Loading...
1993-10-06October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 000094 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 6, 1993, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 9:04 a.m.), Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; Deputy County Executive, Richard E. Huff, II; Assistant County Executive, Robert B. Brandenburger; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mro Martin Quarles said he is a resident of the Samuel Miller District. He is present to let the Board members know the desire of the residents re- garding Route 688 and Route 791 in the Six Year Highway Plan. Since Mr. Bain had not arrived, Mr. Bowerman suggested this item be discussed later in the meeting. Mr. Perkins mentioned a letter Board members received from Congressman L. F. Payne, relating to unfunded mandates. Mr. Tucker said the staff would be preparing a response. Mr. Perkins mentioned that the wording in the response should be carefully considered and should relate to anything which impacts the County. He said that just because something is helpful to the people does not mean that it does not have an impact on the County. Mr. Bowerman commented that Senator Ed Robb had asked the same thing be done for the state. He said this project has'already been undertaken, and it is almost completed. He noted that the matter to which Mr. Perkins referred, involving mandates which are not funded, will relate to both the state and federal governments. Mrs. Humphris said the National Association of Counties has declared a National Unfunded Mandate Day, and the Association is urging counties across the nation to stand up on that day and insist that there be no more unfunded mandates. (Mr. Bain arrived at 9:04 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humph- ris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approved items 5.1 through 5.11 as presented, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS:: None. Item 5.1. Resolution - Affordable Housing Awareness Month in Virginia. The following proclamation was approved by the vote set out above: PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, decent, safe and affordable housing is the cornerstone upon which our families and our communs, ties are built; and WHEREAS, substandard or deteriorating housing, inadequate plumbing and overcrowding threaten the health and safety of Virginia's households, and d[Lminish the economic vitality of Virginia's communities; and WHEREAS, those Virginians with special needs for accessibility or supportive services have additional difficulty finding adequate affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the dream of decent affordable housing will only become a reality through the leadership and partner- ship of state and local governments, businesses and civic organizations; 000095 October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Me~ting) (Page 2) . NOW, THEREFORE, I, David P. B0werman, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Boardlof County Supervisors, do hereby recognize the month of OCTOBER, 1993, as AFFORDABLE HOUSING AWARENESS MONTH Item 5.2. Resolution - National Deaf Awareness Week. The following proclamation was approved by the vote set out above: PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the World Federation of the Deaf is an international -organization composed of seventy national associations of the deaf, which, in collaboration with the United Nations (UNESCO, World Health Organization and Inter- national Labor Office), serves all countries in the enhancement of the social, economic and cultural lives of deaf and hard-of-hearing people; and WHEREAS, the World Federation of the Deaf has in the past forty-two years provided leadership at the interna- tional level in medicine and audiology, psychology of deafness, educational development and innovation, vocational rehabilitation, communications methodology, personal and social welfare, art and culture, parent education, and religious activities; and WHEREAS, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) will par- ticipate as n integral part of the Deal Work Week celebration of the World Federation of the Deaf; and WHEREAS, representatives from a wide area of leadership in the United States of America serving deaf and hard-of- hearing populations throughout the world will be observing this significant event in recognition of the contributions geared to the needs of the deaf and hard-of-hearing people throughout the country; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle offers its wholehearted wel- come and best wishes to all participants for a renewed spirit of togetherness tempered by intensified commit- ment to a quality life for the entire deaf and hard- of-hearing population in the nation; NOW, THEREFORE, I, David P. Bowerman, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim SEPTEMBER 19 through 25, 1993, as NATIONAL DEAF AWARENESS WEEK in the County of Albemarle and invite all of our citizens to join in the observance of this week long occasion. Item 5.3. Resolution to accept Pippin Lane and Montgomery Lane in Langford Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted by the vote set out above: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Langford Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 6, 1993, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the roads in Langford Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 6, 1993, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000096 (Page 3) · easements for cuts, ~fills and drainage as described on the record- ed plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The roads described on Additions Form SR-5 (A) are: 1) Pippin Lane from the edge of pavement of State Route 1630 0.09 mi to the end of cul-de-sac, plat recorded 6/12/78 in Deed Book 648, pages 419-429, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet - length 0.09 mile 2) Montgomery Lane from the edge of pavement of State Route 1630 0.21 mile to the end of cul-de-sac, plat recorded 6/12/78 in Deed Book 648, pages 419-429, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet - length 0.21 mile. Additional drainage easement in deed book 1427, pages 577-579. Total mileage 0.30 mile Note: Guaranteed width of right-of-way exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. Item 5.4. Resolution to accept Springwood Drive in Springwood Subdivi- sion into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted by the vote set out above: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Springwood Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 6, 1993, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision StreetRequirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the roads in Springwood Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 6, 1993, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 4,633.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the record- ed plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Springwood Drive from the edge of pavement of State Route 609 0.23 mile to the edge of pavement of Cascades Drive, plat recorded 3/18/86 in Deed Book 871, pages 20-26, total mileage 0.23 mile. Item 5.5. Resolution to accept Mechums West Drive in Mechums West Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted by the vote set out above: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Mechums West Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 6, 1993, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats record- ed in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meetlng) 000097 (Page 4) .~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REsoLvED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the roads in MechumS West Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 6, 1993, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 4,633.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re- quirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the record- ed plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. · The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Mechums West Drive from the edge of pavement of State Route 682 0.47 mile to the end of cul-de-sac, plat recorded 6/5/87 in Deed Book 942, pages 375-384, total mileage 0.47 mile. Item 5.6. Resolution to accept Southside Drive in South Fork Farms, Phase Two, into the State Secondary System of Highway. At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in South Fork Farms, Phase Two, de- scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 6, 1993, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the roads in South Fork Farms, Phase Two, as de- scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 6, 1993, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 4,633.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the record- ed plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Southside Drive from the edge of pavement at the inter- section with State Route 710 to the end of the cul-de-sac, plat recorded 4/14/93 in Deed Book 931, pages 573-577, with a 40 foot right-of-way Total mileage 0.10 mile Item 5.7. Lease Purchasing Equipment Overview of Equipment Acquisi- tion Options. At an earlier meeting, the Board asked staff to review the concepts involved in lease purchase, lease, and outright purchase as options for major equipment acquisitions. Staff has done that and recommends that the Board continue to consider lease purchase options on a case-by-case basis for major equipment purchases. This evaluation should be done at the budgeting decision point and once approval is given as a budget decision, staff will plan accordingly. Equipment that is routinely replaced, i.e., school buses, police cars, etc. will not be considered for lease purchase options. (Staff's recommendation was approved by the recorded vote shown above.) Item 5.8. Appointment of Hazardous Materials Coordinator. The Code of Virginia requires that each political subdivision appoint a hazardous materi- als coordinator. Mr. Kaye Harden, the part-time Emergency Services Coordina- tor for the City/County/University has been serving in this capacity as an employee of the 911 Center. October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000098 (Page 5) Environmental standards noW c!~ssifY calls such as minor fuel spills as hazardous materials inCidents which reqUire a more technical response from the volunteers to absorb the spill and dispose of the contaminated absorbent. On- scene technical expertise is often reqUested when there is a threat of ground- water contamination. Training of the volunteers is an on-going function of the County's Fire-Rescue Division. The 911 Center Management Board has recommended that the City and County each designate a full-time employee to serve in this capacity so that the response expertise can be coupled with the training component. Staff recommends that Mr. Carl Pumphrey, a twenty-year retired veteran of the Fairfax County Fire Department with between 200 and 300 hours of hazardous materials training be appointed as the County's staff person to fulfill these responsibilities. By the vote set out above, staff's recommendation that Mr. carl Pumphrey be appointed to replace Mr. Kaye Harden as the County's Hazardous Materials Coordinator as required by Section 44-146.38 of the State Code, was approved. Item 5.9. Authorize Chairman to sign Service Agreement with Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department. Several years ago Albemarle County established a revolving fund to be used by the ten volunteer fire and rescue companies in the County. This fund, currently funded at two million dollars, provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed firefighting equipment and buildings, interest free, with repayments being deducted from their annual County appropriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund are monitored and approved by the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA). The current amount available in the revolving fund is $388,940.63. Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department has requested, through JCFRA, an advance of $37,500 in addition to $100,000 approved earlier by the Board to purchase a new tanker truck. The request for funds from the Advance Allocation Fund was split at the request of SVFD in order to make progress payments on the vehicle as it is being constructed. Repayment of the loan will be over an eight year period beginning FY 1994/95. By the vote set out above, the Chairman was authorized to sign the following Service Agreement with the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made for the purpose of identifica- tion this 6th day of October, 1993, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County") and the SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC. ("Scottsville"); W I TNE S S E TH : Background: (A) The County previously has entered into a service agreement with Scottsville, dated July 21, 1993, providing for the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from the County's annual grant to Scottsville, as set forth in said agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and (B) As a result of said agreement, the outstanding indebt- edness now totals Two Hundred Seventy-Three Thousand Five Hundred Sixteen D~llars ($273,516.00); and (C) Scottsville now desires to receive from the County an additional Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($37,500.00) to be used for a tanker truck; and (D) Scottsville also desires to enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholdings of payment by the County; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by Scottsville of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to Scottsville Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($37,500.00), which payment shall be made from the fire fund upon request. The sum of Thirty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-Seven Dollars ($38,877.00) shall be withheld from the County's annual grant to Scottsville for a period of eight (8) years, beginning with fiscal year 1994-95 and ending in fiscal year 2001-02. Thus, at the end of the eighth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of Three Hundred Eleven Thousand and Sixteen Dollars ($311,016.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of the prior service agreement with Scottsville dated May 27, 1993 and July 21, 1993. If at any time during the term of this agreement, Scotts- ville is no longer in the business of providing fire-fighting services or the tanker is no longer used for fire-fighting purpos- es, Scottsville covenants that it will convey its interest in the tanker to the county at no cost to the County so long as the 000099 October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) County or its assigns will use the pumper for fire-fighting purposes. All covenants set forth in prior agreements remain in full force and effect. Item 5.10. Authorize Chairman to sign Service Agreement with Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc. The current amount available for loan in the revolving fund is $351,440.64. Western Albemarle Rescue Squad has requested, through JCFRA, an advance of $85,000 to purchase a new crash truck. Repayment of the loan will be over an eight-year period beginning FY 1994/95. By the vote set out above, the Chairman was authorized to sign the following service agreement with the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad. THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made for the purpose of identifica- tion this 6th day of October, 1993, by and between the'COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County") and the WESTERN ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD ("Western"); W I TNE S S E TH : WHEREAS, the County had previously has entered into a service agreement with Western, dated January 28, 1985, providing for the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from the County's annual grant to Western, as set forth in said agree- ment, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, as a result of said agreement, the outstanding indebtedness now totals $13,000; and WHEREAS, Western now desires to receive from the County Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars ($85,000.00) to be used for the purchase of a new crash truck; and WHEREAS, Western now desires to enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholdings of payment by the County; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by Western of a rescue squad which will protect human life and the purchase of ambulance vehicles during the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to Western Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars ($85,000.00), which payment shall be made when needed from the County's fire fund. Thereafter, the sum of Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($12,250.00) per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to Western for a period of eight (8) years beginning July 1994 and extending through July 2001. Thus, at the end of the eighth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of Ninety-Eight Thousand Dollars ($98,000.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consoli- dates the balance of the prior advancement as a result of the prior service agreement with Western dated January 28, 1985. If at any time during the term of this agreement, Western is no longer in the business of providing rescue squad services, Western covenants that it will convey its interest in the building and crash truck to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its assigns will use the property for rescue squad services. All covenants set forth in the agreements dated January 28, 1985, remain in full force and effect. Item 5.11. Earlysville Park Committee Report. In July of 1992 the Board received a letter from Dr. Andrew MacFarlan requesting that the County develop a community park on an 8.56 acre parcel of property located adjacent to Earlysville Forest at the intersection of Earlysville Forest Drive and Stillwater Lane. The subject parcel had become County property as a condition of the rezoning petition for the Earlysville Forest PUD. On September 2, 1992, the Board appointed the Earlysville Park Committee and charged it with developing a master plan for the property. At the first meeting the Committee agreed that it needed better representation from the whole Earlysville community so additional members were selected from the major Earlysville subdivisions and the business community. The Committee felt that the property, due to its terrain, size and access problems, was best suited for passive uses such as a walking/jogging/ nature trails and picnic facilities, but the Earlysville residents on the Committee felt those types of needs were already being met. The subject was discussed at the Earlysville Forest Homeowners' Association spring meeting and of the 30 members present, the vast majority were strongly in favor of leaving the parcel in its present state. There was little interest in even minimal development. It was the consensus of the Committee that the recreational value of the parcel to the County, and apparently to the local residents, is not significant enough to force a plan through what is expected to be strong neighborhood opposition. ' ooo .o0 October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) . . .~ .- ~ By the vote set out abOut,'the Board accepted staff's reco~endation to accept the Committee's reco~endation .and not to develop a park on the subject parcel. Item 5.12. Letter dated September 15, 1993, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Department of Transportation, re: Addition of Meadowfield Lane and Meadowfield Way into the State Secondary System of Highways, was received as follows: "September 15, 1993 As requested in your resolution dated August 4, 1993, the follow- ing additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective September 15, 1993. ADDITIONS LENGTH MEADOWFIELD Route 1345 (Meadowfield Lane) From Route 649 to 0.22 mile Southwest Route 649 0.22 Mi Route 1346 (Meadowfield Way) From 0.15 mile South- west Route 1345 to 0.05 mile Southeast Route 1345 0.20 Mi" Item 5.13. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for August 31, September 9 and September 14, 1993, was received as information. Item 5.14. Minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for July 1 and August 19, 1993, received for information. Item 5.15. Minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors for August 3, 1993, received for infOrmatiOn. Item 5.16. Memorandum dated September 14, 1993, from Mr. Robert J. Walters, Jr., member of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) Advisory Council, giving semi-annual summaries of activities of the Council, was received as information. Item 5.17. Letter dated September 10, 1993, from the Honorable Charles S. Robb, United States Senate, re: Payments-In-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT) program, was received for information. Senator Robb noted that he is now a cosponsor of S. 455 and will work to ensure that it is approved by'Congress and signed into law by the president. Item 5.18. Letter dated September 13, 1993, from the Honorable John Warner, United States Senate, re: Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act. Senator Warner notes that he is a cosponsor of S.455 and has pledged to work together in the 103rd Congress to find a way to increase the PILT program in a manner that is equitable both to the counties receiving money under PILT, and the other programs receiving money through the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. Item 5.19. Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) for the month of August, 1993, was received for information. Item 5.20. June, 1993 Year-End Financial Report, received for informa- tion. Brief excerpts follow: The County experienced a very good financial year and remains in a sound financial position. General Fund and School Fund revenues, inclusive of amounts planned to be used from fund balances, exceeded expenditures by $2,558,008 (General Fund, $1,796,990; School Fund, $761,018). Revenues of the Self-Sustaining Fund exceeded expenditures by $219,774, the majority of which will need to be reappropriated for ongoing projects or grants. General Fund revenues exceeded budget projections by 1.19 percent, while School Fund revenues were under budget by 0.59 percent. Expenditures in the General and School Funds were both approximately 98.4 percent of budgeted appropriations. Since a number of appropriations have been made since July 1, 1993, and the Board is being presented with requests for reappropriations, a supple- mental fund balance report is also included to provide updated fund balances reflecting actions already taken in FY 1993-94 and items being requested. Requests for reappropriations and approval of any FY 1991-92 overexpenditures are listed as separate agenda items. October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) · 000 0 !. Item 5.21. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority 1993-1998 Capital Improvement Program, presented as information. Item 5.22. Memorandum dated September 23, 1993, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker~ Jr., County Executive, re: Virginia Public Schools Authority (VPSA) 1993 Bond Refinancing. Mr. Tucker noted that in June, 1993, the VPSA refinanced locally issued school bonds because of low interest rates. The refinancing, known as "1993 Refunding Series B," produced over $7.0 million in savings to localities. In August, the Board of Commissioners of the VPSA approved the distribution of these savings to local governments. The estimated savings to Albemarle County is $379,000 and should be returned in late 1993. The Department of Treasury is currently working out the details for distribution and finalizing the estimates for Albemarle County. Item 5.23. Letter'dated September 23, 1993, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident HighWay Engineer, re: Current Projects - Construction Schedule, and the quarterly report of projects under design, was received as follows: PROJECT LISTING ALBEMARLE COUNTY OCTOBER 1, 1993 Rte Location - Description Curr- Est. No. ent Con- Adv. st. Date Time 20 3.5 Mi South Rte 53 - Safety Project Adv 6 MO 29 Hydraulic Road to Rio Road - Widen to 8 Lanes Adv 3 YRS 29 Rio Road to S Fork Rivanna River - Widen to 8 Lanes 07-94 2 YRS 29 S Fork Rivanna River to Airport Rd - Widen to 6 06-97 2 YRS Lanes Route 250-W to Rte 29 Bypass - Widen to 4 Lanes 07-99 18 MO 601 From Rte 20 to 1.8 Mi E Rte 20 - Pave Gravel Road 07-96 9 MO 610 Railroad Crossing Signals at Warren 10-93 3 MO 627 Route 29 to Route 743 - Rio Road West 07-96 12 MO 631 NCL Charlottesville to Rte 631 ~ Meadow Creek Park- 01-97 2 YRS 631 way Rte 635 to 0.55 Mi W Rte 682 - Widen and Pave Gray- 07-99 9 MO 637 el Road Georgetown Road from Rte 654 to Rte 743 - Spot 10-97 6 MO 656 Improvement Moormans River - Bridge and Approaches ? 12 MO 671 Route 250 to .2 Mi N Rte 250 - At Ivy 10-94 6 MO 678 Route 250 to 1.7 Mi S Rte 787 - Pave Gravel Road 08-95 12 MO 682 .4 Mi E Rte 240 to Rte 240 - Park Road 02-94 3 MO 691 Int Rte 631 - Near Southern Regional Park 11-94 5 MO 708 From Rte 29 to Route 712 - Pave Gravel Road 07-97 6 MO 711 Route 29 to Route 692 - Widen and Pave Gravel Road 07-96 6 MO 712 Hydraulic Road Rte 657 to Rte 631 - Widen to 4 01-95 1 YR 743 Lanes From Route 29 to Route 712 - Pave Gravel Road 07-97 5 MO 760 Rte 743 to Greenbrier Drive - New Alignment 07-97 9 MO 866 I PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ALBEMARLE COUNTY OCTOBER 1, 1993 ESTIMATED ROUTE NO. LOCATION STATUS COMP. DATE 250 ST. CLAIR AVE. TO RTE. 64 95% COMPLETE NOV 93 20 AT INT ROUTE 742-AVON ST EXT 49% COMPLETE OCT 93 October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) . 654 BARRACKS RD ' FROM RTE 1406 TO GEORGETOWN RD 631 5TH STREET EXT., S. ROUTE 1-64 OOO102 98% COMPLETE OCT 93* FEB 94 54% COMPLETE Item 5.24. Status Report: Noise Ordinance, received as follows. At the hearing for the site plan appeal for the Boar's Head tent, the Board directed staff to review the County's noise ordinance. The nuisance impact of noise on neighbors was cited as one of the reasons for appeal of the proposal. Noise concerns were also raised during review of the special use permit for 1781 Productions outdoor drama. Staff has met internally and also had discussions with other zoning officials on this topic. Since the issue is complex and there are many differences as to how localities handle noise regulations, staff has decided to contact experts in the field. Many localities have hired consultants to perform this work. This, coupled with the purchase of the proper sound reading instruments, would have an impact on the budget. Staff will meet with University sources for technical information, and other code compliance officials for administrative and enforcement experience, before returning making its report to the Board. Item 5.25. Memorandum dated September 28, 1993, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Albemarle County Library Trustee, received as information: Ms. Cyndy Caughron has informed the Library Board that she will be moving from the County into the City later this year (December or January). Ms. Donna Selle, Library Director, is requesting that Ms. Caughron be main- tained as an appointee to the Library Board until next summer when a vacancy will occur in the City and City Council will be requested to appoint her to that vacancy. Ms. Caughron was recently reappointed as a County representative on the Library Board and her term does not expire until June 30, 1997. Unless the Board directs otherwise, Ms. Selle will be informed that Ms. Caughron can remain as a County appointee until the Summer of 1994. Item 5.26. Memorandum dated September 28, 1993, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Urban Raw Water Management Study - Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, received as information: Mr. Tucker said the RWSA has authorized negotiations for an urban raw water management study which will include a bathymetric study of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. This study will also fully analyze the impact of building flashboards at the South Rivanna Reservoir Dam and how those flash- boards will affect adjoining land to the reservoir. This will help determine not only the impact that these flashboards will have on flooding adjoining land around the reservoir, but will also help in any financial analysis related to this issue. Item 5.27. Notice dated September 17, 1993, from the State Corporation Commission of an application filed by Virginia Electric and Power Company for approval of dispersed energy facility rate, received as information. Item 5.28. Letter dated October 1, 1993, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Mainte- nance Operator Manager, Department of Transportation, in which Mr. Mills states that the Department intends to replace a double line of pipe culverts on Route 664 between Routes 671 and 663 on October 13, 1993. Closure of the roads should be during daylight hours only. Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: May 13 (A), 1992; June 16 and July 21, 1993. Mr. Martin had read the minutes of June 16, 1993, pages 1-29 and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Status Report on Route 678/Route 250 West Intersection Improvements. Mr. Tucker noted that review of this improvement was initially discussed by the Board of Supervisors at its June 3, 1993, meeting. Two basic options October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) O0010~ (Page 10) were presented~ one relocating the intersection of Route 678 with Route 250 (as established in the 1983 Comprehensive Plan and taken to public hearing by VDOT), and~ the second improving the existing intersection including improve- ments to Route 250 (as recommended at the public hearing). The Board request- ed Mr. Roosevelt to provide a cost estimate and what is entailed in shifting Route 738 to align with Route 678. The estimated cost for the realignment of Route 738 with Route 678 is $505,332. The total estimated cost of improve- ments to Route 250 and realignment of the 738/678 intersection is $950,580. Mr. Tucker said realignment of Route 738/678 adds to the cost of this project. Funding this project at a higher dollar amount will require an adjustment in funding from the Six Year Secondary Plan which now has this project estimated for $650,000, and/or the Revenue Sharing funds. This, in turn, reduces dollars available within the six-year planning period for other projects. Mr. Roosevelt recalled that he had come to this Board in the spring and asked for a recommendation, after the public hearing on this project. At the time, two alignments of Route 678 were presented, prior to coming to this Board, he had met with several of the Board members and discussed an alterna- tive to widen Route 250 and improve the existing intersection of Route 678. He gave the Supervisors cost estimates for both alternatives and indicated that if they chose to support the second alternative, a public hearing would have to be held. There were questions at that time as to the cost and possibility of aligning Route 738 with Route 678. His letter of September 2 to Mr. Cilimberg advised that this additional work to realign Route 738 would add $505,000 to the project. He said the reason for this cost is that the creek would have to be crossed with a completely new structure. It is the same creek that is crossed on Route 250. There is also a bank with a house on top of it and around the curve, at the point where the road would have to tie back into Route 738, there is a conflict with an approximately 15 foot high rock wall which holds a house and slope in place. This is the reason for the $505,000 estimate to align that section of Route 738, and he remarked that the Supervisors will need to express their desires as to what they want to do. The second alternative of widening Route 250 and doing some rather minor grading along existing Route 678 was estimated at $445,000. He pointed out that if the $505,000 is added for the Route 738 project, the total project would be approximately $950,050. Mr. Marshall asked how much it would cost to widen Route 250 and construct turn lanes. Mr. Roosevelt responded this is the alternative which would cost $445,000. Mr. Marshall said he was under the impression it would only cost approximately $200,000. Mr. Bain recalled that Mr. Roosevelt's earlier estimate for this alternative was $256,000. Mr. Roosevelt said the $256,000 cost estimate was for construction. The $445,000 includes all the costs for such things as acquiring rights-of-way and preliminary engineering. The Board has spent a considerable amount of money on preliminary engineering and design for the other alignment. He said the $445,000 also includes the money that has already been spent. Mr. Bain asked how much money has already been spent on this project. Mr. Roosevelt responded approximately $120,000 has been spent. Mr. Bain said there is not much left to do in terms of preliminary engineering if the other project is done. He then referred to the Routes 678 and 250 intersection, and he asked how far Will the project go off of Route 250. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the widening of Route 678 would continue around the first sharp curve, and the banks would be laid back, etc. He said the money for this was included in the $445,000. Mr. Bain asked what right-of-way width is desired. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the width for the right-of-way would have to be at least 50 feet. He went on to explain that it would probably have to be 55 to 60 feet at the location where a right turn lane will need to be installed. Mr. Perkins asked if the intersection could be moved to the east to align better with Route 738. Mr. Roosevelt said this could not be done, without doing something to the railroad underpass which is approximately 250 feet east of this location. He recalled that he had discussed this situation previously. This is as close as the alignment can get to the railroad tracks and still have sight distance along the railroad tracks, as well as create a left turn lane on Route 250, so that traffic can turn left onto Route 678. It will take a lot of money to replace the railroad underpass. Mr. Bain wondered if the work on the banks could be done within the existing right-of-way or would a construction easement be necessary. Mr. Roosevelt responded that an additional right-of-way would be needed to widen the shoulders around the curve, but the majority of the work could be done within the construction easement. He noted that rights-of-way would be needed only on one side of the road, inside of the curve. It is not VDOT staff's intent to change the alignment of the curve just to move the slope back and widen the shoulders so that people will have better sight distance. Mr. Bain said previously he had read in a report that the warrants for having a traffic light at that intersection, in lieu of doing anything else, were not met at all. Mr. Roosevelt agreed that this is true. He went on to say, however, that the corridor is developing subdivisions, and the traffic October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000104 (Page 11) has increased each year. However, at this time, the intersection does not warrant a traffic signal. Mr. Bowerman wondered how much of the improvements would be funded by primary highway funds. Mr. Roosevelt said the primary highway funds have to be requested, and the request would have to go through the primary allocation process. One of the suggestions he had made for the Board's consideration at a previous meeting, was the Supervisors might want to consider revenue sharing funds for this purpose. Historically the County has put $500,000 a year into revenue sharing funds, which VDOT has matched. Those revenue sharing funds can be used for any improvement within the primary or secondary system. If revenue sharing funds are used, the project could be moved ahead fairly rapidly. Mr. Bowerman asked what the other Board members wanted to do about this matter. Mr. Marshall asked if the public would be given a chance to speak. He has received a couple of telephone calls, and he would like to hear what the County citizens have to say about the proposal. The project has not gone to public hearing, as yet. Mr. Bowerman recalled that this Board has heard from the public on the issue of the realignment of this project. He then asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposal which is currently before the Supervisors regarding the Route 250 improvements. He requested the speakers to come forward, state their names and make their comments. Ms. Martha Sites mentioned that she first spoke to this Board about the location of Route 678 in December, 1992, and she has been following the project for a year. She has seen a lot of effort and energy put into this project, and she noted that currently there are three options to consider. One option involves the realignment of Route 678 and Route 738, but she noted that most people agree the cost of this option would not warrant moving forward with it. She added that neither the traffic nor accident studies support the need for this alignment. The relocation of Route 678 has been examined, and this option went to public hearing. However, the citizens of the Ivy area spoke clearly against that option. The only support this option received was from Jefferson National Bank. The cost of that project ap- proached $1,000,000, and it was not a cost effective solution. The problem is that the traffic flow needs to be improved on Route 250, but she pointed out this is not the same problem as was stated 10 years ago when talk of this project began. By adding turning lanes to Route 250, it will improve the safety on Route 250 by letting the through traffic flow, because the turning lanes will be both for east and west bound traffic. This is also a very cost effective solution. If the County is going to spend taxpayer dOllars to improve traffic flow on Route 250, then this is the best option which has been presented, and she urged the Board to take this proposal to public hearing. Mr. Ed Marymor said he lives at 935 Owensville Road. On October 2, 1993, he went to Route 250 with a stop watch to observe the traffic. At the point where the proposed intersection would be, traffic was moving at an average of 50 miles per hour. He also observed the turning lanes, and he pointed out that the time it takes to cross the road at that intersection is approximately two and one-half seconds. According to the Motor Vehicle COde, at 50 miles per hour and under ideal conditions, it takes approximately 188 feet to brake. The other observation which he made related to the fact that when a vehicle is turning left into Route 678, there is a pile up of traffic. He then suggested the alternative of widening Route 250 at that point is very necessary, and it would relieve the traffic congestion in that area. He would be glad to leave the statistics for the Board members to consider. Ms. Mary Bear said she was going to disagree with the first two speak- ers. She pointed out that the traffic is growing every year, and she has lived on Route 678 for 36 years. The alternative to which the first two speakers referred is less expensive, but it will only help the situation for a short while. When the people bought houses along Route 678, they knew the rights-of-way area was there, because the rights-of-way were planned to take care of the traffic in the future. There are three houses that the project will affect, but the rights-of-way area was there before the houses were built. If the project is going to be done, it should be done right, and Route 250 will be widened, anyway. There is a nice residential section along Route 678, and it could be kept that way, if the Supervisors will do the right thing. Mr. Bill Blodgett said he lives at 7 Jackson Street in Scottsville. He has friends who live in the Ivy area, and he became interested in this project from a taxpayer's standpoint, as far as cost effectiveness is concerned. He has project management experience with the University of Virginia, as well as a lot of analytical experience. He would like to address the alternative of the relocation of Route 678, 700 feet to the west of its current location. The private citizens' comments are 15 to one against this option. Jefferson National Bank has been in favor of this road relocation, but the bank took a risk in relocating before the plans were finalized. If Route 678 is relocat- ed~ it would cost nearly $1,000,000. The proposed approximately $400,000 project calls for turn lanes on Route 250 and Route 678. It addresses VDoT's stated goal and it is the most cost effective of the three projects. This approach would be the one in which most of the taxpayers would be interested, and it addresses the preferences of the private citizens. To ensure that it addresses all of the preferences of the private citizens, the project needs to be taken to a public hearing. October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000105 (Page 12) .~ ...... Ms. Sharon Ballard said it seems SO. clear to her and, it always has, that the widening of Route 250 with the turn lanes, addresses the problem as to what needs to be done. She wondered why more money should be spent when a lesser amount can solve the problem. Mr. James Bear said he lives on Route 678, and his wife has already spoken at this meeting. He has lived on Route 678 a long time, and he thinks it is a terrible mistake not to fix Route 678 to accommodate the traffic. The people who live on Route 678 know how fast cars travel there and if the access is made easier, the cars will travel faster. It is very difficult for him to get out of his driveway in the mornings, and it is too bad that the Ivy area is not as it used to be. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Bear how he felt about leaving Route 678 exactly as it is. Mr. Bear said he would welcome it. Ms. Valerie Manson commented that she is a resident of Route 678. She agreed with the Bears. She would like to speak in favor of the original proposal for the alignment of Route 678. There are between 20 to 40 new houses in the subdivisions along Route 678. Mr. Roosevelt had also indicated how much the traffic has increased in that area. She would not repeat what other people have said, but she definitely feels that with the increased number of vehicles on that road, the realignment should be done. If this cannot be done, then the road should be left as it is. To do a patch job because it is cheaper with either one of the other two alternate plans is simply wrong. She pointed out that the growth is tremendous in the Ivy area, and there will be increased traffic because there is already another subdivi- sion planned with at least 18 to 20 houses there. She asked if the option with the turn lanes is really the answer; she does not think so. No one else came forward to speak. Mr. Martin said he does not understand why the citizens feel they want the most expensive plan to be developed, or they do not want anything to be done, at all. Mr. Bain responded that the original proposal for this project began approximately six years ago, when school buses were going back and forth to both Murray and Meriwether Lewis Elementary Schools. Now this is not the case, but that was a major impetus when the process began. The other major impetus was to improve the traffic flow on Route 250, so that through traffic could continue to travel without vehicles being backed up by people turning left. He recalled that some of the speakers had indicated it would be a patch job if something, other than realigning Route 678 is done. He thinks even Mr. Roosevelt will admit that just constructing turn lanes might make some improvement to the Route 250 flow of traffic, but it won't solve the whole problem. The question relates to allocating resources, and if the money should be spent to make that minor improvement to the traffic flow. Mr. Martin commented that he still does not understand why the people feel that nothing should be done unless Route 678 is widened, as well as the improvements to Route 250. Mr. Bain answered that the people in the Ivy area feel that if only a few improvements are made, the overall traffic situation will not be improved. He said it would be a great improvement if Route 250 had four lanes, but he does not see this happening any time within the next 10 to 15 years, unless there is a different type of funding available. He referred to the previous speakers who implied they want Route 678 left as it is. The reason they feel this way is because the traffic is there now, and if improvements are not made that same traffic will stay there. If more lanes are constructed, it will cause more traffic to move faster along that roadway, and it will impact the people there even more. Mr. Martin remarked that it makes sense to him, now. He said that some of the people feel the improvements will increase and speed up traffic along their roadway. Mr. Bain concurred. He said the improvements will affect the people who have lived along that road a lot longer than the people who live at Locust Hill. Mr. Marshall referred to the 15 to one ratio of people who were opposed to the project. Mr. Bain explained that these people were opposed to the original proposal of moving the project west. Mr. Marshall said if that many people are opposed to this proposal, then the least the Supervisors can do is to go to public hearing with the other alternative. Mr. Bain commented that the decision before this Board is whether or not any proposal needs to be taken to public hearing. Mr. Marshall indicated that he wanted to take the proposal to public hearing. He said if so many people were opposed to the other plan, then he does not see that the Supervisors have any other alternative. Mr. Bowerman said the alternative is to do nothing. Mr. Marshall said anybody who travels in that area knows that something has to be done. Mr. Bain agreed, and he pointed out that he had encouraged the proposal to get to the point of creating the extra lane on Route 250. However, he is also listening to the people who have lived on Route 678 for over 30 years. Any widening of Route 678 will directly affect these people, and he wondered if the benefit derived from this improvement will outweigh the effect it will have on the people who live there. Mr. Bain said VDOT officials would have to hold the public hearing, although the Supervisors would be able to attend. October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000106 (Page 13) Mr. Bowerman mentioned that he did n0t think Mr. Roosevelt would go to public hearing with the alternative for improvements to Route 250 without some direction from this Board to pursue it. Mr. Roosevelt indicated that Mr. Bowerman was correct. Mr. Bowerman said the Supervisors need to decide What to do. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roosevelt if the warrants for a traffic light have been examined recently. He does not necessarily see that as a solution, but some people think that it might make a difference. Mr. Roosevelt replied that a full traffic signal study has not been done at this location. He has examined the traffic volumes, and this situation does not meet even the lower threshold of traffic volumes for a traffic signal. There is certainly heavy traffic in the mornings when people come out of their subdivisions to go to work and during the evenings when they come home. His guess is that the traffic on Route 678 would only be heavy enough to meet the signal warrants for an hour or two in the morning, if then. However, a signal study could be done at that location, if the Supervisors so desire. Mr. Marshall recalled that people have talked about temporary solutions, and he said this is what a signal would be. He noted that a traffic signal would also cost approximately $100,000. Mr. Martin inquired as to how the second alternative would affect the people who live on the road. Mr. Roosevelt responded that with the second alternative, the shoulder around the first curve would be widened and the slope would be laid back. He said this improvement would also create a right turn lane. The plan before the Supervisors is only a schematic plan, which was done to respond to this Board's request for something quick to be done in that area. A right turn lane can be created which would allow the traffic to get out of the intersection faster than it does now, and it should reduce the back-up of traffic around the curve. However, he is not saying it will totally eliminate the back-up traffic. This alternative will also improve sight distance for the traffic coming around the curve, and he thinks this would be a benefit to those properties along that road. The negative impact would relate to the widening of the shoulder and the laying back of the slope which would involve getting into the people's property along Route 678. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Roosevelt foresees any increase in traffic or traffic speeds, if this plan is approved. Mr. Roosevelt answered, "no." Since traffic will be approaching this intersection, it should be slowing in anticipation of the intersection. The traffic using Route 678 is not related to tourism. Mr. Marshall asked if the Board needs to make a motion. Mr. Roosevelt explained that he is requesting the position of this Board relative to an alignment to go to public hearing. It sounds as though the Board is leaning toward the widening of Route 250 and the improvement of Route 678. He then suggested the Supervisors, if they so desire, recommend VDOT officials pursue a project to widen Route 250 and improve existing Route 678 in accordance with the drawings of February, 1993. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Marshall to adopt a resolution recommending that VDoT abandon the plan for major improvements and relocation of Route 678 which went to public hearing in November of 1992. Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. Mr. Bain then made motion, which was seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt a resolution requesting that VDoT go to public hearing on the proposed improvements to Route 250 and improvements at the intersection of Route 678 as shown on a map dated February, 1993. Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. (Note: full below.) The two motions were combined into one resolution as set out in RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) held a Location and Design Public Hearing, in 1992, to consider the proposed location and design improvement of Route 678 from the intersection with Route 250 to 0.263 miles north of Intersection with Route 250 in Albemarle County (Project #0678-002-223, C501); and WHEREAS, approximately 75 people were in attendance at the public hearing and seventeen people spoke concerning the proposed project. Fifteen speakers were opposed to the improvement as presented. There were suggestions to improve Route 678 at its October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000107 (Page 14) ) present location. The majority of written comments received were also in opposition t° the proposed improvement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors recommends that VDoT abandon the plan for major improvements and relocation of Route 678 which went to public hearing in November of 1992; AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request that VDoT hold a public hearing on the proposed improvements to Route 250 and improvements at intersection of Route 678 as shown on a map dated February, 1993, Scheme #2, submitted. Agenda Item No. 7b. Transportation Matters: Alternative 10 - Western Alignment and Grade Separated Interchanges - Jack Hodge. Mr. Hodge remarked that he is bringing a status report to this Board which will relate to work being done throughout the County. He is happy to report that after many years of work, the area of roadway between Hydraulic Road and Rio Road is under contract and construction will start soon. The section of the project from Rio Road to the South Fork Rivanna River is scheduled to be advertised in July of next year. As far as the interchanges are concerned, VDoT advertised for a consultant in January, deliberations should be finalized and the project presented to this Board in November or December of this year. The surveys should be completed by March, 1994, field inspections and review of plans completed by January, 1995, and a combined location and design public hearing will, hopefully, be held by April, 1995. It is hoped that rights-of-way acquisition can be accomplished by June, 1995, with construction beginning in December, 1996. He went on to say that advertisements for a consultant for the Alternative 10 Bypass will be done in January, 1994, and by June, 1994, the environmental impact statement and supplemental location studies on the North Grounds connection to the Meadow Creek Parkway should be completed. He added that by April, 1995, the EIS will be completed, and the surveys finished by August, 1995. He reported that a field inspection is planned for February, 1996, as well as a combined location and design public hearing in April, 1996. The acquisition of rights-of-way will, hopefully, be accomplished in June, 1996, and if it is the desire at that time to move forward, construction will begin early in 1998. Mr. Hodge said the main reason he is attending this meeting is because there have been requests through the Commonwealth Transportation Board from the University of Virginia and St. Anne's Belfield School, to see what can be done about handling a hardship case, as well as from the 29 North Business Association, in hopes that the impact on businesses can be minimized. He has provided the Supervisors a handout with some of this information. He then discussed the southend of the Alternative 10 alignment, and he pointed out an aerial photograph of this area. He mentioned that when a location public hearing is held, the 1,500 to 2,000 foot wide corridor is defined with a wide piece of tape. He explained that VDoT officials felt, in this case, this was not reasonable because of the different subdivisions, properties and schools in that area, so the consultant developed a suggested alternate which is depicted in blue. He pointed out the colors shown on the map for the proper- ties of St. Anne's Belfield, the Colonnades, the Westover property, as well as the color depicting the original plan. He explained that the original proposal, which was presented at the location hearing, went through the St. Anne's Belfield School soccer field and came close to the Headmaster's house. He said an agreement was reached between the City, the County and the Univer- sity that there would be an interchange on Route 250 bypassing the North Grounds. VDOT officials reviewed the existing alignment to see if the soccer field could be saved, and it could not be saved. The distance between the Route 250 alternate and Alternative 10 did not give adequate spacing for separation to get into St. Anne's Belfield School. A compromise design would not significantly reduce the impact to St. Anne's and the soccer field, and it would have an adverse impact on the entire interchange. He noted that VDoT's consultant has been given another alternative to examine, but he emphasized this is not the final plan. He stated that workable solutions are trying to be found to minimize the cost of the time that County officials would be spending with the consultant. He pointed out that the University owns the Westover property, and University officials suggested moving to the west with the alignment to miss St. Anne's and still get into the interchange area. He mentioned that the house and the five acres which surround Westover is not shown on the aerial photograph, but it is listed on the Historical Register. With this in mind, he asked his staff to see if an alignment could be developed which would miss St. Anne's. In the process of developing this alignment, he took a long look at the intersection of Route 250 and the impact it would have to the Universi- ty Print Shop, the Police Station and the Children's Rehabilitation Center, as well as the realignment of Route 29 to the South, as it goes toward Route 64. He also considered the expense that would be caused which is dictated by how Alignment 10 would be brought into the Route 250 interchange. The idea was to try to see if St. Anne's and Westover could be missed, as well as to minimize the impact at the Route 250 interchange and possibly combine the access collection to the existing Route 250 Bypass and the North Grounds for the potential possibility of commuter parking. He noted that this would reduce the impact, ultimately, to Emmet Street and the downtown area and would October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000108 (Page 15) control the congestion on Emmet Street around the University. He emphasized that VDoT staff took a long, hard look at an urban interchange, for these reasons. He then asked the Board members to look at another drawing where he again explained how the different sections were depicted. He reiterated that the major impact can be reduced, because the alignment can stay away from Westover and St. Anne's School, and a viable access can be provided to the bypass, Alternative 10, Route 29 South, and the North Grounds. He pointed out also that with this proposed alignment the impacts to the University Print Shop, the Police Station and the Children's Rehabilitation Center can be eliminated. Even though this particular design alternate does not directly impact the Route 250 interchange, it is recognized that the loop and the ramp have to be upgraded, if nothing else is done in the near future. The VDoT staff feels it would be a significant savings as far as impact is concerned, as well as rights-of-way acquisition and construction. The VDoT staff would like to move forward with this plan. It is an alternative on which the consultant can build, and he reiterated that he thinks this will save a significant amount of money, and it will carry out all of the requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation has received. The original align- ment impacted 12 parcels, but with this proposed alignment, only five are involved. Two families were impacted on the original plan, but no families will be involved with this alternative. Two nonprofit organizations were impacted originally, but none will be bothered now. As far as personal property is concerned, one property was involved with the original plan, and now two properties will be impacted. He thinks the significant savings of money and properties will justify this proposal. He concluded by stating that he would be happy to answer questions. Mr. Bain referred to the pink area on the map, and he asked if he was correct in thinking that the proposed plan would work back from this area to what is currently existing and there would be no new lanes involved. Mr. Hodge answered affirmatively. He explained that the blue line on the right side of the map ties back into Alignment 10, and he said that the blue line would no longer exist beyond the pink area. He then discussed the alignment to the north and the colors on the map which pertained to this area. Mr. Bowerman asked which of the blue lines were actually adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Mr. Hodge pointed out this area on the map for Mr. Bowerman. He said the green line was considered to see if the impacts could be minimized, but there was a farm in that area which is also eligible for the Historical Register, so this caused the same problem as the Westover property~ He believes the orange line will work, and he thinks that it will take care of this problem. When the public hearing is held, the design will be put back where it was previously, which will minimize the impact to Montvue. He added that VDoT will try to take care of the hardship properties which are in Montvue at the present time. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Hodge's proposal is shown between the two red lines for the new alignment. Mr. Hodge indicated that this was correct. Mr. Hodge then continued with his presentation by saying that the VDoT had a request to see what could be done to minimize the damage to Rio Hills Shopping Center, Kegler's Bowling, Lowes and the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. There is a water tank located in that area which will ultimately also be impacted. He mentioned that the Meadow Creek Parkway has been approved by this Board with an alignment which will connect north of the River. The desire was to stay behind the Sheraton Hotel and minimize the impact on the watershed, the water tank and the sewage treatment plant, the SPCA and the school. He thinks an alignment has been found which will do this. The design for the northernend is not yet completed, but it has been discussed, and there are many different facets involved. He commented that this is something a consultant will have to develop, and it will need to tie in with the Route 29 North corridor. He mentioned the work that the VDoT staff has done with the County officials to minimize the ingress and egress from the River to the Airport Road by having service roads and other methods to minimize the traffic on Route 29. He said this is an update on the project. He emphasized that this alignment eliminates the impact on several businesses on Route 29, and he pointed out that there is a much greater distance between the Rio Road intersection and the northern terminus. He also mentioned that the family cemetery, which had caused some concern, would not be impacted with the suggested alignment. He added that when and if a bypass is built, he thinks it can be put in a position to better serve traffic. He pointed out that %rDoT's projections show traffic on the Route 250 Bypass is growing proportion- ately, as it is all over the area. Mr. Bowerman asked the significance and difference between the green and yellow proposals. Mr. Hodge replied that the yellow alignment was an alter- nate which was studied, but he did not feel it would be desirable to impact WalMart or Sam's Club. He felt the green alignment would be much better, although it will still have to be refined. He added that the V-DoT staff is trying to give reasonable ideas, minimize the cost, move the traffic and minimize the impact on the different properties. Mr. Bowerman commented that it appears the green alignment would not interfere with the proposed extension of Berkmar Drive. Mr. Bain pointed out that the green alignment is close to the Berkmar Drive extension project. Mr. Hodge agreed that the alignment does come close to the proposed Berkmar Drive project, but he said that it is not close enough to cause an impact. He October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000109 (Page 16) reiterated that he was giving the Board a status report to bring the Supervi- sors up-to-date on the consultant's work, the construction and what will be done to minimize the impact. Mr. Perkins mentioned that the Supervisors have not approved anything on the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Bowerman agreed that this is correct. He said it is now an assumption which may or may not come to fruition. Mr. Hodge stated that whether or not the Supervisors have approved anything for the Meadow Creek Parkway, the project will still be further along than it was before. Mrs. Humphris asked if the change in the alignment proceeds, will there be an environmental impact study done on the section across the River. Mr. Hodge replied that every step of this project will be discussed with the Federal Highway Administration and environmental agencies, so there will have to be an assessment of any changes, and an update will have to be done to the existing environmental impact study. Mrs. Humphris inquired if there are projected costs for the additional segment which will bridge the River and go north. Mr. Hodge answered that a rough estimate has been done, but the cost will be approximately the same as the original alignment. He said the rights-of-way costs increased the amount on the original alignment, and the construction will increase the cost for the green alignment. Mrs. Humphris then asked about the cost of the bridge. Mr. Hodge responded that the cost of the bridge is included in the construction costs. He reiterated that the green alignment would probably be more expensive as far as construction is concerned, and the cost of rights-of-way for the original alignment would be more expensive. Mrs. Humphris stated that she is referring to total costs. Mr. Hodge answered that he, too, is talking about total costs, and the two alignments would be about equal. Mrs. Humphris next asked the distance of the extension from the area where the alignment would have moved to Route 29 up to the proposed new terminus. Mr. Hodge stated that he is guessing it would be close to 1,000 feet north of the River. Mrs. Humphris remarked that 1,000 feet more plus the bridge equals the cost of a triple decker interchange and the rights-of-way. Mr. Hodge replied that this is correct, as the VDoT staff currently sees the situation today. Mrs. Humphris asked if there are traffic projections available for the different termini. Mr. Hodge answered that he does not have the traffic projections with him at this meeting. He mentioned, though, that traffic projections for the bypass have gone up considerably from the time that the original studies were done. Mrs. Humphris stated that there are a lot of questions which need to be asked. She said, though, that she would put these questions in writing. Mr. Hodge replied that he would be glad to come to Charlottesville and go over Mrs. Humphris' questions with her. At this time, Mr. Claude Garver, Assistant Commissioner for Planning and Programming with VDoT, stated that it was his understanding there was some question regarding the allocation of funds for the Six Year Improvement Program, and he wanted to clarify this. The document to which he will refer is one that is familiar to each of the Board members, and it is VDoT's Six Year Improvement Program for the primary, interstate and urban system. This document makes reference to the secondary system, but it is not included. He pointed out that this is an annual process, and it is preceded by the pre- allocation public hearing in each of the nine construction districts. He said this was his first year to be involved in this process on the state level, because he has only been in this position a year. He then referred to the 1993-94 Six Year Improvement Program where he said that additional financing was provided for the fiscal years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 for the Charlottesville bypass project which had not previ- ously been shown in the Six Year Improvement Program. The total of that amount was a little less than $11.0 million. The purpose of these funds was for the purchase of hardship properties. The staff has provided him with hardship rights-of-way cases and the total came to $15.0 million. Funding was included for this over a period of time, but the amount is short approximately $4.5 million. Mr. Garver then talked about the interchanges at Greenbrier Drive, Rio Road and Hydraulic Road. In the current program, the allocations for the interchanges remain the same for the fiscal years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995- 96. For the fiscal years 1996-97 and 1997-98, the projected allocations were reduced. They were reduced because the total allocations for the Culpeper District over the six year period were reduced by $13.0 million. He ex- plained, however, that the allocations available for these projects were reduced simply to balance the books. There was certainly no intent on his part to focus on which priority should move forward in the Six Year Program. He and the VDoT staff understand the CTB's resolution which states that construction for the interchanges will have top priority. As a result of some comments which were made, subsequent to the public hearing, some adjustments were made and they will continue to be made, to make sure that the program reflects this Board's wishes in the allocation process. He remarked that October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) O00110 (Page 17) public hearings will be held, and the funding scheme will be established so that it also reflects the wishes of the CTB. He apologized for not having the pages in the booklet which relate to his comments. He can mail the pages to the Supervisors. He then indicated that allocations were made across the page by various years and the dollars were shuffled around because the bottom of the page has to balance. He remarked that changes are done from year to Year simply to keep paper work straight, and he reiterated that this does not reflect a change in priorities. The change in priorities is based on the black line which indicate beginning and ending dates. He pointed out that the Board members probably realize that on the two projects in mind, VDoT has not started to fund the construction, so there is no line which indicates these beginning dates. He told the Supervisors that if they look carefully they ~ill see that the $15.0 million, which was allocated to the bypass project, is .'shown in the allocation. This is a quick explanation of the allocation process. He noted that he had received a communication that the only question this Board had related to why funds were allocated for the Charlottesville bypass that had not previously been shown, and this is his explanation. Mrs. Humphris commented that the original amount allocated for the SVERDRUP Study was $3.0 million, and now the total is shown at $3,729,000. She asked if such items go back to the CTB every time for approval for more funds. She wondered how the funds get allocated in that category. Mr. Garver replied that VDoT staff begins with the best estimate of what projects will cost, and as the process is worked through and updates are given, the booklet is changed on an annual basis. Each year the best information is reflected in the booklet that is available at that time. It is his belief that each time the consultant goes beyond a certain limit which is being imposed, he will have to go back to the CTB to get approval. Mr. Hodge noted that there are a couple of levels that the VDoT staff can approve which have an open contract. He can approve up to $150,000 on his level, and the Commissioner can approve up to $300,000 on that level. Beyond those levels, every change and modification of any contract, most especially those involving consultants, have to go back to the CTB for approval. Mrs. Humphris then inquired if Sverdrup is an open ended contract. Mr. Hodge replied that for a certain scope of work the Sverdrup contract is open, however, if anything else is changed, it has to be renegotiated. N~xt, Mrs. Humphris asked if federal funds will be used for the inter- changes. Mr. Garver responded that this is an open question, although the project is certainly eligible for federal funds. It has been VDoT's practice, in an effort to have some flexibility, to fully utilize all of the funds available. VDoT staff tries to program these funds. Sometimes State funds are categorized in such a manner that there is a problem of not having a project which qualifies for funds which are available at the time the funds are needed. The funds have to be used by the deadlines which are established. As far as federal funds are concerned, if the portion of funds which comes to VDoT is not used in a federal fiscal year, and they are not obligated during that time frame, then they are lost. A diligent effort is always made to make sure that projects are available to qualify for available funds. Mrs. Humphris wondered if VDoT staff try to get a per vehicle cost benefit when a general idea is being developed. Mr. Hodge said he does not think this is available. He said that a per vehicle cost benefit is studied when VDoT staff is trying to find a way to move traffic faster and to reduce air pollution. (Mr. St. John left at 10:29 a.m.) Mrs. Humphris asked if a time saving study will be done to see how much time will be saved by the new design. Mr. Hodge replied that this is done when the consultant gets to this point in the final design. Mr. Bowerman thanked both Mr. Hodge and Mr. Garver for coming to the meeting to enlighten the Board as to the status of the projects. He said the clarification and additional information on the three sections considered is very important, as well as the allocation rationale. Mr. Hodge stated that VDoT staff would like to open the door for the Supervisors to ask for an update on the interchange and/or bypass project. As the projects move forward, he realizes there will be new people working with VDoT's consultant. He would be glad to come back and meet with this Board to give the status of the projects. Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks it is critical when information becomes available such as that which was presented to the Supervisors today, it becomes available first in a form such as this. It is.important that the public and the Board get to see the same thing at the same time. Mr. Garver stated that if anyone has questions regarding the allocation process such as VDoT's programming or planning, he would be glad to come and explain it to the Supervisors. He went on to say that a lot of the time when documents are discussed that VDoT staff deals with on a daily basis, they are complicated if they are done in a quick overview, but he would be happy to deal with them individually with Board members. He enjoys coming to this areas and he noted that Charlottesville is his hometown. Mrs. Humphris mentioned that she is unsure about the lines of communica- tion that VDoT staff has to the design people. She wanted to make sure the October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) local citizens committees, which were set up to give input to the design of the bypass, really are involved early on and do not get left by the wayside. She has heard that not much has been going on there. Mr. Hodge assured Mrs. Humphris that he has a direct link to the design. Mrs. Humphris stated that it is very important to this community that this committee has input. Mr. Hodge reiterated that design is his direct responsibility and discussions have already been held relative to the citizens advisory committee and how it will work. The only thing that already has been done is the preliminary work which was passed on to the designer and the citizens' committee. If this work can be improved upon, then that is great. (Mr. St. John returned at 10:35 a.m.) There was no further discussion. Agenda Item No. 7c. Transportation Matters; Status Report on Route 708/Route 631 Intersection Improvements. Mr. Cilimberg said this project was initiated as a spot improvement in the Six Year Secondary Road Plan about five years ago in anticipation of increasing traffic volumes at the intersection due to the opening of Walnut Creek Park. Relocation of Routes 708 and 631 as well as more immediate improvement to the existing intersection were explored by V DOT. RelOcation alternatives were not pursued because they would not provide for the ultimate vertical curvature improvement and were beyond the scope originally intended for the project. Further decision regarding the spot improvement of the existing intersection was deferred to allow VDOT to provide additional traffic data comparable to the park's operating times. V/DOT has provided information (forwarded to the Board members earlier). This is a substandard intersection and there is the potential that increased traffic at this intersection will create problems in the future. However, experience with the operation of the park to this point brings up a question as to the need for the improvement at the intersection at this time. Based on experience and accident data, there is evidence that the Route 708 curves approaching the intersection need improvement, but these improvements are beyond the scope of this project as originally intended. Improvements to the immediate intersection do not seem warranted at this time, particularly if the Board were to decide to pursue larger relocation alternatives for Route 708. It should be noted that funding of this larger project would require an adjustment in funding from the Six Year Secondary Plan (which now has the intersection spot improvement estimated for $393,000) and/or the Revenue Sharing funds. This, in turn, reduces dollars available within the six-year planning period for other projects. Mr. Marshall recalled that it would take approximately $300,000 to make the intersection improvements. He and Mr. Bain have been to a public hearing in that area, and everybody was opposed to those improvements. The people mentioned that the real problem related to accidents which were happening at another point. These people thought the answer to the problem was to bring this road beyond the cemetery. However, this would cost close to $1.0 million. It was the general consensus that this should be done or nothing else done. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff is not suggesting the intersection project be moved forward. He added that this Board needs to reach a decision because if the larger, more expensive plan is pursued, it is a very different project. Mr. Marshall stated that if anything is done, then he would like to pursue the bigger project. Mr. Roosevelt said the Supervisors need to remember that the purpose for this project in the beginning was because of the concern that the Park was going to~ increase the number of left turns at this intersection, as well as the volume of traffic which will pass through the intersection, and the sight distance problem. There are a lot of problems along Route 708, one of which can be seen on the plan, is a very sharp curve. Problems such as this need to be improved, but the question is whether or not they will take a high enough priority to spend the scarce secondary funds. The only need the Board had expressed was the intersection problem. If other obvious needs along Routes 708 or 631 are going to be considered, they will change the scope of the project. He would like to make one point relative to his review of the turning movement information. There were only 98 left turns over a twelve hour period on the day that a turning movement study was done. The high number, in any given hour at that intersection turning left from Route 708 onto Route 631 south, was 14 cars. This type of data does not warrant a separate left turn lane. The impact could be reduced with this project, if the road was built as a two lane roadway. It would reduce the impact for the first 100 feet west of that intersection and for probably 400 feet east of that intersection by as much as 12 feet, which is the width of one lane. This might be one sugges- tion, if the sight distance is a concern to Board members, as it is to him. He emphasized that he is very concerned about the sight distance at the intersection. If the Supervisors feel this is the type of need which should be funded, then one option might be to eliminate the left turn lane in the current proposal, and build a two lane road through that intersection. If the Supervisors feel the increased volume and the accident data do not warrant this as a high priority need at this time, then he thinks they need to express this by resolution. He again reminded Board members that what had gotten the October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 000:1.12 matter to this point was a public hearing where the road improvement was proposed. He then come to this Board to request the Supervisors' position on this road improvement. VDOT staff has not sent the public hearing information forward to the Commonwealth Transportation Board pending a recommendation from this Board. Mr. Bain concurred that this whole process was started because of the opening of Walnut Creek Park. He cannot see any justification, because of the traffic information which has been given to this Board, to spend the funds to make those improvements. He mentioned that other projects for those roads would be new projects, and they would have to be put into priority order. He would support stopping the proposed project at this time, and he mentioned that the people in the area do not want the proposed improvement. The people are interested in a more major improvement, and that will have to come sometime in the future. Mr. Marshall said he would like to be able to save this money for the major project, but he realizes that would be impossible. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the County staff members are getting ready to update the Six Year Plan. It would be helpful to them if the Supervisors would let them know if they would like to consider the project for this area. The staff could then put the project in the list of priorities and evaluate it, before the Supervisors see the Six Year Plan next spring. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the project should be included in the Six Year Plan's list of priorities. He thinks the problem relates to the curves before the intersec- tion. Mr. Bain commented that he does not disagree. However, with the vehicle counts in that area, as well as vehicle counts on other major secondary roads which have equal if not greater problems, he cannot see including it in the list of priorities, at this time, to even be considered for next year. Mr. Perkins concurred with Mr. Bain. He recalled that the Board had requested reflective arrows and guard rails be installed for the bad curve to which Mr. Roosevelt referred. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he had already responded to this request, and had informed the Supervisors that if they wanted to do this spot improvement, it could be funded. However, it would have to be funded from the secondary budget. Mr. Perkins suggested that this spot improvement be considered by the Supervisors. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that this project could be included in the Six Year Plan as a spot improvement with the use of those funds. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that Mr. Roosevelt's letter indicated there had been a number of unreported accidents, but the official data did not support the location of guard rails there. She said the cost was approximately $11,300. Mr. Roosevelt said he can modify his budget to absorb a $10,000 or $11,000 item, with this Board's support. He said it does not have to be a line item in the Six Year Plan. Mr. Bowerman said it seems to him that the consensus of the Board is not to even consider the improvements in the Six Year Plan. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt a resolution that the proposed improvements that went to public hearing for the intersection of Routes 708 and 631 be terminated and no further action be taken. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. Mr. Roosevelt suggested that the Board pass another resolution indicat- ing that the guard rails should be installed and paid for out of secondary improvement funds. He said VDOT is working with the guard rail contract now, and it is possible this project could be added to the existing contract. With this Board's new resolution, he could transfer some of the money that is in the current budget. Mr. Bain then made motion, which was seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt a resolution requesting VDoT to include a section of Route 708 for guard rail spot improvements to be paid out of the secondary improvement allocation funds in an amount not to exceed $15,000. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. (Note: Both motions were combined into one resolution which is set out in full below.) RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) held a Location and Design Public Hearing, in 1992, to consider the proposed location and design improvement of Route 708 and 631 to better accommodate the anticipated traffic increase due to the construction of Walnut Creek Park south of this intersection in Albemarle County (Project #0708-002-241, C501); and October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000113 (Page 20) WHEREAS, approximately 50 people were in attendance at the public hearing and seven people spoke concerning the proposed project. Seven speakers were opposed to the proposal to widen Route 708 in its existing location. Eleven letters were received during and after the public hearing, including six from those who spoke and seven were against the proposal. Those who favored the proposal were members of the Mt. Olivet Church which is located on this project and did not own property which is directly impacted by this proposed project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors requests that VDoT drop the proposed improvement that went to public hearing for the intersection of Routes 708 and 631 and no further action be taken; AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request that VDoT include a section of Route 708 for guard rail spot improvements to be paid out of the secondary improvement allocation funds, an amount not to exceed $15,000. Agenda Item No. 7d. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Dan Roosevelt introduced Mr. Donald R. Askew, the new District Administrator replacing Tom Farley in the Culpeper District Office. Mr. Askew addressed the Board and said he is aware of the many problems regarding transportation. He has reviewed the communication process and emphasized that this is one of his main objectives. He has asked Mr. Roosevelt to meet with each Board member annually and ride over the roads in each magisterial district. He announced the ground breaking ceremony on October 14th for Rio/Hydraulic Road and extended an invitation to the Board members to attend. He plans to have a round table session for local and state elected officials in November or December and also invited the Board members to attend. He distributed his business card and asked that the Board call him with any transportation problems it may have. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Roosevelt if he had gotten any information regarding the installation of grooves on Route 810 to forewarn people of the upcoming curve. Mr. Roosevelt said he contacted someone in the Staunton District and was told that the grooves Mr. Perkins mentioned had been in- stalled by the residency as a method of draining the pavement. He also found that the Staunton District had used speed bumps at a place where a secondary intersection came into a primary road and problems were experienced with traffic not stopping as it proceeded to the intersection. The engineer said he had never used the speed bumps in a situation where the traffic was free to continue to move as it would on Route 810. His next step is to get with his traffic engineer and ask him to look at this curve and see if some method can be implemented to slow the traffic down as it approaches the curve. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not believe the use of speed bumps as a way to slow down drivers approaching a curve is an acceptable method or one to pursue. Speed bumps are always something that can be warned by signage, but if people miss seeing the signs or forget and hit the bump at too great of speed they often use lose control of their vehicle. Mr. Perkins said he would not call them speed bumps, he is talking about grooves. The grooves he saw, which are no longer there because a stop light was installed, was on the road from Port Republic to the intersection of the road around Route 33 and Weyer's Cave. Mr. Roosevelt said he may have mixed up the spot Mr. Perkins told him about when he talked to the Harrisonburg engineer. He thought it was an area that was grooved for drainage purposes. Mr. Roosevelt is to talk to his traffic engineer and report back. (Note: The Board recessed at 10:47 a.m. and reconvened at 10:58 a.m.) (Noting that the meeting was running behind schedule, Mr. Bowerman suggested that Board hear Dr. DiCroce's presentation at this time and then return to the regular schedule. Board members concurred.) Agenda Item No. 9. Annual Report on Piedmont Virginia Community College, Deborah DiCroce. Dr. Deborah DiCroce, President of Piedmont Virginia Community College distributed a handout to the Supervisors entitled, "The Piedmont Virginia Community College Profile in Albemarle County." She appreciates the chance to speak to the Board. This is the time of year when she gives an update on the College and, especially, its service to Albemarle County. She then acknowl- edged the representatives of the College Board from Albemarle County: Ms. Grace Carpenter, who is Chairman of the Board this year, Mr. Joseph Henley and Mr. Clark Jackson, who is the newest representative from Albemarle County. She stated that the Supervisors selected well with all of these Board~members, and she added that these College Board members represent Albemarle County and the people of the community very well. She next introduced Mr. Will Pearson, who is the Director of Development and handles fund raising for the College. 000:1. .4 October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) Dr. DiCroce said this past year has been a good year for the College. It was the College's twentieth anniversary, so it was a time of celebration and reflection. It was also a time of recommitment to instructional excel- lence and service. She then quoted some figures which indicated that PVCC's tOtal enrollment from September, 1972, through the spring semester of 1993 was 59,521 students and 4,185 degrees, certificates and diplomas have been awarded since the first commencement in 1974. This past year, 6,993 students have been served which represents a little over a two percent increase from the previous year. She stated that 81 percent of the students are part time, 63 percent are women, 15 percent are minorities, and of that 15 percent, 11 percent are African American and 69 percent are returning students. She has shared a copy of the College's last year's strategic plan with the Supervisors, and she would like to emphasize those strategic thrusts which are in the beginning of the plan, because they will direct the College into the 21st Century. She mentioned that the first thrust relates to partnership, from the perspective of business and industry, as well as the public schools and universities. Community outreach is the second thrust and its charge is to reach the pockets of all of the communities which are served by the College, as well as reaching the pockets of the communities which are not being served. She said the College is trying to create better and more innovative ways to reach out to such individuals. The third thrust relates to technology from the perspective of how the College delivers instruction, as well as from the perspective of ensuring the curriculum speaks to the fact that the society is becoming increasingly more dependent upon technology. The challenge from an educational perspective is to ensure that technology becomes a humanizing versus a dehumanizing force in people's lives. The final strategic thrust involves multicultural diversity, and it relates to minority recruitment, retention and outreach, as well as recognizing that the world is becoming more and more global and more and more international. That should be reflected in the curriculum. These four strategic thrusts will guide the College into the 21st Century and form the basis for the strategic plan which was adopted by the College Board last July. Dr. DiCroce then talked about the specific service to Albemarle County. This past year, 2,657 Albemarle County residents attended PVCC, which account- ed for 43.2 percent of all of the students enrolled, and 3.9 percent of the County's total population. She pointed out that these are strong figures. Typically the national statistic represents two and one-half percent, because if a college is doing well, it will penetrate its service region by two and one-half percent of the population. While this is good news, it is also saying that there is 96 percent of Albemarle County's population the College did not directly reach over the past year. The question is, of that 96 percent, what percentage could and should benefit from PVCC. She then mentioned the profile for an Albemarle County PVCC student. Eighty-one percent of the Albemarle County residents which attended PVCC were part-time. Sixty-four percent of the Albemarle County residents were women; eight percent were African Americans; and 75 percent were returning students. If this profile is compared to the total College profile, the profile of the County shows approximately the same number of part-time students and women, fewer African Americans and more returning students. In the past year, the College enrolled 26 percent of the 1992 graduating class of Albemarle High School and 25.9 percent of the graduating class of Western Albemarle High School. These figures for Albemarle County's high schools remain fairly constant, however, in other parts of the College's service area, the figures fluctuate. She next mentioned that PVCC continues to use Albemarle High School for evening classes. This is, in part, for outreach, but, largely, because there is no space on campus for these classes. This past year, 64 classes were offered at Albemarle High School and 1,069 different students were served. PVCC pays a fee of $18,000 a year for the use of Albemarle High School. The College also continues to move forward with its Tech Prep partnership between PVCC and Albemarle County schools. The County is very much involved with this program and Dr. Vicki Behr, Director of CATEC, is now serving as co-director of this program. Dr. DiCroce predicted that within a year to a year and a half results will be seen from the whole effort of this program. In terms of the College's service to business and industry, it continues to be strong. This past year, training was provided to Comdial, GE Fanuc Automation, Murray Electrical Products, Sperry Marine and Teledyne. In addition, Dr. DiCroce mentioned that more than one-third of the clients served by the Small Business Development Center of Central Virginia were from Albe- marle County. In the past year, PVCC hosted two special business related events. One event was the trade fair which the College co-sponsored with the Chamber of Commerce. This past May, PVCC hosted an economic development conference for citizens of Planning District Ten. The College continues to have a partnership with the University of Virginia, which is best realized by the large number of students who transfer to UVa from PVCC. She next referenced an attachment which she gave to the Supervisors. This document was prepared by the State Council of Higher Education, and it shows that in Albemarle County, of the residents who were enrolled in the Fall of 1991 in Virginia institutions of higher education, 53 percent of the residents were enrolled at PVCC. The next largest number of students enrolled were at UVA with 20 percent. While this information relates to Albemarle County, it is consistent throughout the College's service area. The College is committed to continue to look for ways to serve Albemarle County. October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) O00115 (Page 22) From 1993-94, to-date, has been the most stable year, as far as the budget is concerned, since she has been associated with the College. She knows the Supervisors were aware of the possibility of the 10 to 15 percent cuts with which higher education may be faced. A couple of weeks ago, the Governor exempted Virginia community colleges from the threat of these additional cuts. She wanted to give the Supervisors an idea of what could have happened if these cuts had taken place. For the community college system, a ten percent cut would amount to approximately $17.0 million. She emphasized that PVCC's share of that amount of money would be approximately $500,000. A 15 percent cut would have resulted in approximately $26.0 million, and PVCC's share would have been almost $800,000. If this had happened, it would have been devastating for the College's programs. Virginia community colleges have had their funds cut back in the midst of soaring enrollments. The College has already experienced a reduction in State funds, and the tuition increase has only recovered 80 percent of the loss. The community college staffs are immensely grateful that they were exempted from the 10 to 15 percent cuts. She assured the Board members that PVCC would continue to provide Albemarle County residents with the best of all learning opportunities. All of the programs to which she has referred will continue to serve Albemarle County and the surrounding area of Central Virginia. The PVCC staff will continue to assist the localities into the 21st Century, and she asked for the Board members' thoughts as to h°w this can best be accomplished. She thanked the Board for its ongoing support, and especially its personal support. She would be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Martin said he is a juvenile probation officer, and he works with clients who often could and should attend PVCC. He appreciates the effort that PVCC officials have put forth to try to pull those people into the College. Without the outreach effort, these people were not going to PVCC, but now a lot of them are attending the College. Mr. Marshall thanked Dr. DiCroce for all of PVCC staff's and Board's hard work. The packet of information which Dr. DiCroce distributed to the Board shows just what is done at the College. Agenda Item No. 8. Request to ban leaf burning in Hessian Hills, Sections 5, 6 and 7 (Old Forge Road). Mr. Brandenburger said Section 9-23.2 of the Albemarle County Code provides that the residents of any subdivision or other clearly defined area in the County may petition the Board of Supervisors to ban open burning of leaves in that area. Staff has received a petition from 30 of the 52 inhabit- ed homes within Sections 5, 6 and 7 of Hessian Hills Subdivision requesting that open burning of leaves be banned in their area. Staff recommends that a public hearing be advertised for November 3, 1993. Mrs. Humphris commented that she would like to give some background on this issue. Leaf burning has been an area of tension and dissention in a lot of the urban subdivisions. This year a lot of things started to happen all at once in this particular neighborhood. Someone in the neighborhood set up a program for individuals to bag their own leaves and someone was contracted to haul them away, for a fee, for anybody in the neighborhood who was interested. There are some people who are adamantly opposed to leaf burning, and they thought that it would be good to use the provisions in the County Code to petition to ban leaf burning. When she discussed this with Mr. Tucker, he referred the matter to the County Engineer. Ms. Higgins developed a brief report which was given to her and Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Humphris emphasized that she and Mr. Bowerman were curious about the fact that they heard the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority was moving in the direction of trying to find a solution for yard waste. All of these things came together at once. What is being found, however, is the cost of disposing it is very high, mainly because of transportation. She does not know what the Rivanna officials will determine, but, in the meantime, a group of people on Old Forge Road went forward with the petition to ban leaf burning. This is the issue before the Board today, because there are so few alternatives for people who have many oak trees, many leaves and not the equipment nor the space to compost all of these huge amounts of leaves. Mr. Bain wondered if, as a part of this issue, the Supervisors will consider what can be done about the collection of leaves. Mrs. Humphris responded affirmatively. She said all the information is in the County Engineer's report. She noted that the City is also having trouble with the place where its leaves are being disposed. Motion then was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to set a public hearing on November 3, 1993, to amend Section 9-26 of the County Code to prohibit leaf burning in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of Hessian Hills Subdivi- sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: 1781 Productions Special Use Permit (draft letter). October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) OOOll6 (Page 23) Mr. Bowerman said the Board had directed the Chairman to send a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Charles McRaven, the repreSentatives of 1781 Productions. The draft of that proposed letter is now in front of the Board members. He then asked if the Supervisors had received a letter from Mrs. McRaven. Board members responded negatively. Mr. Bowerman said a copy of a letter from Mrs. McRaven was handed to him last night, and it indicates that both Fred Payne, attorney for the McRavens, and the members of the Board of Supervisors would be getting copies of the same letter. One of Mrs. McRaven's concerns was that the news media had obtained a copy of the draft letter that the Supervisors faxed to the McRa, yens, and had reported its contents, even before the McRavens received the fax. This happened because the draft letter was included in the Board members' packets. The Supervisors have to be very sensitive in the future that those people directly involved in a situation need to be notified, before action is taken, if it is going to become a matter of public record. He pointed out that the McRaven's letter was avail'~bie to the public on Friday. The gist of Mrs. McRaven's letter is suCh that 1781 Productions in no way intends to deviate in any significance from the historic drama of Jack Jouett. There are some holes in the history which need to be filled in order to accomplish the drama, where some substantial information does not always exist. He thinks the letter is self-explanatory. Mro Bain stated that the Supervisors' letter needs to be sent now. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He thinks the draft letter is fine as it is written. Mrs. Humphris concurred. She added that it would be good if everybody would understand that there is a simple background for this letter. She then read from the zoning text amendment. She also said the conditions of the special use permit are intended to be adhered to, and they are very specific. She said the zoning text amendment and the special use permit are all that the letter refers to, and that is all the meaning that it has. Mr. Bowerman stated that if the draft letter is acceptable by the other Board members, it can be finalized, and he will sign it. Mr. Martin remarked that Mr. Bowerman's previous comments are very important° He said the draft letter was put with the Board members' materials for discussion. There could have been parts of the letter that the Supervi- sors might have wanted to delete or additions could have been made. The letter got to the public, as if it was already an official action of this Board. This issue needs to be dealt with, but he has no problems with the letter, itself. Mr. Bowerman commented that the Board has to be sensitive to issues such as this that come up in the future. He said the Supervisors need to make arrangements to look at the agenda and get necessary materials out to the people involved. Mrs. Humphris asked if a motion is needed regarding this matter. Mr. Bowerman answered that the consensus of the Board is known, so he will just sign the letter, as it is written. Agenda Item No. 11. Adopt Resolution to allow an interim plan showing grading and plantings with no actual "development" to be approved under Section 32.0 - "Site Development Plan" under certain conditions. Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, said that on a recurring basis, there are requests for borrow (cut) and waste (fill) areas for public and private purposes. There is currently no provision for approving earthwork which amounts to a borrow area and/or which involves the loss of wooded areas on a site zoned for development, unless the developer Submits a site develop- ment plan. Staff recommends standardizing a procedure and conditions to allow an interim site work plan. Earth-disturbing activity is necessary to prepare a level site when working with topography such as that found in Albemarle. Under current procedures, the proposed grading plan (erosion control plan) is reviewed in conjunction with a plan for development. The earthwork may begin once all tentative approvals have been received for the site plan and an erosion control bond is posted and permit issued. Staff is also being confronted with increasing numbers of requests for borrow or waste areas with no site construction proposed at that time. It is typically a case where an off-site development will have excess soil, and the receiving property's contours are such that fill is necessary to provide level buildable area, or vice-versa. This was an issue with the Route 250 East widening project, and is becoming one with the Route 29 North project. It also occurs within large private projects, such as Sam's Club, Wal-Mart and Forest Lakes. This is an issue at this time because: 1) Some of the more topographi- cally challenging sites remain for development. Balancing cut and fill may not be possible on these sites; 2) Public projects such as roads (new and expanded) require fill or have excess cut; 3) Transportation costs for soil are increasing; 4) Landfilling the excess cut is too costly and not considered a feasible option; and, 5) A September, 1992 amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in Section 4.3 "Tree Cutting" has restricted earthwork to sites where trees will not be disturbed. October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) O00117 (Page 24) The Zoning Ordinance currently restricts earthwork through two separate requirements: the earth cannot be disturbed (cut or filled), in a way that kills trees, without an approved site plan; and borrow areas are not permitted within development zoning districts (commercial, industrial). The current practice requires extensive case-by-case review of a grading plan, including site visits, and results in frequent disapprovals. Staff is of the opinion that this unreasonable administrative and cost burden on both the public and the staff detracts from the overall protection efforts such ordinance measures intend. This proposed interim plan could improve a site's eventual develop- ment. For example, if a developer is allowed to rough grade a site and replant now, by the time development occurs, the trees are established at a reasonable size for their intended buffering purpose, and they are better able to thrive during the stress of construction. Current practices can drive up the costs of public projects that will have to either import or export soil at a significant cost. Based on these findings, staff recommends the Board adopt a resolution to the effect that a plan which shows grading and plantings without struc- tures, may be approved under Section 32.0 "Site Development Plan." Mr. Paul Lanier, said his firm is located in Rockville, Virginia, and his company has the contract to build the portion of Route 29 to which Mr. Roosevelt referred earlier. In this contract, there is 77,000 estimated yards of embankment required to bring the road to the section that is shown on the plan. It will be a lot of extra problems if the employees of his company have to maintain that material at other locations in the County. He pointed out that Mr. Hill has a piece of property which is probably no more than one- quarter of a mile away from the project. This property has Lowe's on one side, the Bowling Alley on the other side, and a hill in the middle. This property cannot be built on or developed in its present condition. The property will have to be graded, and Mr. Hill will have to find a place, if it is graded, to dispose of the dirt. This could be very difficult. If this Board will see fit to give its approval, his company has a ready made disposal area which would serve two purposes. It would allow Mr. Hill to be able to grade his property, and it allow his employees to have material with which to complete the contract, without having to haul the fill from Pantops or somewhere else further out in the County. It does not make any sense to haul that many loads of material across town. It is an inconvenience, it takes time and it is a deterioration of the roads, when the same thing can be maintained on the site. He asked the Board allow his company to use Mr. Hill's materials. Mr. Bowerman wondered if there are 77,000 cubic yards of fill available on Mr. Hill's site. Mr. Lanier answered affirmatively. He said that there is enough material on Mr. Hill's site to fulfill the requirements of this project. Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Lanier will lower the bid, if the Supervisors approve this request, because there should be a substantial savings involved. Mr. Lanier replied that his bid was already too low. He agreed that acquiring the material from Mr. Hill's site will result in considerable savings of time and money. These savings will be reflected ~n the future in other projects. He then mentioned that he had told Mrs. McCulley that he would be amenable to putting a row of Leyland Cypress trees across the back of the property, if she thinks it is necessary, and if there was not enough natural buffer left in place. Mr. Jim Hill noted that he owned some land close to the Route 250 Bypass, and he went through all types of permitting procedures to try to help with the Route 250 East project. This project almost got delayed six months because there was no place to find dirt. With a lot of help from the County staff, enough permits were finally issued to keep the job on schedule. This situation is going to happen with every project in Albemarle County, as well as anything planned for the future. He is more cost conscious than most people. There is only so much money coming from the federal government to construct roads. Most of the money is spent by issuing permits, and the County staff will spend time trying to keep projects on schedule, whether or not new roads are being built or a section of roadway is being upgraded. He asked the Supervisors to consider this request, because it will help everybody with future projects. Mr. Bowerman noted that his only concern relates to the original reason the County got to this point. In the past, there had been inappropriate activities taking place on parcels which then precluded good planning, after the fact. His question is whether or not there are sufficient safeguards in place such that good planning can occur, after the fact, with the best purposes of the highway corridor overlay in mind, as well as the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance and the protection of the public. There are some sites where activities should not be taking place, at all. He would not like to see these sites destroyed for the convenience of a developer. Mr. Cilimberg responded that there has been a lot of discussion at staff level about ways to handle this problem that is continually confronting the County. It is becoming more and more evident because of the way land is being developed. He emphasized that the staff feels safeguards are in place, and he mentioned the tree canopy provision in the Site Plan Ordinance. He went on to say that any site with tree cover will now have to adhere to the tree canopy provision. He remarked that the Entrance Corridor overlay is in place, as O00 t [8 October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) well as a review by the ARB. The County has a more complete set of site plan provisions and site review process than was in place when the problems to which Mr. Bowerman referred occurred, and which led to cut and fill restric- tions. The staff does not feel that through its sensitivities and the Board's sensitivities that these same problems will occur. This is the way that the staff looks at the matter, from a planning review standpoint. Ms. McCulley remarked that the most sensitive areas will be those where development is taking place adjacent to schools or residential areas, and these would be situations where the staff would not want to allow such situations to be easily repeated. The way the resOlution is structured, the request would not have to be approved, if the staff or Board thought it was inappropriate. She mentioned, for example, that it would have to be proven why a particular grade was necessary. A plan cannot show a grade that the staff feels is completely out of line with the eventual finish grade for use of that property for development.