thomas remarked that she had not known the square footage available
for building on any particular site, but she had asked for the square footage
of some of the larger employers in the area. She then mentioned State Farm
which employees 1,200 people and has a square footage only slightly more than
the 335,000 square feet shown on Section E. She said this would indicate a
business such as State Farm for this parcel, and this type of business
probably wouldn't use very much water. She added, though, the impact of
having a business such as State Farm come and go with that many children
coming to the schools, etc. are the sort of things concerning her. She next
mentioned Albemarle County's first zoning when County officials bent over
backward to the owners of land along Route 29 North to give them exactly the
zoning they wanted. She said these people were all happy, but no constituent
who has ever talked to her since has been happy. She said County officials
were so generous to landowners at that point. She stated that UREF represen-
tatives are trying to make this Board see their side, and she certainly
understands the market constrictions. She noted, though, that there is no way
in which present generosity is going to be remembered by the Supervisors'
constituents in future years if the Park does not develop in the way in which
she is fully confident the UREF representatives want it to develop at this
point. She pointed out that UREF is now UREF Park, Inc. She emphasized that
County officials will have to have the means of not being sorry for what they
did when the current representatives of UREF are not the well meaning people
in charge.
Mr. Rose said the Supervisors have very good points. He added that this
is really a project promoted for the University of Virginia, and the Founda-
tion representatives only respect and respond to what the University of
Virginia officials want them to do. He said they never go out and do some-
thing on their own, and it is always at the University's direction, and will
always continue to be that way. He referred to Mr. Bowerman's remarks about
intent, and he said the Planning Commission questioned UREF representatives
about different issues. He said the UREF people made conceSsions with them
and with the neighbors which he thinks has led to more thoughtful development.
He mentioned an example where there could have been a conflict with the
community where UREF officials were approached by the State Economic Develop-
ment Office on a prospect. He said before anything was known about what
County officials wanted, the UREF officials would not even talk to this group.
He stated that they didn't feel this was the type of organization which would
fit well in this community from the community's perspective. He noted that it
would have been a project which would have helped out the research efforts of
the University, and it would have helped graduate employment, as well as
spousal employment. He said it was the kind of business which would not fit
well here, but it might fit well in Richmond or Northern Virginia, so they
backed off from it.
Mr. Martin remarked that it seems to him that he is looking at this
situation completely different from other Board members. He said this is a
request for adding a condition to an area already zoned for certain things.
He stated that this condition would expand the area to almost double in size,
but limits the amount of square footage to 3,000,000. He pointed out that
what is being requested could almost be done on half this amount of property.
He said he does not think the Supervisors could tell developers what they want
them to do, and have any expectation whatsoever that the developer is going to
actually go along with limiting himself near as much as UREF has done in this
project. He stated that the types of limitations have been proffered which
the Supervisors might wish for, but they would never get these many restric-
tions from a private developer who was just developing the property primarily
to make a profit. He said in the beginning it was noted that UREF wants to
make a profit, but these restrictions are such that a profit will be very
difficult. He pointed out that their biggest motivation is for the connection
with the University. He then asked if things are left just as they are, could
a user bring in 2,000 people from outside' of the community to use 300,000
gallons of water as opposed to the 125,000 gallons to which the UREF represen-
tatives have limited themselves. He wondered if this type of use could not be
on the property that is already zoned.
Mr. Bowerman responded that he does not have an answer to Mr. Martin's
question.
Mr. Martin next asked if what he believes is true, then why are the
Supervisors being so stubborn about this matter. He wondered if, because the
University is involved, the Supervisors are having such expectations which
have never been placed on any private developer. He said he read the
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41) ~ ~ ~ + ,~ ~.
000041
Planning Commission minutes, and there were people from the community of Route
606 at the original public hearings who complained, but UREF representatives
indicated they would work with these people. He pointed out that all the way
through this process the UREF representatives have been very accommodating and
cooperative with the Planning staff, the Planning Commission, VDOT and the
community. He said it has been amazing to him, and it seems to him there has
been a lot of effort and a lot of compromise on UREF's part. He commented
that they are doing this to make something that is attractive, as well as a
benefit to Albemarle County. He noted, though, that they could have started
off doing a lot of things which they are now agreeing to proffer themselves
from doing.
Mrs. Humphris stated that this is true only if the rezoning is approved,
and the point of rezoning is the only time the opportunity arises to see
that the public interest is protected. She added that once this point is
reached even with all the good intentions, any opportunity is lost to ensure
that the public interest is protected in regard to transportation, and the
cost of it to the taxpayers or the developer, as well as water usage and the
necessity to provide an increased supply because the 125,000 gallon users
might be cumulative and not totally limited. She said all of these things
need to be considered, as well as school population because of the number of
employees who might come as a result of the particular uses. She stated that
both Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman touched on the fact that even though there
is an impressive list of proffers, underneath the impressive list is not the
actual limitation that a lot people feel should be there. She pointed out
that County officials do not know what the covenants are going to be, and it
can't be ensured that they will reflect the County officials' desires.
