The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-08-02August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 000 84 A regular meeting of the:Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 2, 1995, 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, Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. David McKim presented a letter to the Board, on behalf of Sugar Hollow residents, regarding environmental concerns. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve items 5.1 through 5.4 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Item 5.la. Appropriation: School Division - $75,000, (Form #95008). It was noted in the staff's report that the School Board had approved an appropriation of $73,709 from the State Department of Education to support the purchase of instructional technology hardware and software items. The grant for the current fiscal year is aimed specifically at middle schools. The grant requires these monies be matched based on the division's composite index. The required $42,751 in matching funds has already been allocated as funding for instructional technology in the CIP budget. By the recorded vote set out above, th~ following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95008 FUND: EDUCATION PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ALLOCATION OF SCHOOL BOARD'S RESERVE TO IMPLEMENT PHASE I OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1241090610999981 1241062120115000 1241062120160900 1241062120210000 1241062120221000 1241062120231000 1241062120241000 1211161311111300 1211161311210000 1211161311221000 1211161311231000 1211161311232000 1211161311241000 1211161311520100 1211161311550100 1211161311580000 1211161311580100 1211161311600100 1211161311601200 1211161311601600 1211161311601700 1211162420520301 1211162420520302 DESCRIPTION A~OUNT SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE SALARY-OFFICE CLERICAL SALARY RESERVE-BONUS FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH INSURANCE GROUP LIFE ($75,000.00) (30,243 00) (756 00) (2,371 00) (3,384 00) (2,060 00) (106 00) SALARY-ASST. SUPERINTENDENT FiCA RETIREMENT HEALTH INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE GROUP LIFE POSTAL SERVICES MILEAGE MISC. EXPENSES DUES & MEMBERSHIPS OFFICE SUPPLIES BOOKS/SUBSCRIPTIONS DATA PROCESSING COPY SUPPLIES TELEPHONE-LOCAL TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE 63,000.00 5,000.00 7,000.00 2,060.00 60.00 220.00 250.00 500 00 810 00 250 00 750 00 500 00 250 00 750 00 100.00 125.00 August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Me~tihg) (Page 2) 1211161311160300 ''~n[J~[~[[~TRUCTIONAL 121116131121o0oo FICA TOTAL 000155 30,000.00 2,295.00. 0.00 Item 5.lb. Appropriation: School Division Capital Fund - Instructional Technology - $73,709, (Form ~95009) . It was noted in the staff's report that the School Board had approved the reappropriation of funds from the School Board's reserve account and from the administration category to the instructional category in order to imple- ment the approved phase one administrative plan. Phase I of the Administra- tive Plan utilized funds from the School Board Reserve Fund ($75,000) and the elimination of the Executive Services Assistant position in the Superinten- dent's Office to fund the new Assistant Superintendent for Instruction position and stipends for summer instructional workshops for teachers. Phase I also involved restructuring several teacher specialist positions with an emphasis on professional development and training for teachers, which did not require any additional funding. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95009 FUND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE GRANT FROM STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1900064010800700 DATA PROCESSING EQUIP.-NEW TOTAL $73,709.00 $73,709.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2900024000240275 TECHNOLOGY GRANT TOTAL $73,709.00 $73,709.00 Item 5.2. Set public hearing for September 6, 1995, to amend Section 4-19(a) of the County Code to include Peacock Hill Subdivision under the County's dog "leash law". It was noted in the staff's report that the Peacock Hills Subdivision in Ivy has requested that it be included in the County's dog leash ordinance. Approximately 71 percent of the residences within Peacock Hills have signed a petition in favor of the dog leash law (95 out of 134). There are 43 vacant lots in the community. The petition is on file in the Board office. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set a public hearing for September 6, 1995. Item 5.3. Request by the Ivy Creek Foundation for permission ~o raise funds and construct a facility for ICF programs at the Ivy Creek Natural Area. It was noted in the staff's report that the Ivy Creek Foundation was formed in May of 1979 to assist the City and County in planning, expanding and the operation of the Ivy Creek Natural Area. The non-profit Foundation is supported through tax deductible contributions from its members. The Natural Area is owned by the City and the County with the County being responsible for the administration of the Area. The Ivy Creek Foundation provided research, planning services and graphic presentations that assisted the local govern- ments in securing grants to purchase and develop the Area. The Foundation has planned and developed all of the walking trails and nature programs. In addition the Foundation preserved and converted the landmark barn into an assembly area and information headquarters for the Natural Area and the associated nature programs. The Foundation is seeking permission from the City and County to construct and equip a new building to be used for a year-round facility for nature programming. The barn, which is presently used, is cold and damp for much of the year and is not well suited for audio-visual equipment use. Only the small office area in the barn is heated. The proposed facility will be one story of less than 2000 square feet, capable of seating 40 to 60 people, and located between the barn and house. The estimated cost for the building itself is $70,000. The cost for furnish- ing the building with counters, shelving, and audio-visual equipment is an additional $!0,000 to $15,000. The Foundation has received a commitment from the Perry Foundation for $25,000 in matching funds and intends to pursue other grants and donations for the remainder. The City and County are being asked to assume responsibility for the maintenance and utility costs for the AUgust 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000186 (Page 3) facility once it is c~mpl~%ed. ~ ~i~ maintenance and facility costs are estimated not to exceed $500 per year.. Currently the County bills the City for 50 percent of such direct costs. Last year ICF provided guided tours for over 3000 school children. Because of the lack of a heated facility, guide training can only occur in the spring and fall. The new facility will be able to hold the entire corps of 50+ volunteer guides and will greatly enhance their ability to provide quality environmental education. The new clean dry space will also allow for the development of displays to enhance school and public programs and highlight the natural history that surrounds the Natural Area. Staff recommends the Board approve that the proposed facility can be built at ICNA by the Ivy Creek Foundation contingent on: City of Charlottesville approval of the same; That construction will not begin until the necessary funds for completing the building have been secured. Mrs. Humphris commented that it was a little over twenty years ago when legal battles were being fought to keep high density residential development off that piece of property. She said the County was fortunate to have pur- chased this property to use for environmental public purposes. A lot of citizens were concerned about the future of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the proposed facility be built at ICNA by the Ivy Creek Foundation contingent upon: (1) City of Charlottesville approval of the same; and (2) that construction will not begin until the necessary funds for completing the building have been secured. Item 5.4. Resolution for the addition and abandonment of Route 631 required as a result of the reconstruction of Fifth Street Extended. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has constructed 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 construc- tion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways those portions of Route 631 identified as Section 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 on the sketch, a distance of 0.99 miles, and those portions of Route 780 identified as Section 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 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board abandons as part of the secondary system of state highways, those portions of Route 631 identified as Section 1, 2, 5 and 8 on the sketch, a distance of 0.35 miles, and those portions of Route 780 identified as Section 19 and 20 on the sketch, a distance of 0.15 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-155, Code of Virginia; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that parts of the secondary system identified as Section 3, 4, 15, 16 and 17 on the sketch, a dis- tance of 0.68 miles, be renumbered and Section 6 and 18 on the sketch, a distance of 0.10 miles, be renumbered and Section 7 and 25 on the sketch, a total of 0.40 miles, be renumbered and added to the secondary system of highways; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Item 5.5. Letter dated July 24, 1995, from Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing the monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under construction in Albemarle County. The following letter was received for information: August 2, 1995 (Regular Day ~ing) ~ ~ (Page 4) 000187 "Attached find the moh~h!~ ~d~[~ ~n highway improvement projects currently under construction in Albemarle County. Please see that this information is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors members. I will be prepared to discuss this matter with them at the next meeting if they so desire." PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ALBEMARLE COUNTY AUGUST 1, 1995 Route # Location Status Estimated Comp Date 29 From Hydraulic Rd Construction 86% December (Rt 743) to N of Complete 1995 Rio Rd (Rt 631) 240 Rt 240 Bridge Construction 30% December Replacement near Complete 1995 Int. Route 250 1-64 Bridge Repair Construction 75% September Various Locations Complete 1995 29 From N of Rio Rd Construction 10% May 1997 (Rt 631) to S. Fork Complete Rivanna River 671 Bridge Replacement Construction 10% November at Millington Complete 1995 Item 5.6. Letter dated July 21, 1995, from the Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Member of Congress, to the Honorable Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, regarding waste stream flow control legislation (on file in the Clerk's office), received for information. Mrs. Humphris said she is concerned about the tone of the Congressman's letter. He referenced the mandate from the public and she feels he has misconstrued the mandate. The public has indicated that they want government put back in the hands of the localities. He wants to do this in a committee in Washington. She said she was not pleased with the Congressman's reply. Item 5.7. Notice of an application filed with the State Corporation Commission from Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc., for a general increase in natural gas rates, received for information. Item 5.8. Copy of proposal submitted by Virginia Maintenance Services to the Virginia Department of Transportation for a public-private partnership effort (on file in the Clerk's office), received for information. Mrs. Humphris said she hoped all of the savings mentioned in the proposal would happen considering what VDOT was doing. Mrs. Thomas said she recently took a vacation to New Mexico, and this sort of program has been undertaken in several cities with median strips and corners that are public property which might need some beautification. She said these areas are beautiful and they all have a sign on them which indi- cates that the beautification was being done by civic groups, families or nearby businesses, so it is a type of advertising. She said the information is tastefully placed on the sign and seems to be something that County officials could consider to encourage private maintenance in which the Route 29 North Business Council would be interested. Mrs. Thomas said that some businesses may like a sign, and it may make a difference as to whether or not they would want to contribute to the project. She said this situation is similar to the project where citizens adopt a portion of a highway. Mr. Marshall said he would talk to Mr. Dan Jordan and Mr. Ray MacDonald to see if they would be willing to plant some flowers on Route 20, if a nice sign was erected. Mrs. Humphris said things needed to be clarified as to who can or can not take part in such projects. She recalled that the Hessian Hills apart- ments residents had asked to be allowed to maintain and beautify the median strip on Barracks Road beside their apartment complex and VDOT officials have not allowed them to do that. She said the residents are not even allowed to mow it when the grass gets tall. She said if some people are not allowed to take part in such projects, they should be given a reason. August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting (Page 5) Mr. Tucker said there may be some liability issues involved. Mrs. Humphris wondered why there would be liability issues involved for the Hessian Hills residents, but not for the Route 20 projects. Mr. Tucker said there would also be liability issues involved with the Route 20 projects. