Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1995-01-04
000324 January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 4, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin, 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. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m., by the County Executive, Mr. Tucker. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Election of Chairman. Mr. Marshall nominated Walter F. Perkins for Chairman. Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to close the nomina- tions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Perkins. Mr. Marshall then made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to elect Mr. Perkins as Chairman for calendar year 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 5. Election of Vice-Chairman. Mr. Bowerman nominated Charlotte Y. Humphris for Vice-Chair. Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to close the nomina- tions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowerman then made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to elect Mrs. Humphris as Vice-Chair for calendar year 1995. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 6. Appointment of Clerk and Deputy Clerks. Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to reappoint Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk; Ms. Lettie E. Neher, Senior Deputy Clerk; and, Mrs. Jill N. Giglio, Deputy Clerk. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year 1995. Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set meetings for first Wednesday of the month at 9:00 a.m., second and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m., with said meetings to be held in the County Office Building; and to cancel its December 20, 1995, meeting due to its proximity to the holidays. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: 000325 January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Set Dates for Hearing Zoning Text Amendments Request- ed by Citizens. Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set dates to hear zoning text amendments requests by citizens for June 21, September 20 and December 13, 1995 and March 20, 1996. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. Rules of Procedure, Adoption of. Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to readopt the Rules of Procedure. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were none. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Camblos has a court appointment this morning. He asked that agenda item 19 be discussed at this time. Board members concurred. Agenda Item No. 19. Commonwealth's Attorney, Salary Supplement Request. Mr. Camblos said when he first came before the Board two years ago, he stated that he had two assistant prosecutors who could be chief elected prosecutors in the future. One of those prosecutors is now a chief elected prosecutor. He is now talking about the other one, Ms. Cheryl Higgins. Albemarle County has four prosecutors and the City of Charlottesville has five. He has gone to the Compensation Board every year and has come before the Board every year requesting more money for his staff. He has heard that mandates should not be given if they are not funded, but the Board needs to realize that each time another police officer is hired, it is an unfunded mandate for the Commonwealth Attorney's office because his caseloads increase when personnel in the Police Department increases. The Police Department pulls together cases and sends them to the Commonwealth Attorney's office where his staff analyzes the cases and prosecutes them. Since 1991, his staff has not increased, but the Police Department's personnel has increased by 18 to 20 percent (11 officers). The courts have grown by one judge in the Juvenile court and one judge in the Circuit Court. Mr. Camblos said the City adds a $40,000 per year stipend for its Common- wealth Attorney's office. Approximately $28,000 of those funds are for a fifth prosecutor. The remaining funds are for salary compensation for the other assistant prosecutors. Two years ago, he sent the Board material he had gathered from other localities comparing prosecutors in Commonwealth Attorney's offices of the same size (Suffolk County and Roanoke County). These localities supplement their Commonwealth Attorney's office and have a lower cost-of-living and economy than Albemarle County. He needs to keep Cheryl Higgins on his staff and does not want to lose her. Ms. Higgins is young, has a family and needs to look out for her future. She likes working for Albemarle County, but if she can go to another locality and make consider- ably more money, he cannot blame her for that decision. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Camblos if, in his total budget, he is requesting additional funding, beyond the $7000. Mr. Camblos said "yes," the money he is requesting is for a part-time receptionist three days a week. Mr. Marshall asked if someone was hired to replace Ms. Higgins, would the individual be able to carry her caseload. Mr. Camblos said Ms. Higgins is currently paid $38,000 per year and is able to receive a file a day before court and do a good job prosecuting. He and Ms. Higgins prosecute most of the Circuit Court cases and they have flip-flopped with cases on short notice. She is good and can handle almost anything. He does not feel he could hire another individual with her qualifications for $38,000 per year. Mr. Perkins said the salaries are something the state needs to address because they are a state responsibility. Most of the General Assembly is comprised of lawyers, the Governor is a lawyer and the Attorney General is a lawyer. Certainly they realize the salaries are low. Mr. Camblos said he understands all of this but most of the larger counties supplement the salaries. Henrico County receives $750,000 from the state for its Common- wealth Attorney's office and the County budgets another $750,000. Suffolk County which has four prosecutors budgets approximately $11,000 for each 000326 January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) · ....... assistant prosecutor. Roanoke County budgets approximately the same as Suffolk. The City of Charlottesville, which is smaller than Albemarle County, budgets $40,000 for its Commonwealth Attorney's office for an extra prosecu- tor. He has never asked for a supplement for himself and will not until after his assistants are supplemented. Mr. Martin said he feels Mr. Camblos just hurt himself when he said that he would request a supplement for himself after the assistants were supple- mented. He feels this is what the members of this Board fear because if one salary is supplemented, then it becomes an across-the-board increase. He thinks Mr. Camblos presented the case well. Ms. Higgins is good at what she does and has been since the first day she became an employee of the Common- wealth Attorney's office. If there is a time where the Board needs to make a decision on an individual basis and not be concerned about setting a precedent this is the time to do it. He knows the arguments against doing things like this and does not disagree with those arguments, but he feels if it is going to be done, this is the situation for it. Mrs. Humphris asked if other officers, such as jail superintendents, are subsidized by their localities. Mr~ Camblos said his survey only has informa- tion on Commonwealth Attorney's offices. Mrs. Humphris said based on every- thing that has been said about the value of Ms. Higgins, she could make the same case to this Board about the Jail Superintendent. Albemarle County has an exceptional Jail Superintendent who works for a minimal salary in a job where the inmate population has exploded in the time he has been there. The Boardmust decide who else is in this same situation and cannot just recognize the worth of one person. Mr. Tucker said he cannot speak to the Jail Superintendent, but most localities do supplement their Sheriff's Department and Clerk of Court. In some ways the County has merged into this precedent by supplementing the Sheriff's Department's needs, although it has not supplemented manpower or salaries. Mr. Camblos said he does not have automobile needs or needs like the Sheriff's Department, Police Department or Joint Security Complex. His resources are solely people and he desperately needs good people. If Ms. Higgins leaves, he is not sure who could be hired for $38,000. He would like to retract the statement he made about supplementing his salary because it is his assistants that he is fighting for and will continue to do so. It is difficult to run an office and try to be competitive when your hands are completely tied behind your back. Mr. Bowerman asked if this is a budget request. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Camblos is requesting a salary supplement effective immediately because he may lose Ms. Higgins. His need is imminent. Mr. Marshall said he will support the request because common sense tells him that large supply and demand dictates personnel in the business community. Although, this is not the same in local government, he would like to see it move into that direction. The fact that he is willing to support a $7000 salary supplement in this instance does not mean he is willing to do this in the rest of the County. He is opposed to across-the-board salary increases to people when he knows there are eight to ten applicants for one job and the people receiving the salary increases can be replaced with competent people for less money. He has heard that the County's salary compensation is being driven by the business sector and he has figures that he feels will prove differently and show the opposite. Mrs. Humphris asked what would happen if the Board supported this request and Ms. Higgins decided to leave anyway. She asked if the salary supplement goes with the job or the person. Mr. Tucker said the Board could make that determination when the approval was granted. The salary supplement request is for the position, but since the intent is to retain this assistant, it can be part of the motion. Mr. Martin said he feels that it is time to do this and Mrs. Humphris is correct in that there are other people who deserve this as well. He feels it is time that the Board begin recognizing people who are valuable to the system and get away from across-the-board raises. He works with the court system and recognizes that Ms. Higgins is a valuable asset. Mr. Martin then made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve a request that Cheryl V. Higgins, the Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, be given a County salary supplement of $7000 per year, effective immediately with the understanding that if Ms. Higgins leaves this position, there is no guarantee that the supplement will continue for the position. Mr. Bowerman said he is more comfortable with funding the position, recognizing that situations and people change. At some time in the future, Ms. Higgins may choose to do something else and the County will still be faced with finding a competent Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney. He will support the motion as made, but philosophically he is more inclined to support a salary increase for the position than the individual. He recognizes this specific request is being made for an individual and sets less of a precedent than a change in salary. Mrs. Humphris said she feels it would be better to deal with this issue now and then deal with the overall problem of salary at another time. oooa2 ' January 4, 1995 (Regular. Day Meeting) (Page 4) Mrs. Thomas said she is more comfortable with the salary being supple- mented for the individual. This is a market with a tremendous number of attorneys that may not be the "diamonds" of the applicant pool, but there are a lot in the community. She feels this is the state's responsibility. The state is doing everything it can to encourage population growth, yet it will not recognize what that population growth does to localities. - There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS:None. Agenda Item N0.11. Consent Agenda. Motion Was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve items 11.1 and 11.2, pull items 11.3 and 11.4 for discussion, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Item 11.1. Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) proposed changes to Route 9. (It was noted in the staff report that in order to provide cost efficient service to Albemarle County, CTS has proposed three changes to Route 9. These changes will increase ridership without increasing the cost to the County. CTS and staff are proposing the following changes: 1. Remove Albert Court from Route 9 and add the Colonnades and Old Salem Apartments. The Albert Court stop serves the Whitewood Road Village, Oak Forest and Carmelia Garden residential areas. It has experienced limited ridership averaging 10 to 12 riders per day. The riders who presently catch the bus at the Albert Court location will still have access to CTS by walking two blocks to the stop in front of DMV on Commonwealth Drive. Adding the Colonnades stop may help reduce the demand for service from JAUNT, which is more costly to provide than CTS service. The cost of JAUNT service to the Colonnades in FY 1993- 94 was estimated to be approximately $18,000. Staff and CTS conducted a survey with the Colonnades and Old Salem Apartments to determine if the residents would use the proposed bus service. Staff delivered 300 surveys to Old Salem; 33 (11 percent) of which were returned; 81 out of 220 (37 percent) from the Colonnades were returned. The results of the survey show that if service was provided to Old Salem 94 percent of the residents that returned the survey would use it and 81 percent of the Colonnade residents would do the same. The results of the full survey are on file. 2. Remove the south leg of Berkmar Drive (Route 1403) between Rio Road and Route 29 from Route 9. The riders who presently catch the bus on this leg of Berkmar Drive will still have access to CTS by walking, at the most, to the stop at the intersection of Rio Road and Berkmar Drive. 