Mr. Cinkala said he would respectively submit that he does not think
this is a fair representation of the proffers. He noted that representatives
of UREF have tried diligently through several meetings with the County staff
to work on the proffers, and are continuing to do that. He stated that there
are some instances where there is some ambiguity, but there are several
proffers which make it very clear what has to be done.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that there is no question in his mind that he is
going to support UREF's request for this land development. He wondered,
though, why he can't ask questions about his concerns, even though the
applicant has gone through many hoops and answered many questions and has
tried to meet the concerns of the Planning Commission and the community.
Mr. Martin stated if his comments implied that, he apologizes for them,
because that was not his intention. He said he asked for help because it
seemed as though he was looking at this issue so differently from other
members of the Board. He recalled his original comment where he asked the
other Supervisors for help in understanding this matter, because he couldn't
understand why he was looking at this issue so differently. However, he
stated that he hoped he did not imply that Mr. Bowerman should not ask
questions.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board made a decision when the Comprehen-
sive Plan was changed to look at this area as 500 acres of contiguous indus-
trial zoning. He said now the question relates to its final form. He added
that he is simply expressing some concerns which have been related to him over
past items which have come before this Board. He said he wants to satisfy
himself while allowing UREF the flexibility to do what it needs to do to have
a viable project and to meet the needs of people who come to Albemarle County
looking for land, as well as to protect what he sees as some interest to the
community.
Mr. Marshall remarked that the key word is flexibility, and he agreed
with Mr. Bowerman's and Mr. Martin's comments. He emphasized that he will
also support this request because the University of Virginia is the area's
number one employer, and as far as he is concerned, the life blood of this
community. He commented that this project will be good for this community.
He noted that the Planning Commission has asked every question which could
possibly be asked, and the UREF representatives have gone to great lengths to
satisfy everybody's concerns. He added, though, that they need to keep their
flexibility so they can attract the proper candidate for the Park who will be
beneficial to this community. He said if a particular user has to make plans
to move from his community, there are a lot of things to consider. He added
that he may have to lay off a certain number of employees, and he doesn't want
the word to get out that he is going to move. He said the user needs to be
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
000042
able to move very quickly for his own benefit, and he needs to know all the
problems that will arise when he is dealing with UREF. He stated that if the
LTREF representatives are not able to be flexible, and the user can't quickly
make his plans, then he will move to another locality.
Mr. Martin stated that he had asked the same question about a limit on
water usage at an earlier meeting. He said he does not think the answer given
to this whole Board a few minutes ago was a great answer, but then he consid-
ered the list of proffers. He noted that he looked back at the property
already zoned and what could have been done with that. He reiterated that
the property is going to be almost double in size, but the amount of building
is going to be essentially limited. He said when he looked at it in this
context, it seems to him that the LTREF representatives have compromised more
so than anyone in his four years on this Board. He commented that he can't
remember any project where the applicant has gone to such great lengths to
accommodate so many people including the residents as well as VDOT and this
Board. He said when he looked at the issue in his context, it was amazing to
him that they could agree to all of these proffers.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the fact that it is 12:35 p.m. and the Board's
interviews for the at-large Planning Commission member start at 1:00 p.m. She
said the Supervisors will have to eat lunch before the interviews begin.
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin stated that they were ready to set a public
hearing for the LTREF matter.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that she was recently accused of being too pro
University because she was asking a question about the lighting of a certain
project where the University's interest was to have the lighting restricted.
She said it is pretty ironic that when the Supervisors are asking questions on
behalf of the community, it can in any way be viewed as being against this
project or against the University. She added that the University and the
people there want this to be a strong community as much as anyone else, so
this is not some kind of dichotomy between interests. She emphasized that
this is a community interest. She said, though, she continues to have
concerns about approving this rezoning because it will be giving an entity the
ability to bring in and out of the County a business the size of several State
Farms without the matter ever coming back to this Board. She stated that she
thinks there is a way to deal with this problem, and perhaps it has been
discussed in the proffer discussions.
Mr. Martin apologized to Mrs. Thomas by saying it was not his intention
to be accusatory.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned the County's Economic Development Policy which
speaks to employment opportunities for Albemarle County citizens, etc. He
said this is the type of thing which would be~important, if it was incorpo-
rated in this project, because it gives opportunities to citizens already in
Albemarle County rather than ones being brought in. He stated that if this
restricts the UREF representatives' flexibility to bring in an employer of
1,000 people who wants to bring 900 of the people with him, then maybe this is
all right, because it really doesn't offer a lot of employment opportunities
to Albemarle County citizens.
Mr. Martin inquired if Mr. Bowerman would like to see a proffer which
would enforce the County's economic development strategies. Mr. Bowerman said
he would like to see something consistent with what the County officials are
already doing. He recalled the Supervisors turning down another project
because it did not fit the Economic Development Policy, and he added that
University representatives apparently did thesame'thing~ He stated that if
this is a commonality of interests, then it should be incorporated, and it
should still give UREF representatives the flexibility it needs to market this
project successfully wherever they want to market it without having unneces-
sary bureaucratic red tape involved.
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin wondered how this could be dOne. Mr.
Marshall said he does not want to restrict UREF representatives too much.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if Board members felt that more discuSsion in a
work session is needed before the public hearing.
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting> 000042
(Page 43 ) ~ .~.~. ~..~ ~
Mr. Marshall said he thinks the public hearing could be held. He stated
that this Board will have a discussion on the matter before the final vote is
taken.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he can talk with representatives of UREF.
