Loading...
1993-11-03000'196 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 3, 1993, beginning at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., 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., County Attorney, George R. St. John, and, Director of Planning and Community Develop- ment, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:06 A.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Agenda Item No. 4. Public. There were none. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.2a, and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda for information (conversation which occurred will be set out with the appropriate agenda title). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Authorize Chairman to sign agreement with Town of Scottsville for development, maintenance and use of Dorrier Park. An advisory group named the "Scottsville Parks Development Association" was formed in 1992 to further outdoor recreation improvements for the Sco- ttsville Community Center property and adjacent field owned by the Town. A five-year plan for funding these improvements was included in the County's 1993-94 Capital Improvement Program. Proposed improvements include playground equipment, two baseball fields, soccer and lacrosse goals, picnic shelter, outdoor basketball goals, rest room access and tennis courts. Since the majority of improvements would occur on Town property, staff felt a formal agreement should be signed to protect the County's investment. The agreement was developed by the County Attorney's Office and is patterned after the Crozet Park Agreement. By the recorded vote shown above, the Chairman was authorized to sign the following Agreement: THIS AGREEMENT, made this 2nd day of September, 1993, by and between the TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE, VIRGINIA, (the "Town"), and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, (the "County"); WI TNE S SETH : 1. The Town is the owner of Dorrier Park in the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, further described as Albemarle County Tax Map 130, Parcel 75A. 2. The County proposes from time to time to make recre- ational improvements to Dorrier Park that have been jointly agreed to by the Town and the County. The County will assist in the maintenance of Dorrier Park and in the mowing and trimming of the park grounds. Such improvements are subject to annual appropria- tion by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. 3. Decisions as to lighting of Dorrier Park shall be within the discretion of the Town. 4. Dorrier Park shall be used for recreational and public uses unless the Town and the County jointly agree otherwise. Item 5.2. Fire Marshal and Assistant Fire Marshal for Albemarle County pursuant to Section 27-34.2:1 of the Code of Virginia. On February 3, 1993, the Board authorized the additional responsibilities of fire cause, origin and arson investigations for the vacant position of Fire Prevention Officer. This November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~9~ (Page 2) position has since been filled by Mr. Bruce Crow from Stafford County who is a certified Virginia Fire Marshal with extensive training in fire investigation. In the first 60 days of employment, assistance from staff was requested on two separate incidents which led to a total of four fires of suspicious origin, with charges placed against the individual responsible for three of the fires, one of which was an occupied dwelling at the time the fire was set. Section 27-30 of the Code of Virginia enables counties to appoint an individual to investigate arson as well as cause and origins of fires within the county. Such an individual is legally termed a Fire Marshal. This appointment requires the individual at all times to use a police officer to assist with the investigation, interviewing of witnesses, collection of evidence and placing of charges. Section 27-34.2:1 of the Code allows the local governing body to grant authority to a non-police employee to handle the investigation alone if police assistance is not available. This prevents tying up valuable law enforcement resources for what can be significant periods of time. This statute grants police powers in the investigation and prosecution of all offenses involving fires. Recent experience in conducting these investigations indicates an inefficient utilization of manpower due to Mr. Crow having to be accompanied by a police officer during questioning of witnesses, retrieval of simple evidence, etc. Chief Miller and his staff are in full support of developing a cooperative working relationship with the structure as outlined below. Staff recommends that the Board designate Mr. Carl Pumphrey as Fire Marshal for Albemarle County and Mr. Bruce Crow as Assistant Fire Marshal. This dual appoin{ment is requested in order to have a back up lawfully appointed should Mr. Crow not be available due to illness, vacation, etc. Mr. Crow currently holds all necessary state required certifications to assume this role and Mr. Pumphrey holds all certifications except one state-sponsored class. Staff further recommends that police powers to investigate and prosecute all offenses involving fires and related false alarms pursuant to Section 27-34.2:1 of the Code be granted to Mr. Pumphrey and Mr. Crow. This is considered a part of their current job description, although formal designa- tion is required by state code in order to enable these individuals to conduct investigations. By the recorded vote set out above, Mr. Carl Pumphrey was designated as Fire Marshal with Mr. Bruce Crow being designated as Assistant Fire Marshal, with police powers to investigate and prosecute all offenses involving fires and related false alarms pursuant to Section 27-34.2:1 of the Code being granted to Mr. Pumphrey and Mr. Crow. Item 5.2a. Authorize Chairman to execute an addendum to lease agreement for Offender Aid & Restoration to guarantee security deposit. Ms. Pat Smith, Executive Director for Offender Aid & Restoration (OAR) contacted both the City and the County in an effort to prevent having to tie up $2080 of nonprofit funds for five years as a security deposit for new quarters that they are moving into in downtown Charlottesville. Staff recommends that the City and the County consider guaranteeing performance of the lease by OAR by each jurisdiction agreeing to pay one-half of the damages up to the total amount of the security deposit from funds normally appropriat- ed to OAR in the budget. This arrangement has been agreed to by the landlord in lieu of a cash security deposit. By the recorded vote shown above, the Board authorized the Chairman to execute the following agreement in order to assist OAR in its move with the understanding that any performance by the County required under this addendum would be subtracted from any regular appropriation to be approved for OAR in any fiscal year. ADDENDUM TO LEASE (O.A.R.) In lieu of a security deposit by O.A.R., the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville jointly guarantee O.A.R.'s compliance with the terms and conditions of the attached lease, and in case of non-compliance by O.A.R., the County and City jointly will pay for any and all damages resulting from such non-compliance, not to exceed $2,080.00 total. Any such payment will be subject to appropriation of $1,040.00 by the County Board of Supervisors, and a like amount by the City of Charlottesville, and shall require notice to the County and City by the Landlord or its agent, within thirty (30) days of any such non-compliance by O.A.R. Item 5.3. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for September 14, October 5 and October 12, 1993, were received for information. 000198 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) Item 5.4. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for September 16, 1993, was received for information. Item 5.5. Status Report: Noise Ordinance. It was noted in the staff's report that since October 6, 1993, when the staff made the last report on this item, the following items have been completed: Conducted a telephone survey of noise regulation in similar Virginia localities. This showed that in every case, complaints were handled through the police/sheriff's department, and the regulations are written into the code as opposed to being in the zoning ordinance. Few cases are prosecuted, but are resolved through voluntary compliance instead. Received and reviewed trade technical reports and ordinances from other regions. This information points to the dilemma that noise control presents for planners. One trade memo recommended that the most appropriate administration of community noise regulation be split between the police department for non-stationary sources and the zoning office for stationary sources. Contacted Virginia Polytechnic Institute's Director of Auditory Systems in Industrial and Systems Engineering about our needs in noise regulation. He recommended that the ordinance be drafted by an expert in the field, and he estimated a cost for this work, including training, at $10,000. Contacted the University of Virginia's Division of Environmental Health and Safety and met with an industrial hygienist who offered to assist in drafting an ordinance, including field work with measurements of various sources. In addition, they offered to attend public hearings on the ordinance, and to also provide training for enforcement staff. This they offered to do gratis as a public service. In addition, the University Medical Center's Department of Audiol- ogy may be a useful source. It appears that the County can order a demo noise level reading-instrument to test. It costs about $1000 to purchase. Further discussion of the County's needs, and their available services is critical to ascertaining whether than can provide the necessary technical assistance. Preliminary review indicates that amendment to the present regulations is justified. Staff has found that the County's maximum of 40 decibels is lower than most other localities allow during the day. Sound design is not an exact science; therefore, numerous supplementary design regulations are not always practical. Instead, it is recommended that an applicant be required to submit an engineer's report projecting noise levels. Once built, it becomes empirical, and can be tested. If the proper levels are not met, attenuation measures must be utilized. Staff will continue working with the University studying the County's regulatory needs and noise levels from different sources. (Mrs. Humphris questioned the qualifications of the University Depart- ment which volunteered free services. She does not know if the services of this Department relate to what the County needs to have done, and she asked if the personnel in this Department are involved in the same kind of work. Mr. Tucker answered that staff has also talked to a gentleman from Blacksburg who provides this type of information. He added that County staff may take bids for this project. Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated October 12, 1993, from the Honorable L. F. Payne, Member, House of Representatives, to the Honorable John G. Milliken, Secretary of Transportation, re: Interchange at Interstate 64 and Avon Street (Route 742), received as follows: "I am writing on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervi- sors who are interested in receiving consideration of an inter- change at Interstate 64 and Avon Street (Route 742). I understand that previous requests for consideration have been denied for a number of reasons, including a current or anticipated compelling public need, safety and operational considerations and the safeguard of the interstate to serve long versus local trips. While previous denials should be considered reasonable during the mid-1980's, it would also seem reasonable to reconsider this request given the present transportation needs of the Charlottes- ville-Albemarle area. This is a time of significant change and this request may complement other transportation efforts that are currently underway or in preparation. The local MPO has retained a consultant who is preparing a study of the specific traffic and road needs of this area. I hope that you will consider his recommendations when they are available and November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000199 (Page 4) approve a VDOT and FHWA review of this request given the current needs and current justifications. Thank you for your efforts in this important project and for all that you have done to contribute to the improved transportation system in Virginia." (Mr. Perkins wondered if it would be possible to get other congressmen and senators to write a letter about this situation. Mr. Tucker said staff could make the other politicians aware of the situation. He reminded the Supervisors that this was discussed in the meeting with the legislators. Mr. Bliley's aides have talked to him about this matter, and he (Mr. Tucker) thinks that Mr. Bliley has probably started working on it. Mr. Marshall said it is his understanding that Mr. Bliley is on the committee which is responsi- ble for this issue. (Mr. Bowerman suggested that Mr. Tucker draft a letter to Congressman Bliley, for the Chairman's signature, which describes Congressman Payne's position. Mr. Bowerman said the letter could state that County officials are hopeful Congressman Bliley will join in this support. He also said that since Senator Robb has not been contacted, the same letter should be sent to him. Mr. Perkins said that a copy of Congressman Payne's position could be sent to both of these gentlemen.) Item 5.7. Copy of Virqinia's Beef Industry: A Study and Blueprint for the Year 2000, a study undertaken by faculty and staff in the Department of Animal and Poultry Science at Virginia Tech, co-sponsored by the Virginia Cattle Industry Board, received as information and filed in the Clerk's office. Item 5.8. Letter dated September 1, 1993, from Ms. Dianne B. Pollard, Education Associate Specialist, Migrant Education & Chapter 1, addressed to Dr. Robert W. Paskel, Division Superintendent, Albemarle County Public Schools, re: approval of application for support under ESEA Chapter 1, Migrant Education, for Fiscal Year 1994 in the amount of $22,720.00, received as information. Item 5.9. Notice dated October 12, 1993, from the State Corporation Commission of an application filed by Yellow Cab Company of Charlottesville for a certificate of public convenience and necessity as a common carrier of passengers by motor vehicle over irregular routes, received for information. (Mrs. Humphris asked how this affects the County. Mr. Tucker the County has no involvement. This project will be done privately by the Yellow Cab Company, and he does not think that it will even be associated with JAUNT. He said the project relates primarily to the Airport.) Item 5.10. September, 1993 Financial Report, received as information. It was noted that projected revenues for Education reflect a reduction in state-aid due to lowered average daily member (ADM) estimates. Also, project- ed Education expenditures reflect a seven and one-half percent holdback of certain discretionary accounts. Item 5.11. Memorandum dated October 27, 1993, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Urban Area Raw Water Storage and Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program, was received as information. (Mr. Tucker noted that the Sugar Hollow Reservoir dropped below overflow in mid-June and is now 35 feet below overflow. The Ragged Mountain Reservoir fell below overflow in mid-July. Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority staff is monitoring these reservoirs and, if necessary, will follow its conservation plan which is triggered at 70 percent of normal raw water availability. Mr. Tucker noted that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has, in the past, offered a household hazardous waste collection day annually. Currently, a containment building at the Ivy Landfill is being looked at in order to provide this service monthly.) Item 5.12. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority dated September 27, 1993, and for a called meeting on September 28, 1993, received as information. Item 5.13. Letter dated October 27, 1993, was received from Mr. R. H. Connock, Jr., District Construction Engineer, Department of Transportation, noting a scheduled Location and Design Public Hearing for proposed improve- ments to Route 682 (Project #0682-002-P33,C501) from Route 250, 1.784 miles south to Route 787. The hearing is scheduled for December 7, 1993, from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. at Meriwether Lewis Elementary School. 000 00 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) Item 5.14. Letter dated October 27, 1993, from Mr. D. $. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, re: Current Projects - Construction Schedule, received as follows: PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ALBEMARLE COUNTY NOVEMBER 1, 1993 Estimattnl Route Comp. No. Location Status Date 250 St Clair Ave to Rt 64 97% complete Nov '93 20 At Int Rt 742 - Avon St Ext 74% complete Oct '93 654 Barracks Rd - Fr Rt 1406 to Georgetown Rd Complete 631 5th Street Ex~ S of Rt 1-64 59% complete Feb '94 29 N Fr Hydraulic Rd to Rio Rd Started Oct '93 Dec '95 Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: May 13(A) and November 4, 1992; July 14 and August 18, 1993. No minutes had been read Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Discussion - Crosswalk in front of Albemarle High School. The Chairman had received a letter from State Senator Edgar S. Robb enclosing a copy of a letter from a constituent regarding a crosswalk in front of Albemarle High School. Senator Robb said he understands a blind crosswalk would create a false sense of security, but with the new traffic light at Hydraulic and Greenbrier, he feels a crosswalk could be erected there. Mr. Roosevelt said he told the Board that until the section of road which is located farther out could be widened, there could not be a walkway which would stop traffic in all four directions because it would increase congestion at that level. He thought the discussion related to whether or not a light, which would indicate whether people should walk or not walk, could be added once the project was completed to offset the problem of having to cross the entire width of the roadway. He noted that people could at least cross to the middle of the roadway. He has not discussed the possibility of a light with the Traffic Engineer, however, he will do so. Mr. Bowerman answered that perhaps he (Mr. Bowerman) had misunderstood Senator Robb's letter because Senator Robb is referring to a crosswalk at Hydraulic Road and Greenbrier. He said that Senator Robb also mentions a new traffic light, and that is confusing. Mrs. Humphris explained that she believes Senator Robb is talking about Hydraulic Road and Whitewood Road. She said that Whitewood Road turns a corner and becomes Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Bowerman responded that if that is the case, then Senator Robb is referring to the same traffic signal which was discussed previously. He does not specifically recall, however, if it was decided that this project could be delayed a couple of years until Hydraulic Road is improved. He thought something could be done to improve pedestrian traffic between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. He noted that it was not something that affects a whole school day, but only specific times during the morning and afternoon. Mr. Bain mentioned the CIP project relating to a proposed improvement in front of Western Albemarle High School which would cost $120,000. He said this is a lot of money, although he knows that the safety of individuals has to be considered. He pointed out that the accident with the child who was hit by a vehicle happened after school hours. He said there is more traffic on Hydraulic Road than there is on Route 250 in front of Western Albemarle High School. Mr. Bowerman commented that it is his feeling that if the traffic stops in all four directions on Hydraulic Road, then it would create a safe environ- ment. He does not understand why this cannot be considered now rather than later, and he asked if the other Board members agreed with him. Mrs. Humphris said she has received a lot of comments from parents in that area. They are telling her that they don't understand why the Supervi- sors are not trying to save the County a lot of money, given the fact that there are so many children who live close to the three-school complex. She said the parents would encourage their children to walk if they could cross that road safely. She mentioned that she talked to people all day yesterday at the polls and was amazed at the amount of concern shown for this situation. She has also had a lot of telephone calls. She referred to a recent meeting where there was a lady who wanted to talk especially about the children who live in Oak Forest. She added that all of the children who live in Whitewood Road Apartments, Oak Forest, Townwood and all along Georgetown Road are involved, and parents would like for these children to be able to walk to school. She emphasized that she thinks the situation is larger than being able to punch a button to stop all the traffic and get across the road. November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~0~. (Page 6) Mr. Bowerman pointed out that this would require School Board action because of a policy the School Board has in place. Mrs. Humphris agreed. She said people are saying the School Board policy is not economical and that it is not a common sense approach. Mr. Bowerman asked if having crosswalks and a four-way stop is consis- tent with what Mrs. Humphris is saying. She responded that she is agreeing with Mr. Bowerman's comment that something should be done sooner rather than later. She thinks the matter should be considered in a broader sense of school bus transportation, as well as for pedestrian crossing safetY. Mr. Bain said he understands Mr. Bowerman is referring to a limited period of time that the lights would be in use. He added that if the lights were in use all day, children would probably be going to stores, etc., across the road, and he does not want to encourage this. Mr. Roosevelt reported that he recently observed pedestrian traffic in the area. It wasn't a good day to observe because a thunderstorm was just ending and it had probably decreased the number of walkers. There were 30 to 35 students walking and the majority of them headed for the convenience store just north of Hydraulic Road. He emphasized that these students went in as straight a line as they could walk to that store. Me only saw three or four who walked to the traffic signal and crossed at that point. He personally has doubts that a crosswalk is going to lure students to that spot, and he also doubts that a walk signal would have any more success in luring them there. Me commented that this situation says to him that there is a real education problem to go through before the children will use the safety improvements. He has asked VDoT's Traffic Engineer to look at this situation to determine in as much detail as possible the sort of delay that putting a walk signal in that location would cause. He knew this subject would be on the agenda today so he brought some articles on crosswalks. He stated that some of these findings go back 20 years, and VDoT's traffic engineers have found these things to be true in Virginia just as they are in other places. Mr. Bowerman asked that the information on the walk signal come back to the Supervisors in December. He also inquired if Mr. Roosevelt is indicating that he will discuss with the Traffic Engineer the possibility of installing a crosswalk immediately. Mr. Roosevelt replied, "yes." He said the easiest thing for VDoT officials to do is to agree to put in a crosswalk anywhere that the Supervisors request whether or not VDoT officials feel the crosswalk will do any good. The reason he is hesitant to do this is because studies have shown that accidents are more prevalent in areas which have crosswalks than in areas where pedestrians are crossing and there are no crosswalks. The crosswalk sets up a feeling in the mind of pedestrians, especially young pedestrians, that somehow these lines on the pavement are protecting them and warning traffic that they are there. Findings in study after study show that this is not the case. He went on to say that the only kind of walk signal which he can support is one where all traffic is stopped when the light indicates that pedestrians can walk. He stated that pedestrians can then safely step off the sidewalk and walk across the street, assuming that all of the traffic is following the rules. He said this kind of signal stops all vehicle traffic for 20 seconds every minute and one-half, and he pointed out that this is a lot of time to take away from vehicles when a busy road is involved. Mr. Bowerman said the Supervisors would appreciate Mr. Roosevelt talking to the Traffic Engineer about a crosswalk, and, at the same time, consider having traffic stopping at all points. He said the problem will not go away. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt to give the Board a phone number to the person who is directly involved with the Route 29 North project. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roosevelt why Murray School was not being used for the public hearing on the Route 682 project. Mr. Roosevelt said the reason VDoT is using Meriwether Lewis is because it has used it in the past and it is handicapped accessible. Meriwether Lewis also has a good sized room to meet in because the hearing concept is going to be different. There will not be a formal presentation, there will be a slide presentation and continuous tape running. People will be able to give written testimony and/or verbal testimo- ny to a recorder. Mr. Bain said in July there was a request regarding the intersection of the Meadow Creek Parkway at the Route 250 Bypass and whether there is going to be an interchange. He does not remember hearing any information regarding this. Mr. Roosevelt said he thought the Board had asked County staff to look into this issue. He called and talked with the gentleman who handles urban division City projects and was told the estimate did not include the con- struction of an interchange, but did include purchasing of right-of-way for the future interchange. Mrs. Humphris asked if there is going to be a new light installed at the Georgetown/Barracks Roads intersection. Mr. Roosevelt said there was some change in the traffic signal pole that was made late in the project and the 000202 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) contractor had to place a special order. VDoT is waiting on this change in equipment and as soon as it arrives, all of the new traffic signal poles will be installed. Mrs. Humphris asked if this will include a left turn for eastbound traffic. Mr. Roosevelt said the signal does not include a protected left turn for eastbound traffic, but there is capacity in the signal box itself to put that phase in. Mrs. Humphris said yesterday she was shown a copy of the Canterbury Hills Neighborhood Association Newsletter announcing a meeting that will be held in a couple of weeks relating to the change in the southern terminus of the Route 29 Alternative l0 Bypass. It states in the newsletter that there is a map showing direct connections from the bypass into Westminster Road through Canterbury Hills. Mr. Roosevelt said he talked with Mr. Ron Chodack in the Location and Design section who has been handling the Route 29 project. Mr. Chodack stated that there has been no contact with anyone out of the civic association concerning the project and indicated that to his knowledge there are no such plans that show any connections from the Alternate 10 Bypass to any roads other than where it ties into the Route 250 Bypass on the south and Route 29 on the north. Mrs. Humphris said someone brought her a drawing yesterday which showed Georgetown Road extending across Barracks Road, through the Boothe property and hooking to the easement that this Board would not give up into Westminster Road. It was agreed that staff will send a memorandum to the Board regarding the reason why the County chose not to give up the easement and Mrs. Humphris will forward it to the Homeowner's Association. Agenda Item No. 8. Request from A. G. Dillard to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Tax Map 79, Parcel 4P, for water service. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the property is located in Hunter's Hall Subdivision just off of Route 250 East near Nationwide Homes. The property is outside of the Albemarle County Service Authority's service area boundaries for water and sewer service. The applicant has remodeled the existing structure on this property to house the Winston Cup Hardee's Racing Team. The remodeling created the need for the building to be equipped with a sprinkler system. The applicant would also like to install a fire hydrant if water service can be provided. Although the property is located next to the waterline going to Rivanna Village, public water service to this parcel is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and could set a precedent for allowing water service to other parcels along this corridor. As an example, a nearby structure utilized for industrial purposes (United Parcel Building) is currently using a storage tank to provide sufficient flow for sprinkler service. Also, a recent request for public water to serve two commercial properties along Route 250 East (Boothe/Exum) was denied by the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said staff does not recommend proceeding to public hearing for the "water only to existing structure" designation of Tax Map 79, Parcel 4P. The request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and applicable strategies for provision of public water and sewer service. Public utility capacities should be reserved to support development of designated Growth Areas or provide service when public health or safety is endangered. It also is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to reserve capacity in the Route 250 waterline for development in the Rivanna Village. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was anyone present at the meeting who was representing the interests of Mr. Dillard. Mr. Alan Dillard pointed out that the waterline is located on his property. He also noted that the United Parcel building was located in the area approximately five years and there was no public waterline in that vicinity at that time. His request for a sprinkler system has been strongly encouraged by the County's Inspections Department. The National Fire Preven- tion Association supports installing sprinkler systems because it is the best way to save lives and properties. He asked the Supervisors to keep in mind that this property has already been developed, and there won't be any more development there. In his mind, this is the most economical way to protect his property. Mr. Tom Trevillian noted that Mr. Dillard has also offered to install a fire hydrant to provide fire protection for his own building as well as the adjacent buildings. He said Mr. Dillard sees this as creating a better circumstance for the fire department. Fighting a fire is a difficult job and a sprinkler system reduces the problems associated with battling a fire. He understands the Comprehensive Plan does not cover this area for growth or a connection to the waterline, but he pointed out that this isn't an industry which requires a lot of water. If there was a fire and the sprinkler system was used there would be some water used, but he thinks this would be true with any other industry or business around the area. He asked the Supervisors to consider this request in order to make this section of Albemarle County safer. November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) ~20~ (Page 8) Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Dillard if he anticipates having both the sprinklers and domestic use connected to the water supply or would there also be a well. Mr. Dillard replied that he already has a private water supply, but if he is allowed to connect to the public water supply, he would like to use it for everything. Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the difference in cost of putting in a system which stores water and would feed the fire suppression system from a well versus the connection to the public water supply. Mr. Dillard responded that if he installs a water tank it will be visible from Route 250. He said that he would rather not have to install a water tank. Mr. Bowerman asked how big of a tank would be required. Mr. Trevillian pointed out that he knows of a similar business located in the southern part of the County which is considering such a water tank, and it will cost approximately $16,000. He added that to connect to public water would cost $5000 to $6000. Mr. Martin inquired about the possibility of having an agreement with the property owner who already has a water tank. He wondered if two sprinkler systems could use the same tank. Mr. Dillard replied that the other tank is a considerable distance from his property, and he believes that the tank is sized for that particular sprinkler system. He also indicated that he believes that if the waterline had been there when the other sprinkler system was installed, the property owners would have made the same request. Mr. Trevillian noted that the United Parcel Service (UPS) facility is located on top of the hill, and he pointed out that to use the UPS water tank the water would have to be routed from the UPS property to the property in question by going a long way along the road, or by going down through a ravine and back up a steep hill. He said that from an engineering standpoint, this possibly could be done, but usually sprinkler systems are sized for the size of the building. Mr. Martin said it seems to him that if this request is approved, this Board may be setting a precedent, but it would not necessarily be a bad one. Me understands why the applicant may want to go the next step and request public water for everything. If the request is limited to the sprinkler system, then there will not be a tank involved which would be visible from Route 250. He does not think this will necessarily be setting a precedent that is going to lead to growth pressures. He has agreed with the rationale this Board has used for all of the past requests, and if this approval is limited to just the sprinkler system, it will still stand within the same rationale that the Supervisors have used in the past. Mr. Marshall concurred. He said connecting to the waterline would not just be helping a business. Approval of this request would help firemen put out a fire. Knowing the type of business that Mr. Dillard has, there are highly flammable materials involved. It would not only be detrimental to Mr. Dillard's personal property, but it also affects a lot of adjacent owners' properties. Mr. Bowerman stated that, from a planning point of view, this is an industrial, commercial type subdivision that is not in the growth area. If a precedent is set, it could intensify the use in other areas such as this, including the area in question. He said this is the opposite of Mr. Martin's and Mr. Marshall's argument. He is not saying whether or not their argument is good or bad. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Bowerman if he feels what he is saying will likely happen in that area. Mr. Bowerman replied that he is unsure because it might be in the public interest to allow fire suppression devices. Me would like to hear from Mr. Bill Brent, who represents the Albemarle County Service Authori- ty. Mr. Brent commented that he has not seen the request or the staff report, and he apologized for coming late to the meeting. What he has heard since his arrival at this meeting is that the Board is possibly considering a sprinkler connection to the Service Authority waterline. Me said this leaves the Service Authority in a strange situation, because no fees are charged for sprinkler connections. The fees are recovered in the cost of the water that is consumed. He pointed out that there is also a bond restriction which prohibits the Authority from providing free service. He added that a rate schedule could be provided which would cover sprinkler connections but he informed the Board that the last time there was this type of situation, there were objections from representatives of the State Fire Marshal's Office, as well as property owners. He said there probably is a way around this problem. Mr. Marshall asked for an estimate of the cost to the Authority. Mr. Brent explained that there would be no cost to the Authority unless there was a fire. Mr. Marshall said if this request is approved, there will have to be a connection to the waterline. There will be a cost in terms of employees' time, etc. Mr. Martin explained that the bonds will not allow the Authority to provide free service. Mr. Bowerman clarified Mr. Martin's statement by saying that the Authority cannot provide free service to the bond holders. He noted that fire hydrants are open to the public for fire suppression. The November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 000204 only difference is that the water is piped into the building with a sprinkler system, and the water is piped close to the building for fire hydrants. Mr. Brent concurred. He went on to say that if a building caught on fire, the sprinkler system would suppress it, and there would be less water involved. Mr. Marshall indicated that he still feels strongly that if there is a sprinkler system available, then it is not likely that a volunteer fireman would have to risk his life to put out a fire. He feels health and safety factors override everything else. Mr. Bain said he still is considering the Comprehensive Plan, although he understands what Mr. Martin is saying. He emphasized that it is not an impossibility, but it would cost to install a water tank. Mr. Bowerman recalled that fire hydrants were installed close to Farmington, and he does not think a precedent was set there, except for public safety. He said water service was extended there for fire suppression to a residential subdivision. He wondered if this would be considered as a similar situation if the approval were limited to fire suppression. Mr. Cilimberg Pointed °utthat the Farming- ton situation related to fire hydrants being located along the waterline in a rural area. That service was not extended for fire suppression, although it was requested. He went on to say that he was unsure if fire hydrants had been approved for the waterline on Route 250 East. Mr. Brent replied that his Board did consent to having fire hydrants along that waterline. Mr. Martin stated that he is not as concerned about the cost as he is the appearance of the water tank from Route 250. Mr. Bain pointed out that Route 250 is an entrance corridor, and he is unsure if such a tank would even be approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Mrs. Humphris said it is not a situation of choosing between a totally sprinkled building versus a building with no sprinkler. It is a precedent versus whether the applicant is going to the extra expense to achieve the same objective. The sprinkler objective is what is important and it can be achieved without the property being included in the service area boundaries. Mr. Martin said if the ARB ruled against locating a tank on the Route 250 entrance corridor, that would be another situation. Mr. Bowerman asked what would be the negative effect as far as the Comprehensive Plan is con- cerned, if this request is approved. Mr. Bain said if the decision is made to set this precedent, then the Board will be indicating that this is the urban area, and that is what the waterline is serving. He thinks a stronger case was presented for connecting the Boothe property to the waterline because it was clearly more of a health and safety hazard and he did not think the health and safety issue with the Boothe property was sufficient to warrant connection to the County waterline either. He is not saying he will not support such a request in the future, but he does not think these should be piecemeal approvals. Mr. Perkins remarked that since the waterline goes through this particu- lar property, there is some justification to allowing the owner to get some benefit from that line. If the Service Authority was getting some revenue generation from that line, he would support the request. The properties in that area are already developed, and he thinks it comes down to the safety and health issue for this particular piece of property. It would be good if the Service Authority could change its regulations so that sprinkler system connections could be allowed with a minimal charge, even though the water would not be used unless there was a fire. He noted that in domestic situa- tions there is a minimal charge per month when homes are connected to the waterline. Mr. Bowerman asked the zoning category for the Hunter's Hall develop- ment. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the area is zoned Highway Commercial. He said there are Light Industrial zoned properties behind this property, so there are two zones in the area. He said these zones pre-existed the 1980 zoning changes. Mr. Bowerman inquired if there would be any precedent in allowing a use such as this for water suppression only in a pre-existing zoning category. He said this would not encourage a precedent unless there was a request to rezone a parcel of land on Route 250 from Rural Areas to Highway Commercial. He indicated that a part of the request might be that the particular piece of property could use water for a fire suppression system. Mr. Bowerman said he assumes that if permission is given to this appli- cant, then anyone else in the subdivision could have fire suppression connec- tions. This is the precedent this Board would be setting, in Hunter's Hall at least. If this is a bad precedent when it doesn't have the value that would be associated with domestic water use. Mr. Bain emphasized that this matter concerns use of water, no matter how the water is to be used. That is why he wonders if this Board is going to make that determination. The use of water is a difficult thing to distin- guish, and he is concerned that there could be court cases coming out of such a decision. He thinks this Board is going to have to look at the entire corridor where the waterline is located and open the matter up for other water 000205 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) uses. Mr. Bowerman responded that this is inconsistent with the Supervisors' thinking on this matter. Mr. Bain agreed, but said he thinks this is where such an approval will take this Board. He emphasized that this is his concern. Mrs. Humphris asked if this is not an issue to be discussed during review of the Comprehensive Plan. She wondered if the Supervisors are going to stay with the original plan so there will not be a strip corridor in the Route 250 East area° She said this issue keeps surfacing, and it seems to her that the overall picture has to be considered, as well as all of the implica- tions for setting a precedent. She does not think the Supervisors know, or understand, all of the implications at this time. Mr. Perkins noted that one difference between this property and the other properties located in the industrial park is that anyone else who wants to connect to the waterline will have to get rights-of-way across a number of people's land. Mr. Bowerman said someone could bring the waterline through the Highway Department's right-of-way, and then it would be available to everyone, and these people would have to pay for it themselves. He explained that Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris are saying that if this request is approved, then the Board will have to allow this service anywhere in Hunter's Hall by precedent and also by any other pre-existing zoning where water service was not allowed. He said anywhere such a case was found a reasonable interpretation of this action would be to allow it in those situations. He asked if Mr. St. John had any comments to make. Mr. St. John replied, "no." He believes Mr. Bowerman has brought out all of the problems accurately. Mr. Bowerman remarked that the one thing he wants to clarify in his own mind is whether or not the approval of this request would set a bad precedent. Mr. Martin concurred that this is also his concern. He reiterated that a sprinkler system is not used unless there is a fire. Mr. Bain said he understands that, but it would still be the use of public water. He said if this use is allowed, the use would be in the area. Mrs. Humphris emphasized that the safety aspect, which is what this Board is addressing, can be achieved without allowing this request. She wondered what Mr. St. John thinks about the situation. Mr. St. John responded that he is uncertain if the Board members are concerned about the Precedent as to the existing businesses, or if the concern is chiefly about requests to rezone more property to business in the future. Mr. Bowerman said if the Board decided to hold a public hearing on this request, staff could present additional information. Mr. Cilimberg suggested the Board consider water only to existing structures for fire suppression. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that this approval would involve more than just existing structures. It would also involve zonings. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. He thinks the major piece of information that this Board needs relates to how the Service Authority would proceed with that type of designation. Mr. Bowerman asked if, in Mr. Cilimberg's opinion, the staff would have any change in its recommendations about the inconsistency if this approval was limited to just fire suppression. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he believes Mr. Bowerman is saying the Board should consider this approval as strictly a safety matter and for existing development and not any new development. He noted that the property is adjacent to the waterline, and from a safety standpoint, if this could be handled by the Service Authority for service and the service would only be used for fire suppression, it meets the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan to that extent. He noted that there has never been a request such as this before. He added that there are several other lots in this particular subdivision. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there are also other locations along Route 250 which might make such requests. Mr. Cilimberg agreed and mentioned the Shadwell Store as an example. Mr. Marshall said he thinks there are few businesses that are going to want to put out the kind of money that is necessary just to get that kind of protection. Mr. Cilimberg commented that whatever the water is used for, it would be taking water out of the public system which normally goes to the growth area. Mr. Perkins commented that there would probably be less consumption than if fire trucks were getting water from fire hydrants° Mr. Marshall said he thinks the Board needs to consider the type of business Mr. Dillard owns. Also, the Board members need to think about how long it would take a fire truck to get to his business, and how out of control the fire could get, since other pieces of property are so close. Mr. Martin said he would like to hear more. He would like to make a motion to have a public hearing on December 8, 1993, to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service areas to provide water only to existing structures for the purpose of fire suppression on the property of A. G. Dillard which is shown on Tax Map 79, Parcel 4P, in the Hunter's Hall Subdivi- sion. O0020G November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page Il) Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he will support the motion to hold a public hearing because he is interested in further exploring the issues surrounding this matter. He thinks there could be issues of public safety, although he agrees with Mrs. Humphris' that this service could be provided anyway. He reiterated that he would like to further explore with Mr. Brent and staff the rest of the implications of this issue before he makes his decision. Mr. Martin pointed out that his motion to hold a public hearing does not mean he will ultimately support this request. He wants more information because Mrs. Humphris has made a good point, which is that the service can be provided with additional expense. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: Mr. Bain. Not Docketed: Mr. Bowerman recognized that this is Youth-in-Government Day in Albemarle County, and there are three students from Albemarle High School in the audience. He asked the students to stand so they could be recognized. The names of the students are: Polly Critzer, Charles School- craft and Jamie Hackman. He welcomed the students, and told them he hoped they would enjoy their visit. He said if there were any questions, the staff would be more than pleased to answer them. He then asked about the students' plans for the day. Mr. Tucker answered that the students will spend some time in the Supervisors' meeting, and then they will tour the County Office Building. He said that this afternoon the students will go to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to view the water treatment plant. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board appreciates the students' interest in County government. (Mr. St. John left the room at 10:21 a.m.) At this time, the Board returned to discussion of Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Bowerman recognized Mr. Roosevelt who had returned to the meeting. Mr. Roosevelt said he tried to call Mr. Jack Hodge, but Mr. Hodge was not in his office. He was referred to Mr. Ron Chodack, who is in the location and design section of VDoT as he is the person who has been handling the Route 29 project. Mr. Roosevelt said he imagines Mr. Chodack will be the liaison person with the consultant once the consultant is hired. He reminded the Supervisors that Mr. Chodack accompanied Mr. Hodge when he was at the Super- visors' meeting last month. Mr. Roosevelt remarked that Mr. Chodack has told him he has had no contact with anyone in any of the civic associations concerning the Route 29 North Alternative 10 Bypass project. Mr. Chodack also indicated that to his knowledge there are no plans which show any different connections. Mr. Roosevelt said this settles his mind, because Mr. Chodack has extensive knowledge about this project. He went on to say that VDoT staff has gone to a lot of trouble and time to try and create a limited access highway, and it doesn't seem realistic that Highway Department officials are now going to reduce the capacity of that road by allowing subdivision streets, etc. He said the only thing he can assume is that the drawing he sent to the McKeels has been misinterpreted by someone. He noted, however, that the drawing which he sent to the McKeels is the same drawing that was presented to this Board. Mr. Martin pointed out that the same thing has happened with the Meadow Creek Parkway project. It seems as though people get a map, and then draw their own lines on it, and send it to neighbors. Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Roosevelt for getting this information so quickly. Mrs. Humphris also thanked Mr. Roosevelt. She hopes the Neighborhood Association members will be convinced. Mr. Roosevelt commented that if anyone wants to talk to him or see the drawing, he will be happy to help them. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 9-26 of the Code of Albemarle which would ban leaf burning in Hessian Hills, Sections 5, 6 and 7 (Old Forge Road). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 19 and October 26, 1993.) Mr. Tucker said Section 9-23.2 of the Code of Albemarle provides that the residents of any subdivision or other clearly defined area in the County may petition the Board to ban open burning of leaves in such area. Petitions were received from residents within Sections 5, 6 & 7 of Hessian Hills ooo: o7 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) requesting that open burning of leaves be banned in their area. The public hearing was scheduled for today. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Ms. Julie Fryburg stated that she and her husband are both physicians at the University Medical School, and they moved to the Old Forge Road neighbor- hood approximately one and one-half years ago. One of the things which attracted them to this neighborhood was that the homeowners seemed to take pride in their homes. Last fall she was greatly saddened when she realized that there were a few homeowners who decided to burn their leaves. Despite the relatively small number of people burning, there were days when the neighborhood looked as though it was on fire due to the dense smoke. The burning usually took place on nice fall weekends, and it would drive her and other neighbors into their houses to avoid the stench and the soot. The only alternative to closing all of the doors and the windows was to leave the neighborhood for the day and return when things had improved. This was espe- cially true for some of the citizens who had medical problems, such as a young boy with asthma, whose problems can be triggered by the smoke. With the initiative of Ms. Pat Wilson, a neighbor with an equal distaste for burning, a petition to ban burning in the Old Forge neighborhood was circulated and signed by the majority of homeowners. There are those who want to burn their leaves and claim it is their right to burn them. She urged the Board to consider that allowing burning to continue in this neighborhood for a minority is actually infringing on the rights of others by forcing them to go inside their homes, leave their neighborhood or inhale the smoke and soot which in no way could be considered to be healthy. In an age when most areas open to the public such as theaters, restaurants and airplanes have banned or sharply restricted cigarette smoking, it i~ amazing to her that the burning of leaves can be allowed. She remarked that everybody has to get rid of their leaves, and there is no provision by the County to provide this service, an arrange- ment has been developed with a farmer from White Hall, Mr. Jim Henley, to collect the leaves. He gets the leaves weekly and uses them for mulch on his farm. To make the trip worth the effort, the residents are paying him a tipping fee of $1.00 per 30 gallon bale. She pointed out that this arrange- ment is available to all homeowners in the Old Forge Road neighborhood. She strongly urged the Board to approve the burning ban and to institute it at the earliest possible moment. Ms. Pat Wilson said she is the person who circulated the petition. She mentioned comments she heard from neighbors such as the fact that some people have allergies and health-related problems because of leaf burning. Secondly, she remarked that everybody is becoming more environmentally conscious. There are already two subdivisions which don't allow burning, and she hopes the Old Forge neighborhood will be the third. She said some of the newer residents of the neighborhood are burning leaves, and now on Old Forge Road there are three houses for sale. If this situation keeps escalating, there will be more and more burning because there are a lot of trees in the neighborhood. She said that neighbors need to be considered, and that is a good reason not to burn leaves. People can find another way to get rid of their leaves. According to the Albemarle County leaf burning regulations, it is against the law to burn in the street, but this is where a lot of the leaves are being burned. One neighbor said she had permission to burn her leaves in the street, and Ms. Wilson said she would like to know how this person got that permission. Another neighbor would not sign the petition in sympathy for another neighbor, but suggested that the law take care of this matter. She asked if the neighbors are supposed to call the fire company if this situation continues, and the ban is not approved. Mr. Tucker said the County's Fire Prevention Officer should be called if the problem continues. Ms. Wilson said this is a waste of taxpayer's money. She noted that the majority of the homeowners have signed the petition, and she hopes the Board will see fit to vote to ban the burning of leaves in her neighborhood. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 10:31 a.m.) Mr. Jim Yeamen said he lives in the Hessian Hills area. He does not know the reasons behind the City of Charlottesville's regulations regarding smoke, fire and leaf burning, but he thinks the same reasons would apply in this case. He called his sister-in-law last night who lives in Orange County, Florida, and she informed him that she had to go to a hearing the next day on leaf burning. Although Albemarle County does not have the same kind of winds as in Charlottesville, winds can come up suddenly, burning leaves can blow around, and sparks can fly. He mentioned that there was a fire behind him on Dr. Word's property approximately a year ago. Leaves and brush were being burned, and they got out of control, and two fire engines had to be called to get the fire under control. He added that the priceless things people have in their homes cannot be replaced, such as heirlooms, keepsakes and photographs, etc. As far as cost is concerned, Mr. Yeamen noted that there is a person who picks up his leaves who charges nothing extra for them. He emphasized that there are only three or four people in the area who burn leaves, and there are over 50 others who do not. He mentioned the problems of smoke pollution and the environment. He said there is nothing personal or vindictive toward any of the neighbors, and he indicated that he likes all of the neighbors, and hopes that they are his friends. Ms. Helen Landel said no one had addressed the walkers in the neighbor- hood. She is one of the walkers, and there are a lot of others on her street November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 000; 08 which connects to the bike trail and jogging path along Georgetown Road. Her neighborhood is beautiful with a lot of trees, and it attracts a lot of walkers. People with dogs walk there, and it is a friendly neighborhood situation. When the neighbors burn leaves, it leaves a black residue on the streets. Her feet and her dog's feet get black when they walk, and in order to walk in an area where there is no soot, they have to walk almost in the middle of the street. She emphasized that she would like to preserve the neighborhood to make it a clean place for people to walk and enjoy the beautiful area, and she noted that there are other options for people to get rid of leaves. At 10:38 a.m., Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing, since no one else wished to speak. Mrs. Humphris said the neighbors have been dealing with this situation for a long time, and she thinks that adopting an ordinance makes good sense for the area. The houses are close together, and some of them are in low lying areas. Leaf burning has particularly bad implications for public health and safety. She added that before she makes such a motion she would like to know the effective date of this ordinance. Mr. Tucker replied that the ordinance will be in effect as soon as the Board approves it, unless the Board chooses to make a later effective date. Mrs. Humphris remarked that, recognizing that there are a few neighbors who do not want this ordinance put into place, she believes it is in the best interest of the neighborhood to put the ordinance into effect immediately. She made a motion to adopt the following ordinance amending and reenacting Section 9-26, Chapter 9, of the Code of Albemarle, by the addition of a subsection (c) to include Sections 5, 6 and 7 of Hessian Hills, as one of those areas where leaf burning is prohibited. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below:) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 9-26, CHAPTER 9, FIRE PROTECTION OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 9-26 of Article IV, Chapter 9, FIRE PROTECTION, of the Code of Albemarle, be amended and reenacted by the addition of a subsection (c) to include Sections 5, 6 and 7 of Hessian Hills, reading as follows: Sec. 9-26. Leaf burning prohibited in certain areas. Pursuant to section 9-23.2(a), leaf burning is hereby prohibited within the following areas: (a) Same. (b) (c) Same. Hessian Hills Subdivision, Sections 5, 6 and 7, as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 400, page 277, Deed Book 405, page 103, Deed Book 417, page 159 and Deed Book 622, pages 565-568. (Note: The Board recessed at 10:40 a.m. and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 10. Virginia Power: Presentation of "A Community Profile" brochure. Mr. Bowerman announced that the brochure entitled, "A Community Profile" was developed by Virginia Power in cooperation with County staff. Mr. Tucker reminded Board members that several months ago, Mr. Perkins suggested that County staff look into the possibility of working with Virginia Power to develop a community profile. He then introduced Ms. Susan Gardner from Virginia Power's Richmond office, and Mr. Stewart Bolton, who is the local manager with Virginia Power. These two individuals were instrumental in developing "A Community Profile" brochure. Mr. Tucker stated that County staff members worked closely with Ms. Gardner's office in developing and designing the brochure, and he thinks it is a nice product. Mr. Stewart Bolton remarked that he is Virginia Power's District Manager for the Charlottesville/Albemarle area and it is a pleasure for him to present this community profile. He said each of the Board members have a copy of the November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 000209 brochure, and with their approval, it will be made available to the public. He explained that "A Community Profile" was produced by Virginia Power with data supplied by Ms. Roxanne White, Executive Assistant with Albemarle County. The brochure covers many things, including the County's rich history, its quality of life, location, tax data, transportation services, education and community facilities. He noted that major employers are also listed because they provide jobs and sustain the tax base. He went on to say the brochure may be used to tell the County's story to the local residents, visitors and for distribution to outside organizations which want to know more about Albemarle County, not only for potential new businesses, but also for poten- tial new tenants for vacant office or retail space. Virginia Power staff was pleased to work in partnership with Albemarle County to produce this community profile at no cost to the County. The County will be provided with 1500 copies, and the profile will periodically be updated to keep information current. Virginia Power is happy to provide service and support to Albemarle County, and he noted that Virginia Power's services are designed to support the work of this Board and Mr. Tucker. On a personal note, Mr. Bolton indicated that he is pleased to live and work in Albemarle County, and he commended the Board members for the work that they are doing to make Albemarle County a most desirable location. He mentioned that Susan Gardner is Virginia Power's Economic Development Administrator. He said she is present at this meeting, and would like to make a few comments. Ms. Gardner reiterated Mr. Bolton's comments regarding the brochure and how pleased Virginia Power staff was to work in partnership with Albemarle County. She recognized and thanked Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandenburger and, particularly, Ms. Roxanne White. She said all of them did an outstanding job in collecting and providing the most current data available for the profile. Virginia Power staff is pleased to work with this community, and this service is available to the communities located in Virginia Power's service territo- ries. She thanked the Board for giving Virginia Power officials time on the agenda, and said that she would be happy to answer any questions the Supervi- sors might have regarding the profile. Mr. Bowerman said this is an attractive brochure which presents the facts about Albemarle County. The Supervisors appreciate the participation of Virginia Power staff, and also that 1500 copies of the brochure will be made available to the County. He mentioned that he is also pleased that Virginia Power staff is willing to update it from time to time. Mr. Marshall said he would personally like to thank Virginia Power officials. He has had several occasions to work with Virginia Power staff, and not only do they do these great things for counties, but they also work with individuals. He had the opportunity to open up a business in Gordons- ville a few years ago, and most of the information he needed to prepare for his bank, as well as the information that he needed to get accreditation, came from Virginia Power. He noted that Virginia Power officials did extensive studies in the Lake Anna region, and it is invaluable information. There is a lot more information available to the individual businessmen and the County than the information shown in this brochure. Virginia Power has information on per capita income, and road traffic patterns, etc., and he emphasized that he was not even aware that all of this information existed. He appreciates all that Virginia Power has done for individuals and for Albemarle County. Agenda Item No. 11. Request from Sherry L. Joseph to create a subdivi- sion in the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District. Mr. David Benish said staff had received a request from Ms. Sherry L. Joseph to divide 17.742 acres from Tax Map 26, Parcel 10B, leaving a residue of 11.864 acres. This is to be added to Tax Map 25, Parcel 28, resulting in a total of 109.274 acres. No additional parcels are being created, no develop- ment rights are being transferred, and both parcels will remain in the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District. If the property were not in an agricul- tural/forestal district, the proposed plat could be approved administratively as an "exempt" plato It is staff's opinion that because the residue of Tax Map 26, Parcel 10B, is less than 21 acres, this plat requires approval of the Board of Supervisors. The Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee was asked to make a recommendation, and on October 18, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of the request. Mr. Benish said both parcels are served by an access easement off of Route 674 at Sugar Hollow. Both parcels contain one dwelling each and both are currently enrolled in the use value taxation program for forestry use. Parcel 10B will lose its use value taxation as a result of this land transfer. Mr. Benish said staff does not feel this will set a precedent for approval of this specific type of request. The Board has, in the past, approved only three subdivisions of less than 21 acres in agricultural/ forestal districts for various reasons. The purpose of this division is to enable the applicant to refinance her home. Staff opinion is that this transfer of land, which does not create a new parcel, will not adversely affect the Sugar Hollow District. The staff, therefore, recommends approval. The Board members had no questions. Mr. Bowerman asked if anyone wanted to make a comment on this request. No one came forward to speak. November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 0002~0 (Page 15) Mr. Perkins made a motion, which'was seconded by Mrs. Numphris, to allow the request for a subdivision in the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District of 17.742 acres from Tax Map 26, Parcel 10B, leaving 11.864 acres residue and adding it to Tax Map 25, Parcel 28, resulting in a total of 109.274 acres. Mr. Bain said he will support the motion, but he noted that many lenders refuse to make loans on that much land. He explained that the loan value, in terms of the land versus improvements, does not meet their criteria and percentages. He said this is strange but it is a fact. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Traffic Enforcement on Private Roads. Mr. Tucker said the Townwood Homeowners' Association requested that the County designate the roads within their subdivision as "highways" so the Police Department can enforce all traffic laws on these private roads. Section 12-41 of the County Code authorizes the County Executive to establish speed limits only on roads that "form through connection between two roads which are in the Virginia Secondary System of Highways." The roads in Townwood do not meet this criteria. Mr. Tucker said a review of the history of the adoption of Section 12-41 shows that the Board was concerned that to expand this grant of authority might generate a large number of requests for traffic enforcement on a multitude of private roads, thereby straining existing law enforcement resources. Mr. Tucker said if the Board is inclined to change the ordinance from enforcing traffic violations only on "connector roads" in private subdivi- sions, staff would recommend that the expansion include only the main thor- oughfare so as to better gauge the volume of requests and limit the confusion to law enforcement officers as to which roads are included and which are not. Mr. Tucker said if the Board is inclined to accommodate the Townwood Homeowners' Association, a change in Section 12-41 will be needed as well as a designation of the roads in Townwood as "highways" pursuant to Virginia Code Section 46.2-1307, and a public hearing date set. Mr. Bowerman said there may be things that only the Homeowner's Associa- tion can do to effectively deal with problems that have been identified to him, such as people parking in the subdivision who don't live there. This is not a law enforcement concern, nor would it be if the policy were changed. The point has been made to him that vehicles cannot be ticketed on this property because police officers do not usually go onto private roads. It is his understanding that if this request is approved for general traffic enforcement within a private subdivision, then the people who are parking there would fall under the same requirements as the remainder of the County's residents who are on public streets. He does not have a problem with this although he realizes that it is more service than the Police Department can perform. He sees benefits to the public for the same type of traffic enforce- ment on private streets as on public streets. He is open to staff's sugges- tion and comments from the other members of the Board, even though he knows that cars parked on private property without a valid County decal cannot be cited. He asked if this is correct. Mr. Tucker stated that in public parking areas, even on private property such as shopping centers and apartment complexes, vehicles are ticketed. Ne said Mr. Bowerman is making a distinction when he talks about a private street. Mr. Tucker said not many vehicles will be found in that situation on private streets, in the staff's opinion, and it would not be worth the time to check out every private street. It would be more worthwhile to focus most law enforcement time on public parking areas. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Cook has mentioned any other concerns that the residents have regarding the types of traffic enforcement possible on private subdivision streets if this ordinance is changed. Mr. Tucker responded that currently police officers can pull over cars on private streets if there is speeding or reckless driving, etc. However, if the ordinance is amended, police officers will be able to pull over vehicles for any reason such as to check decals, or if a tail light is out, etc. This would not be done on a private street. This amendment will provide for more law enforcement, but he pointed out that this is a limited area. The County only has so much manpower which can focus on this particular road. Mr. Bain said that there are a lot of other private streets in the County, and it will require additional police personnel if they make the same request. He said that should be considered. Mr. Tucker mentioned that this was the basis for the recommended language. Mr. St. John remarked that two things have to be separated in the Supervisors' minds. First, the enforcement of the existing law has to be 000211 NOvember 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) considered. If the Supervisors declare this road a highway, then the police instantly have the authority to enforce all existing traffic laws as they apply to that road, such as reckless driving and driving under the influence of alcohol, as well as to check drivers' licenses, etc. This does not create a law where no law previously existed. The homeowners don't have the authori- ty to establish a speed limit on private roads because they would be enacting a law if they did so. He stated that in order to have a speed limit enforced, this Board has to grant the authority to do so under the County's ordinance. Mr. Bowerman asked if this situation is similar to the one on Hillsdale Drive. Mr. St. John answered affirmatively. He said the Supervisors would have to amend the ordinance which now says the County Executive can only establish speed limits on connector roads. It is one thing to authorize police to enforce the laws in a certain area, and it is another thing to create laws for them to enforce. The creation of a speed limit is the creation of a law, and either this Board has to enact that law for private roads, or the road will have to be taken into the State system. He stated that by simply declaring this road to be a highway, the Board is not estab- lishing a speed limit. If there is not a speed limit involved, then the police can't apprehend people for speeding, unless they are going so fast that it constitutes reckless driving. Mr. Bowerman inquired if there was anyone from the Townwood community who wished to speak. Mr. Tucker replied that Mr. Cook was unable to come to this meeting, and he was not sure any of the other neighbors would be attend- ing. Mr. St. John noted that when the connection is made with Greenbrier Drive to Hydraulic Road at the Rock Store, the road will be taken into the state system. Mr. Tucker explained that the portion of Greenbrier Drive that is located in the Townwood Subdivision has already been designed and built to state standards, but it has not been taken into the system. Mr. St. John asked if Greenbrier Drive is dedicated for public use all of the way to Hydraulic Road. Mr. Tucker replied that this is what he understands. Mr. Bowerman reiterated that this is similar to the Hillsdale Drive situation. He explained that the Board directed Mr. Tucker to enforce the speed limit, but he wondered how the speed limit was set. Mr. Tucker said County staff set the speed limit in concurrence with the Highway Department. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the difference was that Hillsdale Drive connected Rio Road with Greenbrier Drive. In this case, there is a state road on one end of Greenbrier Drive, but there is not one on the other end. He does not have a problem directing Mr. Tucker to enforce the traffic laws, but it needs to be recognized that it is different from the current policy, and it also needs to be recognized that it will be a through road as soon as funds are available. Mr. St. John asked if Mr. Bowerman is directing Mr. Tucker to establish a speed limit. Mr. Bowerman replied that a speed limit would need to be established in concurrence with the Highway Department, as it was on Hillsdale Drive. This is the same procedure, but the difference is that this portion of Greenbrier Drive doesn't connect on both ends to a state road. He added that this is no different from a private subdivision in the rural area which has one connection to a state road, and the residents might ask that the same thing be done for them. This is not a one case issue ~9~thinks this is a reasonable request for traffic enforcement on a heavily used street. These are citizens of the County, and if there is a problem, then the Supervisors should help them deal with it, as long as it doesn't cause a lot of liabili- ties throughout the County. Mr. St. John stated that there is a distinction in this situation, and that is that this road is dedicated to public use. At this time, Mr. Bain made motion to set a public hearing for December 8, 1993, to amend Section 12-41 of the County Code and to establish a new section designating the portion of Greenbrier Drive within Townwood as a highway for law enforcement purposes. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Mr. St. John asked how broad the Board wants this amendment to be. Mr. Bain responded that the motion applies only to the portion of Greenbrier Drive that is dedicated. Mr. Tucker suggested that the motion indicate that the Supervisors are referring to those roads which are dedicated to public use, but privately maintained. Mr. Bain agreed. He said he is referring to connector roads only. Mrs. Humphris inquired as to how the speed limit will be established. Mr. Tucker replied that a traffic analysis and the design of the road will be examined. Since the road is privately maintained, the County's engineering staff will probably make the speed limit determination. This situation is similar to Hillsdale Drive, where it was eminent that the road was going to be taken into the system. He said a speed limit was desired for that road before it was actually taken into the system. Mr. Bowerman speculated that the speed limit on that portion of Green- brier Drive would probably be 25 or 35 miles per hour depending on the traffic. Mr. St. John said the Code does not indicate what type of traffic analysis has to be done. Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks the Townwood request is a reasonable one. Mr. Bain agreed that the Board should, at least, have a public hearing on this request. November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) 000; :1.2 Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Mumphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: ZMA-93-09 and SP-93-20 for C. Todd Shields (Adventureland). (Applicant requests indefinite deferral.) Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board has received a request from Mr. C. Todd Shields to defer discussion of ZMA-93-06 and Sp-93-20 indefinitely. Mr. Bowerman said he is unsure of the procedure to follow because there is nothing before this Board at this time. Mr. St. John said if the Board wants to defer the request, the petitions would stay in their present state, denied. Mr. Bain remarked that there is nothing before the Board to defer. Mr. St. John responded that the Board can let the petitions stand denied, if they so choose. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He said if Mr. Shields makes a further request concerning these petitions, the Board can decide at that time if it wants to suspend its rules and rehear the petitions or not. Agenda Item No. 14. Comprehensive Planning Update. Mr. Tucker said he has consulted several people regarding the possibili- ty of using planning experts to discuss various ideas with the Board, the Planning Commission, and other interested citizens, as well as the City and University. Mr. Harry Porter has suggested four potential candidates from the University's Architecture School. The Urban Land Institute has also been suggested as possibly providing expertise along the same lines. Mr. Tucker recommended that staff contact these various individuals and set up a forum which would then become one of the earliest sessions held in the Comprehensive Plan update process. This creative approach could be the initiative for generating other ideas in a more citizen-oriented visions forum. Mr. Bain said it sounds like a wonderful way to proceed. He wondered about the timeframe of the project. Mr. Tucker responded that the timeframe is slipping because of all of the other things the County is trying to do with the City and the University. He thinks the earliest that this process could begin would be December. Mr. Bain suggested that the forum be held in either December or January. He would hate to see it slip beyond that time. This was the suggestion discussed at the last Board meeting. He added that this situation might branch into other things, and that would be wonderful. Agenda Item No. 15o Discussion: Gainsharing Proposal. Mr. Tucker said in an effort to continue looking for ways to reduce costs and/or personnel within the County's organization, staff is proposing that the County Executive be given the authority to offer a concept known as "gainsharing" to County employees. Gainsharing is a voluntary program which provides an incentive to a department and/or employees to pick up a heavier work load over a given period of time in exchange for a sharing of the savings generated. For example, if a tax clerk were to resign in the Finance Depart- ment, up to 45 percent of the savings generated by the vacancy could be given to the remaining tax clerks to absorb the work load through a bonus, step increase, authorized overtime, improved equipment to make them more efficient, or similar incentive. The remaining savings, to be at least 55 percent of the total created, would revert back to the General Fund in an effort to stem the need for additional funds for increased costs of future operations. Gainsharing is seen as a win/win solution to alter the traditional thinking of many workers that they shouldn't participate in creative ideas to save tax dollars. It provides a mechanism for a monetary inventive to be provided for the employees to see a benefit to avoid filling vacancies when they occur. Lastly, it benefits the taxpayers in providing a program whereby savings are returned to the General Fund to be made available for other priorities of the community. A part of this proposal has to assume that the quality of the services being provided would not be diminished. Mr. Tucker recommended that the County Executive be given the flexibili- ty of offering gainsharing incentives to employees as outlined above as a pilot program. Such incentives would be offered in cases where documented savings to the County could be shown and performance of the program could be documented as to the dollar savings generated by the proposal. Mr. Tucker said, if the Board supports this innovative program, staff will provide a policy for implementation at a December meeting. Mr. Martin asked what happens if there are three clerks, but one clerk leaves, and the remaining two take on his or her responsibilities. If one of the remaining two clerks left, would one or two positions be advertised? He inquired as to how the salary would be decided upon if one position were November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 0002~-3 (Page 18) advertised. Mr. Tucker answered that the department head would have to make those decisions, and it would depend on when the person left. If the Board decides to try this proposal, then he will bring back the written guidelines. Mr. Perkins asked if overtime would be part of this program. Mr. Tucker replied that overtime would be included in the savings. The savings would be used for either boosting someone's salary, or it could be used for a bonus, as well as additional equipment so that the unit could be more efficient. It could also be used for overtime in case the individuals had to work beyond a forty-hour work week. Mr. Marshall said he is not sure he can support such a proposal. He likes what he is hearing to a point, but he is a businessman. He has employ- ees who leave and if the workload is there, he hires someone else. If the workload is not there, then he lets the other people pick up the slack for a short time, because he knows that the workload will not be there for very long. This would be the same as if someone had to be out for extended sick leave, because employees would have to absorb this work for a Short time. If an employee leaves, and this proposal is put into place, the remaining employee(s) will get an increase in salary. He pointed out that if the workload increases and another person has to be hired, then the County is obligated to paying the other employee(s) an increased salary. It appears to him that this plan will cost money instead of saving money. Mr. Tucker said he did not want to get into a lot of the specifics of the plan today. He just wanted to see if the Supervisors felt the concept was worth discussing. He said the bonus approach will probably be a better approach, because if a person is replaced, the bonus stops. If a person is vested with a percentage increase, then there would have to be a limit on that. If it is then decided that the workload has increased to the point that someone else has to be hired, then County staff would have to deal with that in some way. It is harder to take back money from someone whose salary is vested. Mr. Marshall said once an employee has been given an increase, it cannot be taken away, because the employee will indicate that he or she owes money on cars and houses, etc. If a job warrants it, a person will be hired. If the job does not warrant it, then the other employees will have to absorb the workload. Mr. Perkins said he thinks there are a lot of pitfalls that need to be avoided, but this is a trend nationally with corporations of all sizes. He said corporate officials are looking very closely at the people they employ, because that is the majority of their costs. He believes the County has to do the same thing. County staff has certain things that need to be done on time, such as mailing out tax tickets. There may come a time when County officials have to say they do not have the personnel to do a task. Just as with the Comprehensive Plan forum, there might not be enough time to get everything done because there are not the resources to hire more people. People are expensive, so something such as this plan has to be considered to try to pick up the slack and to try to keep the number of employees to a minimum. Mr. Marshall agreed with Mr. Perkins, but said he does not want to get into a situation where it will cost the County more money. Mr. Bowerman said there is talk about bureaucracies and governments being unresponsive to market needs, and people think they should be run more like businesses. He said there has to be enough confidence in the County's management to give them the flexibility to be able to be more efficient. If that takes economic incentives such as those used by the private sector, then he thinks it is appropriate. Mr. Bain noted that in private businesses, people generate ideas which save money. Even