3. Permission to locate a bus shelter at the intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Peyton Drive (south bound). Staff recommends approved of the proposed changes to CTS's bus service in Albemarle County.) Mr. Bowerman asked ho%; many actual stops were dropped from Berkmar Drive and from Whitewood Village. Ms. Helen Poore, Transit Manager for CTS, said there are currently three stops on Berkmar Drive; one close to Rio Road, one approximately mid-way do%~n toward Route 29 and one mid-way by Paint Plus. The only stop proposed to be eliminated on the Whitewood Road/Albert Court is the stop at Albert Court. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the benefits outweigh the negatives. Mrs. Humphris concurred and said CTS has a system that will provide the most effective service, and the addition of Old Salem Apartments and the Colonnades shows great promise for increased ridership. The Board subsidizes JAUNT by more than $7.00 per trip and the subsidy for CTS would be much less. She thinks this is a positive decision and feels it will be welcome by the residents and a benefit to everyone. Mr. Marshall said he also supports this action. Mr. Martin said a couple years ago this Board tried to get CTS to cross Free Bridge to Pantops Shopping Center and it was going to cost approximately $150,000 because they would need a new bus. This proposal will probably save money, while the previous proposal to Pantops would have been very costly. 000328 January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) . Item 11.2. Appropriation: Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home - $7,148, (Form #940044). (It was noted in the staff report that due to two recent outbreaks of violence among ~he juvenile detainees, the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home has had to take several emergency measures over the past few months to ensure the safety and security of the facility, other detainees, staff and the community. These measures included fencing and razor wire, as well as expanded security staff. The costs, which were approved by the governing commission, are being assessed to each participating locality on the same basis as the original FY 1994-95 assessment. The Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home is requesting an additional appropriation of $7148 for the security measures mentioned above. Staff recommends the Board adopt a Resolution of Appropriation in the amount of $7418 for the additional security measures at the Juvenile Detention Home.) By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation approving the request, was adopted= APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940044 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR JUVENILE DETENTION HOME EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100039000563400 JUVENILE DETENTION HOME AMOUNT $ 7,148.00 TOTAL $ 7,148.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2100051000510100 GEN FUND APP. FROM FUND BALANCE AMOUNT $7,148.00 TOTAL $ 7,148.00 Item 11.5. Letter dated December 20, 1994, from the Honorable Edgar S. Robb, Senate, to the Honorable Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, in response to correspondence on Business and Professional Occupation License (BPOL) tax, was accepted as information. Item 11.6. Status Report on Economic Development Policy, was accepted as information. Item ll.7a. Notice of application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Virginia Electric and Power Company for approval of a pilot program to establish a standby generation control system, was accepted as information. Item ll. Tb. Notice Of application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Appalachian Power Company for an expedited increase in base rates for electric service and to revise its cogeneration tariff pursuant to PURPA 210, was accepted as information. Item 11.8. Memorandum dated December 28, 1994, from Mr. Larry W. Davis, County Attorney, advising the Board that the Department of Justice has given preclearance under the Voting Rights Act for the election of school board members, was accepted as information. Item 11.9. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors' meeting for October 31, 1994, was accepted as information. Mrs. Thomas said the RWSA minutes mentioned a brief summary regarding the Buck Mountain permitting process and she wanted to make sure that Board members receive a copy of this summary. Item 11.10. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority meeting for September 15, October 13 and November 17, 1994, was accepted as information. Item 11.11. Acme Design Technology Company's November, 1994 operating results, was accepted as information. Item 11.12. Financial Management Report for November, 1994, was accepted as information. January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) 000329 Item 12a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Request to abandon a portion of Route 782 which runs along the eastern boundary of the University of Virginia Foundation's Fontaine Research Park from the intersection of Fontaine Avenue to the south side of the railroad overpass of Route 782. Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said in the June, 1990, in the rezon- lng report for the University Real Estate Foundation (UREF) Fontaine Office Park, staff recommended "the closure and abandonment of Route 782 from Fontaine Avenue to the railroad as a public road. The road should remain, however, for emergency access to this area." UREF has subsequently encoun- tered problems with illegal dumping and vandalism. Following a meeting with VDoT and County staff, UREF has requested abandonment of a portion of Route 782. Mr. Keeler said staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution of intent to abandon that portion of Secondary State Route 782 situated between Fontaine Avenue (Business Route 29 South) and the southern railroad underpass. The Code outlines several procedural matters which must be met and staff will consult with VDoT and the County Attorney as to these issues. Therefore, no public hearing date is offered, but with consent of the Board a date will be scheduled after the following: 1. Compliance with notification requirements of the Code; 2. Timely receipt of comment from the City as Route 782 connects to Stribling Avenue; 3. Definitive proposal from UREF as to physical closure technique and maintenance responsibility. Staff will be unable to support this request unless these issues are satisfactorily resolved with the various emergency service agencies and utility companies; and 4. Payment of fee for review. In addition, staff will request that the Zoning Department provide information as to the problems and staff hours devoted to illegal dumping complaints along this segment of roadway. (Mr. Marshall left the meeting at 9:54 a.m.) Mrs. Thomas asked if the road remains open for emergency purposes, would it be hard surfaced and maintained. Mr. Keeler replied "yes." This road does provide access to a'telephone substation and Vepco's substation. This road connects into Stribling Avenue Extended, but it is believed that most all of the properties can maintain access through the City. The telephone company does need to continue access of this property and staff wants the road to remain passable for use by emergency vehicles. (Mr. Marshall returned to the meeting at 9:57 a.m.) Mr. Joe Olman, representing UREF, distributed a pictorial to Board members. The pictorial is a graphic statement of what is wrong with the road and why it should be closed. UREF is requesting closure of Route 782, Stribling Avenue Extended from the railroad overpass, south to Fontaine Avenue. The roadway is in horrible disrepair and is dangerous. The roadway is difficult to maintain because of some of the physical characteristics of the springs and other water issues, and it is rarely used. UREF has met with VDoT representatives and although they cannot be an advocate for closing the road, they support UREF's position. No homes have direct frontage on the road (south of the overpass) which UREF is requesting to be closed. The road is used as a perpetual dumping ground. There are appliances, furniture, automo- bile pieces and parts and other garbage that appears frequently on this road. UREF has a responsibility to clean the road since part of the road crosses UREF's property. It costs money to periodically send trucks to clean the dumping. Recently, UREF ran into problems with motorcyclists and all-terrain vehicles using one of the slopes for a challenge course. UREF is concerned that there may be a liability issue and the University would be maintaining and attracting a nuisance. A fence was erected but was torn down by people using it as a course. UREF has now spent more than $1100 to put up concrete barriers. This is an expensive~undertaking for UREF. In 1992 the Planning staff recommended that this road be closed. On behalf of UREF, Mr. Olman asked the Board to support this request. Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt a Resolution of Intent to abandon that portion of Secondary State Route 782 situated between Fontaine Avenue (Business Route 29 South) and the southern railroad underpass. A date for a public hearing will be scheduled after the conditions have been met. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. 00O,330 January 4, 1995 (Resular Day'Meetins) (Page 7) Resolution of Intent W~EREAS, it appears to this Board that Secondary Route 782 , between Fontaine Avenue (Business Route 29 South) and the southern railroad underDass, a distance of 0.46 miles, serves no public necessity and is no longer necessary as a part of the Secondary System of State Highways. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board is directed to post and publish public notice of the Board's intent to abandon the aforesaid section of Route 782 , pursuant to Section 33.1-151 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolu- tion be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation. (Following are the conditions:) 1. Compliance with notification requirements of the Code; 2. Timely receipt of comments from the City as Route 782 connects to Stribling Avenue; 3. Definitive proposal from UREF as to physical closure tech- nique and maintenance responsibility. Staff will be un- able to support this request unless these issues are sat- isfactorily resolved with the various emergency service agencies and utility companies; and 4. Payment of fee for review. Item 12b. Other Transportation Matters. Mrs. Thomas said last month she inquired about the road 9oin9 into Grassmere Subdivision. The residents were requesting guardrail be installed in a couple of sections and drainage changes done using maintenance funds. The residents had hoped that something could be done before snow occurred because there were concerns of slipping over the steep side. (Mr. Martin left the meeting at 10:02 a.m.) Mr. Bill Mills, Assistant Resident Engineer, said he would look into this situation. Mrs. Humphris said she received a call from Mr. Henry Dean, a resident of Lamb's Road, and he was concerned about a dead Dogwood tree that had a branch hanging in the road~ The tree is located east of Mr. Dean's house, on the north side of the road, just past Clark Wyant's house where the farm is for sale. Mr. Mills said he will take care of this. Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing on a RESIDENTIAL LEASE AGREEMENT, with addendum, by and between the County of Albemarle and the City of Char- lottesville for property known as the Towe Park Tenant House. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 1994.) (Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 10:07 a.m.) Mr. Tucker said the City and County jointly own a house at Towe Park. The house is occupied by a tenant who pays rent and performs certain duties in lieu of rent. Mr. Gerald Shatz has occupied the tenant house since 1988. When the original lease was entered into Mr. Shatz was the Park Foreman. Several months ago, Mr. Shatz accepted a position in the Albemarle County Engineering Department. Although Mr. Shatz is no longer employed at the Park, it is in the best interest of the City and County for him to remain as the tenant. The new lease is necessary because the original lease referred to the tenant as being a park employee and contained conditions for earning compensation time or overtime pay after 20 hours of service in a calendar month. Mr. Tucker said the new lease has no hourly requirements but instead sets out tenant responsibilities. The new lease also includes an increase in the monthly rent from $200 to $300. The new rent figure is based on an estimated fair rental value of $800 with a 25 percent reduction to $600 value based on the various factors involved with the location. This estimate was made by the County Assessor. The rent is reduced $300 further as the tenant responsibili- ties are estimated to average about 30 hours per months at a value of $10 per hour. For the new lease the County Attorney is recommending a standard residen- tial lease agreement with an addendum to cover the special requirements such as tenant responsibilities. Special tenant responsibilities include: January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 00033 . 