Mr. Tucker remarked that if Mr. Bowerman's comments are the consensus of
the Board, then the staff can work with the UREF team to find some language
which might be beneficial and which meets the needs as they relate to the
Economic Development policy.
Mr. Bowerman reiterated that he would like for the language not to tie
UREF representative's hands as far as marketing the project.
Mrs. Humphris requested the staff to work on such language. She also
reminded Board members that the public hearing is on February 21.
Mr. Keeler said the staff can work toward this goal, but he thinks Mr.
Davis should be involved. He mentioned that zoning has certain limitations as
to how some of these things can be effectively enforced. He said he wanted to
make clear that the 125,000 gallons limit was proposed by UREF officials and
accepted by the Planning Commission. He stated that the Planning staff has no
magic number to report to this Board, and the matter needs to be discussed
with utility representatives. He referred to another application which
involves water consumption limitation. He emphasized that the staff does not
want to take these situations one by one and not have any standard to apply
uniformly within the County. He mentioned Mr. Marshall's comments that the
user might go to another place. He said if it is a water user who uses more
than 125,000 gallons per day, they can simply go to another vacant zoned piece
of property in the County and not have this limitation. He said there are a
number of issues involved with the water limitation that he is not sure can or
should be resolved with a single application.
Mr. Martin inquired if this same sort of thing would be tying this
particular piece of property to a standard which wouldn't apply to any other
property zoned accordingly across the County, if there was a situation where a
number of employees being brought in to the County was being considered,
versus a number of employees being employed locally. Mr. Keeler answered,
~yes."
Mr. Bowerman responded that there are not many 500 acre industrial sites
which can be developed such as this one, if the decision is made to rezone.
Mr. Martin concurred that this is true only if the property is viewed as
one site.
Mr. Bowerman said it may be that this BOard will approve the project
with the information already in hand. He does not know, but he had some
concerns he wanted to raise.
Agenda Item No. 11. Executive Session: Property and Personnel matters.
At 12:36 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs.
Thomas, to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A of the
Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider candidates for appointment
to boards and commissions; under Subsection (3) to consider acquisition of
property for public use; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion and
relating to a public safety agreement.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session.
The Board reconvened into open session at 4:10 p.m. Motion was offered
by Mr. Bowerman~ seCOnded by Mr. Perkins, to certify by a recorded vote that
to the best of each Board members's knowledge only public business matters
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
000044
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:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. ApPointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to appoint
Mr. C. Jared Loewenstein, to the Planning Commission as the at-large represen-
tative, with term to expire on December 31, 1997.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to appoint
Ms. Hilda R. Lee-Washington, as the Rivanna District representative on the
Planning Commission, with term to expire on December 31, 1999.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to
reappoint Mr. Frank Rice to the Equalization Board to represent the Rio
District, with term to expire on December 31, 1996.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to appoint
Ms. Martha Harris, to the Social Services Board to represent the White Hall
District, with term to expire on December 31, 1999.
Roll was called, and the motions carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
(Note: At 4:12 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened in Room 235 at
4:15 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 15. Joint Meeting with School Board in Room 235.
Present at this time were School Board members: Mr. John E. Baker, Mr.
Russell Madison Cummings, Jr., Mrs. Susan Clayton Gallion, Mr. Jeffrey D.
Joseph, Mr. Stephen H. Koleszar, Mrs. Karen L. Powell and Mr. Charles M. Ward.
Also present were: Dr. Kevin Castner, Division Superintendent
Mrs. Humphris called the Board back to order and Mrs. Powell called the
School Board into session.
Item 15a. Presentation: Compensation and Performance Management Study,
Final Report, February, 1996, conducted by Hendricks & Associates, Inc.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to accept the
report in principle.
Mr. Hendricks, of Hendricks & Associates, Inc., presented slides and
discussed the Final Report of the Compensation and Performance Management
Study. He explained that this study's objective is to pay people fairly in
relationship of the performance of their work. He said that strategic
objectives are articulated in the report, and hard recommendations have been
made rather than a paper document to set on a shelf. He described how the
study was developed, and he noted that approximately 250 to 270 interviews
were conducted with a representative sample of employees. He said there were
also numerous meetings held with various councils and committees to gather
input. He emphasized that this study is to improve upon what is already being
done in the County, and it is not trying to indicate that what is being done
is bad. He pointed out that options were developed for administering the
plan. He said a system can be developed that is very fair and very competi-
tive, but the County may not be able to afford it, so a dollar figure had to
also be developed.
Mr. Martin inquired if it was ascertained as to what was wrong with the
career ladder while the study was being conducted.
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45) ~· · ~. ~?~!
000045
Mr. Hendricks answered that most people don't understand the career
ladder, and when people don't understand something, there is a problem. He
went on to say that he has heard from people in the school system that the
career ladder is administered unequally. He said he has demonstrated data
showing that the amount of expenditures going to different buildings for the
career ladder varies tremendously, yet the work seems to get done in areas
where there is less money involved than with the career ladder. He also
pointed out that work gets done in other school systems which do not have the
career ladder. He said he is committed to the work he does, and it is not
just because of the salary he gets. He added that most people volunteer for
extra duties, but the career ladder has a volunteer system where people are
being measured for being on a committee or doing a couple of extra hours a
year. He said everything is counted, but it is not done equally, and this
causes a lot of problems. He mentioned also that the whole teacher population
is divided, and he referred to the Albemarle Education Association which is
not behind the career ladder, because half its membership is not behind it.