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer for VDoT, stated that anyone working in VDoT's right-of-way has to be working under a permit, and sometimes that permit disinterests private property owners because of traffic control and liability issues. She said VDoT staff was trying to work with property owners relating to areas on Barracks Road. She was not aware of the past history of turning down any such requests. She said VDoT staff was trying to find a way to move some material in that area, and still keep the sight distance at some locations. Mrs. Humphris recalled that there was a committee relating to the retaining wall which was constructed during the four-laning of the road. She said the committee met and decided that residents of Hessian Hills apartments could provide the plant material for their properties to disguise the wall. She stated that the residents were being supplied a list of the appropriate plants allowed by VDoT staff. She said the residents were not allowed to touch the median. She indicated that even if the grass grew high and was an eyesore, it could not be cut except by VDoT staff. She noted this was a densely-populated area, and the residents are unhappy not being able to beautify the median. She said the first median at the bypass intersection is full of rocks, and people have also dumped concrete blocks there. Mr. Marshall inquired if landowners are not allowed to keep the grass cut on highway property. Mr. Martin said he cuts grass on highway property every week. Mr. Marshall indicated that he does the same thing. Ms. Tucker responded that a large percentage of property owners do the same; however, you must request formal permission and this procedure annoys some citizens. Mr. Marshall asked if a permit was required. Ms. Tucker said there are residents of subdivisions who request that VDoT personnel do not mow roadways because they take care of it. She said it is only when VDoT is requested to formally address such issues that people are told that the policy requires a permit. She indicated this was a legal protection for VDoT against damages. She said this regulation is not some- thing VDoT officials enforce more than the regulation regarding the removal of landscaping; such as flowers and very small shrubs from right-of-way. She stated that many property owners plant such things around their mailboxes and sidewalks, which are sometimes on VDoT property, but are not asked to remove them. She said in a lot of subdivisions, VDoT's formal right-of-way are five to ten feet behind a curb and VDoT officials have not enforced removing plantings that are there without formal permission. Ms. Tucker pointed out that VDoT officials are attempting to match the City's urban mowing standard in the urban ring around the City, so that there is not such a difference between the City and County line. She said the current contract has been in the works since last year, and it is hoped that by next season, VDoT officials can capture this project in a contract. She explained that VDoT is contracting primary, interstate and some secondary mowing. Mrs. Thomas said that in a meeting she and Ms. Tucker attended, it was pointed out that someone on the County staff had found that Williamsburg received extra funding from the state because it is an historic area, and an attempt was being made to maintain an urban-type care of the right-of-way. She said that Ms. Tucker was going to see if Albemarle County could receive more state money, and she wondered if Ms. Tucker found out additional informa- tion on the matter. Ms. Tucker said that Mr. Roosevelt had made such a request, but there was a negative answer from state officials. She said she is not worried about this response, because she feels it is simply a matter of the VDoT staff fine tuning what they are already doing by working harder and expecting more from the contractors. She said that certain things are outlined in the contracts, but a contract is only good if enforced. She said VDoT was doing its best to monitor the contractors and make sure they are doing what is needed. She said VDoT officials are not asking for any extra money for this area, but will do thei~ best although they will not let it take away from any other maintenance project. She said the City's program has not quite been matched, but good reco~s are being kept to see how many mowings can be attended to, as well as how much money is spent. Ms. Tucker said she would talk to University representatives, because she knows they have special events which require extra grooming on the interstate at the Route 29 interchange. She said VDoT staff is considering wildflower beds and specimen tree plantings in that location. OOO159 August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) Item 5.9. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of June, 1995, received for informa- tion. Item 5.10. Copy of the Planning Commission minutes for July 11, 1995, received for information. Item 5.11. Acme Design Technology Company - June, 1995, Operating Re- sults, received for information. Item 5.12. Southern Charlottesville Transportation Study and Char- lottesville Entrance Corridor Study prepared for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County by KELLERCO, Inc., (copy on file in the Clerk's office) received for information. Item 5.13. Letter dated July 28, 1995, addressed to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, from Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, regarding various transportation issues, received as follows: "Please share the following information with the Board of Supervi- sors. I will be prepared to discuss all topics at the upcoming Board meeting. The Department will discuss details regarding the restoration of Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road) at a public meeting on Tuesday, August 1, at 7:00 p.m. at Whitehall Community Center (Routes 614/810). Ail interested citizens are invited. A verbal status report will be shared with the Board at Wednesday's meeting. The standards for applying roadway centerline have recently changed. Any public road with a stabilized surface (tar and gravel, asphalt, etc.), minimum 18' pavement width, and at least 500 vehicles per day (vpd) traffic volume are eligible to receive a centerline. Previous traffic volumes required a minimum 1000 vpd. Please find attached a list of routes throughout the county that meet the new centerline criteria. Only unusual circumstances will deem a centerline inappropriate. If there are concerns with any specific routes listed, the Department will review each for merit. We have scheduled removal of the rock outcroppings along Route 712 as discussed at the July Board meeting. This work should be completed over the next 30 to 60 days. The cost estimate is approximately $3,000, and requires prioritization among other safety related maintenance concerns. The State Traffic Engineer has advised this office that the request to restrict through traffic on Georgetown Road (Route 656) has been deferred for consideration of final approval until such time as the current Route 29 improvements are complete. The final asphalt overlay will be applied during warm weather in early Spring 1996." Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: September 1, 1993. Mr. Bowerman had read pages 1-17 of September 1, 1993, and found them to be in order. Mrs. Humphris had read pages 17 to the end of September 1, 1993, and handed the Clerk three typographical errors to be corrected. Mrs. Thomas said she would abstain from voting, since she was not on the Board at that time. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the minutes as presented with corrections. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mrs. Thomas. Agenda Item No. 7a. Other Transportation Matters. Mrs. Tucker indicated that she has sent a letter to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors regarding items which were outstanding from last month's August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting (Page 7) 000199 Board meeting. matters. She said she w°~d~dd~:hh~ questions regarding those Mrs. Thomas referred to the portion of Mrs. Tucker's letter about the removal of the rock out-croppings along Route 712 notes that the work should be completed over the next 30 to 60 days at a cost of $3000 and requires prioritization among other safety related maintenance concerns. She asked if Mrs. Tucker needed any action by the Board. Mrs. Tucker said no Board action was needed. Mrs. Thomas said she is sure school bus drivers, as well as other drivers in that area, are going to appreciate this improvement. Mrs. Tucker remarked that one factor is that the road has a centerline, and it keeps traffic to that section of pavement, and does not allow for people to perceive to be able to move to the center of the road away from those rocks. Mr. Perkins asked if there were any plans to place delineators on these turns, which are dangerous. When there is a turn, drivers keep crowding to the inside. He said as time passes, more rocks appear. Mrs. Tucker said delineators can be placed immediately. She said she would also look into edge lines, although it depends on the curve and the criteria, in order to edge line a road. Edge lines keep drivers centered. Mr. Perkins said he would also like for VDOT to consider any section of roads where there is a similar problem with drivers crowding to the inside of roads. He suggested that perhaps the curve could be expanded to the outside so that larger vehicles will have room to swing out further, and their drivers will not have to crowd the inside of the turns. Mrs. Tucker said VDOT officials will consider Mr. Perkins' suggestion. Mrs. Humphris referred to the portion of Mrs. Tucker's letter in which she indicates that the State Traffic Engineer has advised that the request to restrict through truck traffic on Georgetown Road (Route 656) has been deferred for consideration and final approval until such time as the current Route 29 improvements are complete. The final asphalt overlay on Route 29 will not be applied until warm weather in early Spring, 1996. She asked what was the connection between these two projects. The segment that the through- truck traffic will use has nothing to do with the construction on Route 29, since it is between Hydraulic and Barracks Roads. She asked what is the rationale behind this decision. Mrs. Tucker responded that the construction is now focused around the Hydraulic Road intersection and just north of it. While Georgetown Road is between Hydraulic and Barracks Roads, it is still close enough to be a significance to the alternate, if the through truck restrictions were consid- ered. It was felt that since there is still work to be done on the Hydraulic Road intersection, it would push trucks, by way of restricting them on Georgetown Road, out into a construction zone. VDOT officials felt it would be wise to wait until the Route 29 project was complete, so ghat the Georgetown Road project would not impact the Route 29 project contractor. Mrs. Humphris asked whose responsibility it is to go back to Mr. Willie Smith, the School Transportation Director, and discuss the issue again relative to the number of school buses that use Georgetown Road, but do not belong there. She wondered who should inform Mr. Smith that the earlier agreement relating to these school buses is not being accomplished. Mrs. Tucker responded that VDOT staff could discuss this with the Transportation Director, but since the school system is another County agency, and since this is a public right-of-way, VDOT officials cannot restrict the school buses. Mrs. Humphris agreed that the school buses cannot be restricted, but she noted that an agreement was reached before Mrs. Tucker became the Resident Engineer. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that the agreement indicated there would be no school buses on Georgetown Road unless school bus drivers had to use it for direct access for their routes. However, school bus drivers are clearly using Georgetown Road, although a letter was written indicating they would not do so. Mrs. Tucker asked if this was a Task Force recommendation. Mrs. Humphris answered affirmatively. Mrs. Tucker said she would be happy to discuss this matter with the Mr. Smith. Mrs. Humphris also suggested this agreement be put into writing, again. Mr. Martin said he thinks this should be an item for discussion between the School Board and the Board of Supervisors. He said there is a cost involved for the School Board. He noted that Mr. Smith has a model for getting buses around to the places where they need to go, and if they have to go elsewhere, there will be extra costs involved. Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Smith had no problem with this agreement, and these were his instructions to his drivers. She indicated that in the beginning of the year, school bus drivers adhered to the agreement, but as the year went on, the drivers quit paying attention to the agreement. August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 000 9 Mr. Martin commented that he stiiib~lieves this is a School Board and Board of Supervisors problem. He does not think the VDOT staff has to get involved. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that this was an agreement which was reached with VDOT and the Task Force, and this was the mechanism at which it was arrived. She emphasized that something needs to be said, because Mr. Smith was cooperative and understanding about the situation. Mrs. Tucker asked if Mrs. Humphris would like for her to write a reminder, in the form of a letter, on behalf of the Task Force. Mrs. Humphris answered affirmatively. She suggested the reminder come from whomever is currently in charge of the Task Force. Mrs. Thomas wondered whose responsibility it is to initiate the center line drawing on the appropriate roads. She asked if these roads will be put on a schedule, or if Mrs. Tucker would like comments the Board received from citizens who live on these roads and feel they are unsafe. Mrs. Tucker answered that the new center line routes will fall into an automatic schedule late this season. The reason this was shared with the Supervisors is that if for any reason one feels that a center line should not be placed, then there has to be a formal resolution stating that a center line should not be placed on a particular route for a particular reason. She emphasized, however, that for the VDOT staff not to consider installing a center line, the reason would have to relate to a strong safety issue. She said these center lines fall under new legislation, and it is not a VDOT subjective matter. She explained that new legislation indicates a state roadway which has 18 feet of pavement, and 500 vehicle trips per day will now receive a center line. Mr. Tucker agreed that this is true, unless the Board of Supervisors gives the VDOT staff other suggestions or directives. Mrs. Tucker said if such a situation arises, the VDOT staff will consider it to make sure it is sound. This matter will be covered for the record by way of resolution, and the center line will be omitted from a particular roadway, if it appears that this is the safest thing to do. Mr. Bowerman inquired if it would be a problem for new road names to be included along with the state designation of the route numbers in information that the Supervisors get from the VDOT staff. Mrs. Tucker answered that this could probably be done. She noted that the current list was generated from the Culpeper office, which does not likely have that information. VDOT staff has many lists of route numbers and the matching street names, and this list can be updated. Mr. Bowerman said this would be helpful, especially since the County is switching to road names. Mrs. Humphris then asked if Mrs. Tucker would comment on the meeting last night relating to Sugar Hollow Road. Mrs. Tucker said the meeting to discuss the restoration of Route 614 in Sugar Hollow was held last night at 7:00 p.m., and it lasted approximately one and one-half hours. She noted that a representative from the Soil Conserva- tion Federal Agency was there also to discuss the grant work involved in re-channeling portions of the river. The overall tone of the meeting was positive, and people were comfort- able in stating their opinion, regardless of whether or not it was positive or negative. Concerns were expressed about a total road improvement project going through the area. She hopes the community was left with the impression that some leeway has been given to the VDOT staff in fine fitting these improvements to the community, and that VDOT workers will not come in and clear a 50 foot swath of newly obtained rights-of-way. The VDOT representa- tives will have to first see how much of the 50 foot rights-of-way donations will be received before they can access how the improvement will be handled. At the very least, there will be 18 feet of stabilized pavement. She empha- sized that it is the VDOT staff's preference to use plant mix, as opposed to surface treatment, which is the tar and gravel application. After a year's time, it all looks the same, but it is felt that the plant mix will last a few years longer. She went on to say that with the cost of a lot of this work being covered by FEMA, officials in the Richmond office have decided to take additional monies out of their emergency funds and not use the County's secondary funds. The stabilized surface can be added to roads that tend to wash out throughout the year, although she does not think it is the intent for this surface to withstand a flood, such as the people in this area have just seen. She again reiterated that, at the very least, the road will have 18 feet of pavement, two foot shoulders and a two foot ditch line when it can be fit into the location. She said when it can't, the intention is to leave what is already there in place, and blend into it. All tree and hedge row cuttings would be minimalized. There ~ay be a fence relocation, but it will depend on August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 00019Z (Page 9) which property owners offer to donate their rights-of-way. There is no intention of getting into any conderanation or purchase of rights-of-way. She said there will be tradeoffs such as resetting fences or re-establishing some gateways to properties. Mrs. Humphris mentioned that it seems to her communications to those people in that area have been poor, from representatives of the County as well as VDOT. She does not know who had that responsibility, but those people who gathered at this meeting seemed to have little or no communication from anybody about what was going to happen with the road, which caused all of the rumors and misconceptions, etc. She thought Hr. Bill Mills had indicated all of the people who had property on the road had been contacted, and he used the County tax map as his illustration. She emphasized, however, that it seems nobody had been contacted, although the VDOT representatives were discussing rights-of-way and donation of rights-of-way. This is a disturbing thing if people have not been told, and yet it. is known that the plans for replacing a road are going forward. She thinks everybody was responsible for this failure of communication. She indicated that nobody seemed to understand the method of getting rights-of-way or what was happening to their fences and gates, etc. She hopes the County never has another disaster, but if it happens, she hopes it will be handled better. Mrs. Tucker agreed that the communication could have been much better. Three weeks ago when the work was started in Sugar Hollow, it was no one's intention to do anything but put the road back as it was prior to the flood. Approximately a week or ten days ago, directions were received from the Richmond office, that there was funding available to do some enhanced restora- tion while putting the road back. For the last ten days the VDOT staff has been collecting records, as far as addresses and property owners are con- cerned, and stakes have been put into the ground so that the severity of impacts to properties can be considered. VDOT staff has worked closely with the County staff and appreciates the help particularly from Mr. David Hirsch- man, who has spent a lot of time working on information for that road. She said Mr. Hirschman had requested VDOT's participation in that meeting, although the VDOT staff had expected to hold its own meeting. She remarked, however, that she thinks it was good to cover all of this territory together. The only letter which was sent out to property owners from the VDOT office was the one inviting them to attend this meeting. This was confusing in the conversation last night. She added that there is a page and oneZhalf atten- dance list which was collected last night. She would like to advise each of these attendees by way of letter, as soon as information has been received, as to what is going to happen, whether or not they have property which fronts on Route 614. This would provide them a courtesy of an update. There will be personal interaction with VDOT's right-of-way staff with each individual property owner. Each property owner will be taken through the procedure of what is involved with donating right-of-way. This has not happened yet, so there has been no letter or discussions with any of the property owners. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that the whole concept of using a scenic river as a borrow pit really upset her when she saw what was happening there. This is apparently being done with the full blessing of everyone, and yet there are requirements that will not allow private landowners to do certain things in that area. She said it is going to be hard work to maintain a scenic river after allowing it to be so disturbed, although the flood obviously has done most of the damage. Now it is hard to separate what has been done by the trucks and big equipment going in and out and what was done by the flood. It is important now to move on. She then asked if Mrs. Tucker has ideas about the type of plantings which could be put back and the ways to keep it from looking like every other 50 foot right-of-way road in the countryside. She said this road never looked like that before, and that was part of the charm that was treasured in Sugar Hollow. She also inquired if Mrs. Tucker would be working with others to try to get sensitivity relating to the plantings, particularly. Mrs. Tucker indicated that she has not had such discussions, yet, but she will be happy to listen to those ideas and put them into VDOT's plans. She has not been told anything about landscaping, but she can listen and be as creative as possible. Recently with some of the projects, the members of the Department of Forestry have worked closely with the VDOT staff in establishing some native plantings. She wondered if Mrs. Thomas is referring to the plantings along the road, itself, as it is being restored. Mrs. Thomas answered affirmatively. She then suggested Mrs. Tucker get a copy of a letter that was presented to this Board regarding Sugar Hollow. She said has not seen it, but she thinks it is important, and it was the desire of the resi- dents to have it shared. Mrs. Tucker said she had a long conversation with Mrs. McKim prior to last night's meeting, and it was her husband who brought the letter to the Supervisors. Mrs. Thomas noted that everyone is appreciative of the quick response and the way that VDOT workers made it possible right after the storm to travel a road that looked as though it had become the river, itself, in many places. She said VDOT workers and contractors should recognize that the community is appreciative. Mrs. Tucker indicated that she would pass this comment along. August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) 0'00X9 3 Mr. Perkins said he has received another letter concerning the Reser- voir. Mr. Tucker said there have been a couple of letters which have been submitted to the Rivanna Authority about the same subject, and someone from that office is responding to them. It is important to be sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors in that area, but when there is that type of disaster with the river as well as the road, there is a lot of pressure on the VDOT staff to do something fast. He added that sometimes it is not easy to repair a road and make it passable. He agreed that VDOT workers responded quickly to this disaster. He added, though, that sometimes this type of action gets ahead of planning, although it was the intent of VDOT workers to place the road back in its original location. He pointed out that Madison County is going through the same thing, and a lot of those citizens are concerned about roads being built somewhere else other than where they were originally. However, because of the damages and shifting of the river, sometimes roads cannot be built back.in exactly the same location. Everyone has to be sensitive to the fact that while it is important to communicate with the citizenry, sometimes it is hard to do that in the beginning and not be accused of waiting too long to repair roads so that the citizens can get in and out of their properties. He thinks everyone has learned a lot from this experience, as far as how to communicate better with each other. Mr. Perkins commented that he does not think there is any type of relocation plans in this situation. Mr. Tucker stated that specifications and the standard of the road are involved at this location. Mr. Perkins con- curred. He hopes the road can be improved. As far as the river is concerned, Mr. Perkins remarked that it certainly was not scenic after the flood, and it is going to take it a while to heal. He stated that all anyone can do is wait. Mrs. Thomas noted that Mr. Naude came in after the discussion about the rock outcroppings on Route 712. She suggested Mrs. Tucker share her comments about how to best handle this matter. Mrs. Humphris mentioned that the traffic light at Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads is still causing problems. Mrs. Tucker said she met with the Task Force yesterday morning regarding that intersection, and some reconfiguration is being considered. She said it is hoped that one of the two through lanes going west on Hydraulic Road can be a left turn lane only. Now, vehicles in one of the through lanes have to sit behind traffic as it is trying to turn left. The road tapers back into one lane just the other side of that intersection where it meets Lambs Road, so it is felt this left turn lane will work better. She went on to say this might reduce the accident frequency of the conflict of left and right turns being made at that point. She mentioned that it is also known that there is a need for a dual left capacity from Georgetown Road westbound on Hydraulic Road. An island is there now which channels right turns from Georgetown Road onto Hydraulic Road going east. This island would need to be removed. She indicated that the District Traffic Office personnel are going to study those pavement markings along with re-establishing the signal phasing without the slip ramp. The concern relates to the volume of right turns which are being made there, and the need for the slip ramp. They are trying to look at the situation in the same light as the intersection at Barracks Road and George- town Road. This is a formal "T" intersection without slip ramps. She explained that a meeting has been scheduled for mid-September with the Task Force to resolve those issues, and she will share the date and time of this meeting later with Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Marshall remarked that when a vehicle is coming off of an interstate exit on a ramp, generally there is an acceleration lane. When a vehicle leaves eastbound 1-64 to go to Route 20 South, there is no acceleration lane, because of the creek that is located there. He then suggested that the yield signs be removed, and stop signs be put on each side of the road where vehicles actually enter Route 20. He also suggested that a caution sign be placed where vehicles enter the off ramp warning drivers to be prepared to stop. There was another fairly severe accident there last week, and he sees them almost on a daily basis. He never goes by that area that he does not see something going on. When traffic comes down Monticello Avenue going south on Route 20, some of it gets into the left lane so that left turns can be made to get to Blue Ridge Hospital and to Route 53. The people who are going south on Route 20 always seem to be in a hurry, and they move into the right lane, and keep on going. He explained that the cars traveling south on Route 20 are in two different lanes, and when a driver comes off of the interstate and sees the yield sign, he or she assumes that someone else is going to yield. However, in most instances there are cars in both lanes, and there is nowhere for the cars in the right lane to go. If stop signs could be installed, until such time that an acceleration lane can be built, a lot of accidents could be avoided. August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000i94 (Page 11) Mrs. Tucker replied that there is a project to install an acceleration lane between the off ramp and the right turn lane into Piedmont College. She said that she would give Mr. Marshall the status of that project, and she pointed out that it is shown in the primary Six Year Plan. Mr. Marshall reiterated that he is requesting a stop sign be posted there until the acceleration lane can be installed. Mrs. Tucker said she will look into this matter and give Mr. Marshall an update. She believes it has been considered before, but does know the outcome at this time. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that Idlewood Drive and Clark Lane are located between Woodbrook and Carrsbrook subdivisions, and they are currently sepa- rated by an approximate 15 foot strip. He said the County Attorney is of the opinion the right-of-way connecting these two roads are still public, although the Board has removed from the Comprehensive Plan any connection through there at the suggestion of the residents. The question of a public right-of-way is apparently in dispute, and he would like the County Attorney to informally try to establish with the property owners what the situation is in terms of whether there is a public right-of-way or whether it has been abandoned. This is a claim of one of the property owners. The area has been blocked with physical barriers, and it is used as an egress access between the Carrsbrook and Woodbrook neighborhoods. He thinks it is in the public interest to determine whether or not the public right-of-way exists. If the public right-of-way does exist, he thinks the barricades have to be removed. If it exists, and the public does not want it, then a public hearing will have to be held to abandon the right-of-way. He does not think the Supervisors can leave the situation in doubt, as it is now. He hopes this can be handled infor- mally, and if it is the desire of the people that the right-of-way be aban- doned, then the Supervisors can take action to have the public hearing. Mr. Marshall mentioned'that he lived in Carrsbrook 30 years ago, and his children used to ride bicycles through that area to school. At that time, the right-of-way was public. Mr. Bowerman commented that Mr. Davis is of the opinion that it has never been abandoned, but the issue is in dispute for at least a few people. He thinks this Board has to establish the facts and then deal with them. Mrs. Humphris said this issue has been discussed since she has been on this Board. She recalled that the discussion had something to do with access to Woodbrook in the school rezoning. Mr. Tucker explained that the residents wanted to keep this area as a pedestrian access for the children to be able to continue to use it. Neither he, nor the County Attorney, can find evidence that it was ever abandoned, except for not providing it as a place for vehicular traffic. Mr. Bowerman said he did not want to ask the County Attorney to look into an issue without the other Supervisors knowing about the situation. He said the Board would probably hear this as a public item in the future. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Albemarle County Service Authority Mandatory Connection Policy. Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said in July, 1994, the Board was made aware of inconsistencies in the development review process regarding connection to public utilities. The Board endorsed staff's recommendation that the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) pursue a mandatory connec- tion policy. On May 18, 1995, the ACSA Board of Directors adopted a revision to the Authority's Rules and Regulations requiring certain properties to connect to existing water and sewer mains. (The policy is limited to certain properties by Code of Virginia provisions.) The policy is unenforceable unless formally endorsed by the Board of Supervisors. Staff opinion is that the ACSA has pursued a mandatory connection policy reflective in its exemp- tions to criteria endorsed by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Keeler said due to limitations imposed by the Code of Virginia, the ACSA policy cannot be comprehensive to address all circumstances of develop- ment review. Rather than duplicate authority, staff recommends that determi- nation to require usage of public utilities be assigned to the County. The ACSA policy would serve as framework for amendment to the Zoning and Subdivi- sion ordinances. Since the ACSA policy is clearly objective, a decision should be made at administrative level (i.e., by the Director of Planning & Community Development after consultation with ACSA) . The concept of mandatory connection was presented to the Housing Committee and distributed to attendees of the Development Department's Quarterly Round Table on July 20, 1995. The Housing Committee expressed concern that the costs of private vs. public usage did not include tap fees, which range from $1853 to $3353 for water connection and $1240 to $2640 for August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 000 5 sewer connection to a dwelling. No comment has been received from Quarterly Round Table attendees. Mr. Keeler said staff recommends the following actions by the Board of Supervisors: (1) Adopt resolutions of intent to amend the Zoning and Subdivi- sion Ordinances as they relate to required usage of public utilities; (2) Instruct staff to seek comments from the Housing Committee, citizen groups (PEC, CFA), Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association and the general public prior to scheduling of public hearing before the Planning Commission. Such courtesy period should not exceed sixty days; and (3) Table the ACSA Mandatory Connec- tion Policy until such time as Zoning and Subdivision ordinance amendments are forwarded with recommendation by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Thomas mentioned the second recommendation irelating to the staff seeking comments from various groups; she suggested it would be helpful to give these groups as much information as possible involving the pros and cons. She said these group members will look at this information from a narrow point of view, and the staff should do what it can to broaden the context, so they will understand other sides of the issue. Mr. Keeler said he already has some rough draft amendments which he will circulate to Mr. Davis and staff members. Mrs. Humphris remarked that in addition to the usual information, she thinks it would be helpful if information was included on the amounts of sewer line the Service Authority has had to install as a result of failed systems. The declining availability of ground water should also be noted, as well as the Service Authority's need to be economically viable and to be able to continue to extend its service only by having customers for the service that is provided. She does not think a lot of people know anything about these issues. Mr. Keeler emphasized that it is obviously not a good planning practice for people to be drilling wells in an area that is intended to urbanize. He said it puts the citizens in the posture of trying to defend their wells against the adjoining property development. Mr. Perkins mentioned that the Mandatory Connection Policy would not be for existing structures, such as a new sewer line going through an area where there are already homes located. He recalled a situation where some homes were built in Crozet a few years ago. As he understands it, the residents of existing homes would not be required to connect to the service lines, if they did not so desire. Mr. Keeler said that is correct, although he still needs to talk to Service Authority officials about this matter. He believes that in the situation to which Mr. Perkins referred, there was a preferential fee to connect for a specific period of time in recognition that some people could not afford the full fees. Mr. Davis indicated that there is certain required language that Mr. Keeler has suggested relating to public convenience, necessity and good planning. He said this is a mandatory finding of the Board of Supervisors when a Zoning Ordinance amendment is initiated. He stated that if this language is included in the resolution, then it will be acceptable. Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as they relate to required usage of public utilities for public necessity, conve- nience, general welfare and good zoning practices; (2) Instructed staff to seek comments from the Housing Committee, citizen groups (PEC, CFA), Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association and the general public prior to scheduling of public hearing before the Planning Commission. Such courtesy period should not exceed sixty days; and (3) Tabled the ACSA Mandatory Connection Policy until such time as Zoning and Subdivision ordinance amendments are forwarded with recommendation by the Planning Commission. 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 OF INTENT BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as they relate to required usage of public utilities for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices; and FURTHER REQUESTS, that the staff seek comments from the Housing Committee, citizen groups (PEC, CFA), Blue Ridge Home- builders Association and the general public prior to the schedul- August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 000 .96 ing of a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Such courtesy period should not exceed sixty days; and FURTHER REQUESTS, that the Albemarle County Service Authori- ty Mandatory Connection Policy be tabled until such time as the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendments are forwarded with recommendations by the Planning Commission. Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: SDP-94-067. Virginia Oil Minor Site Plan Amendment. Proposal to locate a ±1150 sq ft car wash bldg on approx 1.25 ac znd PD-MC & EC. Property on SE corner of Rolkin Court and Rt 250 E inters. TM78,P73A. Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from July 19, 1995.) (This item was appealed to the Board of Supervisors in a letter dated May 10, 1995, from Mr. Frayser F. White of Virginia Oil Company.) Mr. Cilimberg said this site plan was denied by the Planing Commission on May 5, 1995. The plan has been amended to address access concerns and to reflect the access design favored by the Commission. This revised plan is recommended for approval by the Engineering Department. Staff recommends that the plan is in keeping with the preferred concept of the Planning Commission and that the Board approve the plan subject to a set of conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is not present at this meeting, because he feels confident that he has addressed the issues. Martin said when this matter was discussed a few weeks ago, it was felt that a compromise was something with which everybody could live. Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas to approve SDP-94-067 with the following two conditions as recommended by the Planning and Engineering staffs: The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the follow- ing conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: Co eo Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of final water and sewage plans and calculations; Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of profes- sional seal by an architect, professional engineer, land surveyor with a 3(b) license, or landscape architect, all of whom shall be licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia; Staff approval of off-site grading easements; Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of an Erosion Control Plan; Albemarle County Engineering approval of entrance design; Issuance of a certificate of appropriateness from the Archi- tectural Review Board. Administrative approval of final site plan to include posting of bond for entrance closure in accord with County Engineer memo of July 24, 1995. 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. (The following two agenda items were heard concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 10. 10:00 a.m. - ZMA-95£12. Montessori Community School. Public Hearing on a request to amend existing proffers of ZMA-82-03 which limits bldg size on approx 6.3 ac zoned CO & EC Overlay District. Property located on N side of Rt 250 approx 800 ft west of State Farm Blvd. TM78,P12A. Site recommended for High Density Residential (10.01 - 34 du/ac) in Neighborhood 3. SP-95-22 pending for this site. Rivanna Dist. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and July 24, 1995) Agenda Item No. 11. SP-95-22. Montessori Community School. Public Hearing on a request for private school on approx 6.3 ac zoned CO & EC Overlay District [23.2.2(9)]. Description of site same as ZMA-95-12. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and July 24, 1995) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's reports which are on file in the Clerks office and a permanent part of the record. Staff has reviewed the request to modify the existing proffers and recommends approval. He noted that access to the site is on Route 250 at a crossover, and the adjacent August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 000197 property to the west belongs to the American Legion. He noted that there is a well located on the American Legion property which has caused some concern should children from the Montessori Community School wander onto the adjacent property. It was determined, at the Commission meeting, that the well is an American Legion property liability, if it is not adequately covered. However, the well is adequately covered at this time, so it does not seem to pose any problems as far as safety is concerned. The Commission is comfortable that this is not an issue that needs to be addressed in this approval. (Mr. Marshall left the room at 10:13 a.m.) Mrs. Thomas called attention to a letter from VDoT dated July 14, 1995, which indicated a concern about how the school's entrance would tie into the proposed Luxor entrance. She noted that this letter stated that if and when a signal is needed, the developer should participate in the cost. She wondered if this matter will need any action from the Board. Mr. Cilimberg responded that there will be some additional trips relating to the school, but the number of trips created will not push this intersection to a point where there will be a need for signalization. However, the adjacent property owner is going to create that need, and he is going to have to negotiate with other property owners to get that access. If anything needs to be done to meet VDoT's recommendation, it will have to be done by the Luxor officials and their negotiation with the property owners. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 1, 1996, recommended approval of ZMA-95-12, with the deletion of all proffers approved with ZMA-82-03 and subject to one condition for SP-95-22. There were no further questions by Board members, so Mr. Perkins opened the public hearings for ZMA 95-12 and SP-95-22. Mr. Chris Halstead, representing the applicant, stated that he would answer any questions. No one else came forward to speak, and there were no questions from Board members, so Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing. Mr. Martin said everyone realizes the importance of the Montessori School. The school serves not only an education purpose, but it is his feeling it will give that area a break from continual commercialization. (Mr. Marshall returned at 10:14 a.m.) Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, approve ZMA-95-12 subject to the deletion of all proffers approved with ZMA-82-03. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Marshall. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve SP-95-22, subject to the following condition recommended by the Planning Commission. 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. (The condition of approval is set out below:) The use is limited to a maximum of 120 students or such lesser number as may be approved by the Health Department. (Note: the Board recessed at 10:15 a.m., and then reconvened at 10:30 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 12. 10:30 a.m. - Public Hearing to consider an ordi- nance amending and reordaining Chapter 2, Administration, Article VII, Regional Jail Board, Section 2-42, Vacancies; removal from office, maximum number of terms, of the Code of Albemarle, to lengthen the term limitation restriction for private citizen members of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail Board. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and July 24, 1995) Mr. Tucker said the purpose of this ordinance amendment is to change the term limits of the private citizen member from three consecutive three year terms to four consecutive three year terms. He noted that City Council has taken action to do that, and the staff is requesting that the Supervisors take similar action. 000:1.98 August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) Mr. Martin asked if there is a reason associated with this recommended change. Mr. Tucker answered that the individual's term, who serves in this capacity, is expiring and the Jail Board members would like to keep some consistency because of the change that is anticipated with the upgrading and expansion of the jail. Mr. Martin inquired if the term limits for the private citizen member were not increased one other time from two to three consecutive three year terms. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." Mrs. Humphris said the reason for this request is because of the ongoing business and negotiations both with the City and the State Board of Correc- tions in solving the expansion problems at the jail. She does not know the exact situation of Mr. Drewary Brown's term for the City, but it could be the same as Ms. Pat Smith's as the joint at-large appointee. The Jail Board felt that these members' history and background are invaluable in dealing with the many problems they are facing. This is why the change in the County Code is being requested. Mr. Martin commented that he has a lot of contact with the workers at the Joint Security Complex. He goes over there from time to time to see juvenile clients who are placed there. He thinks there is something to be said for new people serving on boards. He will support the motion, but he thinks that a lot can be said for having new ideas and new thoughts. Some- times boards can get into a rut. He is not talking about bigger issues such as jail expansions, etc., but some of the small issues that people deal with from day-to-day can sometimes become major negative issues for a long period of time, and no one seems to be listening. Sometimes it is better to have new leadership and new ideas. Mrs. Humphris remarked that probably the same people who will be staying on the Board, if this change is approved, would be just as happy not to be reappointed. This is not the type of service that the Board members can feel good about, because it is difficult service. She feels the County and City are fortunate to have the citizen members on the Jail Board who are currently serving. They are dedicated, extremely knowledgeable and they are aware of the problems at the jail. She also pointed out that there are always two sides to issues. She agrees with Mr. Martin that new thoughts and ideas are good, but she really thinks that in this situation, changing the Code is a good idea. Mr. Martin commented that he does not want his words construed as not supportive for any individual who serves on that Board. He does not have any criticism or complaints. However, he has a general feeling that some rotation on such boards helps. At this time, Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. No one came forward, so Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2, Administration, Article VII, Regional Jail Board, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to change private citizen membership terms from three consecutive three-year terms to four consecutive three-year terms. Mrs. Thomas said she would support the motion, however, in general she thinks it is a good idea to have a term limitation. She is not always in favor of term limitations, but she thinks this principle is running up against the facts of a particular situation. In this situation, she thinks there won't be a problem with amending this Code. 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. (The adopted ordinance is set out below:) ORDINANCE NO. 95-2 (2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE VII, REGIONAL JAIL BOARD, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Administration, Article VII, Regional Jail Board, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-42, Vacancies, removal from office; maximum number of terms, as follows: Sec. 2-42. Vacancies; removal from office; maximumnumber of terms. August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) 000199 Members of the board in office on March 10, 1975, shall continue in office until the effective date of their replacement or appointment provided for in the preceding section. Vacancies on the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail Board shall there- after be filled for an unexpired term in the manner in which original appointments are required to be made. Continued absence of any member from regular meetings of the board shall, at the discretion of the city council and board of supervisors, render such member liable to immediate removal from office. No private citizen member of the board shall serve more than four (4) consec- utive three-year terms. (4-17-75; Ord. of 5-6-92) State law reference--Authority, Code of Va., § 53.1-106. Agenda Item No. 13. Update and discussion on grading without an approved site plan. Ms. Marcia Joseph, Design Planner, said this report is an attempt to bring the Board members up-to-date on what the staff has been doing since October, 1993. At that time, the staff came before this Board with a public project involving road work on Route 29. The staff had asked them to allow grading to occur on a parcel which did not have an approved site plan, and the Board members were agreeable. The supervisors also asked the staff to take a look at the ordinance to see whether it needed changing in that aspect. Now, in order to grade on a site, an approved site development plan is needed. The idea behind the project was for the public good, less truck traffic and less wear and tear on the roads due to the proximity of the borrow site. The site was near where Berkmar Drive Extended is currently located, and that whole parcel area was graded to provide the dirt that was needed for the Route 29 improvements. There has been a lot of staff discussion concerning this matter about possible scenarios. She said the staff has considered the legal aspects and possible plan requirements. The staff also had a round table discussion with a cross section of the community, which included consultants, developers and citizen groups, but no consensus was derived. The staff then discussed this matter with the Planning Commission in March, and the Commis- sioners had many concerns about allowing this to occur. Ms. Joseph then described the current regulations in the Zoning Ordi- nance relative to grading. She also noted that mass grading can currently be done in Albemarle County on a site which has an approved rezoning master plan, and she showed the Board members pictures of such sites. Some grading can also be done if there is an approved subdivision plan that has approved road plans through it. An erosion plan is required for every plan, so the silt will stay on the site. She next discussed the concerns expressed by the staff, Commission, citizens groups and consultants, as shown in the staff report (on file in the Clerk's office). She emphasized that because of what is currently allowed by right and because of all of the concerns that were expressed, the staff members have come to the conclusion that they will recommend no changes be made to the existing ordinance requirements for site grading. Mrs. Thomas remarked that she has been interested in the process of having the round table discussion. It sounds like it is a good use of that format, and she hopes everybody who participated felt it was more of an informal way to get their discussions aired. Often public hearings are stiff and difficult to have back and forth discussions. She added that because of the recommendation that no change should be made, she does not want people to think that nothing of value came out of these meetings. Ms. Joseph said there was a great deal of value which came from all of this, because there are certain aspects of this matter on which the staff will be working. There are also some issues that the staff will address. Mr. Tucker noted that Ms. Joseph had indicated that there was no consensus reached during the round table discussion. He inquired if there are other round table discussions planned for the future concerning this matter. Ms. Joseph answered that future round table discussions are not planned concerning this matter unless the Board members decide they would want to pursue this further. The staff is looking for direction at this point, because a consensus cannot be reached on where to go with this matter. She reiterated that staff feels that the ordinance should stay as it is, however, if the Supervisors feel the staff should pursue this issue further, then there will probably be another round table discussion. There have been several round table discussions about different aspects of site review process and problems that arise. The staff is looking for solutions and input from the community. August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) 000200 Mr. Perkins mentioned the regulation restricting the removal of trees larger than six inches in diameter. He asked if this regulation comes under the same category as the proposed grading amendment. Ms. Joseph replied that the restriction regarding the removal of trees is in the current ordinance. She noted that in the rural area, forestry is a by right use, but everywhere else, it is not. Mr. Perkins remarked that this regulation comes into play on industrial, commercial and residentially zoned land, and he has run into problems with it. He mentioned that even at one of the Sustainability Council meetings, it was indicated that when a developer finally gets to the site plan, and he is allowed to start grading and cutting trees, the time is not available to find a logger to remove the commercial material which should be removed. Mr. Perkins said many times the contractor shoves this material into a pile and burns it. If there was some lead time allowed, there would be some wood products which could be removed. He suggested perhaps the staff could consider the possibility of removing a certain percent of the basal area. There could still be a stand of trees, and the land would not be stripped. He mentioned that the timber on the UREF site was cut a number of years ago, but the policy was in place then. He said the timber was sold, but the buyer did not know about the County's ordinance and ran into trouble with that regula- tion, even though the site was going to be bulldozed as soon as he finished cutting the timber. When the developer gets the site plans approved, he wants to start bulldozing immediately, but it is not time to find a logger to remove the material. This can be managed on some occasions, but it sometimes even happens on some County projects where a lot of good material is burned. A lot of it is good material which can be used. He suggested that it would be good to have some flexibility, and perhaps the matter could be addressed from a basal area standpoint. Ms. Joseph said for this type of flexibility, the staff would need to go outside of the expertise that is within the County departments. Perhaps, the Forestry Department could offer some guidance along these lines. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that there have been some concerns in areas where forestry is now totally by right in the rural areas. She said the feeling is that someone might be clearing land not to get good forestry products, but because they are moving ahead with a subdivision request. She recalled a recent case where it seemed to lead to a forestry job that was not responsible and, instead, everything in sight was cut. She wondered how a regulation, such as Mr. Perkins suggested, could be enforced. Ms. Joseph explained that in order to get land use for forestry, there has to be a conservation plan. She said once trees are cut, there has to be some sort of plan for replanting in order to get the land use taxation. This is about all of the regulations that the County has concerning forestry in the rural areas. Mrs. Thomas said she was not trying to get a discussion started about rural areas. She was just giving an example of how it might be difficult to get the type of forestry accomplished, to which Mr. Perkins referred. Mr. Perkins remarked this is the same criteria that is used for stream side management zones, where half of the basal area is removed along a stream, under the state's practices. A developer might be thinking about developing a piece of property that is zoned R-4 two years from now. If he had that much lead time, a logger could take out whatever is necessary. He pointed' out that it would be a substantial savings to the developer because he would be getting paid for the wood products, as well as having a chance for stumps to rot, etc., and his grading costs would be cheaper. Mr. Marshall commented that he does not think soil erosion laws are in effect for logging operations. He mentioned that when the 400 acres next to his property were logged, his eight acre lake was filled. His lake used to be 13 feet deep, and now it ranges anywhere from four to six feet. He has been trying to get something done about it for six years. He personally paid to have it dredged. He thinks the laws are liberal when it comes to such situations. Mr. Perkins pointed out that there are laws and guidelines in place now which were not in place when the logging, to which Mr. Marshall referred, occurred. Mr. Tucker asked that the staff explore Mr. Perkins' suggestions. He said there may be some advantages and disadvantages, but there may be some merit in exploring the possibilities. He mentioned that Mrs. Thomas has also pointed out some potential problems. Ms. Joseph inquired if Mr. Perkins is proposing that this be allowed on sites which are not always subject to submittal of a site plan or subdivision plan, or is he suggesting there should be an earlier allowance for tree cutting prior to the final site plan. August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) ooo o:t Mr. Perkins recalled that the zoning was recently changed near Mill Creek. He and another person looked at this property several years ago, because that person was interested in cutting some of the timber. It was found that this could not be done because of the zoning. The land has to stay as it is until it is ready to be developed. He can understand the concern about not stripping off all of the trees, because it is easier to keep trees, than it is to get them back. It would have been a lot cheaper to remove some of the trees at an earlier time. He commented that so often the developer is ready to move forward, and either he cannot find the markets to get rid of wood products, or he cannot find a logger. He reiterated that the contractor then shoves the material up into a pile and burns it. When this happens, a resource is lost in two ways. When Walnut Creek Park was built, there were a lot of things destroyed, because there was not enough lead time to salvage the things that were covered with water or bulldozed, etc. Mr. Marshall agreed and asked how the ordinance could be changed to reflect these ideas. Mr. Perkins said the Department of Forestry can give the staff some guidance. Ms. Joseph remarked that this type of allowance might not be cost feasible for the smaller urban sites of two or three acres. Mr. Perkins said it depends on the kind of timber that is on those sites in the beginning. He does not think there can be a limitation placed on the number of acres as to what is too small or too large for this type of allowance. He said two acres could have enough timber to interest someone in taking out a percentage of it, whereas a ten acre tract might not have enough to interest anybody. It would vary, depending on the site. Mr. Bowerman suggested there should be an administrative procedure which would allow this type of regulation. Mr. Tucker agreed this would be fine if the criteria was in place. He added that Ms. Joseph is correct that some outside expertise is needed to help with the criteria. The regulation would probably not be based on the size of the tract of land. Instead, it would need to be based on the resource of the trees that are located on the tract of land. The staff can consider such a regulation and bring the information back to this Board. He also indicated that he thinks it would be helpful to have input from a round table discussion about this matter. Mr. Keeler mentioned that it might be helpful if the staff had a broad range in which to work in regard to tree cutting issues. He recalled one place where property was added to the growth area. He said the County rezoned the property, and the property owner wanted to commercially harvest the timber, but this became a problem. As a development occurs, there are requirements for areas to be maintained as open space, etc. He added that if clearing takes place, some of the trees would be incompetent to withstand exposure to the elements. These trees that should be taken down can be seen during field inspections, but they may be in an area designed to be a buffer, etc. More flexibility is needed during development, also. Mr. Perkins suggested in such cases a consulting forester, from the Department of Forestry, could mark the trees to be taken out, with certain guidelines. Mrs. Thomas remarked that if all of this is done before a site plan or before anyone with an architectural type of background has examined the issue, the large oak tree the forester may be considering to take down may be the one that the landscape architect would want to plan a plaza around. She said she is talking in extremes, but she can see the two interests clashing. The developer, if he has thought about the rare visual impact of this large tree, would value it more as part of his site plan than for the lumber value. She concurred that this is a good topic of conversation for a round table discus- sion. Ms. Joseph asked if the Board members would like the staff to proceed in examining the matter of foresting some of the areas responsibly, instead of just clear cutting them. She also wondered if, as far as the existing ordi- nance is concerned, the Supervisors feel comfortable with maintaining the status quo and considering the forestry aspect of the issue. Mr. Perkins said he is comfortable with the existing ordinance, as far as the grading issue is concerned. He added that flexibility can be used, as it was with the Route 29 project. Mr. Bowerman stated that he thinks the grading situation can be handled on a case-by-case basis where it is warranted. Mr. Davis commented that he can discuss this matter with Ms. Joseph, and he will bring back information to the Board about the issues with which there are some concerns. Mr. Marshall asked if action has to be taken on this matter by this Board. Mr. Tucker responded that no action is necessary. He added that the staff will consider this issue. August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 000202 Agenda Item No. 14. Legislative Update, Senator Ed Robb. Senator Ed Robb said he wanted to schedule this meeting to discuss issues which relate to legislation for 1996. He thinks the 1995 session was much more productive than the credit that was given it. He believes all of Albemarle County's bills passed into law. In his opinion, one of the good things that happened in the last session was welfare reform. This was the last vote that he cast during the last day of the session. He thinks it is fortunate that Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville are not two of the targeted locations which have to deal with this issue immediately, but there are aspects of it with which they will have to deal. Senator Robb said he represents the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. In his opinion, reversion is an issue where it would be in the best interest of the City and the County to make use of state offices as a resource. The state representatives will do all they can in order to provide information and state services to address this issue. He thinks one of the possibilities, at this time, was to arrange for a moderator rather than a mediator so that the two groups could get together to discuss the pros and cons of the matter with the citizens' input. He has addressed the question with the Commission on Local Government, and he talked several hours with the people who are knowledgeable on the subject. He has come to realize and understand just how complicated and serious the matter really is. This is an issue which could affect the entire state. It is not unusual for Charlottes- ville and Albemarle to be the focus of this type of attention. He urged the need for everybody to communicate. Senator Robb said he is available to aid in the discussions about the Ivy Landfill. He also offered whatever state resources are available to help make that difficult decision. Another issue he believes will be heavily discussed in the 1996 General Assembly session is alternatives of taxation other than increasing revenues through local taxes. He then discussed the state lottery. He would like to see the lottery profits come back to the localities to be spent as the localities see fit in the form of tax relief, law enforcement expenditures or in the form of funds for education. This would be a form of new money, not money that is already coming back to the localities. Delegate Peter Way is also present, and they will answer any questions from Board members. Delegate Way said it is always a pleasure for him to attend Board of Supervisors' meetings. Regarding reversion, he would like to commend this Board for what it has done and the stance it has taken. He thinks this Board is going in the right direction. He does feel that Albemarle County is at the disadvantage simply because of the way the law is written. It is difficult to sit around the negotiating table when the table is tilted in one direction or the other. This is the situation in which he sees Albemarle County, although this does not mean County officials should not continue to do everything they can to bring about agreement. He hopes that somehow this table can be leveled, whether it be in terms of a moratorium placed on reversion for a period of time to allow not only a statewide study, but to allow the Supervi- sors and Councillors to come forward with solutions so there is not the pressure of one side having a clear advantage over the other. He then offered his assistance to the Supervisors, if there is anything he can do as this process moves along. Mr. Tucker thanked Senator Robb and Delegate Way for their support with Senate Joint Resolution #317. Senator Robb initiated a commendation to Albemarle County for its 250th anniversary. He assured the Senator that the commendation will be located in a prominent place in the County Office Building, and he thanked him for this initiative. Senator Robb stated that he was grateful for the opportunity. Mr. Marshall commented that he likes Delegate Way's idea relating to the reversion issue, and he hopes he will introduce something in the General Assembly to bring this about so that the County officials will not be at a disadvantage. Delegate Way remarked that introducing a bill in the General Assembly and successfully passing it are two different things, but he thinks this is a key issue. Mr. Marshall said he would like to at least see a study implemented that will help everybody. He thinks the Supervisors want to work with the City officials, and vice versa, but help is needed to get the two bodies together. Next, Mr. Marshall noted that he is Vice Chairman of the Virginia State Board of Health. Those Board members are concerned about the situation that managed health care is having upon health care providers and the citizens of the Commonwealth. He asked the Legislators to take a close look at what the insurance companies and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO's) are doing and the substantial bonuses that members of the HMO's and insurance companies are getting. He asked the Congressmen to, also, prevent Blue Cross from privatiz- ing, if at all possible, and to look into the health care providers' role in all of this and what is being done to them. Health care costs are being cut, but the citizens are not receiving any of those benefits, because the money is going in the form of bonuses to executives of HMO's and insurance companies. ooo o3 August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) There are nurses and nurses aides who are practicing medicine etc. There are a lot of people doing things in health care professions who are not capable of doing those things, and it is all being done to reduce costs. The amount of pressure on health care providers is tremendous. Errors are being made, and people's health is being compromised. When such things happen, the Board of Health has to be concerned about what is happening in relation to health care for Virginians. Mrs. Humphris has told him that she knows of a nurse in one of the local hospitals who worked a 24 hour shift in'the operating room. This is absolutely ridiculous, and he does not see how this person can know what she is doing. He can tell the Legislators what is going on in drug stores, because that is his business. Drug store personnel are being forced to work beyond their limits. He also knows of primary care physicians who are having to see twice as many patients as they should just to keep their offices open. This is not good. He remarked that if health care is going to be cut, then let the citizens of the Commonwealth benefit from it, and not some president of an insurance company or a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an HMO organization. Delegate Way said he has heard these comments before and he understands. Mr. Marshall emphasized that the people who are operating the computers are the ones who are making the money, and they are not passing it on to the citizens of the Commonwealth. These people are being paid tremendous sums of money to be able to manipulate health care providers and the citizens. Senator Robb commended the University of Virginia for moving forward and becoming one of the leaders in the area in providing informatics, which is really a business. He is confident the people will do a better job as more information is received. Mr. Marshall said there should not be people in an HMO or an insurance company dictating what medication can be used for illnesses, when they are not qualified to do so. When a specialist recommends a specific treatment, then that treatment should be carried out. He did not want to miss this opportu- nity to say this, because the press is present, and he thinks the press needs to be aware of what is going on. Until the citizens realize what is happen- ing, it is not going to get better. Mrs. Humphris said that she appreciates Delegate Way's remarks, because it has been hard to get everybody to understand the main thing that needs to be accomplished first is to have an educated public on the subject of rever- sion. It is what the Supervisors have been working hard to do, and they will continue this process with the forum that will be held on August 16. She understands Senator Robb's difficult situation of representing both the City and the County, however, there is one part of the whole reversion process which deserves to be enlightened and causes the County to be at a particularly high degree of disadvantage. This is the whole subject of annexation. Most citizens do not realize that