~ She thinks there is a much better chance of getting very substantial buffers with the current ordinance, which were not in effect with the prior ordinance, when work such as this was done. Ms. Marcia Joseph said the ARB members have looked at the concept of the resolution, and they have superficially agreed with it. The ARB has discussed the barriers associated with this plan, such as planting trees, although it would mean more work for some of the County inspectors. The ARB talked about how it could mitigate the aspects of this plan from the Entrance Corridor by requiring trees or buffering. There will be significant more review and cost to the developer because a plan will have to be provided which identifies every tree, etc. Also, there will have to be evidence shown for drainage, and if utilities are involved, a sensible plan for them will have to be included. These issues need to be considered, and the parcel has to be examined, so that anything which can be saved or replenished is not removed. She emphasized that it is a complex process. In the past a lot of these problems have been abated because places have been found to dump dirt. The ARB works with a lot of the contractors and they are required to put some plants on a parcel. She noted that contractors are also encouraged not to waste plant materials, and to allow plants a chance to grow.3 Mr. Bowerman wondered if this process involves less bureaucracy than the current procedure. Ms. McCulley answered that there is less bureaucracy involved, as far as paperwork and studying the ordinance, etc., are concerned. However, it will involve more field time to check out the plan and identify the trees. She added that the site will have to be examined before the work actually begins to make sure that the trees are properly marked for Conserva- tion. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that a process will have to be established and a path will be developed. The problems up to this point have been that the paths are dead ends, and other possibilities have to be considered, such as moving to another site to see where dirt can be borrowed. This plan will allow the developers to look at sites and determine where the dirt can best be obtained and where they can best promote the planned resources to satisfy the County's concerns. Ms. Higgins stated that the County is building roads and schools, etc., and the Engineering Department has been subject to the same sort of restric- tion. The cost would be clear cut, if there is a road job with an adjacent site where dirt can be removed. Another thing is the sensitivity to the cost of development. There are many people who are interested in putting business- es in this community, and when they see a mountain of dirt, they cannot visualize the type of facility that could go there. She stated that this affects the marketability of the lot, and she noted that a lot which is graded consistent with contiguous development would be assessed higher than a lot with a mountain of dirt on it. In this area it seems to be feast or famine. The University has a lot of dirt to get rid of, and when people need it, they will pay anything for it. A developer can move the dirt, but it is a matter of timing. If she was looking at a lot that would take $60,000 to get it to a suitable grade, she would go somewhere else to buy the property. She empha- sized that in the areas to which the staff is referring, except for rural area zoning, this proposal will be a support to development. The Engineering Department has a program to look at contiguous development, as far as propos- ing a reasonable grade. She stated, though, that it needs to be stressed this plan would not be automatic. She said that such a plan would help the County and developers with projects in the sense that there will be more sales of property. Mr. Bowerman asked if the proceedings could include notification in the Board's Consent Agenda when a plan is in this process. He is recommending such notification, because as far as this particular site is concerned, there are three downstream ponds in Carrsbrook. He would like to be sure that the run-off control measures, as the work is proceeding, are sufficient to protect~ insofar as possible and as the law allows, those three downstream ponds. These ponds have already gotten silt from the development of Lowe's and other development in that area. He thinks it is in the public interest to involve this Board, not necessarily for review, but so that Board members are aware of what is happening in these situations. He thinks the proposed procedure makes sense. Mr. Bain wondered if such a situation took place in a rural area, would this change the procedure. He noted that under the current ordinance, fill October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) and waste can be done in all of the zoning districts. He pointed out that he is referring to areas OutSide of development districts. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he does not know if the Supervisors would want to make this application apply to all rural area properties. The Supervisors probably have not seen information relating to most of the fill activity which has occurred in rural areas. Ms. Higgins stated that such activities in the rural area will still be covered by the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. The staff is usually aware of where fill dirt is going to go. Mr. Marshall indicated that he would support the resolution. He thinks it makes good business sense and everything is in place to ensure that the environment is protected. Mr. Bowerman emphasized that he would like a proviso that there will be notification of the activity included on the Board's Consent Agenda. He then asked if there is any indication of how many plans will be involved in such situations. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the Board will probably see two or three plans very quickly. Mr. Bain stated that he would like to know how many plans will be involved over a period of time. Mr. Bowerman reiterated that he thinks it would serve the public interest for the Board members to be aware of this particular activity, even if it is not discussed as a Board item. As long as it is included in the Consent Agenda, there will at least be the opportunity to look at the issue. He wondered, again, if the staff has an idea of how many plans would be involved over a period of a couple of months. Mr. Marshall said he has no objection to Mr. Bowerman's request of including the activity in the Consent Agenda. Mr. Keeler said the staff could follow the same procedure as with site plans, and particular Board members could be notified of plans in their districts. Mr. Bain responded that he would like for the information to come to all of the Board members. He is interested in the County, as a whole, because this is different from a site plan. Mr. St. John wondered if this is a resolution of intent to amend the ordinances. It seems to him there are some ordinances which Will need to be amended to accomplish all of this. Ms. McCulley answered that this would be in order. However, this procedure could be put into place without an amend- ment to the ordinance. She stated that there .is no definition, currently, with the site development plan, and she explained that the resolution does not say that development of structures on the property has to be shown. She added that it would say that by this resolution the Board would accept submittals of these grading plans as site plans, and they would follow the same process. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks a zoning text amendment needs to immediate- ly be pursued, because this action will need to be put into place clearly in the ordinance. He added that Ms. McCulley would also get guidance from the procedure as how to initially address such situations, if someone comes forward and asks for a particular fill or cut of an area. Mr. Marshall asked what is before the Board, now. He wondered if a resolution to allow for grading site plans as described to the Board at this meeting would satisfy the staff's needs, at this particular time. Ms. McCulley responded affirmatively. Mr. Marshall said that he will so move. Mr. St. John asked if the Board is doing something by a simple resolu- tion, which is contrary to an existing written ordinance. He said that is his concern. Ms. McCulley answered, "no." She then wondered if Mr. Bowerman's suggestion to have the plans come before this Board as a Consen't Agenda item could be added to the conditions for approval. She called attention to the five conditions listed on the second page of the Executive Summary. Mr. Marshall stated that this is fine with him. His motion would include the stipulation that the Board would be notified of these Plans through its Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowerman commented that the motion includes the standard conditions (a) through (f). Mr. Bain said the staff would then pursue ordinance changes to effect this resolution. He said Ms. McCulley is referring to interpretations, but he pointed out that there can be interpretation of all of the conditions. This does not seem right to him, unless all of these things are currently in the ordinance, and he assumes they are not. He commented that these will be administrative decisions, yet, things are being added which are not in the ordinance. Mr. Marshall stated that he made his decision based on the staff's recommendation. Ms. McCulley agreed that the conditions would be a procedUral matter. Mr. Bain said he would find this hard to support, legally. The staff will be able to do what the resolution says, if this Board approves it. He reiterated, though, that the conditions are not in the ordinance to be enforced. Mr. Bain mentioned that the urgency of the situation relates to the Route 29 project. He understands this and he is unsure how quickly advertise- ments can be done, etc. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that if the Board wants this matter handled the most complete and cleanest way, then there should be an amendment to the ordinance. The staff will do this, if the Board so desires. Mr. Bain October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) 000 : 0 wondered how long this will take. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the ordinance amendment will have to be written and then advertised for public hearing for the Planning Commission. This will probably take at least a month or more. After that, the matter will come to this Board. Mr. Martin asked why the Board cannot pass the resolution of intent, which would start the process. Then a separate vote could be taken for the Route 29 project. Mr. Bowerman inquired if this project is important enough to allow this particular use on that site before the ordinance is amended, or is the timing such that the actual removal of the material won't happen for three or four months. Mr. Lahier ansWered that his firm has to make a decision within 30 days as to where it will get this material. The reason is that this section of highway has to be built in so many different increments that the embankments have to be done right away. A temporary lane has to be installed in what is now the northbound lane so that sections of the southbound lane can be closed. Embankment material will be needed to do that. Mr. Martin asked how lOng after the decision is made, will the material have to actually be moved. Mr. Lanier replied that what he meant was that he has to have the material within 30 days. Mr. Lanier commented that thousands of motorists use that highway every day, and there is a sequence of operations set up for this job. He noted that if they are not followed, he will have complaints from citizens and business people. He has to go to a public meeting tonight to address this situation. He understands County ordinances, and he can get the material elsewhere. He questioned, though, the reasons for having to inconvenience the public substantially with heavy trucks hauling dirt for long distances when this material is available on a site that is of no value for development in its present state. Mr. Martin asked if the resolution could be approved today as stated, and then have a separate motion to approve a resolution of intent. Mr. Bain said he thinks this can be done, and the Board can rely on good faith. Mr. St. John remarked that his question has been satisfied by the answer that Ms. McCulley gave. He pointed out that nothing contrary is being done to the planned ordinances. He suggested the Board approve the resolution as the staff has recommended, and then instruct the staff to determine what ordinanc- es ought to be amended to bring this resolution in accord. The needed action can take place with the Route 29 project, with the resolution that has been approved. Ms. McCulley mentioned one more option. She explained that a zoning text amendment could be done to incorporate the conditions, so that it would not be a matter of the staff arguing with someone over whether or not the staff has the authority to impose the resolution. For this particular project, if the Board so chooses, it could be reviewed as a public use, and there could be an agreement with the contractor to adhere to the conditions, and this activity could be permitted to occur. Mr. Cilimberg said if the situation is handled in the manner to which Ms. McCulley referred, the Route 29 matter can be dealt with and the Board would still be able to deal with the situations such as this on a permanen~ basis. Mr. Bowerman stated that there are a couple of other similar situations in the County that will have to wait until the ordinances involved have been changed. Mr. Martin noted that the Board will approve the resolution of intent, but Mr. Hill will have to, separately, allow these conditions to be imposed, now even though they are not a part of the ordinance change. Mr. Bowerman suggested that Mr. Hill take care of this matter by letter. Mr. Bowerman went on to say that this is satisfactory to him. He thinks the public interest is obviously served if dump trucks are kept on Route 29 rather than having them come from all over the County. Mr. Marshall asked where this leaves his motion. Mr. Bain said he thinks the motion can be left as it is stated. He went on t© say that the only thing that has been added is an agreement to be signed by Mr. Hill that he is bound by these conditions, even though the ordinances do not reflect this at this point. Mr. Marshall then restated his motion to adopt the following resolution to allow an interim plan showing grading and plantings with no actual "devel- opment'' to be approved under Section 32.0 "Site Development Plan" under certain conditions. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION ALLOWING AN INTERIM PLAN SHOWING GRADING AND PLANTINGS WITH NO ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) TO BE APPROVED UAIDER SECTION 32.0 "SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN" oooa. aa. BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby approves the request to allow an interim plan showing grading and plantings with no actual "development" to be approved under Section 32.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, "Site Development Plan" subject to the following conditions: (A) Architectural Review for entrance corridor buffering; (B) Minimum buffers established adjacent to residential zoning (in accordance with the site development plan ordinance through existing or new plants); (c) Completion of a tree survey on the property to identi- fy and evaluate significant existing stands for pres- ervation and for compliance with the tree canopy ordinance; Protection of areas as designed in the open space plan; (E) County Engineer review to be mindful of the provision of future utilities, access and drainage structures; (F) Notification of plans being presented should be in- cluded on the Board of Supervisors' consent agenda for its approval. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, the Soil Erosion Ordi- nance, and supplementary regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the provisions just approved in the Site Development Plan Section 32.0 of the Ordinance. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. 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 Zoning Ordinance in Section 32.0 and any other ordinances necessary to allow for an interim grading/site develop- ment plan; and FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordi- nance, and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date. Agenda Item No. 12. Adopt Resolution Authorizing County Executive to sign VPSA Bond Sale Agreement. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said the County is in the process of issuing bonds in the amount of $11,900,000 through the Virginia Public School Authority. This process requires a number of resolutions to comply with Federal and State legal requirements. The Board will need to authorize the County Executive to sign the Bond Sale Agreement which must be returned to VPSA by October 8, 1993. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adopt the' following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR EXECUTION OF BOND SALE AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $11,900,000 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), has determined it is necessary and expedient to borrow an amount not to exceed $11,900,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing capital projects for school purposes; and October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) O0012Z (Page 29) WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the best interest of the County to pursue the financing through the Virgin- ia Public School Authority ("VPSA") by selling the County's Bonds to VPSA; and WHEREAS, VPSA's schedule contemplates execution of a Bond Sale Agreement anticipated to be dated October 8, 1993, with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to VPSA (the "Bond Sale Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the County will hold a public hearing, duly no- ticed, on October 13, 1993, on the issuanCe of the Bonds in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.1-228.8A of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the Board will approve the issuance of the Bonds after such public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The County Executive, is authorized and directed to enter into a Bond Sale Agreement, in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved, and to deliver the Bond Sale Agreement to VPSA. The issuance of the Bonds is subject to the public hearing and final approval of this Board. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 12:07 P.M., and Mr. Bain assumed the Chair.) Agenda Item No. 13a. Appropriation: General Fund FY 1992/93 Over- expenditures. Mr. Breeden said expenditures in FY 1992/93 exceeded appropriations in five areas of General Fund operations totaling $12,966.00. The departments/ area that exceeded appropriations are: Clerk of the Court, the cost of indexing records exceeded budget projections by $3,600.00; Forest Fire Extinc- tion, the amount billed by the State Forester exceeded the budget by $165.00; District Home, County usage exceeded projections by $7,000.00; Soil & Water Conservation, wages were projected based on a part-time employee. Due to this employee working part-time in another County department, the total hours made her eligible for benefits. This was not anticipated in the original budget, cost $2200.00; City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement, the official calculation of revenue sharing formula exceeded projections by $1.00. Mrs. Humphris called attention to the overexpenditure in the Soil and Water area, and the situation where a part-time employee worked part-time in another County department. She said the information indicated that the total hours made the employee eligible for benefits, but this was not anticipated in the original budget. She wondered if there is a mechanism in place, now, to prevent such a situation from happening. Mr. Breeden replied that there is a mechanism in place to ensure that this won't happen again. Mrs. Humphris next mentioned the City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement's $1.00 overexpenditure, and she compared this overexpenditure to the fact that the Revenue Sharing Agreement was for $4.5 million. Mr. Breeden answered that the formula for the Revenue Sharing Agreement worked out to be $1.00 more than the appropriation amount showed. He said the check was written that way before anybody realized that it was $1.00 short. He said that official action is needed to approve the $1.00 amount. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 NUMBER: 920082 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 92/93 OVEREXPEATDITURES EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100021060350300 CLERK OF COURT-INDEXING 1100032040560500 FOREST FIRE EXTINCTION 1100059000563000 DISTRICT HOME 1100082030221000 SOIL & WATER - RETIREMENT AMOUNT $3,600.00 165.00 7,000.00 1,300.00 October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) 1100082030231000 SOIL & WATER - HEALTH INS. 1100091034580405 CiTY/CoLrNTy 2 REV~ SHARiNG TOTAL 000 .23 900.00 1.00 $12,966.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $12,966.00 TOTAL $12,966.00 Agenda Item No. 13b. Appropriation: School Fund FY 1992/93 Transfer. Mr. Breeden said School Funds are appropriated annually in five catego- ries. Two of these categories were overexpended as of June 30, 1993. Expenditures in the School Fund totalled $54,166,734 which is $886,079 less than their appropriation. Overexpenditures in Administration, Attendance and Health of $65,185 and Facilities of $270 can be covered by a transfer of appropriation from the Instruction category which had an unexpended appropria- tion of $597,973. Mr. Martin noted that the $597,973 unexpended appropriation appears throughout the information. He would like to know more about this figure. Mr. Breeden said the majority of the $597,973 figure relates to instruction. Mr. Bain said he is interested in the overall school reallocation, which really is not before the Supervisors today. Mr. Breeden said he does not have this information today, but he will be glad to get it for the Supervisors. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992/93 NUMBER: 920083 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TR3~NSFER TO COVER OVEREXPENDITURES IN FY 1992/93 EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ADMINISTRATION, ATTENDANCE & HEALTH FACILITIES INSTRUCTION TOTAL AMOUNT $65,185.00 270.00 (65,455.00) $ -0- REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $ -0- Agenda Item No. 13c. Appropriation: FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures in School Division Self-Sustaining Funds. Mr. Breeden said several self-sustaining funds incurred expenditures in excess of appropriations. All expenditures can be funded from excess revenue and/or the fund balance of each program. Expenditures for the following programs/grants exceeded appropriation for FY 1992/93: 1) Albemarle High School Food Service, $45,127.20 This amount can be funded from additional revenues and the fund balance; 2) Chapter I, $22,078.29 This amount can be funded from additiOnal revenues which exceeded expenditures; 3) Drug Education Grant, $7,975.58 - This amount can be funded from additional revenues which exceeded expenditures. Mr. Martin said he would be interested in knowing more about the overexpenditure in the Albemarle High School Food Service Program. He recalled that seven years ago, when he was on the School Board, the School Board asked the Supervisors for additional money for the cafeteria fund. He said that, then, the County got rid of the Federal guidelines and opened its own cafeteria, and it was still losing money. He understands that it then started making some money. Mr. Breeden explained that this fund is still making money. He said this request simply means that a certain amount of money was appropriated for the operation, and it exceeded that amount of operation. The revenues, however, have been received. Mrs. Humphris commented that she wanted to make sure she understands this situation. Some of the funds were recovered in the AHS Fund Balance but they are not from the Food Service Fund. Mr. Breeden answered that aPproxi- mately $2,000 came from the AHS Fund Balance of the Food Service Program. October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000 .24 (Page 31) Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992/93 NUMBER: 920084 FUND: SELF SUSTAINING PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 1992/93 OVEREXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1300160301119300 A.H.S. FOOD SERVICES SALARIES 1300160301600200 A.H.S. FOOD SERVICES FOOD SUPPLIES 1310161101112100 CHAPTER 1 - SALARIES 1310761311312700 DRUG EDUCATION GRANT - PROF SERVICES TOTAL AMOUNT $45,127.20 22,078.29 7,975.58 $75,181.07 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2300160301161204 AHS CAFETERIA SALES 2300151000510100 AHS FUND BALANCE 2310133000330101 CHAPTER 1 2310724000240500 DRUG EDUCATION TOTAL AMOUNT $42,008.54 3,118.66 22,078.29 7,975.58 $75,181.07 Agenda Item No. 13d. Appropriation: FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures for Emergency Operations Center. Mr. Breeden said Albemarle County serves as the fiscal agent for the Emergency Operations Center. Expenditures for the Center exceeded the FY 1992/93 appropriation by $6,271.55, all of which can be funded internally through excess revenues and the fund balance. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992/93 NUMBER: 920085 FUND: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 1992/93 OVEREXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1410031040600100 EMERGENCY OPR. CTR. - OFFICE SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $6,271.55 $6,271.55 REVENUE 2410016000169900 2410051000510100 DESCRIPTION E.O.C.-OTHER CHARGES E.0.C.-FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $2,500.01 3,771.54 $6,271.55 Agenda Item No. 13e. Appropriation: FY 1992/93 Overexpenditures in Capital Improvements Fund. Mr. Breeden said FY 1992/93 operations resulted in two projects with minor overexpenditures. Appropriation OverexDenditure Stone-Robinson $ 68,872.01 $ 532.10 Woodbrook 252,740.51 3,287.24 Mr. Breeden said these amounts can be funded from the CIP Fund balance. These expenditures have been included in the year-end report totals and will not affect the unallocated fund balance shown on the report. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) 000'!25 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992/93 NI/MBER: 920086 FI/ND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 1992/93 OVEREXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1900060210800902 STONE ROBINSON - ROOF/MASONRY 1900060212800901 WOODBROOK BLDG. - RENOVATIONS TOTAL AMOUNT $ 532.10 3,287.24 $3,819.34 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2900051000510100 C.I.P. FI/ND BALANCE $3,819.34 TOTAL $3,819.34 Agenda Item No. 13f. Appropriation: Visitors Center. Mr. Breeden said Albemarle County is the fiscal agent for processing the loan payment of the Visitor's Center. Lease payments are made directly to the bank with the bank automatically deducting the loan payments from the account. Principal payments ($20,551.57) and interest expense ($47,182.91) were incurred in FY 1992/93 with an equal amount of rental revenue being received. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992/93 NUMBER 920087 FU1TD: VISITOR'S CENTER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 92/93 OPEP~ATIONS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 980072050910024 VISITOR'S CTR. - PRINCIPAL 1980072050920024 VISITOR'S CTR. - INTEREST TOTAL AMOUNT $20,551.57 47,182.91 $67,734.48 REVENUE 2980015000150229 DESCRIPTION VISITOR'S CTR. - RENT TOTAL AMOUNT $67,734.48 $67,734.48 Agenda Item No. 13g. Appropriation: FY 1992/93 Capital Improvements Projects. Mr. Breeden said total appropriations for Capital Improvements in FY 1992/93 totaled $14,474,252.44; expenditures during the year totaled $7,844,692.32, leaving a balance of $6,629,560.12. A review of the uncomplet- ed committed projects shows a need to reappropriate into FY 1993/94 $5,346,585.00. The difference of $1,282,975.12 results from projects complet- ed for less than the budgeted amount and from revised estimates for uncomplet- ed projects based on current estimates. On the revenue side, the Capital Improvement Fund experienced a short- fall in revenues of $500,332.36, resulting primarily from the fall in interest rates and the expenditure of bond proceeds at a faster rate than anticipated. The adjustments in project expenditure estimates coupled with the revenue shortfall resulted in an unallocated CIP Fund balance at June 30, 1993, of $899,707 after the reappropriation of FY 1992/93 committed projects. Actions already taken by the Board in FY 1993/94 reduced this amount to $600,579. These resulting CIP fund balances are reflected in both the June and September financial reports included on the consent agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 NUMBER: 930020 FI/ND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF PROJECTS FROM October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) 000: .26 EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1900012200800301 1900021050331000 1900031010800100 1900031040312703 1900031040312705 1900031040950085 1900032010800510 1900033020700002 1900041000800960 1900041000800961 1900041000800962 1900041000800963 1900041000800964 1900041000950011 1900041000950035 1900041000950039 1900041000950059 1900041000950072 1900041000950073 1900041000950090 1900041000950091 1900041000950096 1900041020950036 1900041020950051 1900041020950065 1900041020950081 1900041020950098 1900043100800901 1900051020800901 1900051020950095 1900060100800675 1900060100950042 1900060100950087 1900060100950089 1900060201312350 1900060201312375 1900060201800605 1900060201800903 1900060201800950 1900060202312400 1900060211800901 1900060212312400 1900060215312300 1900060215312365 1900060215800200 1900060215800605 1900060216580000 1900060216800200 1900060216999999 1900060251312300 1900060251312400 1900060251800901 1900060252312300 1900060255312350 1900060255580000 1900060301312350 1900060301312375 1900060301800200 1900060301800901 1900060301800903 1900060303800660 1900060303800903 1900060304312350 1900071000580411 1900071000950003 1900071000950009 1900071000950010 1900071000950018 1900071000950047 1900071000950083 1900071002800650 1900073020312350 1900073020950062 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT INFO. SERVICES COMM EQUIP. $46,012.57 JUVENILE CT. REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 5,866.95 POLICE DEPT. MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 56,900~00 EMERGENCY OPR. E-911 LOCATOR SYSTEM 139,830.00 EMERGENCY OPR. E-911 STREET SIGNS 10,500.00 EMERGENCY OPR. E-911 JOINT-CITY/CTY. 753,429.97 FIRE DEPT. SERVICE VEHICLES - NEW 30,000'00 CORRECTION REGIONAL JAIL 261,333.03 ENGINEERING STREET LIGHTS 40 000.00 ENGINEERING ST. LTS. HYDRAU/COMMONWE 16 000.00 ENGINEERING ST. LTS. HYDRAU/GEORGETOW 16 000.00 ENGINEERING ST. LTS. WHITEWOOD/GEORGTN 12 000.00 ENGINEERING ST. LTS. GEORGTN/CoMMONWEA 16 000.00 ENGINEERING HYDRAULIC ROAD SIDEWALK 33 211.39 ENGINEERING NORTH BERKSHIRE ROAD 3 800.00 ENGINEERING MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY ENGI 116 398.21 ENGINEERING KEENE LANDFILL CLOSURE 1,653 328.21 ENGINEERING PARK ROAD EXTENSION 41 000.00 ENGINEERING SIDEWALK-FiFTH STREET 78 000.00 ENGINEERING IVY ROAD 1,667.00 ENGINEERING BARRACKS RD SIDEWALK 11,000.00 ENGINEERING LANGFORD RoADs 22,000.00 STREET IMP. BERKMAR DRIVE EXTENDED 168,734.21 STREET IMP. AVON ST/RT 20 CONNECTOR 70,700.00 STREET IMP. COMMONWEALTH DRIVE 650.00 STREET IMP. REVENUE sHARING ROADS 129,800.00 STREET IMP. MECHUMS WEST 44 300.00 STAFF SERVICES BUILDING RENOVATIONS 201 149.02 HEALTH DEPT. BUILDING RENOVATIONS 2 690.00 HEALTH DEPT. HEALTH DEPT NEW WING 50 739 00 SCHOOL BOARD PAVING 2 882 00 SCHOOL BOARD UNDERGROUND TANKS 7 260 20 SCHOOL BOARD ENERGY MANAGEMENT 28 439 22 SCHOOL BOARD FIRE ALARM UPGRADE 19 853 07 BROADUS WOOD PLANNING SERVICES 1 543 33 BROADUS WOOD CONCRETE/sTEEL 'TESTING 4 185 80 BROADUS WOOD CONSTRUCTION 607 398 65 BROADUS WOOD ASBESTOS REMOVAL 4604 86 BROADUS WOOD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 1 073 50 BROWNSVILLE pROF. SER. ENGINEERING 265.75 STONY POINT BUILDING RENOVATIONS 5,221.72 WOODBROOK PROF. SER. ENGINEERING 704.25 AGNOR-HURT PROF. SER. ARCHITECT~ 17,280.00 AGNOR-HURT PROJECT COORDINATION 8,000.00 AGNOR-HURT FURNITURE & FIXTURES 4,475.59 AGNOR-HURT CONSTRUCTION 13,683.25 V L MURRAY MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 13,375.00 V L MURRAY FURNITURE & FIXTURES 5,712.21 V L MURRAY CONTINGENCY FUNDS 10,000.00 BURLEY SCH. PROF. sER. ARCHITECTURAL 1,252.29 BURLEY SCH. PROF. SER. ENGINEERING 25,000.00 BURLEY SCH. BUILDING RENOVATIONS 898.31 BURLEY SCH. PROF. SER. ARCHITECTURAL 7,782'38 URBAN AREA SCH. pLAI~NING SERVICES 122,288.08 URBAN AREA SCH. MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 10,000.00 ALBEMARLE PLANNING SERVICES 20,709.95 MURRAY EDUC. MURRAY EDUC. NEW HIGH SCH PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC PARKS & REC ALBEMARLE CONCRETE/STEEL TESTING ALBEMARLE FURNITURE & FIXTURES ALBEMARLE BUILDING RENOVATIONS ALBEMARLE ASBESTOS REMOVAL BUILDING ALTERATIONS ASBESTOS REMOVAL . PLANNING SERVICES A.D.A. COMPLIANCE CROZET PARK IMPROVEMENTS SCOTTSV COMMUNITY CENTER CHRIS GREENE LAKE WHITEWOOD ROAD BEAVER CREEK PARK 20,000 STONY PT. RURITAN BASEBALL 894 RIVANNA PARK BUILDINGS - CONSTRUCTION 18,334 LIBRARIES PLANNING SERVICES 8,019 LIBRARIES LIBRARY RENOVATIONS 31,112 TOTAL $5,346,585 437.85 525.00 90,000.00 4,798.75 46,141.45 4,594.64 8,352.00 79,995.46 44.57 8,405.83 18,000.00 30,000.00 .00 .04 .70 .00 .74 .00 REVENUE 2900019000120605 2900019000199923 2900024000240750 2900051000510100 DESCRIPTION E911 SERVICE TAX FIVE SENSES TRAIL-CITY STATE RECREATION ACCESS FUND CIP FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $903,805.24 10,000.00 126,139L50 4,306,640.26 $5,346,585.00 Agenda Item No. 13h. Appropriation: Reappropriation of FY 1992/93 General Fund Projects and Requests. 000: 27 October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) Mr. Breeden said requests have been received from a number of depart- ments for the reappropriation of unexpended funds from FY 1992/93. The total of the requests is $575,070 and is primarily for projects not completed in FY 1992/93 and items on order at June 30, 1993, that totalled $482,659. Also included is a request to reappropriate $92,411 in unexpended 1992/93 funds to purchase needed items or unanticipated expenses that were not able to be funded in the FY 1993/94 budget. The year-end financial report, which is included on the October 6 consent agenda, shows that General Fund FY 1992/93 expenditures were $1,065,302 less than appropriations. Of this unexpended June balance, $575,070, the majority of which resulted from uncompleted FY 1992/93 projects, is being requested for reappropriation into FY 1993/94. After this reappropriation, the net savings in General Government operations for FY 1992/93 will be $490,232, which when added to the General Fund revenue surplus of $731,688 will allow an available surplus of $1,221,920 from FY 1992/93 to be transferred to the Fund Balance. A recommendation on the unexpended FY 1992/93 balance and the 'county's FUnd Balance reserVes will be brought to the Board in November as part of the discussion of setting budget- ary goals and priorities for FY 1994/95. Mr. Bain asked for an explanation of the request to reappropriate $92,411 in unexpended 1992-93 funds to purchase needed items or to handle unanticipated expenses. He wondered if this money would be spread out for a lot of different items, or will it be targeted for one or two categories. Mr. Breeden answered that the majority of the carry forward funds relate to solid waste projects at Keene and for curbside recycling. There are a lot of scattered projects, and there are some outstanding purchase orders, so the expenses will be incurred in the current fiscal year. Mr. Bain asked what would be considered an unanticipated expense. Mr. Breeden mentioned the remodeling of a building in the Police Department category which will require major improvements in the heating and air condi- tioning system. He said this will cost between $25,000 to $35,000. Mr. Marshall wondered if the Keene Solid Waste item of $210,912.00 is all that will have to be spent there to close the Landfill. Mr. Breeden answered, "no." He said that additional money has already been budgeted in the current fiscal year. Mr. Marshall said that, as an adjacent owner to the Landfill, he knows payment will have to be made for some damages, and the amount is unknown at this time. Mr. Breeden remarked that there is a listing of all of the individual projects connected with this item, if the Supervisors are interested in seeing it. Mr. Bain responded that he would like to see the listing. Mr. Martin asked if this appropriation should be delayed until the Board members are in receipt of the list of projects. Mr. Bain felt it made sense to delay the approval of appropriation until the Board reconvenes after lunch. Agenda Item No. 13i. Appropriation: Broadus Wood Elementary School Renovation Project, Adjustment. Mr. Breeden said that as the Broadus Wood Elementary School Renovation Project comes to a close, it is known that $42,466.18 will not be needed from the current FY 1993-94 CIP appropriation. Action to "deappropriate" this balance will return these funds to the CIP fund balance and make them avail- able for planning purposes to be used in funding the FY 1994-95 CIP now making its way through the Planning Commission. This process is in response to Board concern on previous projects that money should be returned to the CIP fund balance as soon as it is known that it will not be needed. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 NI3MBER: 930022 FI/ND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADJUSTMENTS TO BROADUS WOOD PROJECT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1900060201343105 1900060201580000 1900060201800200 1900060201800605 1900060201800670 1900060201800750 1900060201800903 DESCRIPTION MOBILE HOME RELOCATION MISC FURNITURE & FIXTURES CONSTRUCTION UTILITIES PURCHASE OF LAND ASBESTOS REMOVAL 1900060201800950 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 1900060201999999 CONTINGENCY TOTAL AMOUNT ($10,000.00) 10,000.00 (25,000.00) (57,466.18) (50,000.00) (50,000.00) (30,000.o0) 100,00000 70,000.00 ($42,466.18) October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) REVENUE 2100051000510100 DESCRIPTION CIP FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT ($42,466.18) ($42,466.18) Agenda Item No. 13j. FY 1992/93 Stormwater Improvement Projects, Reappropriation. Mr. Breeden said the Stormwater Fund has a number of ongoing projects which were uncompleted at June 30, 1993. Total appropriations for stormwater projects in FY 1992/93 were $2,570,286.44, of which $1,119,970.22 was expended leaving a June balance of $1,450,316.22. A review of the uncompleted projects based on current estimates shows a need to reappropriate $1,375,357.55 to complete these projects. Based on the adjustments from revised estimates of uncompleted projects and this reappropriation, the Stormwater Fund will have an unallocated fund balance of $69,179.99 available for future capital projects. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 N-JMBER: 930023 FUND: STORMWATER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FROM FY 92/93 EXPENDITLTRE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1910041000950093 1910041034800975 1910041035312400 1910041035800975 1910041036312400 1910041036360000 1910041036800750 1910041036800975 1910041039800975 1910041040800975 1910041041800975 1910041043800975 1910041046800975 1910041049800975 1910041050800975 1910041051800975 191004i052800975 DESCRIPTION ENGINEERING STUDY/PLAN BERKMAR DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS FOUR SEASONS PROF. SERVICES FOUR SEASONS IMPROVEMENTS BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE PROF. SERVICES B1RNAM/WYNRIDGE ADVERTISING BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE PURCHASE OF LAND B1RNAM/WYNR1DGE IMPROVEMENTS LICKINGHOLE IMPROVEMENTS BERKELEY IMPROVEMENTS LYNCHBURG RD IMPROVEMENTS FOUR SEASONS IMPROVEMENTS BERKSHIRE IMPRovEMENTs WOODBROOK IMPROVEMENTS WINDHAM/JARMAN IMPROVEMENTS FIELDBROOK IMPROVEMENTS LLOYD/STRICKLAI~D IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL AMOUNT $133,693.65 15,506.21 14,914.54 75,085 . 70 1,546.45 300.00 3,000.00 85,100.00 875,71290 2,372.50 17,500.00 20,000 00 1,700 00 26,000 00 82,075 60 1,850 00 19,000 00 $1,375,357 55 REVEATUE 2910051000510100 DESCRIPTION FI/ND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $1,375,357.55 $1,375,357.55 Agenda Item No. 13k. Appropriation: Criminal Justice Intake Processing Grant. Mr. Breeden said the over-representation of minorities in correctional institutions in the U.S. has finally come to the forefront. Research regard- ing juvenile processing indicates that in some instances race and other extra- legal factors may make a difference in outcome decisions while in others ~hey do not. The Albemarle Charlottesville Court Services Unit proposes to examine the impact of race, sex, and social class on juvenile court dispositions. This grant is directly related to the Intake Processing Study and will be administered by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court with the County designated as fiscal agent. The County will receive funds and immediately pass them to the Court. The Court will perform the required services and file all applicable State reports. The Grant is for $18,781. There is no local match. Mr. Martin asked who would administer the grant. Ms. Roxanne White, Executive Assistant, said someone will be hired to handle the grant to work in conjunction with the Children and Youth Commission. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 NUMBER: 930025 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTAKE PROCESSING GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1152029402312700 CONSULTANTS 1152029402600100 SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $18,525.00 256.00 $18,781.00 REVENUE 2152033000330402 DESCRIPTION DCJS GRANT-INTAKE PROCESSING TOTAL AMOUNT $18,781.00 $18,781.00 Agenda Item No. 131. Appropriation: Criminal Justice Recidivism Reduction Grant. Mr. Breeden said the over-representation of minorities in correctional institutions in the U.S. has finally come to the forefront. Research regard- ing juvenile processing indicates that in some instances race and other extra- legal factors may make a difference in outcome decisions while in others they do not. The Albemarle Charlottesville Court Services Unit proposes to examine the diversion and aftercare services of youth in this Court system. This grant is directly related to the Recidivism Reduction Program and will be administered by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court with the County designated as fiscal agent. The County will receive funds and immediately pass them on to the Court. The Court will perform the required services and file all applicable State reports. The Grant is for $31,640. There is no local match. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 5R3MBER: 930026 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION PROGRAM EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1152029401312700 CONSULTANTS 1152029401600100 SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $31,440.00 200.00 31,640.00 REVENUE 2152033000330401 DESCRIPTION DCJS GRANT-RECIDIVISM TOTAL AMOUNT $31,640.00 $31,640.00 Agenda Item No. 13m. Appropriation: Federal DMV Grant. Mr. Breeden said the shared usage and hardware limitations of the micro- computer located in the Police Department results in inadequate review of crash and other vehicular data. The purchase of a new microcomputer will allow timely updating and reporting of information. It is believed that the additional information will be useful to analyze various alternatives for the encouragement of increased seat belt usage. The computer will cost approxi- mately $1,925. It will be purchased using $1,500 in Federal funds with the balance of approximately $425 funded by the County from the Police Depart- ment's existing budget. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 NI3MBER: 930027 FUND: GRANT O001 O October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING OF FEDERAL DMV GRANT FOR PURCHASE OF MICRO COMPUTER EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1153031143800700 ADP EQUIPMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $1,925.00 $1,925.00 REVENUE 2153033000330305 2153051000512004 DESCRIPTION DMV GRANT-FEDERAL TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND TOTAL AMOUNT $1,500.00 425.00 $1,925.00 Agenda Item No. 13n. Appropriation: Housing Rehabilitation and Crozet Crossing Grants, Reappropriate. Mr. Breeden said the Crozet Crossing grant was awarded for $300,000 with a $300,000 local match. The Board of Supervisors appropriated and transferred $40,000 during the 1990/91 fiscal year and $560,000 during the 1991/92 fiscal year. Expenditures prior to July 1, 1993, totalled $545,649 leaving the balance of $54,351 to be reappropriated. The Albemarle Housing Rehabilitation Program Grant was awarded October 22, 1991, for $500,000 with a $317,820 local match. The Board of Supervisors appropriated and transferred $747,294 during the 1991/92 fiscal year with the balance of $70,626 included in the $268,502 1992/93 contribution. Grant expenditures prior to July 1, 1993, totalled $378,864.33~ leaving the balance of $121,135.67 to be reappropriated. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 NUMBER: 930028 FUND: ALBEMARLE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDING FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION AND CROZET CROSSING GRANTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1122481027563110 1122481027563120 REVENI/E 2122433000330081 2122433000330082 DESCRIPTION AHIP/CDBG HOUSING REHABILITATION AHIP/CDBG CROZET CROSSINGS TOTAL AMOUNT $121,135.70 54,351.00 $175,486.70 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT HOUSING REHABILITATION GRANT-FEDERAL $121,135.70 CROZET CROSSING GRANT-FEDERAL 54,351.00 · TOTAL $175,486.70 Agenda Item No. 13o. Appropriation: Demonstration Watershed Project Grant. Authorize Chairman to sign Memorandum of Agreement with the Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC). Mr. Breeden said Albemarle County has a Master Drainage Study to identify and correct drainage problems from existing and future development in the County/City/University; all of these entities share the Moore's Creek drainage basin. The City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia are collaborating on this study. This is the first phase of the County-wide effort to address runoff quality and quantity issues in a systematic fashion. Also, the study is addressing stormwater quality issues in the County and City in anticipation of complying with future Federal and State criteria for stormwater discharges from municipalities. In conjunction with this study, the Albemarle County Engineering Department submitted a grant application to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The proposal is to augment the Moore's Creek drainage study by expanding the scope of the technical work, supplementing the water quality monitoring program, promoting voluntary adoption of agricultural and forestry practices to reduce runoff pollution, and implementing education- al programs to include area schools and the general public. To perform this work, the Engineering Department requested $51,750 in Federal funds. This entire amount was granted by EPA. The outcome of the project will be an enhanced public awareness of runoff pollution issues and cross-jurisdictional capacity to address identified problems. Mr. Breeden said the funds granted by the EPA require no local match. The grant will be administered by the Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation which will reimburse the County for expenses incurred to carry out the tasks outlined in the grant application. This request is to set up the expenditure cost center to spend $51,570 on this "Demonstration Watershed October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) O00181 (Page 38) Project". To formalize receipt of this grant, the County must sign a Memoran- dum of Agreement with DSWC. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 NI3MBER: 930029 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR DEMONSTRATION WATERSHED PROJECT GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1154041055950012 DWP GR/kNT $51,750.00 TOTAL $51,750.00 REVENI/E 2154033000330310 DESCRIPTION WATERSHED PROJECT GRANT TOTAL AMOUNT $51,750.00 $51,750.00 AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to autho- rize the Chairman to sign the following MEMOPJuN-DUM OF AGREEMENT (Agreement Number C199-319-94-5) between the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) and the County of Albemarle, covering the period between October 1, 1993, and September 30, 1995 (a copy of which is filed and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors). Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 13p. Appropriation: Carl Perkins Grant, Reappropriate. Mr. Breeden said this is a continuing grant from FY 1992/93. The funds will be used to purchase computer equipment for Albemarle High School, Western Albemarle High School and Murray High School. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 NIJMBER: 930030 FI/ND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FY 1992/93 BALANCE ON CARL PERKINS GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1320761190115000 1320761190210000 1320761190221000 1320761191800101 1320761192601300 1320761191800101 1320761192800101 DESCRIPTION SALARIES-CLERICAL FICA VRS MAC/EQUIP-REPLACEMENT INST/REC SUPPLIES MAC/EQUIP-REPLACEMENT MAC/EQUIP-REPLACEMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $1,792.40 108.98 203.62 17,941.83 180.00 6,077.81 10,348.69 $36,653.33 REVENI/E 2320751000510100 2320733000330107 DESCRIPTION CARL PERKINS GRANT-FUND BALANCE CARL PERKINS GRANT TOTAL AMOUNT $20,226.83 16,426.50 $36,653.33 Agenda Item No. 13q. Appropriation: Regional Adult Education Special- ist Grant, General Adult Education Grant and Adult Basic Education Grant. 000 .82 October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) Mr. Breeden said this funding will pay for the position of a Regional Adult Education Specialist to plan and carry out training for instructors, and provide services to adults working toward a high school diploma or a GED. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 NUMBER: 930032 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FOR REGIONAL ADULT EDUCATION SPECIALIST GRANT, GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION GR3~NT, AND ADULT BASIC EDUCATION GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1211361118111400 SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT 1211361118115000 SALARIES-CLERICAL 1211361118210000 FICA 1211361118221000 RETIREMENT 1211361118231000 HEALTH INSURANCE 1211361118232000 DENTAL INSURANCE 1211361118520000 COMMUNICATIONS 1211361118550100 TRAVEL 1211361107112100 SALARIES-TEACHER 1211361107210000 FICA 1211361107111400 SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT 1211361107112100 SALARIES-TEACHER 1211361107115000 SALARIES-CLERICAL 1211361107210000 FICA 1211361107221000 RETIREMENT 1211361107231000 HEALTH INSURANCE 1211361107232000 DENTAL INSURANCE 1211361107360000 ADVERTISING 1211361107550100 TRAVEL 1211361107580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 1211361107601300 RE/EDUC SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $17,500.00 3,531.00 1,609.00 2,389.00 1,109.00 42.00 1,000.00 3,000 00 7,818 86 598 14 3,911 13 20,981 50 882 67 1,97i 82 544 90 332 64 12 60 400 00 964 74 870.00 1,800.00 $71,269.00 REVENUE 2200024000240252 2200024000240240 2200024000240225 DESCRIPTION ADULT EDUC SPEC GRANT GENERAL ADULT EDUC GRANT ADULT BASIC EDuc GR3~NT TOTAL AMOUNT $30,180.00 8,417.00 32 , 672 . 00 $71,269.00 Agenda Item No. 13r. Appropriation: Title II Grant. Mr. Breeden said these funds will be used to develop a packet of math/science assessment tools. Training will be provided for teachers and workshops for parents to understand the math/science curriculum, rationale and techniques for high level thinking. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 NUMBER: 930033 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR TITLE II GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1320361101152100 1320361101160300 1320361101210000 1320361101312500 1320361101350000 1320361101601300 DESCRIPTION SUB WAGES-TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL STIPEND FICA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRINTING/BINDING EDUC/REC SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $2,000.00 1,000.00 153.00 2,000.00 847.00 4,382.32 $10,382.32 000 .83 October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) REVEI~JE 1320333000330208 DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT $10,382.32 $10,382.32 Agenda Item No. 13s. Appropriation: Drug Free Schools/Communities Grant and Communities Act Grant. Mr. Breeden said these funds will provide education and staff training for the prevention of substance abuse. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, .Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 NUMBER: 930034 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FLINDING FOR DRUG FREE SCHOOLS/ COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES ACT GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1310761101601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES 1310761311580000 MISCELLANEOUS 1310761311580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 1310761101601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES 1310761311580000 MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL AMOUNT $3,O33.82 1,000.00 2,000.00 1,300.00 264.47 $7,598.29 REVENUE 2310724000240500 2310751000510100 DESCRIPTION DRUG FREE SCHOOLS COMMUNITIES ACT GRANT-FI/ND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $6,033.82 1,564 . 47 $7,598.29 Not Docketed: Mr. Bain said Mr. Tucker expects to be back from the court hearing on the police case after 1:30 p.m. He said Mr. Tucker had suggested that the executive session discussion be deferred until that time. Mr. Huff announced that he just came from the court hearing, and it is expected, now, to go all day. It would be helpful if the executive session could be delayed until 2:00 p.m., because Mr. Tucker will be able to attend it at that time, although he will have to go back to the court hearing after the executive session. Mr. Bain suggested the Board reconvene at 1:30, with a discussion on accessory apartments. Mr. Huff then inquired if the Board members would like to have the reappropriation information back after lunch or later in the afternoon. Mr. Bain asked that this information be given to the superviSOrs when they reconvene after lunch. Mr. Marshall stated that he was going to have to leave the meeting by 3:00 p.m. (Note: At 12:27 p.m., the Board recessed for lunch, and reconvened at 1:30 p.m., with Mr. Bowerman being absent for the remainder of the meeting.) Agenda Item No. 15a. Work Session: Accessory Apartments (Housing Committee Report). Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning said Mr. Ron Higgins, from the City of Charlottesville, has been invited to attend this work session to speak about the City's experience with accessory apartments. He mentioned that Mr. Bain had brought ~ the fact that some subdivisions currently have restrictions against accessory apartments, but he indicated that the title company has not been able to complete that work. Mr. Keeler said at the recommendation by the Housing Committee, the Planning Commission has indicated a willingness to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow an apartment unit.as accessory to a single-family dwelling. The accessory dwelling unit would not count toward density restrictions and would be available in any zoning district allowing single-family dwellings. The matter was discussed with the Planning Commission in March, 1993 as to strategies to satisfy the intent of the provision. The Planning Commission acknowledged that such a provision may not significantly improve the low/ moderate cost housing stock, however, for additional reasons, it was believed that the measure might be appropriate. As with other housing strategies, the Planning Commission forwards its views to the Board together with a possible October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000134 (Page 41) ordinance amendment. At its July 7 meeting, the Board of Supervisors deter- mined that matters raised in the March 2 staff report had not been satisfacto- rily addressed and requested additional information. From the Board's discussion of July 7, the staff assumed the following assignments: 1) Assess the likelihood of conversion together with impacts on various "hardware" infrastructure (i.e., roads, water, sewer, etc.); 2) Ana- lyze effects on population distribution and Capital Improvement prOgram implications (i.e., predictability of provision of services on a spatial basis where density is not a controlling factor); 3) Address administrative/ interpretation and other problems as to when the accessory unit would "count" as a dwelling unit; and, 4) Assess prevalence of deed restrictions/covenants forbidding apartment units in subdivisions (not available at this time). In addition to these efforts, staff requested that appropriate City staff be available at the Board's October 6 meeting to discuss actual City experience in this area. Mr. Keeler said the figures shown on Attachment Three, relative to projected conversion of single-family dwellings to include accessory apart- ments, are likely to be high. The staff thinks the figures might be high for the growth areas because that is where there are larger subdivisions which are more likely to have those types of covenants. Although, that is not known at this time. The staff has projected approximately 630 accessory apartments in ten years, and noticed with this projection that approximately 70 percent of the single-family dwellings in the County are in rural areas. This is why it is the staff's prediction that the greatest number of accessory apartments will be in the rural areas. He then mentioned a letter from Mr. Thomas F. Behrendt, which the Supervisors received. Mr. Keeler said he does not ~hink the draft regulations would satisfy Mr. Behrendt's needs. Mr. Behrendt wants an apartment unit in a completely separate structure from the main dwelling. The staff is opposed to that, because then there would be two separate dwelling units on a given parcel of land. Mr. Marshall noted that a family of four can be put in an apartment, but sometimes the number will grow to be 12 or 13 people living there. This is also true with students. He will rent to students and they will sneak others into the apartment. Mr. Marshall said there is n~ way to control this, unless someone goes out to check on a daily basis. He added that when inquiries are made, the renters will answer with statements such as their cousins are spending the weekend there. Mr. Higgins agreed; he has had the same experi- ence. Mr. Marshall pointed out that with the economy the way it is, there will be more and more of these situations. He said that children will be moving back home, etc., and County officials need to be sympathetic to such things. Mr. Higgins said this is a family situation, and he has such things happen in his own family. There are also situations where elderly parents may want to live with their children. The parents are going to want some indepen- dence, so they will really want a separate unit. Under current regulations, it would be very difficult to do that. He added that a family could not have a parent come to live with them and provide them with a kitchenette and a bathroom. Mr. Marshall said he has found, since this is a college community, that if a person rents to students, the people who live in a unit cannot be controlled. Mr. Higgins said this has been a primary concern. A unit may be intended for a mother-in-law apartment, but it won't be used that way. He mentioned that the City has had a solid R1 neighborhood for 40 years and student rentals have been there for 30 or 40 years. This does not create a problem because they are a part of the dwelling. He then mentioned the possibility of a carriage house, such as a garage apartment which would be used for a guest house. People come to the City staff and tell the staff that they would love to have a guest house, but they do not want to rent to students. The City's ordinance prohibits guest houses. There are certain instances where he thinks a guest house could be very attractive and it would not have a big impact. If a neighborhood has 300 houses in it and ten houses have guest houses that would probably be okay. However, if there were 50 guest houses in that same area, it might change the character of the neighbor- hood. Mr. Marshall wondered about areas such as Locust Avenue, where there are houses that range anywhere from 3,000 to 6,000 square feet. The people are taxed on square footage. It becomes impossible to sell the property, because the City is really holding them back, as far as what they can do with their property° He mentioned the name of a particular couple in the Locust Avenue area~ It is a case where two people have a very large house, but they really cannot do anything with it. Mr. Higgins said he cannot comment on that case. However, this situa- tion is exactly what the City was trying to accomplish with its accessory apartments regulation. The City is seeing more and more people in large homes who want to have apartments. He has two neighbors who live close to him on Lexington Avenue who have recently signed contracts to sell their homes. One of these neighbors is an older woman with one boarder, and she realizes that even with this income, she cannot keep up this house. This woman is very October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 0001~5 (Page 42) healthy and very active. City officials understand this problem, but they have been unable to convince people that accessory apartments won't become a bigger problem. Me mentioned that Mr. Keeler has provided the Board with statistics about people with experience relating to accessory apartments. He likens it to the horror stories that the City staff always hears whenever there is a special permit for a group home. These stories range from a group home dropping the tax base in an area to destroying property value, etc., and not wanting certain people in neighborhoods. These remarks have no basis, and the experience with the group homes is such that the impact is simply not there, and the experience with accessory apartments is the same thing. He mentioned the national statistics about accessory apartments. Some places have had such apartments for 40 years, dating back to the 1950s, and one dates back to the 1960s. He pointed out that range of conversion has been from eight percent to 20 percent. This can be good if the conversion is spread out and properly distributed, but it can be bad if all ten percent is in one neighborhood. Mr. Marshall asked if the assessed value of a piece of property increas- es, if there is an accessory apartment. Mr. Higgins replied that if there is a second income involved, it will increase the value of the building, but it probably won't increase the value of the land. Mr. Marshall commented that the forms he gets from the City offices every year ask about everything that is going on with a piece of property. He has to report every bit of income, etc. Assessments go up every year, but his income on the buildings does not. Mr. Bain thanked Mr. Higgins for coming. He noted that the Board was going to have to go to executive session, at this time, but he invited Mr. Higgins to stay until after the executive session, if he so chooses. He then asked Mr. Keeler if he had other comments at this point. Mr. Keeler responded that he had no further comments at this time, except to say that he had asked the County Real Estate Department the same question about assessments. The Real Estate staff indicated that accessory apartments would increase the value of property, but they were reluctant to give out any information, because values have to be worked out according to the market. Mr. Marshall remarked that he is interested in how these assessments will occur, because the main reason people are being forced to rent their property is because they cannot keep up with the taxes. He said this is particularly true with elderly people. Mr. Keeler said he thinks the people renting out their property would initially get the windfall of no increase in taxes. He described a situation, however, where a house would sell for more money, because there is an income earning apartment in it. After a period of time, the Real Estate Department staff will take that into consideration, as far as assessments are concerned. He assumes this process would function in the same manner as the current assessment process. Mr. Marshall reiterated that he is concerned about this, because he is interested as to how assessments are being done now, and the value that the County has on a lot of its property. He said some of the County residents are having difficulty paying their taxes. Mr. Bain said the Board was going to go into executive session, and the Supervisors would continue this work session after the executive session adjourns. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 2:05 p.m., motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters (Claytor Others v. County of Albemarle), and personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. At 2:40 p.m, the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the following certificate: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma- tive recorded vote and in. accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 and 2.1-344.A.7 of the Code of virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformi- ty with Virginia law; October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 43) 000136 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Bowerman. ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. BoWerma~. ' Note: The Board returned to discussion of Agenda Item No. 15a. Work Session: Accessory Apartments (Housing Committee Report). Mr. Keeler called attention to the materials that the Board members received regarding accessory apartments. Mr. David Benish's, Chief of Community Development, memo indicates that it would be difficult to project the effect on the CIP. Ms. McCulley's memo points out the difficulties of interpretation by not calling an accessory apartment a dwelling unit. He also noted that accessory apartments might have an effect on certain situations. He mentioned that VDOT, for awhile, had a certain cul-de-sac design which would serve ten lots. He wondered how the Highway Department would view a subdivision which has ten lots, but also has the potential for accessory units. In addition, this could have an effect on a sewer line. In rural areas, the obvious concern is septic systems. Mr. Bain mentioned that he has a concern relative to a situation of a house on a two acre lot in a rural area, with the minimum drain field reqUire- ments. This could be a problem if someone wants to add an accessory apart- ment, and he asked how such a situation will be handled. He wondered if a person would be told that he or she cannot have an accessory unit unless there are more than two acres involved, or unless the number of individUals are less than the total requirement. He wondered, too, how this requirement can be enforced. Mr. Marshall responded that circumstances would prevent use of a septic system or water supply over time. Mr. Bain asked what period of time would be involved. Mr. Perkins stated that the drain field needs to be sized to the number of bedrooms. Mr. Keeler agreed. He added that if a basement is converted to more bedrooms, and a building permit is obtained, then more drain field would have to be added. Mr. Perkins agreed that the matter of the size of the septic system drain field would be handled when the building permit is obtained. Mr. Bain stated that a lot of people do not get building permits when they Should. Mr. Perkins commented that, legally, a building permit would be required. Mr. Keeler concurred. The Health Department sizes drain fields based on the number of bedrooms. A sanitarian has said to him that if someone wants to put in four kitchens in a house, that is fine, because people are only going to eat so much food. However, if only one more bedroom is added, then it will be assumed that two more people are living in that bedroom, and the drain field will have to be increased. Mr. Keeler said if it is permitted by right, then there would likely t© be more people who would conform. However, there will still be people in the County who will not want the additional expense of adding an apartment. Mr. Bain'recalled a situation which he had run into with his law practice. It was in a contract that a seller had represented he was selling a four bedroom house. This was innocent representation. It turned out not to be that way, because a building permit and a Health Department permit were found, and everything had been in place for three bedrooms. The situation which is being discussed today does not just relate to adding more drain field. The septic tank may not be sized properly, either, and the tank size will have to be increased, because of the bedrooms. Either a second tank will have to be installed, or the original tank will have to be replaced with a bigger tank. He inquired if the Supervisors should be getting involved with such matters. Mr. Keeler answered that, practically, what can be done with accessory apartments should be cleared up now. Currently, additional accommodations can be put within a house so long as nothing is done that would cause it to be defined as a dwelling unit. Mr. Bain asked what can be done now. Mr. Keeler replied that a person can put in additional bedrooms, and a bath and shower in an unfinished basement, but not a kitchen. He said this can be done under existing regulations. Mr. Marshall said he has 18 rooms in his house, and he asked how it would be determined how much drain field would be needed for this size house. Only he and his wife live there, but even when the Children were hOme, he never had over four bedrooms. He wondered if the County staff would consider that eight of these rooms are bedrooms. 000:1.37 October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 44) Mr. Keeler responded that the Health Department will not issue a septic permit until it is sure that the County Inspections Department has the same building plans that the Health Department has, and he pointed out that bedrooms are shown on a building plan. He said that if a person wanted to convert a basement to two bedrooms and not expand the drain field, the two rooms might be shown as a den and recreation room, when it is fully intended that bedrooms will be there. He does not want the Supervisors to get the idea that codifying this matter is going to do aWay with the problem of people who are not going to comply with regulations, no matter what they are. Mr. Marshall emphasized that if a house has a lot of rooms, they can be called anything. Mr. Martin commented that if a house plan is examined, every room would probably be called a bedroom, except for the living room, den and kitchen. Mr. Bain called attention .to the rural areas where 400 accessory units are projected over a ten year period. He wondered how many could USe the existing regulations now, without going through the accessory apartments regulations. Mr. Keeler replied that the correct answer would be that all of them could use the existing regulations, but the problem relates to cases where people want the unit to be completely separate from the main unit. He mentioned that it could be a situation where a grandmother may want to live with her grandchildren, but not as a part of the family. He said she may still want to be independent. Mr. Bain said this is a different issue. Mr. Keeler then mentioned that people may want to rent property to University students, and those people may want to take advantage of the proposed regulation. He said the staff sees this regulation being employed in two cases. One case might involve a family member or close friend or someone who is distressed in some fashion either financially, emotionally or physical- ly, who would need to live with someone, but who needs to be independent in a separate unit. He went on to say that another case would involve a rental unit. He thinks the existing regulations are more likely to involve people who want family members to live with them. He added that he thinks these are the people who would take advantage of the conversions which are now allowed' It is less likely that people who want to rent a full unit out to students would use the current conversions. He emphasized that this is just his opinion, and he cannot back it up with any information. Mr. Martin remarked that there is a situation in his neighborhood where the children live upstairs, and the parents live downstairs. These people would like to install a kitchen downstairs, but they cannot because it would make two separate units in the house. Mr. Bain stated that definitions in subdivisions have to be taken into consideration. He said the subdivision regulations might allow two seParate units in a family situation, but they might not allow it for income producing purposes. He thinks there will be a large number of units that will be eliminated, if existing number of dwelling units are considered. It might be a different picture with rural individual properties which are not in subdivi- sions. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bain was saying he thinks there are a lot of covenants relating to subdivisions which might not allow for accessory apartments, even if the County did allow for them. Mr. Bain concurred. He asked if the Board would have the information relating to subdivisions in a couple of weeks. Mr. Keeler replied that Mr. St. John has been working with the title companies to get this information. He is uncertain if Mr. St. John has an estimated time as to when this information will be available. It is a long list of subdivisions. Mr. Bain said he understands. He added that most of the title companies have this information on file, and it is just a matter of someone going through it. Mr. St. John commented that he thinks the informa- tion will be in his hand within two weeks. Mr. Bain remarked that this matter could be revisited by this Board next month. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bain is saying that the subdivision informa- tion will cut down on the number of accessory apartments. Mr. Bain said that potentiality is important to him. He said if there is ail issue which needs to be addressed with older people, then perhaps this issue ~hould be addressed separately, rather than increasing the availability of al)artments for lower and moderate income people. Mr. Keeler mentioned that when this matter was taken to the Planning Commission, the staff indicated that compared to some more direct types of strategies, this strategy probably would not be as successful as far as percentages are concerned. This is simply increasing the housing availabili- ty. Many of the Commissioners agreed with that, but there were other reasons why they felt this strategy was appropriate. These reasons were discussed in the Planning Commission meeting, and the letter that the Supervisors received addresses this. Some commissioners felt there was nothing wrong with either situation of providing housing for family or friends or for income produCtion to the homeowners. Mr. Martin concurred. Even if he found out that the majority of these units would be used for family members, he still would not want to disallow the possibility of using units for income production. In his opinion, it is October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000138 (~age 45) important that the housing be owner occupied. He commented that even though Mr. Marshall has called attention to the fact that such regulations are hard to enforce, neighbors will usually complain if there are problems. The County staff will not be able to police such situations, but there would be a reason to stop it, if there are complaints. If neighbors are not complaining, then the situation does not need to be policed, and it is not a problem. He then wondered where this Board is going from here on this matter. Mr. Bain indicated that the meeting today is just a work session. He next asked if it is the staff's position not to get into the size and form of housing. Mr. Keeler remarked that the staff had just gone through the same type of exercise with mobile homes when the accessory apartments report was written. The staff has concluded that if accessory units are going to be allowed, then there should not be a lot of artificial regulations, such as trying to make a house with two units look as though it is just one unit. A lot of unenforceable or questionable restrictions should not be attached. Basically these regulations would still discriminate against the accessory apartment unit in an attempt to at least control the size, although a square footage restriction was not developed. The 30 percent floor area regulation was recommended because of the idea that there could be a two story house with an unfinished basement, and the basement might be finished as an apartment. He mentioned that there are some other things in the draft regulations that may not be approved over time. He recalled that the letter from Mr. Behrendt is already a move away from the idea of having an accessory unit in the dwelling, and instead, it would be in a separate structure on the same property. This is a difficult thing to explain to somebody, because the ordinance indicates there can be two units on a piece of property, so it causes people to wonder what difference it makes, if they are in two separate buildings. Mr. Keeler explained that the difference relates to the fact that two separate lots are involved. He recalled that not so long ago he signed a plat where a property owner had a family member living in an apartment in a garage. The property owner was transferred somewhere else, and he sold his property, but he did not sell the acreage with the garage apartment. Mr. Keeler emphasized that he feels if separate units can be rented, then they can probably be sold. Mr. Martin called attention to the fact that the property owner to which Mr. Keeler referred had enough property to have the house and the garage apartment on at least two acres each. He does not believe this type of situation would be the norm. Mr. Keeler responded that the main idea with an accessory apartment is that it does not count for its density. He said there can be a separate apartment in every residential district and the rural area, except for the R1 and R2 districts, if the density requirements are now met. If the idea is to make accessory apartments available to everybody, then the only way to do that is to not count them as double densities for all addi- tions. Mr. Bain asked if Ms. McCulley has any comments to make, in addition to her August 23, 1993 memorandum. Ms. McCulley answered that she does not have anything to add, except to say that the staff frequently has to deal with people who have to modify their building plans to remove additional kitchens. Mr. Bain asked if this type of situation happens mostly in the rural areas. Ms. McCulley responded affirmatively. Mr. Martin stated that he would like to see the accessory apartments proposal proceed. He asked if it has to go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Keeler replied that the Planning Commission is simply reporting to the Supervisors its opinion on the accessory apartments strategy. The regulations have been drafted, but there has been no adoption of a resolution of intent. Mr. Bain commented that whatever this Board decides to do, the matter will have to go back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Mrs. Humphris asked if this Board needs to get the information relative to the subdivision regulations. Mr. Bain said he thinks it is important to get this information, before action is taken by this Board. A decision should be reached as to whether or not a distinction needs to be made between the rural areas and other places. He understands what the staff is saying, which is that in a number of areas accessory apartments can basically be added without kitchens. Obviously, this is being done. However, the income producing apartment aspect has to be considered. He noted that regulations concerning septic drain fields, etc., also have to be examined. He has heard comments from people about problems where there are currently small lots, and there are drain field problems. Somehow a structure gets built on these lots, because permits are applied for, and they are issued. He pointed out that neighbors are asking how this can be done, because of problems with the soil. There are problems in certain areas in the County, particularly the percolation of soil, and he wonders where this fits into the accessory apartments situation. This regulation cannot be eliminated, because it is a Health Department regulation. He asked if lots which are nonconforming now, such as three-quarters of an acre that have been there for a long time, will be allowed to have accessory apartments. He also inquired if there will be a cut-off in terms of acreage requirements in the rural area. These problems need to be addressed, but he does not want to overburden these issues. He emphasized, however, that he has had people October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000 139 (Page 46) express such concerns to him. He is talking about the rural area, and not where there is water and sewer service provided. He then wondered, for example, if the covenants allowed for accessory apartments to be located in Hollymead, and there was one in 20 units, how would this impact the Subdivi- sion, in terms of traffic, etc. Mr. Martin commented that it appears the problems with accessory apartments are health, water and septic fields. He thinks these types of issues take care of themselves, regardless of whether or not the accessory apartment is being done to produce income, or if it is just being used for a family member. If he decided to build an accessory apartment in his basement, and if he profited from it, he would have to pass the necessary requirements. If he did it without meeting the necessary requirements, then it will become a problem in the future, because he won't be able to get enough water, or the drain field will overloaded. This would mean that he would be responsible for putting-in a new drain field, etc. Mr. Keeler informed the Board members that many of the County's regula- tions are based on density or the number of units involved. There are going to be cases where he thinks the Supervisors would want the units to count as units, and other cases where they may not want them to do so. He mentioned an example of a five lot subdivision served by a private road. If one of the owners along the road decides to put in an accessory apartment and rents it to four University students, this could mean more automobiles on that road, as well as different schedules. He would think that other homeowners along that road would be concerned that this person with the basement apartment is not paying his fair share of the upkeep of the road, because there are five vehicles at that house, whereas the other houses only have two vehicles. He asked if the Supervisors would want that accessory apartment to count as a unit for road maintenance, etc. The staff has not gotten down to the fine points on such questions. He agreed, however, that other issues would take care of themselves, with the permit process. Mr. Bain remarked that if Mr. St. John can get the information from the title companies within two weeks, perhaps this issue can be discussed at the day meeting in November. He wondered if the staff could have the sections singled out that would need to be addressed, if the Board moved forward with a resolution at that time. Mr. Keeler said he can go through the ordinance and pick out the sections involved. He is not confident that