He stated that the career ladder is not working, and he was asked to fix it.
He went on to say there is a lot of hype about teacher pay for performance,
but there is not one workable system in this country in any size school
district with a pay for performance system. He added that one of the reasons
the career ladder was started was because of the pay for performance system.
He said the system then got institutionalized, and people wanted to know how
to pay for performance. He said he feels the County will be better off
getting back to a more traditional system, around which most people can rally,
rather than having a system that is divided among teachers in different
buildings. He added that the career ladder has teachers doing a lot of other
things other than teaching the children. He remarked that taking all of this
into consideration, he thinks there are enough reasons to move away from it.
He said that he is giving the County officials what he believes is one of the
best and fairest ways of moving away from the career ladder.
Mr. Martin recalled that when the career ladder was put into place, it
was a big expense. He said now just a few years later, there is a big expense
to get rid of it. He stated that Mr. Hendricks is proposing not to give
anyone a decrease so it will take a few years before the 30 step scale mellows
out to the point where people are actually getting the pay that is being
recommended. He said for a while people will be paid more than recommended,
so they won't have to take a decrease in pay. He mentioned his concern that
in four or five years there will be another salary study with another plan and
perhaps another career ladder because it will be in vogue again.
Dr. Castner remarked that in the transition of the career ladder and
some of the more positive parts of it such as rewarding teachers who are doing
extra instructional activities such as department heads and other leadership
positions, this isn't just putting everybody back on the pay structure. He
said it gives the opportunity to get some of these same people who are on the
career ladder in some defined positions, and if they choose to do it, they can
keep up the same stipends they are currently receiving. He added that he
personally would like to take advantage of the good thinking in the career
ladder to promote teacher leadership. He noted that this plan is going to
take some of the best attributes of the career ladder and then create some
flexibility in the schools. He stated that until some of the key people are
involved from the schools, the situation cannot be at a more definitive level.
He said this plan doesn't just stop the career ladder but, instead, the plan
looks for something to put in its place that would take advantage of some of
the strengths. He said he is encouraged with what might come of this plan,
and the money can be rechanneled to some of the teachers who are doing some
of the work. He stated that this will not be easy, but it can be done.
Mr. Hendricks pointed out that this transition will not cost very much
more money, because a system has been developed where the whole implementation
is approximately $200,000 more than County officials had already projected.
He then continued his presentation by describing the classified personnel
situation. He mentioned the merit pay system, and he said he could see
nothing wrong with the way people's performances are appraised. He added that
the system worked well when there was five to seven percent pay increases for
the employees. He stated, though, that with a two and one-half percent
increase, because of the step system, it forced conditions that in order to
afford to give step increases, only 50 percent of the employees could get
them. He said he believes that 80 to 90 percent of employees all perform
more or less the same, and to divide an organization goes against every
premise of trying to build teams. He said his recommendation is to develop
ranges and then each year decide what can be afforded and budgeted. He said
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46) ·
a plan has been developed called salary to midpoint where a person's salary is
divided to the midpoint of the range. He went on to describe how the plan
works. Next, he discussed the teacher salary scale, and he said there are
teachers in Albemarle County who are below where their salaries should be, and
there are teachers who are above this point. He emphasized that this study
does not suggest anybody get a cut in pay. He described how the program can
be implemented so people would get an increase, and so it won't be so costly
to the County. He explained that the total cost of the recommendations is
only $200,000 more than the County officials projected for this coming year.
He stated that there are two exhibits in this report relating to pay ranges
for classified employees and the pay plan for teachers. He noted that if the
County moves to this plan, there will have to be some program changes,. He
said people need to get a sense of what the plan is all about, so they can
support it, if that is their choice.
Mr. Humphris asked if any of the committee members who worked with
Mr. Hendricks would like to make comments.
Mr. Perkins said he is pleased with the plan, and although it will take
some work to get it started, he thinks it is a move in the right direction.
He stated that the recommendation is for the Supervisors to accept the report
in principle, and he would like to make a motion to this effect.
Mr. Marshall concurred with Mr. Perkins' comments. He said it is the
fairest plan he has seen, but he would like to hear some comments from the
County employees.
Mr. Perkins responded that perhaps there should be a public hearing on
the issue. He said before the Board implements the plan, it would be good to
hear from the employees, but the Supervisors could certainly accept the report
in principle.