1. Open and close park gates; 2. Assist the public'with information as needed; 3. Perform emergency repair or maintenance of park facilities and grounds; 4. Assist athletic program officials with decisions relating to playability of fields; 5. Take daily attendance count when park employees are not on duty; 6. Raise and lower flags upon completion of Darden Towe Memorial. The lease has been approved by the both the City and County Attorney offices. Mr. Hendrix, the City Manager, has signed the lease on behalf of the City. The Deputy County Attorney has advised that Virginia Code Section 15.1- 261.1 requires the Board of Supervisors to hold a public hearing prior to entering into this lease agreement. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends the Board authorize the County Executive to sign this lease agreement on behalf of the County. At 10:07 a.m., the public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to authorize the County Executive to sign the lease agreement on behalf of the County. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. (Following is the signed lease agreement:) ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT This Addendum to Lease Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 1994, by and among the City of---~harlottesville (the "City"), the County of Albemarle (the "County"), and Gerald T. and Carolyn A. Shatz (the "Tenant"). The parties hereto agree that a residential lease agreement between the parties, dated , 1994, also includes this addendum, as follows: 1. As additional rent, the Tenant shall perform the following duties as long as he resides on the Property. The following duties may be modified as duties may be added or deleted by mutual written agreement between the County and City and the Tenant. Failure to perform the following duties on the part of the Tenant shall constitute a breach by the Tenant under the Lease Agreement: The Tenant shall: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Assure the park entrance gates are opened and closed per posted times and at special requests; Assist the public with information as needed; Perform emergency repair or maintenance of park facil- ities and grounds; Assist athletic program officials with decisions relating to playability of fields during inclement weather; Take daily attendance count when park employees are not available to perform this duty; Upon completion of Darden Towe Memorial, raise and lower flags on schedule to be determined by Park Superintendent. 2. The Tenant shall not be allowed to have pets or additional residents unless approved by the Park Superintendent. It is understood that if this approval is given that it may be rescinded in the event a problem develops related to a pet or an additional resident. 3. The County and City reserve the right to request the Tenant to remove from the site any personal property that is inconsistent with the scenic natural beauty of the park (inopera- ble vehicles, appliances, etc.). 4. The County and City reserve the right to request the Tenant to cease any activity that is inconsistent with the park or surrounding neighborhood. 5. The Tenant is responsible for all utilities. The County will pay for electrical current then bill the Tenant. Reimburse- ment will be due within ten days of notification of the Tenant of the amount due. Tenant will assume full responsibility for all other utility payments. 000332 January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 6. This agreement may be terminated by any party giving written notice of such intention to the other party at least thirty (30) days in advance of the proposed date of termination. 7. At the termination of this lease, the lease shall not be renewed if required for any of the purposes mentioned in Virginia Code section 15.1-258. Upon termination, all improvements erected thereon shall revert to the County and City and shall be free from any encumbrance at the time of such reversion. 8. The County and City reserve the right to agree to certain modifications pertaining to the foregoing tenant responsibilities during the term of the lease agreement. It is the intent of the County and City to delegate this responsibility to the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department, and its Director. 9. The County and City further agree that, in the event tenant performs additional duties at the specific request of the County and City in connection with the property, or for any other reason in the sole discretion of the County and City, then an adjustment in the payment of rent under this lease agreement may be made, provided that any such modifications shall be effective only if in writing between the County, City and the tenant. It is the intent of the County and City to delegate this responsibility to the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department, and its Director. Agenda Item No. 14 and Agenda Item No. 15 were discussed concurrently. Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing on the proposed LEASE of a portion of County property known as the Old Jailors House to Dynamic Educational Systems, Inc. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 1994.) Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing on a notice that Albemarle County will offer a total Of 331.33 square feet of office space for the purposes of conducting the Piedmont Court-Appointed Special Advocate Program (CASA) free of charge as in-kind support of this program. The value of this support at $7.25/sq ft is $2042 annually. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 1994.) Mr. Tucker said as determined by the County Attorney, the Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing prior to granting approval to any lease agreement with an outside agency for the use of County property. The agree- ments pertain to six month leases with Dynamic Educational System Inc., and the Piedmont Court-Appointed Special Advocate Program (CASA) for County owned space, known as the Old Jailors House behind the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Dynamic Educational Systems, Inc., is a private organization that has been awarded a Federal contract to establish a Job Corps Program for the Albemarle/ Charlottesville area. They will maintain an outreach office in the Old Jailor's House using approximately 313.50 square feet or two rooms on the top floor of the building. The monthly rent is $189.40 or $2273 per year. The Piedmont CASA Program has requested the use of two rooms on the first floor of the Old Jailor's House to house their newly created organization that trains community volunteers to work with abused and neglected children who come before the court system. This space, consisting of 331.33 square feet at an annual rental fee of $2402.16, will be leased to them as an in-kind contribution in lieu of rent. Both leases contain the following stipulations: · The lease is effective for a six month period expiring on June 30, 1995 to continue thereafter on a month-by-month basis. · The rental rate is $7.25 per square foot. · Parking spaces are not provided, but are on a first come first-served basis. · The lessee pays for electricity; the County pays water and sewer. · No janitorial services are included. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends approval of the lease agreement with both Dynamic Educational Systems Inc. and the Piedmont Court-Appointed Advocate Program, Inc., which includes a waiver of the rental fee for CASA as an in-kind contribution. At 10:12 a.m., the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Wayland, a local attorney, representing the Piedmont CASA Program, said CASA currently has one part-time director. This program is just being developed and hopes to recruit and train community volunteers to work with the court, guardians and social services on behalf of the children in cases of January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) abuse and neglect. The idea for CASA began approximately 15 years ago on the West Coast and has grown into a national organization. Currently, there are approximately 20 similar programs in Virginia. This location is ideal for the CASA Program and they understand that parking is not guaranteed. CASA appreciates the space being made available. He is available to answer any questions the Board may have. There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to authorize the County Executive to sign the lease agreements with both Dynamic Educational Systems, Inc and the Piedmont Court-Appointed Advocate Program Inc., which includes a waiver of the rental fee for CASA as an in-kind contribution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. (The leases are set out below:) THIS LEASE, effective the first day of January, 1995, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereafter designated as "Lessor", and DYNAMIC EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS, INC, hereafter desig- nated as "Lessee": WITNES SETH : WHEREAS, the Lessor owns certain property within the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, known as the Old Jailors House, and has agreed to lease a portion of the same to the Lessee as provided herein; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual cove- nants and agreements herein contained, the parties do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. LEASED PROPERTY: The Lessor hereby leases and demises to the Lessee, and the Lessee hereby leases and hires from the Lessor the following described property, to wit: 409 East High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia Rooms J and K in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, hereafter designated as the "Property." The leased area contains approximately 313.50 square feet, and the location of the rooms is shown on the at- tached sketch~ 2. TERMS OF LEASE AND TERMINATION THEREOF: This lease shall be effective from the date of its execution and shall continue for a term of six (6) months, to expire on June 30, 1995. Thereafter this lease shall continue on a month to month term unless termi- nated as provided herein. The Lessor may terminate this lease by giving the Lessee notice in writing of its intention to terminate thirty days prior to the termination date. This lease shall not be renewed if the Property is determined by the Lessor to be necessary for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 15.1-258 of the Code of Virginia. Upon termination of the lease, all improve- ments erected thereon shall revert to the Lessor and shall be free from any encumbrance at the time of such reversion. 3. RENTAL RATE: The rental rate for the Property is $189.40 per month, based on a rate of $7.25 per square foot to be paid in advance by the tenth day of each month to the County of Albemarle, Director of Finance. The rental rate may be increased for any new term of the lease if Lessor gives notification to the Lessee in writing sixty days prior to the beginning of the lease term. 4. USE: The Lessee shall use and occupy the Property solely. Parking is on a first come-first served basis and no spaces are provided or guaranteed as part of this lease. 5. UTILITIES: The Lessee shall pay its proportional share of the electricity (Virginia Power) within ten (10) days after notice by the Lessor to the Lessee of the proportional amount owed for the month. Utility accounts will remain in the Lessor's name. 6. MAINTENANCE AND CARE OF PROPERTY: The Lessor shall maintain and keep the Property in its present physical condition. Janitorial services are the sole responsibility of the Lessee. Upon the termination of this lease, the Property shall be returned to the Lessor in good repair, ordinary wear and tear expected. If the Lessee desires to make any repairs, improvements or changes in the Property, the Lessee must first obtain the written permission of the Lessor. Repairs, improvements or changes, if approved by the Lessor, are to be made at the expense of the Lessee. The Lessee agrees to be responsible for any damages which the Lessee January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) 000334 or any person the Lessee permits to be there, caused to the Property. 7. FIRE INSURANCE: The Lessor shall maintain adequate fire insurance on the Property. 