if the City were to revert to town status, the day it achieves this status, it can institute legal proceedings for annexation to annex County property. She pointed out that it is logical that the income produced on the part of the County is what the City officials would want to annex. She said it seems to her the way the legislation is written, it circumvents state law on prevention of annexation, which is in effect at this time. It seems to her that a logical thing for the two legislators to introduce and support would be legislation which would at least do away with that invitation. It makes reversion inviting when the town is allowed to annex. She asked the legislators to consider her points. Delegate Way concurred with Mrs. Humphris'. It seems that this whole matter is going to take some serious study, with annexation being a major part of it, but also including taxing powers, etc. Mrs. Humphris said the fact is that the County officials cannot act. She said they can only react, and that is what they are trying to educate themselves to do. The best way to do that is to have an educated public, and that is the next thing that needs to be achieved. Senator Robb agreed. It is important that he stand for fairness, and he thinks that everybody feels that way. Using that as a baseline, there is a responsibility for everybody to become as informed as they possibly can become, which means City and County residents, as well as leadership. Once all of the information has been gathered, then bold and courageous positions need to be made. He will take such a position. At the present time, however, this is only the first stage. He is gathering as much information as he can. He is doing that by meeting with knowledgeable people who have been through this process. He noted that he is a member of the Commission on Intergovern- mental Relations, which is dealing with this same subject, and the complica- tions which evolve from it. Mrs. Humphris pointed out the fact that the City citizens' petition is being promoted at this time, and if it is filed, then the proceedings start. She emphasized that there is no stopping the proceedings, once this happens. She was disappointed to see that citizens are being led to believe that those August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) 000204 proceedings can be stopped at any time by City Council. She thinks this is misinformation. She mentioned also the misinformation about the fact that City taxes will most likely be decreased in the event the County assumes some of the responsibilities. The County is in a position of being bombarded with misinformation, but the process is going on, and the County officials are powerless to stop it. Senator Robb responded that it has to be remembered that the County officials have secured very knowledgeable counsel in this area, which makes a certain statement in itself. If there is something that can be done, he is sure that between everyone involved, something will be done. Furthermore, Senator Robb indicated that he has been told by knowledgeable sources in Richmond that it would be the Spring of 1997 for this matter to get to the reversion point. He was told this by members of the Council on Local Govern- ment. Mr. Marshall said the Spring of 1997 is the time when the members of the Council on Local Government would be expecting for the matter to be before them. Senator Robb stated this is what was explained to him as being the earliest the matter could come to the point of reversion. Mr. Bowerman commented that, at the very least, there would not be a disadvantage for anybody in the final outcome, if both of the governing bodies had the right to reject the agreement. He said bargaining has to be done in good faith, because both sides are going to have to live with the results. This would be a reasonable addition. Delegate Way agreed. Mrs. Thomas remarked that she has a question about the landfill issue. She appreciates the legislators' interest. One of the problems that is arising is actually being presented by the Supreme Court and by Congressman Bliley's committee in Congress. Anything the state legislators can do to help with waste stream control would be much appreciated, either as Republicans or members of the General Assembly. The issue seems to be that private trash haulers would like the ability to take the trash to the cheapest place possible, which sounds like a good private enterprise way of taking care of the world's trash. She went on to say that the cheapest way possible may not be the most responsible way. Senator Robb, in particular, has mentioned some more responsible things which could be done with trash. She noted that Moody is refusing to even give any rating to bonds that officials of localities are trying to float, because they are trying to do more responsible things with their waste. She is unsure if this is something the General Assembly can do within the confines of one state, and she mentioned that Congress is probably going to take it out of the General Assembly's hands. However, she hopes the State legislators will do everything that can be done either at the state level or by influencing the Congress. This is a priority item with the Virginia Association of Counties, and it is one of the priority items with the National Association of Counties. It is a great deal larger than the Ivy Landfill issue, and it is a major item of concern. Senator Robb asked' for a letter from the Supervisors regarding the County's position on Waste Stream Control legislation that is currently being addressed in Congress. He will refer it to Congressman Bliley, as well as Senator Warner. Mrs. Thomas said the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors has already noted the County officials' position in a letter, which can be given to Senator Robb, along with a further explanation. Senator Robb said he served on a committee dealing with recycling and waste flow, and it seems to him that there are many alternatives which can be addressed. He has traveled in the Ivy area and he commended Mrs. Thomas for the number of times her name has come up as being very responsive to those citizens. Mr. Martin commented that he is going to do as Mr. Marshall did and talk more to the press than to the two legislators. The point he is going to make has not come up yet, and he wanted to make sure it did. He asked that everything Mrs. Humphris said about the County's disadvantage be taken into consideration. He pointed out that the City cannot annex land, now. The last step of the reversion process makes the situation even more unfair for the County. He knows the two legislators are aware of this, but he wanted to make sure the public is informed as much as possible. Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: County Retiree Medical Insurance Policy. Mr. Tucker presented a memorandum (copy on file) outlining the current practice for allowing retirees to participate in our medical plan until they reach age 65. These practices were instituted by the Board effective October 1, 1993. Offering retiree coverage was required by the General Assembly for general government personnel who had at least 15 years of continuous employ- ment with the County. The Healthcare Executive Committee has reviewed these practices and have identified two issues that warrant Board consideration. First, the Board August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) 000205 adopted a more relaxed eligibility criteria by not stipulating a "length-of- service" requirement. Second, the Board has allowed retirees to "opt-in" to retiree coverage any time after they retire but before reaching age 65. The County is not currently requiring they maintain continuous coverage from their date of retirement. Both of these practices are more liberal than required by the state code and have the potential of exposing the County's self-insured medical plan to additional financial risk. The Healthcare Executive Committee recently discussed these two issues and is recommending the Board's reconsid- eration of these practices. The Committee recognizes the need to provide retirees an opportunity for coverage until they are 65, but also feels there is a need to balance the claims exposure to the County's self-insured medical plan. In order to provide a fiscally sound medical insurance program, balanced with retiree's needs, the Committee is recommending the following changes be implemented with our medical plan beginning October 1, 1995: (i) Require employees who are retiring to maintain continuous cover- age. This would not allow for "opting-in" at a later date, perhaps after significant medical problems have arisen. (2) Require a retiree to have 5 years of continuous service with the County and/or school division in order to be eligible for retiree medical coverage. This criteria would be waived for any employee who is retiring due to a disability and is consistent with the time requirement for vesting in our retirement system. Mr. Tucker said the School Board is scheduled to adopt this policy later this month. Mr. Marshall said he does not disagree with this plan and, in fact, he thinks it is a good idea. If the employees want to have this insurance coverage when they retire, then they should make this request known at the time they retire. He does not think the people should be allowed to come back at a later time. He disagrees with the stipulation that a retiree should be required to have five years of continuous service with the County and/or School Division in order to be eligible for retiree medical coverage. He thinks it would be better if the requirement was for four years of continuous service. He mentioned, for example, there are people who serve on the Planning Commission who are appointed. These people would not have an opportunity to stay on the County's program if for some reason they might have to resign. Mr. Tucker said the only reason five years of continuous service was decided upon by the committee was to coincide with the current eligibility requirements for VRS. Mr. Marshall said Commission appointees are paid very little for tremendous services. The opportunity to get on a decent health care program is one way that the people can be repaid for their services. Mr. Tucker referred to Mr. Brandenburger's July 21, 1995, memorandum which indicated that there were only 18 out of the 116 retirees who are on the current plan. This will probably change with the improved plan because there would be better coverage and a more lucrative payment schedule. This policy should be in place before the October 1st initiative of the new plan. Mrs. Thomas noted that according to the chart in Mr. Brandenburger's memo, there are only two people with five years of service. She said that changing the years of continuous service from five to four does not appear to have a significant impact. Mr. Tucker indicated that it would not make much difference. He said the employees will be informed that they can get on the plan when they retire, but if they do not get on the coverage as of October 1, 1995, they would not have that opportunity in the future. He said the committee thought it would be fair to give people the opportunity to have that option of getting on the County's system before October 1, 1995, if they are on another plan. Mrs. Thomas asked if the employees have to be full-time to be included in the County's plan. Mr. Tucker replied that he does not think so. Mr. Marshall said the person has to be a paid employee of Albemarle County. Mr. Tucker agreed. Mrs. Thomas stated that she thought Mr. Marshall had referred to the people who are on the Commission. Mr. Marshall replied that people on boards and commissions are paid employees, as well as School Board members and members of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tucker pointed out that some of the Supervisors get health coverage. Mr. Perkins asked if other boards are covered by this health coverage. Mr. Marshall answered that the salaried boards were. Mr. Tucker concurred, though, this benefit is not offered to boards with strictly volunteer members. Mrs. Thomas inquired if only the Commission members get paid. Mr. Tucker said there are other board members who are also paid. Mr. Perkins explained that such board members are paid on a per meeting basis. August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) O00 OG Mr. Tucker stated that he will look into the matter, but he does not think there will be a problem with the Commission members being able to utilize this program, as Mr. Marshall has described. Mr. Marshall commented that it has been his experience, in dealing with people in insurance areas, that they do not know what types of coverage they have with the insurance companies, and they never read the contracts. He referred to his comments to the legislators, and he said that because the public is uninformed, it has allowed the people in the insurance companies and HMO's to get away with murder, because people do not understand what they are buying. Mr. Perkins asked if a motion is needed to approve the staff recommenda- tions and change the five years of continuous service regulation to four. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. He said this will be a policy change that can be amended. He added that the decision for this change will go to the School Board, at its meeting on this matter. Mrs. Thomas inquired if the staff knows of any reason why the change to four years of continuous service should be avoided. Mr. Tucker responded that the staff will consider this matter further and talk to consultants, but he does not think the number of years of continuous service will be an issue. Mrs. Thomas said Mr. Tucker could bring the matter back to the Board if there is a problem. Mr. Tucker agreed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to implement the two changes recommended by staff to the County's Retiree Medical Insurance Policy beginning October 1, 1995. 