Mr. Baker recommended that the School Board consider the plan a little
closer, because he has questions about the actual application of it. He
mentioned that he is concerned about where the school secretaries fit in the
plan, because he thinks the school secretaries have very distinct types of
duties and have distinct functions that can't be replicated anywhere else in
County government. He said the Director of Transportation also fits into a
unique place with numbers and responsibilities transcending even the premise
in the beginning which is that numbers don't count. He asked for some time to
review the plan so the individual employees won't have to negotiate and go
through an appeals process. He said the two Boards during their deliberations
can move people around and try to refine the study before it is presented to
the employees. He then asked that accepting the report in principle be
deferred for an alternative approach. He said the report could be accepted
because a lot of work has been done on it, and it is very positive.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he and Mr. Perkins worked with this commit-
tee for approximately four months, and he thinks it is an excellent study. He
said a lot of questions were raised during the course of the study, and there
were a lot of answers forthcoming. He added that it is a fair analysis of
where the County is at the present time, and he thinks it is a fair way to
move to a better system. He stated that the discrepancies in it can be dealt
with, both in general government and the school system. He said it will take
awhile for all the members who were a part of the committee to verify these
things for themselves in looking at the report and talking among themselves
about it. He agreed with Mr. Perkins that in principle he thinks it is a
valid study, and he seconded Mr. Perkins' motion.
Mrs. Humphris wondered what would be the next step, if the motion is
approved. She said obviously a work session will be needed, and it could
possibly be a joint meeting, so the Supervisors and School Board members can
move forward in order to decide how the plan should be implemented.
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff will need some guidance as to whether
or not it should be a joint work session. He said the staff will need a
couple of weeks notice in regard to the work sessi0n~ and the Boards can also
use this time to further study the plan. He referred to the motion by the
Board of Supervisors, but he said he is unsure if the School Board is ready to
adopt the report in principle. He then encouraged the members of the two
Boards, particularly the members who weren't on the committee, to provide the
staff and committee members with any questions they have. He said answers
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47) . ~ · ·
000047
will be found for these questions either through the staff, committee members
or Mr. Hendricks before the public work session is held.
Mr. Martin remarked that he would like to follow through with Mr.
Perkins' motion. He said he would then like to have a couple of weeks to get
a response from the public, employees and teachers. He added that the
Supervisors could make a decision at their next meeting as to whether or not
to pursue a joint public hearing or an individual public hearing.
Mrs. Thomas said if adopting the plan in principle is simply the step
that has to be taken in order to move on, then she is willing to do so. She
added, though, that she has some questions. She commented that in her mind
the curve which looks unfair in the teachers' salaries was very carefully
determined to be the years in which the County tended to lose good teachers,
and so it is very purposely there. She said she wants to very purposely move
away from it, if this is the direction the County is going. However, she does
not want to wipe out something by vote today which was very carefully thought
out. She also mentioned that she would like to know how to respond to the
usual public criticism that all a person has to do is stay one more year, and
he or she will automatically get a raise. She stated that the two Boards will
have to be able to say what was done to replace the career ladder because
people were being encouraged to go into the career ladder. She went on to say
she thinks she can be convinced of some of these things, but these are the
kinds of things she wants to make sure of before she votes for a plan which
may move the County further back.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the consultant will need to be present if a
work session is held because there will be specific questions directed to him,
Dr. Castner or Frank Morgan. He said there are a number of people to whom
questions can be asked, and he thinks this is the perfect opportunity to do
so, after absorbing information from the Supervisors' own review, as well as
public and employee review.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if it is the wish of the Supervisors that they
have a work session assuming the Supervisors are going to adopt the report in
principle. If so, she asked if the work session will be followed by a public
hearing or will the public hearing be held at the same time. She also asked
if the work session will be held jointly with the School Board in the interest
of getting all the thinking and the expertise together.
Mrs. Powell said Dr. Castner had some ideas he would like to share with
the two Boards.
Dr. Castner stated that the complexity of the school system is great,
and there has not been the opportunity to actually study the report's impact
with some of the people who will be involved. He said some time is needed for
the School Board to have a preliminary work session with some of the staff and
teachers to review the report and look at a time line under which to operate
to possibly implement the plan this year. He added that this could probably
be done during the month of February if this time can be provided to the
school system. He said if the School Board could take this time and then get
back with the Board of Supervisors in the near future, he thinks this will
help the school officials get a feel for where they are at this time. He next
mentioned that there are 450 teachers on the career ladder, and if time is not
taken to give them an explanation or involve them in an alternative which
appeals to them, then this could cause a downside which can probably be
avoided if extra time is taken. He said he believes there is a good chance
the plan will be compelling enough for them to see a benefit.
Mr. Martin remarked that he would rather take this extra time, because
he really would like to see how the teachers feel about the plan.
Mrs. Humphris stated that it appears to her the action needed by the
Board of Supervisors is to vote on the motion already on the floor. She added
that the staff can then let both Boards know what work needs to be done and
what the timetable should be for doing it in terms of work sessions individu-
ally, jointly or by committee.
Mr. Tucker agreed with Mrs. Humphris' comments. He said if the plan is
to be implemented this year, a date for approval needs to be set. He reminded
Board members that there is lots of data entry needing to be done to have the
plan implemented by July 1. He noted also that the teachers' contracts will
be issued in April.
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
000045
Mr. Marshall suggested that perhaps Mr. Perkins might want to amend his
motion in light of what has been said at today's meeting.
Mr. Perkins said his motion is just to accept the report in principle.
He emphasized, though, that there are a lot more things which need to be done.
Mr. Marshall stated that the word, '~principle," has not been defined,
and he asked for a definition.