8. DAMAGE TO LESSEE'S Property: The Lessor shall not be liable for any loss or damage to any of the Lessee's Property in or on the Property, regardless of how such loss or damage may occur. The Lessee, in placing its Property in and on the leased Property, does so at its own risk. 9. INDEMNITY: The Lessee shall indemnify and save harmless and provide a defense for the Lessor, its agents, officials, and employees, from any and all liability, damages, expenses, causes of actions, suits or judgments, which may accrue against, be charged to, or recovered from the Lessor, its agents, officials, and employees by reason of or on account of damage to the Property of, injury to or death of any other person arising from the Lessee's use and occupancy of the leased Property. 10. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF Property: If the Property shall be damaged by fire, act of God, war, or any other casualty or catastrophe, so as to make them untenable, this lease shall terminate unless the Lessor shall, within thirty (30) days after such damages notify the Lessee of its intention to restore the Property to a tenable condition. The Lessee shall not be obligat- ed to pay rent for the period of time during which it is unable to occupy and use the Property as a result of such damage. The Lessor shall be under no obligation to repair or replace the Property or any portion thereof which may be changed or destroyed by fire or other casualty. il. MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL: The Lessor and the Lessee shall have exclusive control of the management, assets, and offices of their respective institutions. Neither party by virtue of this agreement, assumes liability for any debts or obligations, either financial or legal, incurred by the other party of this agreement. 12. ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE: The Lessee shall not assign this lease or sublet the Property or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of the Lessor. 13. NOTICE: Any notice required under this lease to Lessor shall be by ordinary mail, addressed to the County of Albemarle, Director of Finance, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596. Any notice required under this lease to the Lessee shall be by ordinary mail addressed to DESI, Job Corps Office, 8433 N. Black Canyon Highway, Suite 188, Phoenix, AZ 85021-4859. 14. MODIFICATION OF LEASE: This agreement of lease, when executed by the parties hereto, constitutes the final and entire agreement between the parties and they shall not be bound by any terms, conditions, statements or representations, oral or other, not herein contained. This agreement of lease may be modified or amended from time to time by written agreement executed after the day hereof and signed by all the parties hereto. Such written modification or amendment shall be attached to and become a part of this agreement. 15. AUTHORIZATION: This lease shall be void unless autho- rized by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County pursuant to Section 15.1-261.1 of the Code of Virginia. This agreement is executed in triplicate. THIS LEASE, effective the first day of January, 1995, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereafter designated as "Lessor", and PIEDMONT COURT-APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE PROGRAM, INC., hereafter designated as "Lessee": WITNES SETH : WHEREAS, the Lessor owns certain property within the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, known as the Old Jailors House, and has agreed to lease a portion of the same to the Lessee as provided herein; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual cove- nants and agreements herein contained, the parties do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. LEASED PROPERTY: The Lessor hereby leases and demises to the Lessee, and the Lessee hereby leases and hires from the Lessor the following described property, to wit: 409 East High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia Rooms C and D January 4, 1995 (Regular 'Day Meeting) (Page 12) 00033 in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, hereafter designated as the "Property." The leased area contains approximately 331.33 square feet, and the location of the rooms is shown on the at- tached sketch. 2. TERMS OF LEASE AND TERMINATION THEREOF: This lease shall be effective from the date of its execution and shall continue for a term of six (6) months, to expire on June 30, 1995. Thereafter this lease shall continue on a month to month term unless termi- nated as provided herein. The Lessor may terminate this lease by giving the Lessee notice in writing of its intention to terminate thirty days prior to the termination date. This lease shall not be renewed if the Property is determined by the Lessor to be necessary for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 15.1-258 of the Code of Virginia. Upon termination of the lease, all improve- ments erected thereon shall revert to the Lessor and shall be free from any encumbrance at the time of such reversion. 3. RENTAL RATE: The rental rate for the Property IS $200.18 per month, based on a rate of $7.25 per square foot. In lieu of payment, the Lessor agrees to contribute this amount as an in-kind service to the CASA Program. The rental rate may be required to be paid and/or increased for any new term of the lease if Lessor gives notification to the Lessee in writing sixty days prior to the beginning of the lease.term~ 4. USE: The Lessee shall use and occupy the Property sole- ly. Parking is on a first come-first served basis and no spaces are provided or guaranteed as part of this lease. 5. UTILITIES: The Lessee shall pay its proportional share of the electricity (Virginia Power) within ten (10) days after notice by the Lessor to the Lessee of the proportional amount owed for the month~ Utility accounts will remain in the Lessor's name. 6. MAINTENANCE AND CARE OF PROPERTY: The Lessor shall main- tain and keep the Property in its present physical condition. Janitorial services are the sole responsibility of the Lessee. Upon the termination of this lease, the Property shall be returned to the Lessor in good repair, ordinary wear and tear expected. If the Lessee desires to make any repairs, improvements or changes in the Property, the Lessee must first obtain the written permission of the Lessor. Repairs, improvements or changes, if approved by the Lessor, are to be made at the expense of the Lessee. The Lessee agrees to be responsible for any damages which the Lessee or any person the Lessee permits to be there, caused to the Property. 7. FIRE INSURANCE: The Lessor shall maintain adequate fire insurance on the Property. 8. DAMAGE TO LESSEE'S Property: The Lessor shall not be liable for any loss or damage to any of the Lessee's Property in or on the Property, regardless of how such loss or damage may occur. The Lessee, in placing its Property in and on the leased Property, does so at its own risk. 9. INDEM~TITY: The Lessee shall indemnify and save harmless and provide a defense for the Lessor, its agents, officials, and employees, from any and all liability, damages, expenses, causes of actions, suits or judgments, which may accrue against, be charged to, or recovered from the Lessor, its agents, officials, and employees by reason of or on account of damage to the Property of, injury to or death of any other person arising from the Lessee's use and occupancy of the leased Property. 10. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF Property: If the Property shall be damaged by fire, act of God, war, or any other casualty or catastrophe, so as to make them untenable, this lease shall terminate unless the Lessor shall, within thirty (30) days after such damages notify the Lessee of its intention to restore the Property to a tenable condition. The Lessee shall not be obligat- ed to pay rent for the period of time during which it is unable to occupy and use the Property as a result of such damage. The Lessor shall be under no obligation to repair or replace the Property or any portion thereof which may be changed or destroyed by fire or other casualty. 11. MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL: The Lessor and the Lessee shall have exclusive control of the management, assets, and offices of their respective institutions. Neither party by virtue of this agreement, assumes liability for any debts or obligations, either financial or legal, incurred by the other party of this agreement. 12. ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE: The Lessee shall not assign this lease or sublet the Property or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of the Lessor. January 4, 1995 (Regular iDay Meeting) (Page 13 ) .~ 13. NOTICE: Any notice required under this lease to Lessor shall be by ordlnary~mail, addgeSSed to the County of Albemarle, Director of Finance, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596. Any notice required under this lease to the Lessee shall be by ordinary mail addressed to Edward M. Wayland, 2663 Plank Road, North Garden, Virginia 22959. 14. MODIFICATION OF LEASE: This agreement of lease, when executed by the parties heret©, constitutes the final and entire agreement between the parties and they shall not be bound by any terms, conditions, statements or representations, oral or other, not herein contained. This agreement of lease may be modified or amended from time to time by written agreement executed after the day hereof and signed by all the parties hereto. Such written modification or amendment shall be attached to and become a part of this agreement2 15. AUTHORIZATION: This lease shall be void unless autho- rized by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County pursuant to Section 15.1-261.1 of the Code of Virginia. This agreement is executed in triplicate. Mr. Tucker said the Board received a request from Glenmore for a dog leash law in its planned residential development. Glenmore's covenants and restrictions currently follow the County's leash law requirements for control- ling pets by leash. Glenmore would like to be added to the leash law areas of coverage in order that Albemarle County Animal Control Officers can enforce a leash law within the confines of the development. Mr. Tucker said although the Board's policy is that a majority of the property owners within a given subdivision must approve a leash law in their area, the County Attorney and staff believe that the covenants and restric- tions of Glenmore are tantamount to supporting a leash law in the area. Staff recommends that the Board adopt an Ordinance to add Glenmore PRD to those areas of leash law coverage by the County Animal Control Officers. At 10:17 a.m., the public hearing was opened. Mr. Rich Tarbell, representing Glenmore Subdivision, said he is present to answer any questions the Board may have. There being no further comments from the public, the public hearin9 was closed at 10:18 a.m. Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt an Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article 2, Dogs, Division 2, Running at Large, by adding Section 4-19(34) to include Glenmore Planned Residential Development as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from runnin9 at large. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, ARTICLE 2, DOGS, DIVISION 2, RUNNING AT LARGE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article 2, Dogs, Division 2, Running at Large, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 4-19, In certain areas, as follows: ARTICLE II. Doqs. Division 2. Running at Large. Sec. 4-19. In certain areas. (34) Glenmore Planned Residential Development as recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County in Deed. Book 1074, page 203 and Deed Book 1209, page 257. Mr. Perkins asked if it would be of any benefit to have a procedure that the leash law become effective when a subdivision is developed. Mr. Tucker said the Board may want to discuss that. This can be a sensitive issue. The Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article 2, Dogs, Division 2, Running at Large, by adding Section 4-19(34) to include Glenmore Planned Residential Development as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on December 19 and December 26, 1995.) 000337 January 4, 1995 (Regular D~'Meetlng) '- (Page 14) ..~ ~:~ ~.~: ~.~.~%~ .?.~:~ _'?,~ % reason for the Ordinance is to have a majority of the residents sign a petition in support. Mr. Bowerman said he would prefer that approval be administrative if a majority of property owners sign the petition. Mr. Tucker said a mechanism to do this would have to be developed. Mr. Davis said he will review this and make a recommendation to the Board. Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing to consider requests for funding under the Commonwealth of Virginia's Transportation Enhancement Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 19 and December 26, 1995.) The Keswick Garden Club, Archibald Craige and Dr. Robert Harmon are requesting $68,800 for screening of the CSX rail siding and yard on Route 22 at Keswick, Va. All non-Federal matching funds will be provided from private sources. Historical Markers at site of the Rio ~ill skirmish on Route 29 North to link Civil War sites throughout the state to be implemented by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau. The project costs $10,000 of which $8000 is being requested from ISTEA funds. All non-Federal matching funds will be provided from private sources. For development of an initial phase of the Rivanna Greenway along the Rivanna River Reservoir consisting of improvement of a parking area and construction of 2400 feet of paved path accessible to those with disabilities, and to develop accessible bank fishing areas and bench- es. The grant request is for an estimated $100,000 to be matched with County funds at a minimum of 20 percent of the total grant amount. Mr. Tucker said the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), Transportation Enhancement Program provides a means of financing activities that go beyond the normal elements of a transportation project. A unique and innovative element of ISTEA is set-aside for transportation enhancements. The intent of the Enhancement Program is to more creatively integrate transporta- tion facilities into its surrounding community and natural environment. Up to 80 percent of a transportation enhancement project can be financed with Federal STP funds. A minimum of 20 percent must come from other public or private sources. Mr. Tucker said the County has received three (3) applications for Enhancement Program funding. One is from the Keswick Garden Club for screen- ing of a CSX Railroad siding on Route 22. Total project cost is $86,000, of which the $17,200 local match would come from private sources. The second application is for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau for the Virginia's Civil War Trails project. This is a state-wide project; total project cost has not been provided. A $2000 local match is required for each site. There is one site in Albemarle County and one site in the City of Charlottesville. Therefore, a $4000 match will be provided by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau. The third request is from the Albemarle County Department of Parks and Recreation for the Rivanna Greenway Access and Path along the Rivanna Reser- voir. This project is identified in the FY 1995/96 Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The total request is for $100,000, of which the minimum $20,000 would come from the County CIP Budget. The three applications appear eligible for Enhancement Program funding. All are consistent with the County's priorities for Enhancement Project funding as outlined by the Board in the Six Year Primary Road Plan Priority List. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends the Board endorse all three projects. Should the County endorse any of the projects, it must adopt a resolution to be forwarded with each project application to VDoT. It is important to note that although two applications do not require the County to provide matching funds, the County is guaranteeing local funding by its resolution of endorse- ment. This will require an agreement between the County and the applicant with surety of some form. This will also require the County to administer the project locally to assure state requirements are met in the expenditure of funds. Mr. Martin asked if the projects were prioritized when this was done last year. Mr. Tucker said "yes." Mr. Cilimberg said last year there were requests for the Thomas Jefferson Parkway and the Route 22 project, but is not sure the projects were prioritized in numerical order. Mr. Marshall said the Bottled Gas Company at Keswick is a horrible eye- sore. He asked if this funding includes screening this site and if the County could require the owners screen the business. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Craige can speak as to whether this project would cover that area. The County cannot require the area be screened unless they come in with an amendment to a site plan or something of that nature. .... :' 000..338 January 4, 1995 (Page 15) At 10:25 a.m., the public hearing was opened. Mr. Archibald Craige, representing Keswick Garden Club, said the applica- tion is for screening of CSX Railroad and the Bottled Gas Company at Keswick. This is the third application that has been submitted. Keswick has been urged to submit this application by Mr. Cassano who handles the method of distribu- tions to the 100 counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The applications have been approved by this Board the previous two years. The Keswick Garden Club is requesting that the Board adopt an updated resolution. The Club has talked in the past to the owners of the Railroad and Gas Company and they are agreeable to the program should the grant be approved. The improvements would be at no cost to the County. The percentage that would normally be provided by the County would be taken care of by a certified check. There may be some administrative responsibilities by the County in seeing that the funds are dispensed properly. He will answer any questions by Board members. Mr. Martin asked if the Bottling Gas Company or CSX Railroad is paying any of the $17,200. Mr. Craige said "no," they have no financial responsibil- ity. Ms. Bobbye Cochran, representing the Convention and Visitor's Bureau, said she is present to answer any questions the Board may have regarding the Virginia Civil War Trail. She was told that the application for the Virginia Civil War Trail did not compete with any other ISTEA applications in the County, but when it was all put together into the full package, it would compete for the $7.0 million. At 10:33 a.m., with no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Davis said the resolution for the Virginia Civil War Trails stipu- lates that the local match would be held in escrow by the Visitor's Bureau because the County funds contributed to this are put in its budget. Mrs. Humphris said in the proposed resolution, for the Rivanna Greenway Access, Attachment C, line four, the first word "protect" needs to be omitted. The sentence should read "The Greenway functions to: ..." Mrs. Thomas made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the three Resolutions (set out below) to endorse the requests for funding under the Commonwealth of Virginia's Transportation Enhancement Program. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Project Endorsement Resolution WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be received from the local government or state agency in order that the Virginia Department of Transportation program an enhancement project in the County of Albemarle. NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Common- wealth Transportation Board to establish a project for the screen- ing of the CSX rail siding and yard at Keswick along Route 22, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors hereby agrees to pay 20 percent of the total cost for planning and design, right-of-way, and construction of this project, said amount to be donated to the County by the Keswick Garden Club, and that, if the County of Albemarle subsequently elects to cancel this project, it hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. Project Endorsement Resolution Virginia's Civil War Trail -- Site of Rio Hill Skirmish WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be received from the local government or state agency in order that the Virginia Department of Transportation program an enhancement project in the County of Albemarle. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County Virginia, on behalf of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau, does hereby requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board to establish a project to highlight the site of the Rio Hill Skirmish as one of the Civil War sites in the statewide program entitled "Virginia's Civil War Trail," and January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle hereby agrees to pay $2,000 toward the funding of this project, which is 20% of the total cost for planning, and construction of this project. Said 20% local share is being held in escrow by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau for such purpose. If the County of Albemarle subsequently elects to cancel the project, it hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department for this project through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. PROJECT ENDORSEMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be received from the local government or state agency in order that the Virginia Department of Transportation program an.enhancement project in the County of Albemarle. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle, requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board to establish a project for the improvement of Rivanna Greenway Access and Path along the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors hereby agrees to pay 20 percent of the total cost for planning and design, right-of-way, and construction of this project, and that, if the County of Albemarle subsequently elects to cancel this project, the County of Albemarle hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. Agenda Item No. 18. Request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to extend water service only to Tax Map 55A, Parcels 1, 6 and 13; and Tax Map 55, Parcels 79B, 79D5 and 90, in Yancey Mills (Route 684). Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. This request originally came to the Board due to concerns about fire protection and quality/quantity of existing well water. The Board deferred this request to allow staff and the applicants time to discuss alternatives. Mr. Cilimberg said water quality and quantity for domestic use does not seem to be a problem in this area. The optimum provision to aid fire fighting other than public water line extension would be dry hydrants. However, with the existence and proximity of nearby public water hydrants, Mr. Hirschman, the Water Resources Manager, indicates that dry hydrants along Rout 684 do not meet the criteria set out by the Forest Service. Staff would not recommend dry hydrants to meet this particular request unless, or until, the County makes a decision regarding a general dry hydrant program (and associated criteria for the provision) for all the rural areas of the County. Mr. Hirschman has indicated that a dry hydrant program is an excellent concept for the rural areas. Issues such as location, installation costs and maintenance would need to be addressed. Should the Board wish to establish such a program, staff can work to develop necessary criteria. Mrs. Thomas said she asked Mr. Pumphrey, Fire and Rescue Division Chief, to meet with the Fire Chief at the Crozet Fire Department, who has met with the neighbors a couple of times. The Fire Chief felt the dry hydrant would be approximately four-tenths of a mile closer to the center point than the regular hydrant. He did not feel that distance would make much of a differ- ence in response time. The North Garden Fire Department has installed several dry hydrants in the North Garden area. The dry hydrants have been in exis- tence long enough to have an idea of how they work, how often they get clogged, etc. Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to decide whether it wants to proceed with this and have staff establish criteria to develop a program for dry hydrants. Mrs. Humphris asked what department would be involved. Mr. Tucker said it would primarily be the Engineering Department, Planning Department and Fire/Rescue Division as well as some expertise from the volunteer fire chiefs. Mrs. Humphris asked how much of a work load is this and how does it fit with the current work schedules. Mr. Tucker said he believes most of the work and criteria will be developed by the Engineering Department. The criteria needs to be developed from an engineering and fire prevention perspective as to what will work. The Planning Department needs to look at this in terms of how this may fit in with development and growth and decide whether it wants to encour- age dry hydrants in new developments. Decisions also need to be made as to what involvement the County and others will have to insure that dry hydrants are in working order. When the hydrants are installed there will need to be a maintenance program or the fire departments will have to be willing to oversee them. 000840 January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Mrs. Humphris said the cost estimate assumes that there are no road costs. If a road has to be built the cost would double. She has a number of questions about this issue, i.e., who would own the dry hydrant, would the County have to purchase an easement for the dry hydrant, etc. She did a rough calculation of the number of dry hydrants there would need to be and the costs associated with those hydrants and concluded that it would be very expensive. She would like to know if this is a realistic project just to obtaining - information on dry hydrants. Mr. Tucker said some of the volunteer fire companies feel more strongly about the need for the dry hydrants because of their location. He cannot say whether this would be a worthwhile study. Once all of the information together, it would have to be reviewed and the questions Mrs. Humphris mentioned would be answered. The dry hydrants would have be installed over a period of time or as developments occur in the rural areas. He does not envision this as something that the County will start installing everywhere. He also recognizes that the County is still fairly rural and there are a lot of areas where development is still occurring. There could be a real need for this at certain times. It could be done on some type of pro rata share for new development so that the cost is not totally left to the County. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has required some developments in the rural area to provide a dry hydrant system or some fire prevention water system where public water was not available. This has been a responsibility of the developer. Mrs. Thomas asked if plans for a rural conservation development go to the Fire Prevention Office to address fire prevention concerns. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes," the Fire Prevention office is part of the site review committee. In most cases, dry hydrants have not been necessary in the development process in rural areas. Dry hydrants have only been required in certain circumstances and are rather infrequent. Mr. Ron Keeler said prior to 1980, there were a number of developments with dry hydrants, but now with rural area districts and 21-acre lots, it has not been a regular recommendation of the Fire Official. Mrs. Humphris said she is not enthusiastic about adding to staff's workload, but it seems that the Board does need to know about dry hydrants. Mr. Perkins said he feels the issue of dry hydrants should be left to the volunteer fire companies so that they can evaluate the needs. The fire companies know the areas better than the members of this Board. He feels there should be someone in the County to help with the applications, i.e., Farm Bureau or Department of Forestry, and take advantage of those. Mr. Tucker said staff can handle this through the Fire/Rescue Division and have them take it to JCFRA and see if it is something they want to pursue, with support from County staff. Mr. Perkins said as far as right-of-way, he does not think it is donated. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. There was a consensus by the Board that the issue of dry hydrants be handled through the Fire/Rescue Division, JCFRA and staff support from the Engineering Department. The Board recessed at 10:52 a.m., and reconvened at 11:06 a.m. Agenda Item No. 20. Legislation pertaining to Public Defender's Office. Mr. Tucker said this item was deferred from the Board's meeting on December 21, 1994, to allow staff to provide more information to the Board. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, has been gathering the informa- tion and has a brief report of the advantages and disadvantages of a Public Defender's Office. Ms. White said this is a difficult issue because of the varying opinions from different sectors as to the advantages and disadvantages. She called other localities that currently have a Public Defender's Office and there was a consensus that advantages to having such an office are: it could be more cost efficient; there is a more stream-lined system, it sets up protocol and is efficient because they work on a regular basis with the Commonwealth Attorney's Office, Jail and Sheriff's Department; the judge knows who to call and can assign an attorney to each case; and, the attorneys in the Public Defender's Office are trained particularly in criminal law. The other side is that some of the attorneys that may be chosen to represent clients do not specialize in criminal law. A Public Defender's Office may have more experi- ence in criminal law. Other areas mentioned were difficulty in finding private attorneys to take on the more difficult cases. This does not seem to _ be the case in Charlottesville because there has not been a problem with finding good attorneys to take on such cases. Another advantage is that interns could be utilized to help staff the office. There is also an ability to have an investigator on staff. Ms. White said the Public Defender's Commission has recommended that this office be established in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area and has also stated that this is the direction the state is going. She is not sure of the number of Public Defender's Offices in the state, but knows the number has increased. January 4, 1995 (Regular.DayMeeting) (Page 18) ~ ......... Ms. White said some of the disa; es are: the current system in Charlottesville is workingand there isnot a problem with finding experienced attorneys; the judges have the ability to find an experienced attorney and if there is a difficult case they can skip over the next attorney scheduled to take a case and find a lawyer which they feel has the expertise to handle the case; a Public Defender's Office is an additional expense to the state, net cost for start up is approximately $75,000 (there is no local match); the Public Defender's Office staff may experience some burnout by continually working with the same clients; a Public Defender's Office may have less experienced staff because their salaries are low and may have to hire recent graduates who do not have a lot of experience; and, a Public Defender's Office would take fees away from local attorneys. Mr. Perkins asked if the local Bar Association has taken a position. Ms. White said they are in support. Mr. Martin said there were only approximately 30 attorneys who attended the meeting (out of 200 members) when this was discussed. Mrs. Thomas said the idea of having interns from the University of Virginia (UVa) is interesting, and asked if UVa law school has shown any interest. Ms. White said "no;" not that she is aware. Mr. Martin asked if judges could assign cases to the attorneys at the Public Defender's Office. Ms. White said the judges would always know which attorneys were available. Mr. Tucker said the Public Defender's Office may not be able to handle all cases and the judge may still have to assign some. Mr. Martin asked if judges can decide which attorney would handle a case because under the current system, judges do recognize the abilities of some attorneys and try to react accordingly. Ms. White said, from what she under- stands, the judge can select or make a recommendation that a certain attorney within the Public Defender's Office represent a certain defendant. Mr. Martin asked if there would be a Chief Public Defender and then Assistants. Mr. Davis said in his experience, there is a head Public Defender equivalent to the Commonwealth's Attorney, then there would be Assistants within the office. Mr. Martin asked who hires the attorneys. Mr. Davis said they are hired by the state, are state employees and number would depend on the caseload within their office. The judge has some discretion because in certain cases, if the Public Defender's Office is not qualified or needs assistance it can ask the Court to appoint a participating private attorney to provide assistance. The Court can also recognize this need. In addition, there are sometimes con- flicts between the two defendants, like co-defendants, and the Public Defender's office cannot represent both defendants so the court will appoint a private attorney to represent co-defendants. The Public Defender's office cannot represent everyone and approximately 30 percent of the defendants would still be represented by private attorneys. Mr. Martin asked which branch of state government is responsible for the Public Defender's office. Mr. Tucker said it is a separate Commission appointed by the Governor. Mrs. Humphris said Ms. White stated that if the Public Defender's office were to become overburdened that the judge can get other counsel for the defendant and asked who would fund this. Ms. White said there is a pool of money provided by the state for private attorney fees. Mr. Martin asked if new state administration would affect the Public Defender's office. He would like to know that this is not another political entity and every time there is a change in administration there is a change in the commission then a change in the Public Defender's office. Ms. White said she does not know; but some of the Public Defender's have been in their office for a long time and have not been subject to any political changes. Mrs. Thomas said she is not sure what problem is being attacked by this proposal because Albemarle County is a community with many attorneys and it is said that the quality of the attorneys is high. Mr. Tucker said his under- standing is that there are some concerns by the City. It is more cost effective to create this office jointly which is the reason Delegate Van Yahres is asking Albemarle County to reconsider this issue. Mr. Marshall said he feels "if it's not broke, don't fix it." People feel there is better service with the current system because judges are appointing well-versed, competent lawyers to represent defendants. Mr. Martin said there is also competition. There may be a lawyer just out of law school and that person must compete and prove himself or herself as a competent lawyer. In a Public Defender's office, whomever is hired represents the defendants. This Board does not have any say over hiring and it could become a political entity. He is not afraid of change, but agrees with Mr. Marshall, "if it's not broke, don't fix it," especially if by "fixing" it the outcome is unknown. Mr. Bowerman said defendants are being represented by some of the best lawyers within the current system. He feels if Albemarle were to have a Public Defender's office, the state will turn that office over to the locality at some point. Ms. White said one difference in some of the localities is that it is difficult to have experienced attorneys. In Charlottesville, there are a number of good attorneys that are not just law school graduates. Mrs. Humphris said one of the pros in the material provided is an improved legal defense system. She is hearing that the Board does not believe that this is -. 000342 January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) ~,~,~ ..................... ~. necessarily true for Albemarle County. Mr. Martin said it could be true, but it could also be worse. Mr. Martin said he is not sure a Public Defender's office would improve the system, especially if the attorneys are hired by someone in Richmond. There are a lot of good lawyers in Charlottesville. Mr. Bowerman said he feels the judges know the good lawyers and assign them accordingly. Mrs. Humphris said it would cost the taxpayers approximately $185,000 more to change to the Public Defender's office system and the Board should discuss whether it is worth it to the taxpayer to pay that much more a year for a service that this Board is leery. Mr. Bowerman said if he felt that defendants were not getting a fair defense, he would be willing to spend the extra money, but he is not hearing this. Mr. Martin said he feels the only advantage and improvement to a Public Defender's office is the investigator. Mrs. Thomas asked if the City will be handicapped if Albemarle County does not support the proposed legislation. She knows it will be more expen- sive, but she has not heard that it will keep the City from forming a Public Defender's office. Mr. Tucker said Delegate Van Yahres went forward with the proposed legislation for the City last year and it was not approved by the General Assembly. Delegate Van Yahres had hoped that the County and City would support the legislation because he thinks the state is looking at it from a cost-effective perspective. Mr. Martin said he is not against the proposed legislation, but does not have a lot of support for it. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks there is value in having the attorneys in the community to do this kind of work. There is also an advantage in knowing and keeping aware of different types of law. She thinks this would create a loss in the general community. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks an important key is that this Board is not hearing from the judges which means the defendants are getting fair and good representation. There was a consensus by the Board not to support proposed legislation to establish a Public Defender's office. Item 2la. Appropriations: Jefferson-Madison Regional Library - $45,000, (Form #940042). Mr. Tucker said the roof of the Central Library has been repaired/replaced in several sections over the past several years. Due to heavy leaks and major damage from last winter's storm to the Second Street section of the tin roof, unanticipated when the current year CIP was submitted last fall, emergency repairs are being planned for a black tar roof on that section at an approximate cost of $15,000. When the City Board of Architectural Review objected to covering the tin roof with a black tar roof, the City called in additional roofing engineers to seek an alternative solution. Upon further assessment of the project, the engineers recommended replacing the entire roof with a standing seam tin roof. The estimate for the new roof, including the asbestos and lead paint removal from the old roof, is $90,000 split between the City and the County. Mr. Tucker said although an alternative option is to lay a second metal roof on top of the old roof for a lesser cost of $60,000, both City and County maintenance staff concur with the engineer's assessment that in the long term it is more cost effective to pull off the entire old roof and start over. The original roof was not replaced when the Library was renovated in 1979-81. Funding in the amount of $45,000 for the Central Library's roof is proposed to come out of the County's General Fund Balance. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends the Board adopt a resolution of appropriation in the amount of $45,000 to replace the Central Library's roof. Mr. Martin said he wanted the Board to be aware that the cost of the roof is $90,000 as opposed to $15,000 because the City's Architectural Review Board did not want a black tar roof. He is not opposed to this action. The report does not state that the metal roof is a better fix. He assumes that the $15,000 would fix the roof just as well as the $90,000 metal roof in terms of maintenance and durability. He feels this is being done simply because of the color of the roof. Mr. Tucker said he thinks there would still be maintenance problems if the roof were tarred because tar tends to crack over a period of time. Mr. Martin said he would like to know that there is some other reason for paying $90,000 for something that could be repaired for $15,000. Mr. Marshall said he thinks this may be more cost-effective over a long period of time. As far as longevity, he feels a tin roof is the way to go. Ms. White said the $15,000 was only for approximately 20 percent of the roof. The $90,000 is for the entire roof. Mr. Martin said that makes more sense. Mr. Bowerman asked what is the expected lifetime of a tin roof. Ms. Donna Selle, Director of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, said the lifetime is approximately 25 years. Mr. Bowerman then made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt a Resolu- tion of Appropriation in the amount of $45,000 to replace the Central · 000843 January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Mdeting) (Page 20) Library's roof. Roll wa~'"~i'led'and the~motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940042 FUND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COUNTY SHARE OF MAIN LIBRARY ROOF EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1900073020800902 LIBRARY-ROOF 1100093010930004 GEN'L FUND TRANSFER TO CIP TOTAL REVENUE 2900051000512004 2100051000510100 DESCRIPTION CIP TRANSFER FROM GEN'L FUND GEN'L FUND APP. FROM FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $45,000.00 45,000.00 $90,000.00 AMOUNT $45,000.00 45,000.00 $90,000.00 Item 2lb. Jefferson-Madison Regional Library HVAC improvements $22,500, (Form #940043). Mr. Tucker said the FY 1994-95 CIP included $77,500 for replacement and repair work on the HVAC system at the Central Library; the total project cost of $155,000 to be shared equally with the City. Subsequent to the initial estimates and the FY 1994-95 appropriation, additional requirements have raised the total project cost to $200,000 or an additional cost of $45,000. The increased share for the County is $22,500. Mr. Tucker said the initial request did not include heating or air conditioning for the mezzanine, since it was not anticipated that the mezza- nine space would be used anytime in the near future. However, the mezzanine space is now planned to house the public access terminals, as well as the file server, for the Monticello Avenue information project and will, therefore, need to have heat and air conditioning. Second, last winter's flood did extensive damage to the steam boilers that serve the radiators on the third floor. Due to their age (over 40 years old), the boilers cannot be repaired, but must be replaced with a new hot water system that will service the third floor. This projected increase in the total project costs of $45,000 will increase the County's contribution to the HVAC system repair and replacement to $100,000. Since $77,500 has already been appropriated, the Library has requested an additional $22,500 from the County. The City has already approved its share of the increase. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends the Board adopt a Resolution of Appro- priation in the amount of $22,500 for the additional HVAC needs at the Central Library. Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt a Resolution of Appropriation in the amount of $22,500 for the additional HVAC needs at the Central Library. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940043 FUND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COUNTY SHARE OF MAIN LIBRARY HVAC IMPROVEMENTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1900073020800673 LIBRARY-HVAC $22,500.00 1100093010930004 GEN'L FUND TRANSFER TO CIP 22,500.00 TOTAL $45,000.00 REVENUE 2900051000512004 2100051000510100 DESCRIPTION CIP TRANSFER FROM GEN'L FUND GEN'L FUND APP. FROM FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $22,500.00 22,500.00 $45,000.00 Mr. Marshall asked for an update on Monticello Avenue. Ms. Selle said the Library Board addressed will schedule appointments with Board members sometime in January to discuss the issue in detail. (Page 21) O0O344 Agenda Item No. 25. Other M~tters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. : , :. ~ :: Mr. Marshall made a presentation and requested the Board adopt a Resolu- tion of Intent for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the zoning of a parcel of land in Mill Creek. The property is currently zoned for industrial use, but is not conducive to that zoning because of the rolling terrain. The general feeling is that the majority of homeowners in Mill Creek would prefer to have homes on this land rather than an industrial park. Mrs. Humphris asked what percentage of the property has steep slopes. Mr. Benish said as much as 25 percent or greater of the property could have steep slopes, but there are a fair amount of slopes that are not considered critical and are more difficult to develop. Mr. Benish said staff has not evaluated this site. It was just brought to their attention. Mrs. Thomas said she supported reviewing the University Real Estate Foundation (UREF) request out of the Comprehensive Plan sequence, but when the Board got into water and transportation issues that could not be dealt with because it was taken out of context, she regretted taking that action. She, personally, is not in favor of reviewing anything out of the scheduled process when this Board is requesting the Planning Commission to look at the whole picture. To pick pieces out is unfair to the Planning Commission and the County because it will not get a good product from the Comprehensive Plan review. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Perkins how he felt about the request. Mr. Perkins said he walked the land because the owner was interested in selling the timber off of the property. The terrain is rolling and he agrees it is better suited for homes than industrial zoning. There would have to be extensive site preparation to level the site for industrial development. He thinks the Comprehensive Plan is important and is a general guide for the County, but a lot of requests come along at a time that may not suit the Comprehensive Plan schedule. Mrs. Humphris said it is not as if a prospective purchaser could not obtain an option to buy the property contingent upon the outcome of the Comprehensive Plan review. On UREF she was reluctant to proceed, but the overall good of seeing the property planned and developed as a whole was an overriding issue. She does not see a reason to take away from the Planning Commission's charge. She does not think that a couple of months will make a major difference. Mr. Marshall said he thinks there is a need for affordable housing in the County and this will help satisfy that need. He does not think this property can be developed for industrial use. He feels this is the best use that can be obtained from the property. Mr. Martin asked if the homes would be an extension of Mill Creek. Mr. Hunter Craig, representing the property owner, said "yes," they would like to make this an amendment to the Mill Creek PUD and make this Mill Creek West. Mr. Martin asked if the homes will be done with partially undone rooms to make them more affordable. Mr. Craig said "yes." Mrs. Humphris asked what range housing is planned for this area. Mr. Craig said similar to, if not identical to Mill Creek, prices for homes would be $90,000 to $150,000. Mr. Marshall then made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt a Resolu- tion of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan and take this request out of the normal scheduling sequence. Mr. Martin said $90,000 is affordable in this County for a home. He also knows a lot of the residents in Mill Creek and realizes they would appreciate an extension of Mill Creek as opposed to industrial development. He feels this is worth reviewing and just because the Resolution of Intent is adopted does not mean that once it is presented, the Board has to vote favorably on the request. Mr. Bowerman asked when this would be before the Planning Commission. Mr. Benish said approximately six weeks, if the Comprehensive Plan is to stay on schedule. Mr. Martin said this does not have to be done in the concept of the Comprehensive Plan, but would actually flow through it. Mr. Benish said it would be helpful to staff if this request were not on an immediate fast track because they are taking a step approach to updating the land use plan. The first step is to determine the need for overall land use demand and needs, residential and non-residential. Staff is going to clarify, by working with the planning Commission, what standards for development is preferred. Once those parameters are in place, staff will look at the land use plan, make adjustments and look at individual requests. Staff is currently looking at expansion needs and overall land use demand. Next month, staff hopes to discuss the standards. If staff can keep on track, by the end of February, it will be able to coordinate the work so things are not done totally out of sequence and the review is also kept on schedule. Mrs. Humphris said if she had a topographical map to look at or had an opportunity to walk the property to set a better idea of the potential, she might could support the request. She feels since it is possible to set an 000345 < January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) option on the property until it is dealt with in the proper order, she cannot support the request. She agrees the land most likely will be zoned residen- tial, but she cannot support doing it in this order at this time, given the fact that she knows so little about the property. Mr. Marshall said he appreciates what Mrs. Humphris is saying, but if the property was in her district, she had walked it and told him, he would take her word for it. Mr. Bowerman said he is not pleased with taking the request out of the established procedure, but feels there have been so many deviations from the Plan this year, that from a practical point this does not have much effect on policy. He does not thinks it makes sense to have a 50-acre industrial site immediately adjacent to a residential area. He will support the motion. Mrs. Thomas said she concurs with Mr. Bowerman, but she is not willing to take this request out of context and still demand the high standard of performance that she expects from the Planning Commission and staff on the whole Comprehensive Plan review. It is a handicap to demand that pieces be taken out of the review. She thinks this is probably a good idea and the County needs as much residential development within the growth areas as possible. She sat through a Planning Commission meeting where there was a discussion about how much industrial land was needed. She knows this will be discussed thoroughly, but is concerned about it being a handicap. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: Mrs. Humphris and Mrs. Thomas. RESOLUTION OF INTENT BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to change the zoning of Tax Map 76M1, Parcels 10 and 10B from Industrial to Residential; and FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan, and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date. Mrs. Humphris said she felt the changes in Ms. Higgin's job title (Item 11.3 from the Consent agenda) needed some discussion about the direction the County is going and the potential for expanding this department and expanding the department's budget. Mr. Tucker said staff is not anticipating any major expansions. The Engineering Department has been doing public works jobs for some time and the change in this title is a reflection of these changes. The only change he sees in the future is with the issue of stormwater. Mrs. Humphris asked when a decision will be made as to whether the Parks and Recreation Department or the Engineering/Public Works Department will deal with landscaping in the entrance corridors. Mr. Tucker said more than likely it will become a matter for the Parks and Recreation Department, but a final decision has not yet been made. Mrs. Humphris said she pulled Item 11.4 (Final Report - 250th Birthday Celebration) because she wanted everyone to know who had a part in this project. She thanked a list of participants, civic organizations, staff and donators. Mrs. Humphris said Albemarle County has 250 years of history, but no historian. The 250th Anniversary Committee discussed the fact that the County should consider designating a historian. Mrs. Thomas said the Historical Society could probably make a recommendation. Agenda Item No. 23. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. At 12:11 p.m., Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia, under subsection one to consider a personnel matter regarding the Police Department and to consider appointments to boards and commissions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 24. Certify Executive Session. At 2:17 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and adopted the following Certification of Executive Meeting. 00034(; January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) ~ ~:! ~:~ ~. MOTION: Mr. Bowerman SECOND: Mrs. Humphris MEETING DATE: January 4, 1995 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING I move that the board certify by a recorded vote that to,the best of each board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia freedom of information act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or consid- ered in the executive session. VOTE: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 22. Appointments. Mr. Martin recommended that Robert Walters, Jr., be reappointed to the Advisory Council on Aging with term to expire May 31, 1997; and Ms. Nancy Whiting Barnett be appointed to the Advisory Council on Aging with term beginning June 1, 1994 and ending May 31, 1997. Mrs. Thomas recommended that Arthur B. Brown, Jr., be reappointed to the Community Services Board with term to expire June 30, 1998; Ms. Jacquelyn C. Perry be appointed to the Community Services Board with term to expire June 30, 1996 (to fill out unexpired term of Ralph Ross); and Mr. W. Thomas Leback be reappointed to the Planning Commission as UVA's non-voting representative with term to expire December 31, 1995. Mrs. Humphris recommended Mr. George R. Larie be reappointed to the Equalization Board as the Jack Jouett Magisterial District representative with term to expire December 31, 1995; Mr. Burton Webb be reappointed to the Fire Prevention Code of Appeals with term to expire November 21, 1997;and Mr. James R. Skove be reappointed to the Industrial Development Authority as the Jack Jouett Magisterial District representative with term to expire January 19, 1999. Mr. Bowerman recommended that Mrs. Ruthann F. Brown be reappointed to the Children and Youth Commission with term to expire June 30, 1998; Mr. Frank Rice be reappointed to the Equalization Board representing the Charlottesville Magisterial District with term to expire December 31, 1995; and Mr. Donnie R. Dunn be reappointed to the Equalization Board representing the White Hall Magisterial District with term to expire December 31, 1995. Mr. Marshall recommended that Mr. James E. Clark, Jr., be reappointed to the Equalization Board representing the Scottsville Magisterial District. Mrs. Humphris recommended that Mr. John K. Plantz and Mr. Edward J. Jones be reappointed to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging with terms to expire March 31, 1997. Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve the above appointments and reappointments. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. (The Board then continued its discussion of Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.) Mr. Tucker announced that Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA), Dr. Craig DeAtley and the Fire Prevention Office will be holding a meeting tonight at 6:00 p.m., in Room 15 of the County Office Building to discuss its' plans for future Fire/Rescue needs. Board members are invited to attend. Mr. Tucker said he wanted to react to the letter written to the Editor by Mr. John Carter which was published in The Daily Progress on Sunday, January 1, 1995. Of the $3.8 million surplus, $1.7 million was used to balance this January 4, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) year's budget in the School Division and General Government. $1.8 million which was returned in the General Fund balance. 000347 The County saved Mrs. Thomas said the House Appropriations and Finance Committees are holding a meeting today in Verona, Virginia. On January 12, 1995, another meeting will be held in Richmond. On January 10, 1995, staff will know the impact of the Governor's proposed budget. This is when the Department of Planning and Budget in Richmond will have a meeting to delineate the tax increase or cut. She would like to have an official statement prepared for Mr. Perkins to give at the hearing in Richmond on January 12, 1995, about the impact that the proposed budget will have on Albemarle County. There was a consensus by the Board that this be done. Mr. Perkins said he understands that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) did not grant a variance to Mr. Joseph Adlesic for a stream crossing on the Moorman's River. He asked Mr. Davis to update the Board on this situation. Mr. Davis said the BZA denied the variance, stating the primary reason was this could be a reoccurring situation which would more appropriately be handled by an ordinance amendment rather than a variance. The BZA noted that there were several other properties along this stream and if it granted this variance, they would be seeing multiple applications for variances of this nature. As a result of that action, unless the Board can make a positive finding that there is an existing bridge at this location, which there is not, it is precluded from approving the special use permit. If the Board denies the special use permit, based on the facts, the applicant may assert that there is a taking of the property, if there is no reasonable use left. Mr. Davis explained since this is a scenic stream, there is a provision that allows a scenic stream to be crossed by special permit only and there have only been a few of these over the years (two previous requests have come to the Board and been approved because they met the criteria). There are seven mandatory criteria that have to be met. When the BZA application was being researched, it was found that a variance had been granted in 1987 for this property waiving the criteria that there be an existing house; the variance is still valid, but there was not a variance for the requirement that there be an existing crossing. The other criteria at issue was whether there was a health, safety and welfare danger that would be corrected if a permit was granted. The only way, under the Zoning Ordinance, that the applicant can cross the stream other than wading it, is to amend the Zoning Ordinance or to appeal the BZA's decision on the variance and have it overturned, then come back to this Board without the mandatory criteria. The BZA has denied the request. It can now come back to the Board and the Board's action will be to approve, deny, or defer the request and amend the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bowerman asked if the request could be approved under the current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Davis said unless the Board could find with clear, convincing evidence that there is an existing stream crossing, it does not meet the criteria for approval. The Ordinance was drafted very stringently when it was adopted and the criteria makes it difficult for someone to get a stream crossing. Mrs. Thomas said the property has changed hands several times so clearly, people felt it had some value. Mr. Davis said the property has changed hands and in the late 1980's a separate parcel was added to the majority parcel in order to get frontage on the road. Before adding this parcel, the property was landlocked and only went to the centerline of Moorman's River. The property has access, but has to cross the Moorman's River because there is only 0.4 acres on one side of the River and six acres on the other side. Mr. Davis said Mr. Adlesic thinks that he has a building site there, but the Zoning Administrator and Water Resource Manager think it will be difficult to find a building site on the property. Mr. Perkins said he thought the Health Department had approved a drainfield. Mr. Davis said the Health Department has preliminarily staked out a drainfield. He believes Mr. Adlesic thinks the County has given the request more approvals than it actually has. Mr. Davis said he thinks staff has walked the property and stated that there may be enough property for a building site, but no one has identified the wetlands, the parameters of the streams and the 100-foot setbacks from the different features, nor approved the site. Mrs. Thomas asked if Mr. Adlesic owned the property. Mr. Davis said he does not yet own it, but has an option to purchase the property. If this Board feels it would like to consider the request, it would have to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Perkins said he just wanted an update of where the request was and actions taken by the BZA. Mrs. Humphris said she watched the City Council meeting on television, regarding the skateboarding issue last night and was puzzled because the presentation was entirely different from the presentation made to the Board. The proposal that went to City Council was for a facility that cost somewhere between $50,000 and up, not $300,000; none of the operating costs are paid, and all materials be obtained by the proponents. City Council granted them the right to use Towe Park and agreed not to pay any operating or capital costs. On the 11:00 p.m. news, she heard that the lady in charge of the project said that the City Council's action was "a slap in the face." She is · 0003,t$ January 4, 1995 (Regular DayMeeting) (Page 25) confused. She thought the City and County were to receive the same proposal, which is not what happened. Mr. Tucker said the people in charge of the project have ,,flip-flopped" on the County because this was not staff's understanding. Mrs. Humphris said she feels the Board needs to know who it is dealing with, what it is being asked to do, under what circumstances and all of the details. Mr. Davis said he had a conversation with Mr. Mullaney last week because City staff had informed him (Mr. MullaneY)that they were making a different recommendation, did not want to fund operating costs and wanted to explore leasing the facility to some entity for them to operate instead of having a City/County operation. This was the first that Mr. Mullaney had heard of that proposal. This was the position City staff took in order to get away from liability and operating responsibilities. He does not know where it went from there because that was the last contact he had on the issue. Mr. Bowerman said staff can bring something back consistent with the proposal heard by City Council. Mrs. Humphris said over the holidays she talked with a couple of lawyers about the situation and was told that the County could end up in court quickly in a case of liability due to design and supervision. Mr. Davis said the issue of design is a problem because someone will have to approve the design. It is a "catch 22" for the County and City because if either entity approves the design, it could be alleged to have responsibility; gross negligence would have to be proven, but it could go to court. If the County and City do not approve the design and just require an architect or engineer to approve it, someone could say that the City and County should have reviewed it and could sue both entities. This shows the value of having the insurance policy that would provide for the defense in this contingency. Mrs. Humphris said the insurance policy has a limit of $2.0 million to cover the defence; $1.0 million for the City and $1.0 million for the County. As she remembers from the discussion by City Council, Council was interested in the private insurance part of the proposal. The expenses that were given to the City were different than what this Board received and the City was not given the insurance information. Mr. Bowerman said this Board was told that City Council had signed off on this issue. As far as he is concerned, the actions this Board took are null and void. There was a consensus by the Board that staff provide an update on this project. Mr. Marshall said he would like to have the backup data on the salary survey. He and Mr. Perkins are on the Long Range Salary/Benefits Task Force, but he does not remember receiving this information. Mr. Marshall said he has been receiving pressure from Mill Creek, Esmont and Scottsville residents about when a public hearing will be held on the new southern or eastern high school. Mr. Tucker said he will update the Board on this subject by confidential letter. Mr. Bowerman informed the Board that he has asked Mr. Tucker to review a package of information he received from the Raintree Homeowners Association regarding some waterline pipes that have burst. The Association has filed claims. He would like to know the validity of these claims. These are service lines to the homes or are already within the homes. The lines are not Albemarle County Service Authority lines. Mr. Tucker said he will look into this issue. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on January 24, 1995, on the Economic Development Policy element of the Comprehen- sive Plan. He needs to know if the Board wants to have a work session on this issue. There was a consensus by the Board that it hold a work session on this issue at its meeting on February 1, 1995. Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn. At 2:50 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.