he will have time to sit down with the Zoning staff and go over them in detail. He can pOint out sections in the ordinance such as recreation provisions that are based on density and number of units. He can do this much by November. Mr. Bain inquired if it is the Board's desire to move in this direction. If this Board is going to proceed in some rational fashion, then some things need to be done, now, or they can be done with the resolution of intent. He would like to know the various provisions that would be affected. He is not implying that the staff has to adapt the language, yet. He wants the sections identified, and he wants to know why the particular sections need to be examined. Mrs. Humphris remarked that she feels the whole Board needs a list of the issues. The different issues involved are shown throughout the documents, but they are not all gathered together. The Supervisors need to see them in one place, so they can have a discussion in an efficient, rational manner, and these issues can be examined one at a time. Mr. Martin concurred. When he went through the information, it was hard to keep all of the issues in mind. Mrs. Humphris suggested that a staff member could go through the materials and pick out all of the issues. These issues could, then, be presented to the Board with the pros and cons listed, as well as any other information that is available on each issue. Mr. Bain pointed out that a lot of this was done with the March memorandum. Mrs. Humphris said that a compiled list of the issues would give this Board a giant step forward in being able to have a good discussion. Mr. Bain said he does not want the Zoning and Planning staffs to spend an inordinate amount of time on this matter. If the Board is going to approve accessory apartments, the time spent should be kept at a minimum. Mr. Martin agreed that the staff should not have to spend a lot of time on this issue, even if it means it will take longer for the information to come back to this Board. Mr. Bain wondered if the Board needs to consider which accessory apartments should be considered separate dwelling UnitS, and the enforceabili- ty of that, legally. He asked, if the Board does not consider this point, will this be a discrimination against someone else who is in a subdivision where this regulation would not apply. A subdivision might have certain covenants that would have a different requirement for drain field needs. He would like to know the answers to these legal questions. He is not asking Mr. St. John to address every possible point, but he wants to know if the Board is going in the right direction. Mr. Keeler said that by the November meeting, he can probably give this Board a summary of the issues, and legal aspects can be discussed with Mr. St. John. Also, by that time, the information from the title companies should be available. The reason he suggested the ordinance sections be identified is October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 47) 000 140 because all of the issues should be handled at one time. Then there could be an understanding with the Commission and this Board as to when it is appropri- ate for these apartments to count as separate units and when they should not be counted, at all. He reiterated that there are maintenance agreements, recreation requirements and other aspects of the ordinance which have always been based on the number of units and densities. Mr. Martin recalled that Mr. Keeler had mentioned this information could be back to this Board by November. He would rather for the staff members to take their time and bring it back with all of the information in one place. This would be better than having the information coming from so many different directions. Mr. Bain remarked that this concerns him, because if this Board decides it will not go forward with the accessory apartments issue, then the staff will have already done all of the detail work. He is looking at the broader picture. If the issues can be addressed, and the Board decides to go forward, then, before advertisements are done, the details can be worked out. If the staff does a lot of the detail work, and it takes 90 days, and this Board does not want to pursue the issue, then that work will be for nothing. Mr. Martin stated that he is not referring to a lot of detail work. He emphasized that he would like to see all of the issues in one place, and the details can be listed that need to be discussed. The proper language, etc., can be done at a later time. Mr. Bain said he would like to have the information by the November day meeting, but if it is not ready, then the issue can be carried forward. He asked, however, that the Board be informed as to where the staff is in this process. He would like to have the subdivision information when it is received. Mr. Keeler indicated that he would like to wait until December to bring back all of the information to the Board, because he is going to be out of town for awhile. Board members concurred. Note: The Board returned to discussion of Agenda Item No. 13h. Reappropriation of FY 1992/93 General Fund Projects and Requests. Mr. Bain mentioned that Mr. Breeden had given the Supervisors, during lunch, the information relating to the reappropriation of FY 1992-93 General Fund projects and requests that they had asked for earlier in the meeting. He then inquired about the request involving the replacement of three police vehicles. Mr. Breeden replied that the money involved is a combination of insurance reimbursements for some vehicles that were wrecked shortly before June 30, 1993. Mr. Marshall wondered why so many vehicles are being wrecked. He asked if it is the County employees' fault or other people's fault. Mr. Breeden answered that it is the fault of both. (Note: Mr. St. John left the meeting at 3:15 p.m. in the middle of this discussion.) Mr. Bain asked if a reappropriation of funds is when funds are there for 1992-93, but they were not expended. Mr. Breeden indicated that this was correct. Mr. Huff addressed Mr. Marshall's question about the wrecked vehicles. Mr. Huff said there are times when a 1990 Chevrolet police car is wrecked, and something much less might replace it. He emphasized that these police cars have to be replaced, so that is why there is a discrepancy between the insurance proceeds and what it would cost to buy others. Mr. Bain next called attention to the items involw~ng the Commonwealth Attorney's office. He asked if these items had been in that budget, but they were not originally funded. He wondered if it is being shown as a new appropriation now. Mr. Huff responded that several of the things shown for the Commonwealth Attorney's office were requested in the budget, but they did not get funded. There was some money left over in that i992-93 budget, and the Commonwealth Attorney is asking that it be made available for this year. He called attention to the request for the part-time law student intern, and he said that the Commonwealth Attorney was able to pay for this item last year from within existing funds. He added that there was some money left over in this budget, so the Commonwealth Attorney is asking that the intern item be continued. The intern did some legal research for the Commonwealth Attorney, and that was the justification for the item. Mr. Martin asked if the intern is being paid. Mr. Huff replied that the intern is being paid a small amount. Mr. Bain said he understands the new appropriations. He explained that the money is coming from departments' funds that were left over from 1992-93. Mr. Breeden said in all cases the departments had at least all of that amount of money left over in their 1992-93 budgets. He said the items under the reappropriation column are mostly items that were in process on June 30, 1993. Mr. Bain responded that he understands this. He had wanted information about the new items. Mr. Breeden explained that the new items are a mixture of requests which have come up since July 1, 1993. They were either not known at that time, or they are specific requests from departments. Many of these items were in the departments' original budgets. October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000141 (Page 48) Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 NI/MBER: 930021 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF PROJECTS AND REQUESTS FROM FY 1992/93 EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100012140520100 1100012140800700 1100013020520100 1100021020601200 1100021020800200 1100022010520100 1100022010800200 1100022010800700 1100031013601100 1100031013800100 1100031013800101 1100031013800501 1100031014800100 1100131020800300 1100031040950054 1100032011601400 1100032011800300 1100032011900700 1100041000312700 1100041000331100 1100041000331901 1100041000550400 1100041000600100 1100041000800200. 1100042040390001 1100042040390010 1100042040510430 1100043000160805 1100043000331200 1100043000332200 100043000550400 1100043000600700 1100053011800700 1100053012800201 1100053012800700 1100053013540100 1100053013571103 1100053013800201 1100059000563000 1100081010312700 1100081010312701 1100081010350000 1100081010390000 1100081040350000 1100081040800200 1100081040800300 1100081040800700 DESCRIPTION FINANCE FINANCE BD. OF ELECTIONS GEN. DIST. CT COMM. ATTORNEY CO. ATTORNEY CO. ATTORNEY COMM. ATTORNEY POLICE PATROL POLICE PATROL POLICE PATROL POLICE PATROL POLICE-INVEST. SHERIFF E911 FIRE/RESCUE FIRE/RESCUE FIRE~RESCUE ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE STAFF SERVICES STAFF SERVICES STAFF SERVICES STAFF SERVICES STAFF SERVICES VPAMANAGEMENT VPA BENEFITS VPA BENEFITS VPA SERVICES VPA SERVICES VPA SERVICES CONTRIB HUM.DEV. PLANNING PLANNING PLDdW-NING PLANNING ZONING ZONING ZONING ZONING AMOUNT POSTAL SERVICES $10,000.00 ADP EQUIP. 5,000.00 POSTAL SERVICES 3,300.00 BOOKS & SUBSC. 1,500.00 SALARIES-P/T 1,500.00 POSTAL SERVICES 200.00 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 1,500.00 ADP EQUIP. 1,500.00 UNIFORMS 4,320.00 MAC. & EQUIP. 1,480.00 MAC.& EQUIP. REPLACE. 740.00 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 40,000.00 MAC. & EQUIP. 1,110 00 COMM. EQUIP. 7,000 00 MISC. IMPLEMENTATION 980 00 SUPPLIES 2,000 00 COMM. EQUIP. 2,500 00 ADP EQUIP. 5,000 00 PROF. SERV. CONSUL. 3,500 00 REP. & MAINT. EQUIP. 150 00 DETENTION BASINS 1,500 00 TRAVEL-EDUC. 1,000 00 OFFICE SUPPLIES 300 00 FURN. & FIXTURES 800.00 KEENE 210 912.00 CURBSIDE RECYCLING 95 000.00 TIPPING FEES 1 707.00 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 5 000.00 REP. & MAINT. BLDG 45 500.00 MAINT CONTR3~CT BLDG 12 050.00 TRAVEL/EDUC. 150.00 REP. & MAINT. SUPPLIES 1,200.00 ADP EQUIP. FURN. & FIXT. REPL. ADP EQUIP. LEASE/RENT-EQUIP. SSBG-PURC. OF SERV. FURN. & FIXT REPL DISTRICT HOME PROF. SERV.-CONSUL. D/P CONSULTANTS PRINTING & BINDING PURC. OF SERVICES PRINTING & BINDING FURN. & FIXTURES COMM. EQUIP. ADP EQUIP. TOTAL 5,400 00 32,600 00 8,800 00 300 00 1,500 00 1,650 00 6,061.00 2,600.00 5,000.00 2,100.00 30,260.00 2,300.00 3,000.00 1,800.00 2,300.00 $575,070.00 REVENUE 2100051000510100 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUND BALANCE $575,070.00 TOTAL $575,070.00 Agenda Item No. 15b. Work Session: Neighborhood Three Study. Mr. Cilimberg said that in 1992, the Board of Supervisors endorsed a neighborhood study process for the Growth Areas in the County. The purpose of these studies was to: 1) Establish at the neighborhood scale a more de- tailed, design oriented plan to achieve the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) Support and further emphasize the Growth Area in a manner consistent with the County's growth management policy; 3) Establish a process for public participation in the planning and decision making process; and, 4) Synthesize into one planning document the other planning efforts/ studies which impact the Growth Area. A study for the Neighborhood Three area was the first such study to be completed. A committee made up of landowners, business owners, citizens residing and working in Neighborhood Three and the Planning Commissioner representing the area was established to direct the staff in the development October 6, 1993 (Resular Day Meetins) O0014Z (Page 49) of this study. The Committee completed its work and held a public information meeting on May 5, 1993, at the County Office Building to provide citizens living and working in Neighborhood Three an opportunity to provide input on the study. Approximately 20 residents and business owners from Neighborhood Three and the surrounding area attended this meeting. The Neighborhood Three Committee subsequently endorsed the study and forwarded it to the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission held three work sessions on the Neighborhood Three Study and recommended some changes, the majority of which deal with the rephrasing of the recommendation statements to a more passive form and the insertion of a general statement indicating that the quantitative impact of funding any projects or programs recommended shall be fully understood before County funds are allocated. These changes were recommended by the Commission to ensure that readers of the document clearly understand that recommendations serve only.as aguide for development of Neighborhood Three and that adoption of the study does not constitute a commitment by the County toward funding of the recommendations. Mr. Cilimberg said some members of the Neighborhood Three Committee believed that the changes recommended by the Commission "water down" the study and are inappro- priate since the study is intended to represent the views of the citizens living and working in Neighborhood Three. Therefore, the Commission's recommended changes stand as a separate transmittal. Since this is the first Neighborhood Study to be completed, the Commission requested that the Study be forwarded to the Board for comment prior to the Commission's public hearing. In particular, the Commission wishes the Board to comment on its recommended wording and provide direction as to whether or not this amended wording should be a guiding principle for adoption of the study recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Humphris remarked that she has been really impatient with this matter. She said that given the background of this item, the whole idea that was embarked upon, was to go to the public and find out what the public wanted. It would then be discussed and documented for purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. She thinks this group has developed what it wants to have happen in Neighborhood Three. When the recommendation indicates that a landscape plan should be developed and implemented, that is what this group meant that it wanted to have happen. She does not consider it planning when the Planning Commission softened the recommendations so that instead of an action, the plan would indicate that action would be considered. When the idea was adopted that it should be clearly understood there is no obligation on anybody's part to fund or do any of the recommendations, then that took care of the obligation. It was clearly put under every implementation that there is no obligation on anybody's part to do it, but it was understood from the Neighborhood Three Study, that this is what the group wanted to have done. She thinks there is no question everybody realizes this is a "wish list'." She emphasized that she would like for the plan to say what it means which is to "develop and implement", instead of to consider doing these things. Mr. Marshall said he understands what Mrs. Humphris is saying, but he disagrees with her on some points. He asked why, if the County cannot afford to do these things, should all indications be that these things will be done. He added that this will disappoint the people. Mr. Martin commented that it is a question of who is saying that these things will be done. Ms. Humphris remarked that the planners, may indicate what will be done, and that is fine, but it is the governing body which will appropriate funds for the projects. She said the situation seems so clear to her, and that is what the Comprehensive Plan is all about. The study is pulled down in the process by the Planning body when it indicates that it will consider doing these things. It is as if the Planning Commission is only going halfway in its decision making. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the Planning Commission is looking for some direction from this Board. Mrs. Humphris indicated that her direction to the Planning Commission would be to take the study back and proceed the way it was planned originally. The Commission members need to advise whether or not they want these recommen- dations developed and implemented. She went on to say that if, in the future, the recommendations are developed and implemented~ that is fine. She added that, if they are not, then they will have gone through the process. A decision will be made at that time as to whether or not there is the money to proceed. She reiterated that the situation Should be t°ld as it is. Mrs. Humphris next mentioned the funding of bus service to Pantops. The Supervisors already know how much it will cost to fund bus service to Pantops, and they know that there is no money to do it. Nevertheless, she thinks it should be pointed out that bus service to Pantops is needed. Mr. Marshall stated that he thinks the Pantops bus service situation has already been noted. Mr. Bain referred to the Planning Commission's general comment that is shown in the front of the recommendations and implementation section of the Neighborhood Three Study. He asked if Mrs. Humphris is saying that this statement should be included one time, but it does not need to be put in front of all of the recommendations. Mrs. Humphris responded that she is saying two 000 .43 October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 50) things. She agreed that a general understanding that these are recommenda- tions, and there is no funding or implementation guarantee could be included one time. However, that language was changed in all of these recommendations from "develop" and "implement" to "consider". She thinks this language puts everything back to the way it was. She called attention to the wording, "provide a safe and integrated pedestrian system within Neighborhood Three." She emphasized that the plan should say exactly that, instead of saying that it will be "considered." Mr. Martin concurred that one disclaimer sentence is enough. Mr. Bain also agreed. He added that he thinks Mr. Marshall will also agree, as long as the understanding is clear, and the disclaimer is included one time in the plan. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that PACC Area B studies have been done, but every word of that study is not put into the Comprehensive Plan. He said it is a reference study, and it is adopted by the bodies as a guiding document. This plan is also to be a guiding document and when the Comprehensive Plan is actually amended, the wording will reference that document. The general comment could say that the Neighborhood Three Study would be used as a guideline or a guiding document, and that would be the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The document stands on its own, and he does not think the language needs to be changed within the document. He mentioned that if there is something in the document the Supervisors do not want included, then he thinks that is what this Board needs to address. He remarked that the Board can address these things when this matter is brought to public hearing. Mrs. Humphris inquired if the Planning Commission just wanted to know the Supervisors' opinions. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. Mr. Marshall stated that the Supervisors are not disagreeing with the Commission- ers. Mrs. Humphris concurred that the Supervisors are not disagreeing with the Commissioners, but it was the way the information was worded which concerned her. Mr. Cilimberg stated that when this issue is discussed further, the staff members need to make sure that they talk to the Supervisors about how to keep the neighborhood committees involved in this process. He reminded the Board that this is not a one time situation. He mentioned that the Crozet Committee has been even more active than the Neighborhood Three Committee, and he pointed out that there will be others. He mentioned that the staff will talk more to the Supervisors about the situation, when the matter is taken to public hearing. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Perkins handed to each Board member a booklet entitled ',Technology Proposal for Virginia L. Murray Elementary School." He said the Board members are invited to a meeting at the school on October 7, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. He has researched the study and finds that it contains good ideas although it does require some funding. He thinks something could be accomplished working with the University of Virginia. He noted that students at Henley Middle School and Western Albemarle High School should be involved so that as children progress it will continue on to the other schools. Mr. Bain asked when staff will have something definitive to report about the Noise Ordinance. In reference to visioning for the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Bain said he would like an answer next week as to when a contract will be let. Mrs. Humphris asked if a certificate of occupancy is denied at the staff level, if that decision can be appealed. Mr. Marshall asked that he be appointed to the committee which decides each year what the employee's health insurance plan will be. He feels that he has first hand knowledge as to the way these plans work which would be beneficial to the committee. Every time the employees' insurance program is changed, he gets complaints. He does not believe the employees understand the information that is coming to them. He is the logical one that they talk to, because they are filling prescriptions at his Pharmacy. In addition to that, he is a Supervisor. There also seem to be problems with mail orders and medications which are not available. The insurance companies sell these programs, but they do not tell the County administrators what is involved with them, and the employees are totally at the mercy of what the administrators give them. The employees are being forced to accept the programs, without knowing what they are really accepting. The County is running into some serious problems. He has not talked to the doctors, yet, but he plans to do sod at the request of a couple of the County employees. He can tell the October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 51) 000 .44 Supervisors some of the things that the employees are not getting in the pharmacy, and it so happens that Mr. Brandenburger was involved with one of these situations. Mr. Marshall mentioned that Mr. Brandenburger could not find some medication, even under the old plan, and it was just luck that his pharmacy had it. Mr. Marshall then gave an example of a prescription he filled a few days ago and his cost was $339. He said the way this plan is set up, he makes $3.50 above the average wholesale price for prescription drugs, less an 11 percent discount. The maximum discount that he can get is 12 percent, but Blue Cross has an 11 percent discount on prescription drugs. This leaves him nothing on the amount over $300. Naturally, as a businessman he is going to tell the person that he cannot operate on this type of markup, and the person will have to send this off to a mail order company. -For maintenance medica- tions, this would be the logical route, anyway, because a person can get a three months supply from a mail order company, as opposed to a one month's supply from a pharmacy. The medication can also be received at a cheaper rate from the mail order company. He explained, however, the problem is that when the order is sent to the mail order company, it does not have the particular brand that the person normally uses, and another brand is substituted. The person does not want to accept a substitute brand, and he is caught in the middle of this problem. He believes the Supervisors and County employees need to know what is involved. The doctors are faced with the same type of situation, because they have procedures that cost a certain amount. He then mentioned that Dr. Frank Taylor is a friend of his, and he recently retired. Dr. Taylor informed him that he was tired of paying people to come to see him. Mr. Marshall went on to say that a procedure might cost $35, and the insurance company will reimburse the doctor $26. The doctor loses $9.00, and he is paying the patient $9.00 to come to see him. Dr. Taylor said this is ridiculous. Mr. Marshall informed Board members that this is the kind of thing with which doctors and pharmacists are faced. He is not sure what the answer is, but he can envision everybody going to clinics and waiting no matter how long it takes. Insurance companies are making a fortune and drug companies are making a fortune, and there are other institutions in between. The~people who are actually performing the services are the ones who are the losers. Blue Cross had an excess of $55.0 million last year in profit, but that company is paying another company to administer these programs, and the people are paying the cost of it through premiums. The County officials need to look at vendors, HMO or whatever else is available to find a cheaper way so the County employees can get better care. When HMO is involved, the program relates to clinical type medicine. He said people are going to have to understand they cannot get the professional services they have been getting in the past because nobody is paying for it. He will be happy to tell the Supervisors on a case-by-case basis what is going on, because he thinks they need to know. Mr. Bain stated that the Board probably should have a work session on this matter. Mr. Huff mentioned that there is a fairly broad employee group which has been assembled to consider the various health care options. He said the group functioned this past year, and it is antiCipated that it will function the coming year. Different professionals have been brought in to help this group understand the issues. The pharmaceutical end of the business is a concern, so perhaps Mr. Marshall, and/or others, could be involved in a session with the group. Recommendations from the group could be provided to the Supervi- sors as another alternative. He does not question that Mr. Marshall is getting bombarded with people who simply do not understand, but one of the County staff's frustrations has been that the Benefits group held seven different educational sessions for employees, both during work hours and after hours. Out of 2,000 employees a total of 200 employees attended these sessions. This group went to the Police Department during the midnight shift, as well as the Bus Garage, and a real effort was made to meet employees at a time that was convenient for them. people knew there was a big change, because Key Care I had been eliminated, and there was a lot to explain. He reiterated that it is frustrating to the staff, because information was sent out and educational programs were done, but employees did not participate. Mr. Marshall commented that the employees will not read the information, and if they do read it, they do not understand it. Albemarle County is a very small part of the problem with the people with which he has to deal. He mentioned that the University of Virginia and every major employer in the area has a different insurance plan, and nobody knows what is going on. People like himself, who have to try to explain such things to people, cannot do it. He added that the pharmacists try, but with the kind of money that they are making, they do not have the time to sit down and go over insurance plans with each and every person who comes in to the Pharmacy, when they are not getting reimbursed anything for it. Approved by Board Initials O00 .4S October 6, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 52) Agenda Item No. 17. With no further business to come before the Board, at 3:45 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn until October 11, 1993, at 5:30 P.M., for a Joint Meeting with the School Board. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. i