Mr. Hendricks responded that accepting the report in principle means
that there can be concerns about any position, and there is a process beyond
this point to rectify the concerns. He said accepting the report in
principle also means whether or not the study is heading in the right direc-
tion.
Mr. Bowerman commented that this study was undertaken because both
Boards felt there were inequities in the system. He pointed out that this
report addresses those inequities and provides a method of addressing them.
He said the Boards need to deal with specific application.
Mr. Martin stated that he has some concerns as to what happens when
people have been operating under the assumption that the career ladder is the
way they want to progress through their career. He asked what happens when
this option is taken away. He also wondered what is going to be put in its
place to make sure the teachers won't be left in a situation where for several
years they had thought their work was leading in a certain direction and all
of a sudden this is not happening. He . said the School Board probably knows
more about the teachers' feelings, but he doesn't want to accept anything to
indicate that the career ladder concept is being dropped without getting a
better understanding for how the teachers feel.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Board of Supervisors will not be
dealing with the career ladder at all. He said the School Board will be doing
that.
Mr. Martin responded that the Board of Supervisors is taking this vote.
Mr. Perkins reminded Mr. Martin that the Supervisors are just accepting
the study in principle. He said the School Board members may decide they want
to keep the career ladder, or they might decide they want to take three years
to implement it. He added that the steps can also be changed. He said the
committee has been trying to develop something that would be acceptable to the
School Board and the Board of Supervisors and would be fair to County employ-
ees and taxpayers.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he does not want the Supervisors to be delayed
by his motion. He said he will withdraw the motion, if necessary, so the
matter can move forward.
Mr. Martin suggested changing the motion. He said he does not want to
take a vote indicating he is opposed to or in favor of dismantling the career
ladder when he is unsure of what he wants to do at this time.
Mr. Marshall stated that he is satisfied with the definition, and he
called for the question.
Mr. Perkins seconded the call for the question.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and
Mr. Bowerman.
Mrs. Thomas.
Mrs. Humphris immediately asked for the roll to be called on the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas.
(Mr. Perkins left at 5:23 p.m.)
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49) ~
000049
Mrs. Powell commented that she and Mrs. Gallion had served on the
Compensation and Performance Management Study. Committee. Mrs. Powell said she
agrees with Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman because a lot of time was spent on
this issue, and a lot of questions were asked. She said the committee members
tried not to lead in any particular direction, and they tried to look at the
whole picture. She stated that she has heard things through the years, and
she thinks there is some need for change. She said the report has been very
thorough, but she acknowledged that other members of both Boards don't have
the benefit of all of the information as did the committee members. For this
reason, she thinks it is necessary for the other Board members to feel more
comfortable with it.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board of Supervisors would wait for recommenda-
tions from the staff as to how to proceed.
Dr. Castner stated that the study is well done, and setting up the
salary structure was a well thought through plan. He said from his experience
in business, this is a model which will work, and the transition strategy will
also work. He added that the consultant has not just provided cross purposes
because some things have been provided which are already in the career ladder.
He went on to say that compensation is the hardest thing to do for employees,
but this is one of the best plans he has seen, in terms of structure because
it treats employees very fair. He said the structure is the key because for
every level it will be resolved as to how the person fits in the plan.
Mr. Joseph remarked that he has worked on the quality improvement
program which was previewing part of this plan, and he thinks this is an
excellent study. He said, though, he would like to hear from the teachers and
staff hopefully in a joint meeting just to resolve once and for all that
everybody is in agreement.
Mr. Koleszar agreed with Mrs. Thomas when he referred to the curve in
the career ladder. He said people who have been with the County a number of
years are likely to be more concerned about compensation . He said consider-
ation needs to be given at the shape of the curve and where the County
officials want to be the most competitive.
Mr. Cummings concurred with Mr. Joseph's remarks that it seems to be a
well done report. He also referred to some concerns relating to the career
ladder concept, because there was a valid attempt to reward people during the
years when employees were being lost. He suggested that the School Board have
a work session.
Item No. 15b. Discussion: FY 1997 Draft School budget issues.
Dr. Castner then presented the Albemarle County Public Schools proposed
operating budget for FY 1996-97. He said he would be repetitive as far as
what he has told the public, but he would present a good picture as to how the
budget process is fitting together. He noted that if the present and the
future are considered, growth will be one of the main things affecting the
school system. He said the facilities for the students also have to be
paralleled with the curriculum which is going to set standards and have
accountability for student learning. He stated that if the things to be done
from the present to the future are considered, it is the very center that will
make the vision work. He said there has to be a main emphasis on student
performance. He added that last August for the first time an accountability
report was published based on indicators of student achievement. He stated
that this accountability report is going to be available every year, and it
can be judged as to whether the system is moving forward or backward through
its performance. He said the data collected will be related to student
performance, and it will be connected into involvement in the community, the
Capital Improvements Program, competitive salaries to attract and maintain the
staff, and it will look into professional development as well as technology.
He shoWed a slide presentation and discussed five adopted goals.