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. (The changes are set out below:) 1 Require employees who are retiring to maintain continuous coverage. This would not allow for "opting-in" at a later date, perhaps after significant medical problems have aris- en. 2 o Require a retiree to have four years of continuous service with the County and/or school division in order to be eligi- ble for retiree medical coverage. This criteria would be waived for any employee who is retiring due to a disability and is consistent with the time requirement for vesting in our retirement system. Agenda Item 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker noted that at the meeting held last night with the Sugar Hollow residents, there was a comment made by one of the individuals regarding mandatory evacuation. He would like to clarify this matter for the Supervi- sors. There was never any mandatory evacuation of the citizens in that area. Mr. Tucker said localities do not have the authority to mandate emergency evacuations. He said such authority rests only with the Governor. If the Governor should make this mandate, then the National Guard could be called to help in that area. He pointed out that normally in areas of hurricanes along the coast, this would happen more often. He said that has never occurred in this area and there was never any mandatory evacuation implied. He believes some of the confusion arose because he had heard reports that some of the volunteer rescuers may have indicated or led people to believe that they had to get out. He said people were being urged to err on the side of caution and leave the area, but there was never an order for a mandatory evacuation. Mrs. Humphris said she was so astonished that this question was being asked, and the attitude with which it was asked. She sat there wondering who would care if someone said it was mandatory evacuation. She personally would rather be mandatorily evacuated, than to be in any danger, even if she found out later that it was not legal because the Governor did not sign the paper. She said people never cease to amaze her. Mr. Tucker presented to the Board a letter from Mayor David J. Toscano inviting the Board to attend the regular meeting on August 7, 1995, at 7:00 of City Council, to listen to a presentation from the citizen's group which is circulating a petition to start the process for Charlottesville to revert to town status. Mrs. Thomas asked if this was the type of meeting where people could make comments. Mr. Tucker stated that the letter indicated Monday's meeting August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) 000207 was not a public hearing, but the City officials indicated they are hoping everyone will come away with a clear understanding of what the citizen group sees as a better alternative. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that the letter stated that this meeting would not be a public hearing. Mrs. Thomas said that this would imply that County officials would not be able to ask questions. Mrs. Humphris said the letter indicated that the meeting was for listening, which means to her that the Supervisors could not ask questions. Mrs. Thomas suggested the Supervisors attend the City's meeting and then they could have whatever type of meeting they wanted. Mrs. Thomas said she has been concerned about the Sugar Hollow Reservoir losing so much capacity during the recent flood, and this has caused her to think about how much more the County will have to depend on Chris Greene Lake as a drinking water source at some point in the future. She knows that Chris Green Lake is not directly a drinking water source, but instead it is an impoundment where water goes down to a pipe where it is taken out. She said perhaps the distance where the water is taken out of Chris Greene and goes down the pipe makes all of the difference, but she would like to get some type of report on whether the County should be thinking about watershed protection for Chris Green Lake. She noted that watershed protection is not needed for the intake of the North Fork, because that is just an intake of a flowing stream. The impoundment at Chris Green Lake is like the impoundment of the Rivanna Reservoir, in the sense that it can be filled in with siltation, which is one of the main reasons for watershed protection. She commented that because of the resource of that drinking water source, she thinks the County should probably go to watershed protection for the drainage area. She noted, however, that the maps do not show the drainage area, because it gets mixed in with the intake on the North Fork of the Rivanna. It seems to her that County officials need to make a decision and find out whether or not this watershed protection needs to be done. Mrs. Humphris agreed this is true, particularly in light of the Compre- hensive Plan review where growth areas for the future are being designated. She said it would be uncomfortable to designate a growth area in the watershed of a water supply. Mr. Bowerman suggested caution for this issue. He said it may or may not be in the public interest, because of the areas that have to be expanded in the community, to decide to designate that as a watershed area and limit development there. He emphasized that the whole issue has not been examined. Mrs. Thomas stated that she was not saying this has to be done, mainly because the water that County residents drink does not come directly from Chris Green Lake. She said in that sense it is not the same type of drinking water source. Instead the water is allowed to go through the dam, over a creek and into the North Fork of the Rivanna and then to a pipe where it is taken out. She said that this makes a difference. Mr. Tucker commented that if Chris Green Lake was not there, it would be no different than any other tributary that is coming in upstream from the intake and the North Fork. Mrs. Thomas remarked that, on the other hand, it is a reservoir that County officials would hate to see get silted in, if it has to be counted on for a million gallons of water a day. She noted that the Ragged Mountain system, which includes Sugar Hollow, gives the County five million gallons of water a day, and its capacity has been seriously damaged. She added that there will probably be a study done relating to this situation. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was an intake pipe located at Sugar Hollow. Mr. Tucker explained that there is an intake pipe which handles well water, but it does not take it out of the stream. He said it takes well water from the reservoir via a pipe to the Ragged Mountain system, where it is treated at the Conservatory Treatment Plant. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that this water requires a lot less treatment than other sources. Mrs. Thomas agreed that this was very good water. Mr. Perkins said the Supervisors should be kept informed of what the Rivanna Service Authority intends to do, as far as cleaning up at Sugar Hollow Reservoir. He said dredging, etc., will probably have to be done. Mr. Tucker said this is the type of thing being considered, and it will have to be determined how much capacity was lost. He noted that there are different ways to look at this issue, and a bathymetric study may have to be done, as well as ways of identifying and determining the loss of the capacity. He said the staff will keep this Board informed of this matter. August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 000: 05 Mrs. Thomas then brought up the issue of the Ivy Landfill. She said the Supervisors are invited to talk with the neighbors who live near the Landfill. She said the neighbors have done a tremendous amount of research, both in terms of the history of Board discussions of the Ivy Landfill dating back to the 1960s, to trying to find out the regulations from the Division of Environ- mental Quality. The neighbors are also trying to understand the reports that have come back on some of the wells. She thinks the neighbors have raised enough questions about the Landfill to warrant the Board getting a report on three areas -- the risks, the responsibilities and the alternatives. Mrs. Thomas said in terms of the risks, research needs to be done on the risks to human beings, since there have been charges that the water is being polluted. She thinks there are answers to these questions, but as long as there are charges and concerns in the neighborhood, she feels the Board needs to get the answers. If County officials are allowing polluted water to go into the headwaters of the Rivanna Reservoir then it greatly damages not only the Reservoir, but it also damages the ability the Board has to require private developers to undertake certain kinds of erosion control if it is not being done on the County's own landfill. This Board needs to know the risks as well as who is responsible for monitoring. She added that this sounds as though it is a simple question, but the neighbors are finding some rather unsettling answers, because it is possible there are things that are being neglected. Mrs. Thomas noted that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority is considered at the state level as a leader in this area, and the Authority is setting standards that have not been settled upon for the rest of the state. She thinks, however, that things need to be clarified as to who is actually responsible for different matters. She said if there are areas which have been neglected, then maybe the Board would want to declare themselves responsible and find out what was happening. She said the County's Water Resource Officer is not responsible for what is coming off of that piece of property, but maybe the Board would like for Albemarle County's Water Resource personnel to be aware of and responsible for this area. She indicated that there have been several studies done, and she participated in one several years ago. She said a new study will have to be done in light of what Congressman Bliley is doing or not doing. Mrs. Thomas also inquired about the alternatives, if the County cannot control its waste stream. She said it may be the only things left to do are the cheapest things, unless the County is willing to put generalized tax dollars into something that is going to be very expensive. She noted that one of the things that was discussed is more expensive than the cost of the new high school, and if the surrounding counties cannot be depended upon to get their wastes to Albemarle County, or if Albemarle County cannot even count on its own waste, then such alternatives cannot even be considered. Some people refer to landfills as rubber sandwiches, and she stated that putting waste between a rubber sandwich and assuming that it will stay there forever safely is not a very reasonable, long term solution, even though it may be the only one that the County can afford to do. Mrs. Thomas then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, that staff provide a report that will explain the environmental impact of the Landfill using the three criteria noted below. 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. Risks - to people and to the water supply. Responsibility - who is responsible for monitoring what and who is ultimately responsible for this landfill. Alternatives - if the County cannot control its waste stream then what alternatives does the County have. Mrs. Humphris said she received a letter from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) setting up a Meadow Creek Parkway Design Planning Advisory Committee. The County is to appoint a County resident and a Planning Commis- sioner to the Committee. She requested that a display advertisement be put in the paper to get the attention of a large number of City and County residents to apply to serve on this Committee. Mr. Tucker asked about the timing for the disPlay ad. Mrs. Humphris replied that it was hoped the appointments could be made by September 1, 1995, which does not leave much time. Mrs. Humphris asked the Clerk to contact Ms. Hannah Twaddell, MPO Planner, to see if it would be possible to have the Board decisions on committee members after the September 6, Board of Supervisors meeting. She added that it would seem to her that this time would not be critical, but the August 2, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 0002'09 (Page 26) Supervisors need to know this. She said a display ad for this purpose would really be helpful in getting people's attention. It was the consensus of the Board that the County and City advertise and that these people be appointed by September 1, 1995. Mrs. Humphris said the National Night Out in the County was a big success. People are interested about drug and crime prevention in their neighborhoods. Mrs. Humphris said she and Mr. Perkins were asked at the end of the meeting on Sugar Hollow Road what the County was going to do to restore the scenic river. Both of them were at a loss for a reply. They tried to explain to people about the amount of money, time and manpower it would require to restore that river. She added that Mr. Perkins diplomatically explained that nature wzll take care of what nature had done, but there were people at this meeting who wan%ed the Supervisors to attack it and fix it right away. She was dumbfounded, because she could not imagine trying to fix it. She wanted the other Supervisors to know that there are people who think that the river can be fixed, and she does not think it is fixable. Mr. Martin wondered if there was anything the County officials could get started. Mr. Bowerman said anything the Supervisors did could make the situation worse. Mrs. Humphris agreed. She said it is impossible to know what can be done that will fix or hurt the situation. She also said it was not known when the next storm was coming. Mr. Perkins said he tried to explain to the group last night that it would do more damage to try and fix something that was already there. Mrs. Thomas pointed out that the conservation people, who were going to do something in the most critical spots, were being told, for example, that they were deepening the wrong channel in one place. She said this is a good example of a well meaning operation. Mr. Perkins remarked that the area will cure itself, as Nelson County did with all of its destruction 26 years ago. He said that if people did not know this had happened in Nelson County, then they could not tell it now. Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 12:08 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, that the Board go into Executive Session, pursuant to Section 2.1- 344(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss the compensa- tion of a specific employee, and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters concerning reversion. Roll was called and ~he motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 18. Certify Executive Session. At 1:30 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting require- menns 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: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. A~enda Item No. 19. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:32 p.m.