He then described how well the school system is doing. He said there is
evidence that the schools are holding their own, because the students are
above the state average in most of the state report indicators. He noted that
on the Literacy Passport Test, the state's score went down last year, but the
County's score increased. However, while there were 72 percent passage, there
was a gap between African Americans and White students of over 30 percent,
which is not acceptable. He said the County needs to get most of its students
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)'
(Page 50) ·
000050
at that level of proficiency, and a lot of time was spent on this matter at
individual schools this year. He referred to the one percent dropout rate for
Albemarle County, which he described as a very healthy indicator of how
education is valued by the citizens of this County. He noted that the
national dropout rate is 2:0 percent. He emphasized that since 52 percent of
the County's graduates take a curriculum resulting in earning advanced study
diplomas, this is an indicator of quality for a school system. He said there
is a lot of national data where school systems are compared, and there has
been a lot of talk about SAT scores.going backward, and school systems are not
performing as well as they used to do. He said this is not true with
Albemarle County, and he explained that the .SAT scores are clearly above the
State and National levels. He pointed out that Virginia scores were 896
compared to the SAT scores for Western Albemarle High School which were over
1,000. He commented that this proves this is a very healthy system. He said
the health of the school system can be judged by the fact that 73 percent of
the students are taking the SAT test, and this number is increasing. He
stated that these are the types of indicators a lot of real estate people like
to discuss when they have people coming to the area to visit. He added that
in spite of all of the positive things, when a school system goes from year to
year, it does not get easier. He commented that the commitments made this
year won't necessarily get the County the same rate of performance in future
years because of a couple of things. He referred again to the Literacy
Passport Test and the Scholastic Aptitude Test where there are gaps of student
achievement from school to school. He said in certain areas of the County
there is not the same rate of performance as other areas, and something needs
to be done about it.
Dr. Castner next talked about the mobility rate, and he pointed out that
if Agnor-Hurt had 500 students at the start of the year, there will be a
change of 200 students or 40 percent during the school year. And at Greer not
only is there a mobility rate of 40 percent, there are also four or five
languages. He noted that reduced lunches and free lunches are both increasing
by nine percent. He said that anything done about the budget has to go back
to the children so the decisions have to be made to do the best possible with
the available money. He went on to say that the budget process is only at the
beginning stages, and the beginning revenue number has been modified today by
$196,000. He is appreciative of this fact, but it has changed some of the
figures in his presentation. He stated that the School Board next week will
take the Superintendent's budget and modify it and take it to be reviewed by
Mr. Tucker's staff. He said that the Supervisors will deliberate and look at
additional revenue, but they will give the budget back to the School Board in
April, and at that time the School Board will give the Supervisors a balanced
budget. He remarked that it will be a budget based on additional revenues,
and when those revenues are known, it will be easier to prioritize them.
He then noted that, for the most part, last year's budget was a mainte-
nance and effort budget with the amount per student being approximately what
it was the year before. However, he stated that this year based on the
revenue figure received from Mr. Tucker, it is a decrease in effort budget,
because less money was being spent for students than in previous years. He
stated that things are entirely different from anything being dealt with a
year ago. He then went over the three FY 1996-97 budget challenges which
dealt with significant enrollment growth, a decrease in the amount of avail-
able additional revenue as compared to FY 1995-96, and the school system's
loss of approximately $300,000 in federal funds supporting self-sustaining
programs. He said there is a requirement to make an additional payment of
approximately $92,000 to the Virginia Retirement System to support Cost of
Living Adjustment Prefunding.
He wants to go on record that he has been favorably impressed with the
Capital Improvements Program. He added that he realizes it is not just With
the operating budget where the Supervisors are committing themselves to
education. He emphasized that they are including an amount of $49,000,000
before the year 2000 including the $23,000,000 high school. He stated that he
wanted the Supervisors to know that he appreciates this commitment, and it is
just another reason contributing to the good things happening in the schools.
He said, however, it doesn't change the fact that there is a problem with this
budget relating to continued growth but reduced revenue. He emphasized that
he felt the school system could be opened with only a $1,400,000 increase when
he prepared the budget. He said growth'cannot be addressed, nor compensation
nor anything else in the way it should be done, so he attempted to find
additional funds in the existing budget to put toward the growth issue to try
to make the picture look brighter if schools had to be opened with that
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
00005
revenue. He stated that he did not want to make one of these recommendations,
but based on the charge given to him, it is what he had to do to get a
balanced budget within the time frame. He nOted that the School Board found
the idea of changing the staffing ratio to be unacceptable, as well as the
restructuring proposal for the special education staff. He then referred to
a concern with bussing where $4,800,000 was spent in transportation. He added
that 750 square miles in Albemarle County make transportation a big ticket
item. He felt if there was any way to take money out of transportation and
turn it to instruction, it might help in the year when the new high school is
opened.
He mentioned Ms. White's presentation last year when she showed the
problem with the bus replacement fund and all the issues relating to the new
high school. He said the Board has asked that this fund stay in the budget
and the study committee recreated. He next mentioned the restructuring
proposal of a reduction to the two high schools of $75,000 which would target
athletics. As a result of last night's meeting, however, the School Board
members reached a consensus that they would take out the restructuring
proposals, and they wondered how much it would cost to have the same mainte-
nance of effort that the school system had this past year. He said he had
been sharing this information with the School Board all along, and no matter
how much the budget is cut, approximately $2,000,000 is needed. He stated
that the $2,000,000 would only be maintaining the per pupil expenditure with
inflation and not have the restructuring of the growth issues dealing with
class sizes.
He discussed some of the programs and expenditures, and he indicated
that there is no way with the available revenue that there can be a mainte-
nance of effort budget. He also indicated that in order for the school system
to continue as it did this past year and not go backward, $1,800,000 to
$2,000,000 will be needed. He pointed out that all departments have been
level funded for four years in a row, which means that the operating money has
not increased during these four years. He also noted that five health
clinicians are being included in the School Board's budget, which is an
increase in effort. He pointed out that there are still many unfunded
priorities such as textbooks, as well as a number of other priorities which
would far exceed $500,000 that he doesn't believe can be addressed. However,
the Board has not finalized its budget and these issues will be up for further
discussion in Monday evenzng's meeting. He said he had been saying to Mr.
Tucker for some time that the school system is expecting 200 new students next
year, and a five percent zncrease is needed in the budget just to break even.
He stated that the School Board members have not voted on anything yet, but
they reached some conceptual discussions last night, and the total new revenue
requested is approximately $3,200,000. He noted, though, that $300,000 was
lost in federal funds and $92,000 was lost in VRS. He said the school system
is not gaining, and the School Board did not accept the reduction effort
budget. He reiterated that the School Board is sending to the Board of
Supervisors a maintenance of efforts budget with similar funds as were
received in the past. He said he knows the Supervisors will do whatever they
can to help the school system, and he also thinks it is important that the
Supervisors look at the data from this time forward if reduction in monies
from the state continues. He stated that if the school system is going to
keep so many of the positive things it has going for it and address some of
the weaknesses which can be improved upon, a five percent increase is needed.
He added that if the County gets ten new students instead of 200, a five
percent increase in revenue is not needed. He said revenue ms totally driven
by the growth of the students, and though he doesn't think there should be a
fixed formula, it is almost an area needing attention based on the growth. He
suggested that perhaps this is something in need of discussion when long range
projections are developed. He ended his remarks by stating that he was glad
to have a chance to talk to the Supervisors so close to last night's meeting.
Ms. Powell announced that the School Board had worked late last night on
the budget, and the School Board members will be meeting again on Monday to
hear some more public input. She said they are hoping to adopt a document at
that time. However, if more time is needed, they will meet again on Tuesday.
Mr. Marshall wondered where the School Board will get the S2,000,000 in
order for the school system to move forward as it did last year. Ms. Powell
answered that some speakers at last night's meeting gave the School Board some
good suggestions. She said one of the suggestions was whether or not the
meals tax should be revisited. She added that there ms an ongoing effort in
this regard so it might be something which should be explored. She went on to
O0005;8.
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
say that this is up to the Board of Supervisors, but it seems as though the
citizens are speaking out because they realize the dilemma the school system
is in at this point. She said the School Board members want to work with the
Supervisors to try to best solve the problem.
There were no further questions for the Superintendent or School Board
members.
Mr. Koleszar noted that the formula for state funding is set for a two
year cycle, so if there are 230 more students next year, more money will be
coming from the state. He said it will be lower on a per pupil basis.
However, this is a one year situation where less money is being sent from the
state.
Mr. Cummings made a motion for the School Board to adjourn.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Gallion, and all School Board members
voted aye.
(Note: At 6:05 p.m. the Board recessed and reconvened in Room 241 at
6:08 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Mr. Tucker requested authorization from the Board to waive the policy
for street sign names. There were two individuals who did not understand nor
did they get the proper information that made it the obligation of the
residents to pay for the signs.
Mr. Marshall inquired as to how many road names have been assigned.
Tucker answered that approximately 80 to 85 percent road names have been
assigned.
Mr.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to waive
the street sign name policy for two specific individuals. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mrs, Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Mrs. Thomas said Congress turned down any chance Albemarle CoUnty had at
having any control over the waste stream flow. That means it severely reduces
what can be done in terms of expensive solid waste treatment. The control of
the waste stream would allow the County to say where the waste haulers had to
take the waste and that would be the basis on which a financial plan were
formulated in order to float bonds for any kind of expensive solid waste
treatment.
Mrs. Humphris said she received a phone call from George Bailey who
asked if there was some way the Board could reemphasize to the General
Assembly its feelings about the "King's Dominion" relief bill because of snow
closings of County schools which could cause them to have to be open later in
the summer. She asked if there was any pending legislation. Mr. Tucker said
he would track the bill that was introduced and if there is still time to
comment will ask the County's delegation to support the bill. He will bring
back a report next month.
Mr. Marshall asked how employees are paid when the County Office
Building is closed due to inclement weather. Mr. Tucker said staff will
probably bring back a policy next month.
Mrs. Thomas said there have been bills put into the General Assembly
saying that special use permits could not be required for uses that fit within
a particular zone. She is assuming the Board can oppose that based on what is
already in the County's legislative packet. Mr. Davis said that bill has been
carried over in conjunction with the proffer bill that was introduced by the
Approved by
Date
Initials ~
000053
February 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
same patron. It will be studied and reintroduced next year along with the
results of the study that is to be Undertaken. It is not a danger to
Albemarle during this Session but will possibly be a danger next year.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn.
At 6:20 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion
was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjourn this meeting
until February 14, 1996, at 4:00 p.m. in Room 241. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.