in the function of local government, people should be rewarded for ideas which get put into practice. Proposals such as this have to be examined, and even though there are pitfalls, it doesn't mean County officials should not consider the proposal to see how it will work. Mr. Marshall stated that he is not suggesting that the proposal not be considered. He just wants to know what the County is getting into. Mr. Bain recalled a time five years ago when a study of computer information was being considered due to the increase in the Finance Department because of mandates from the state, etc. It was found that 28 additional people would have been needed without the computer equipment. He pointed out that in some County departments, this proposal will not make any difference, because there are not as many people involved, and the function of the department will be different. He emphasized that in the Finance Department, as well as some of the others, this proposal could work well. Mr. Bowerman noted that 55 percent of the savings will go back to the public, and the remainder could be used for incentives for more productivity. People keep talking about more productivity in government, so he thinks that the County's managers need to be given the flexibility to try to manage such productivity gains. Mr. Martin commented that productivity will be identified with this proposal. If a department which had five people could do the same amount of November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 0002 L4 work with four by paying the employees more money, then an area has been identified where production could probably have been higher anyway. Mr. Bowerman said that the production in such a department could become a new standard. Mr. Marshall said the one thing he has learned since he has been on this Board is the difference between business and government in the way people are hired and the way people are treated. He pointed out that there is a global economy, and there is going to be a much more competitive world. Even on the local level, there will be competition. Even with his small business, what has happened to him during the last 35 years has been unbelievable as far as competition is concerned. People who are working for him today are putting out twice the effort they were five years ago, and they are doing it at virtually little increase in salary because he has to meet the competition. Mr. Marshall said, on the other hand, government has no competition, but somehow government has to become more efficient. Mr. Bowerman noted that the market is not demanding that this service be provided. Mr. Marshall disagreed. He said the market is demanding service, and if he cannot meet the demand, then he will be out of business° He gave an example of when Food Lion came to charlottesville. He said people were bagging groceries at Safeway for $14.00 an hour. The same employees are now working part-time at Food Lion for $5.00 an hour, with no benefits. This is what competition is doing, and that is the difference between government and business. The effort has to be put forth in business. Mr. Martin stated that he would like to move forward with this idea. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to have more detail on the proposal, such as how it will be implemented. Mr. Bain commented that he would like to know how distinctions will be made, because there are certain departments where the proposal will not work. Mro Tucker reiterated that the idea is for this proposal to be volun- tary. He said he has already talked to some department heads where the proposal will not work. He added that Mr. Marshall has brought out a point that he has been thinking about, and that is whether or not to provide vesting. The vesting part of the proposal may have to be eliminated. Mr. Bowerman said the proposal should be recognized as a temporary situation or a permanent gain of productivity, because the County has to be more competitive. Mr. Marshall stated that this can be accomplished with a bonus. Mr. Martin agreed that a bonus situation for the employees can be examined. Agenda Item No. 16. Board Guidance on the FY 1994-95 Budget. Mr. Tucker said a preliminary estimate of revenues for FY 1994-95 shows an overall increase of $2.9 million, or a 4.2 percent increase over FY 1993- 94. Of the $2.9 million, total property taxes increase by approximately $2.1 million (4.6%), other local revenues by $645,755 (3.5%), and state and federal revenues by $333,500 (6.6%). Mr. Tucker said that although there is a 4.6 percent increase in overall property taxes, there is a significant drop in real property taxes of approxi- mately $600,000 in the current year due to a much slower than projected growth in new construction for an actual decrease of $88,600 in real property revenues over FY 1993-94. Personal property taxes remain strong with a projected 13 percent increase over FY 1993-94 due to increased car sales over the past year. A 3.5 percent increase in other local taxes reflects a healthy outlook for sales tax revenues of six percent, while fees from building activities are projected to decline by ten percent, again due to a lower than anticipated growth in new construction. Mr. Tucker said the most significant and expected increase in expendi- tures is for debt service for the new middle school ($1,023,250). Remaining 'commitments reflect an increase of $155,880 in the City-County Revenue Sharing Agreement, an increase of $140,000 in the Board's Reserve Fund. After meeting these commitments of $1.3 million (45%) from new revenues, net available revenues are $1.6 million, or a 2.8 percent increase in operating revenues for both the School Division and General Government. Using the 40/60 percent allocation formula, the School Division would receive $975,443 in new reve- nues, while General Government would receive $650,295. In General Government, the projected increase in health insurance benefits and Virginia Retirement System rates, as well as vested salary increases, will consume all but about $200,000. Therefore, all departments and community agencies will receive level, or possibly, reduced funding for FY 1994-95. For the School Division, the increase may cover some inflationary costs for current personnel and operations, but will not address the anticipated costs of $1.3 to $1.9 million for opening the new middle school. To assist November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) O00~L5 (Page 20) the School Division in addressing these one-time costs, staff recommends that the Virginia Public School Authority refund of $379,000, as well as the FY 1992-93 School Fund balance of $275,000 be used. Mr. Tucker said the School Division has asked (in a separate request) that the "Enrollment Reserve" of $274,184 be appropriated into the current year. Staff suggests that the School's enrollment loss be covered from the current year's holdback of 7.5 percent, and that the FY 1992-93 balance be carried forward to help fund the one-time middle school costs in FY 1994-95. Mr. Bowerman asked how the dollars can be less if the real estate base stays the same or increases a little bit Mr. Tucker explained that there is an actual decrease in real estate revenue of $88,000. Mr. Bowerman said he understands this, but wondered how there could be a decrease in real eState revenue when the base of real estate has stayed the same. Mr. Tucker answered that this happened because new construction decreased from the original estimate. Mr. Tucker continued by saying the VPSA bonds sold on Friday at a 4.71 percent interest rate. County staff had budgeted seven percent so there will be a savings in 1994-95 of approximately $270,000 over what was projected as the County's debt service payment. The new available revenue isactually $1,895,738. Mr. Tucker suggested that this money stay in the school fund to be used for one-time costs, and it will be held in a reserve if the school system needs it. He reminded the Supervisors of a financial report he sent with the consent agenda where the school system at the beginning of this year started with a seven and one-half percent hold back, which will generate over $600,000 of savings. He said that one-half of that is what school system personnel expect to lose in expenses due to loss of enrollment. He called attention to the fact that the $270,000 savings in the bond issue sale has not been allocated anywhere, although there are lots of options. This money can be put back into the total revenue, and it could be divided 60 percent and 40 percent between the school system and general government. Another option would be to send the $270,000 to the schools for the one-time costs of opening the new middle school. A third option would be to put it into the Super- visors' reserve fund to do with as they deem necessary at budget time. A fourth idea might be to use some of the funds for funding some of the items in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mr. Marshall remarked that if the money is put into the Board's reserve, then it can be used for general government or the school system. Mr. Tucker concurred. He said that if the money is added directly to the school system's budget, it would almost cover the one-time projected need of approximately $1,000,000 for the opening of the new middle school. He went on to say that when this amount of money is added to the school fund carryover, it amounts to approximately $654,000, and if another $270,000 is added, it will get the school system closer to the total figure needed for this school opening. He reminded Board members that this is their decision. Mr. Marshall stated that he would like to have the VPSA funds added to the Board's reserve, because he wants to see the CIP, 'etc., before he makes a decision. Mr. Tucker agreed. He said the Board can consider the CIP this afternoon, as well as discuss the revenue distribution with the School BOard. He went on to say that if the guidelines the staff has given meet with the Supervisors' approval, they will be used in distributing the available funds to the department heads and the various agencies. The school system staff needs to know what to build its budget on, as well as general government. Mr. Martin called attention to the $140,000 in the Board's reserve fund under Committed New Expenditures. He asked if this money is actually commit- ted to something. Mr. Tucker replied, "no." He said the Board has asked the staff over the last couple of years to provide an adequate reserve on which the Supervisors could make decisions. There are items which come up, about which the Supervisors feel strongly. In years past, the Board has had no flexibility in trying to fund such things. Mr. Martin inquired if this number is committed just for the sake of presenting a budget to the Supervisors with this fund included. Mr. Tucker concurred. He said the figure can be reduced or increased, but it gives the Supervisors the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to use it for schools, other programs, a tax reduction, etc. at the time the budget is adopted. Mr. Bain asked what the money requested to open the new middle school actually covers. In terms of redistricting for the new middle school, he wants to make sure that the plan which is the most economical and efficient cost-wise is the plan which is used. There might be a $400,000 or $500,000 increase because that is the way school officials want to handle the situa- tion. His message is that school officials should not come looking to this Board for that money if the money for that plan is included in the $1.9 million. He does not want to waste that kind of money. He would like to say that the $270,000 should be used for the one-time opening costs of the middle school, but he would not be willing to do that until he has seen what is included in the total figure. Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Bain that he does not want to have to consider all of the plans, but he wants to make sure that what the School Board is doing will be the most efficient and cost-effective plan. November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) 0002 16 Mr. Bain concurred. He added that the School Board members have those plans and costs, and this Board and/or Mr. Tucker needs to communicate to them that they should not request more money from this Board if they are just trying to satisfy parents, etc. Me said it is a dollars and cents decision, and it should be made by the School Board. Mr. Tucker said he met with the Chairman of the School Board and Dr. Paskel last week when the budget guidance figures were completed. At that time the bond sale had not been completed. These people have a very clear picture about the school system's costs, especially with the opening of the new middle school, as well as what revenues are available to them. Mr. Bowerman commented that about four or five weeks ago the Board reappropriated for the 1992-93 year, approximately $480,000 in funds from general government which were not expended. These were reappropriated to the General Fund so the size of the General Fund was increased by $480,000 over what it otherwise would have been had the money been spent. This is the Board's General Fund balance, and those are savings that accrued to the taxpayer through general government efficiencies. This money is not available for use anywhere unless the Board chooses to reduce the General Fund~ He commented that the savings which were accrued actually benefitted the County's efficiency and went back to the reserve fund rather than being kept as a line item to be used for something else. He wanted to make a point that general government, in its operations in 1992-93 did a very good job, and that money has been returned to the General Fund. Mr. Tucker mentioned that the Board will be talking about this item under the appropriations section of the budget. Me said he wanted to dis- cuss some of these points with the Supervisors so they will be prepared when this appropriation request is taken up at the joint meeting with the School Board later today. Mr. Bowerman asked the Board members feelings about the bond savings due to the interest rate reduction. He wondered if the Supervisors wanted to split the funds on a percentage basis with the school system, keep it as a separate line item, or add it to the reserve fund's current balance to be applied when the Board thinks it is appropriate. Mr. Marshall said he would rather add it to the Board's reserve fund. Mr. Martin remarked that he would rather not add the figure to the reserve fund. He would rather keep the figures separated because he can see this money being used for the one-time costs of opening the new school. He would also like to use it as a motivator for efficiency. Mr. Marshall said he thinks this can be accomplished if the money is put into the Board's reserve fund. Mr. Bain commented that since it is a savings on the Debt Service category in the CIP, it might be a good idea if it is kept separate in order to use it in some other way if necessary. He would rather for the Board to have the flexibility rather than to split it 60/40 with the school system. This could still be done if it becomes necessary. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that this is not a savings. He said it is a reduced future cost. Ms. White asked to clarify something. She said the Board's reserve fund has a new dollar amount of $140,000, and there is $60,000 in the reserve fund for this year, so $200,000 will be carried over. Mr. Bain said the Board may want to use the VPSA savings for the one- time costs of opening the school. He said the School Board needs to look clearly at this matter and decide how to handle it in terms of efficiency and cost. Mr. Marshall commented that sometimes, when the budget process begins, there are items that the Supervisors want to pull out and hold aside. The VPSA savings will give the Board some extra money for some of these items. Mr. Bain agreed, but he said the Supervisors need to recognize that the school system is going to have substantial one-time school opening costs that he does not think should come out of its 60 percent allocation. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Tucker has the directions he needs. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. He understands it is the general consensus that the Supervisors do not want to allocate the $270,000 of VPSA savings at this time. The Supervisors would like to keep this amount of money in their reserve fund until a later date when they can decide the needs of the County. Mr. Bowerman asked if the VPSA savings will be kept as a separate item. Mr. Tucker replied that the VPSA savings can be shown as a separate item if the Board so wishes, but it is basically the same as the Board's reserve fund. Mr. Martin stated that he would like to keep this amount separate by just showing it as an addition to the reserve fund. Mr. Tucker concurred that this could be done. He said the total amount of the reserve fund can be shown, but the VPSA savings will be identified· He then mentioned that in addition to those savings, there wil.1 hopefully be another savings of approxi- mately $130,000 in this fiscal year due to the 4.7 percent bond issue. He did not want to bring this up in the discussion because he did not want to November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) 000217 complicate the matter. The savings will be in this fiscal year because of the reduced interest payment the County will make in the spring. Mr. Tucker said these things will be discussed again this afternoon with the School Board, and he suggested that all of the comments the Supervisors have made at this meeting would be appropriate to discuss with the School Board. Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion: Albemarle County 1994 Legislative Packet. Mr. Tucker said only two new proposals are being requested to be introduced for Albemarle County: Legislation that adds Albemarle County to the two other counties, Prince William and Fairfax, that may require Board of Supervisors' approval before an applicant may withdraw from a local agricultural/forestal district, rather than simply allowing the applicant to withdraw by request. Legislation to allow local jurisdictions to retain any assets from police activities, particularly assets involved in a local drug effort. Currently, the state may take which assets they choose to be channeled into the Literary Loan Fund, a resource that is no longer available to Albemarle County, due to our revenue capacity compared to other local- ities. Mr. Tucker said a copy of VACo's draft 1994 legislative program was previously forwarded to the Board, and this draft provides more detail on many of the legislative issues coming before the General Assembly. He said that Ms. Andrea Trank is present today to introduce the new legislative liaison. Ms. Trank announced that the Supervisors do not have the TJPDC legisla- tive package because her office is in transition. She introduced Ms. Bonnie Fronfelder as the new legislative liaison. Ms. Trank said she (Ms. Trank) will continue working with the planning districts, so she will be working with this Board on the Route 29 corridor s~udy, as well as other things. She also informed the Board that Ms. Fronfelder will make the official presentation with the legislators on December 1. There was no particular discussion at this time. Mr. Bowerman suggested that if VACo makes any changes, then Mr. Tucker should discuss these changes with the Supervisors on the morning of December 1 before the meeting with the legislators. Agenda Item No. 18. Fire Service District Report. Mr. Bowerman said this agenda item would be discussed after lunch, and he suggested that the items pertaining to appropriations be considered next. (Note: Agenda Item No. 19, Authorize Chairman to execute an addendum to lease agreement for Offender Aid & Restoration to guarantee security deposit, had been moved to the Consent Agenda.) Agenda Item No. 20a. Reappropriation: G. E. Elfun Balance. Mr. Tucker said contributions made by G.E. in prior years for maintaining the flight bus have not been expended. The flight bus is a specially equipped school bus used as a mobile class room to exhibit and display various scientific projects related to aeronautics and flight. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, 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: NAYS: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. FISCAL YEAR 1993-94 NUMBER 93003 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY REAPPROPRIATION OF FY 1992-93 BALANCE ON G. E. ELFUN DONATION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1320461311601300 EDUC & RECREATION SUPPLIES TOTAL $4,151.65 $4,151.65 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2320451000510100 FUND BALANCE $4,151,65 TOTAL $4,151.65 Agenda Item No. 20b. Appropriation: School Division Transfer. Mr. Tucker said a request was received from the School Superintendent to transfer November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 0002~S (Page 23) staff development funds for administrative and instructional staff from the Administrative category to the Instruction CategOrY for easier tracking Of expenses incurred for each group. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1993-94 NUMBER: 930035 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1242061311580500 1242062140580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT STAFF DEVELOPMENT $53,296.00 ($53,296..00) TOTAL $0.00 Agenda Item No. 20c. Appropriation: Forest Fire Control. Mr. Tucker said the County is billed annually by the Virginia Department of Forestry for a portion of the cost associated with forest fire control. The FY 1993-94 bill is based on 275,169 acres at the rate of five cents per acre for a total of $13,785.45. This amount exceeds the budgeted amount by $163.45. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, 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. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1993-94 NUMBER: 930037 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR.FOREST FIRE CONTROL EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100032040560500 FOREST FIRE CONTROL AMOUNT $163.45 TOTAL $163.45 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $163.45 TOTAL $163.45 Agenda Item No. 20d. Appropriation: FY 1992-93 School Carryover Funds. Mr. Tucker said the School Division completed FY 1992-93 with a balance of revenues over expenses in the amount of $747,232. Staff has reviewed these requests: Previously Budgeted Funds School Based Accounts Curriculum Revision Comprehensive Services Act School Board Reserve Enrollment Reserve $150,000 186,548 17,500 89,000 30,000 274,232 and recommends approval of four of the five requests. For the previously budgeted funds of $150,000, and the enrollment reserve of $274,232, staff offers the following comments: As to the request to appropriate $150,000, it was anticipat- ed that the School Fund would have at least this amount remaining from FY 1992-93 operations, and it was used to balance the FY 1993-94 original budget. As to the request to appropriate $274,184, the September 1993 Financial Report indicated that school revenues might be short by $306,606 based on current enrollment projec- tions. This same report indicated that $676,427 might be generated by the 7.5 percent holdback of expenditures in the current year, creating, a potential overall savings of $369,821. November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 0002~.9 (Page 24) Mr. Tucker said staff is of the opinion that the enrollment revenue loss may be covered in the current year, and would not require an appropriation of an enrollment reserve fund at this time. The remaining $274,184 should be maintained in the School Fund Balance t° cover POtential revenue shortfalls in the current year as recommended in the County Executive's FY 1994-95 budget guidance memorandum. Dr. Paskel noted that the 7.5 percent holdback of expenditures excluded such items as utility costs, and he noted that the actual value of this holdback is $369,821, rather than $600,000. These dollars have been budgeted, and they are in the individual cost center accounts, but the managers and the school principals understand that this amount of money cannot be spent until the School Board releases it. The School Board has agreed to revisit this issue on March 30 once they know about this year's and next year's revenues. He mentioned that the enrollment reserve was set aside because 10,550 students had been budgeted, but at the end of September there were 10,581 students, so there were 31 more students than had been expected in March. Ne pointed out that enrollments typically fall off in the neighborhood of 1.5 to 2.8 percent from the end of September to the end of March, and he stated that the $274,232 which the School Board has set aside probably will not be sufficient to cover the enrollment drop this year. He just wanted to reinforce the information that Mr. Tucker gave to the Supervisors. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request as recommended by the County Executive. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1993-94 NUMBER: 930038 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF FY 1992-93 CARRYOVER FUNDS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1220161101601300 INST 1220261101601300 INST 1220361101601300 INST 1220461101601300 INST 1220561101601300 INST 1220661101601300 INST 1220761101601300 INST 1220961101601300 INST 1221061101601300 INST 1221161101601300 INST 1221261101601300 INST 1221361101601300 INST 1221461101601300 INST 1221561101601300 INST 1221661101601300 INST 1225161101601300 INST 1225361101601300 INST 1225461101601300 INST 1230161101601300 INST 1230261101601300 INST 1230361101601300 INST 1211161316152100 1211161316210000 1211293010930206 1241060100999981 ~RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES ~RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES tRECREATIONAL SUPPLIES IRECREATIONAL SUPPLIES tRECREATIONAL SUPPLIES fRECREATIONAL SUPPLIES fRECREATIONAL SUPPLIES IRECREATIONAL SUPPLIES IRECREATIONAL SUPPLIES fRECREATIONAL SUPPLIES fRECREATIONAL SUPPLIES fRECREATIONAL SUPPLIES ~RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES fRECREATIONAL SUPPLIES fRECREATIONAL SUPPLIES fRECREATIONAL SUPPLIES /RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES /RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES /RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES /RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES 'RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES SUBSTITUTE WAGES-TEACHER FICA TRANSFER TO CSA FUND CONTINGENCY RESERVE TOTAL $ 3,201.00 5,753.00 5,711.00 10.020.00 9,657.00 8,525.00 6,439.00 4,475.00 7,289.00 2,368.00 2,298.00 885.00 8,170.00 3,032.00 9,975.00 11,440.00 14,491.00 11,681.00 40,177.00 3,253.00 1,311.00 16,245.00 1,255.00 89,000.00 30,000.00 $323,048.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200051000510100 SCHOOL FUND BALANCE $323,048.00 TOTAL $323,048.00 (At 12:11 p.m., the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:14 p.m. with all Board members present, except for Mr. Bain.) Agenda Item No. 2lb. Work Session: CPA-93-04. Community Facilities Plan (Solid Waste Management Section) of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said the Community Facilities Plan is self-explanatory. He said the Albemarle County Planning Commission has unanimously recommended approval of the plan. He said Mr. Benish would highlight the plan, and the staff will be glad to answer any questions the Board members may have. Mr. Benish noted that this is the last section of the Community Facili- ties Plan, and this section covers solid waste management. In developing this plan, he worked closely with the Engineering Department and the Rivanna Solid 0002 0 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) Waste Authority. The Authority's staff has reviewed this plan and has indicated that it is acceptable. Mr. Bowerman asked if the remainder of the Community Facilities Plan has as much narrative as this section. Mr. Benish replied that it depends on the section because some sections are more technical. Mrs. Humphris called attention to the top of Page Two where it gives the percentages of the waste which comes from Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia. She asked if these are new numbers. She recalled that in the past there have been comments that a lot of the Univer- sity's waste was being attributed to the County instead of the University, based on whose trucks were hauling it to the landfill. Mr. Benish indicated that these are fairly new figures. Mrs. Humphris wondered if these figures would reflect the current situation. Mr. Benish answered affirmatively. Mr. Tucker said there will always be a problem having definitive figures regarding origination of refuse. In the County, only private haulers are available for pickup, and they also pick up in the City for commercial establishments, as well as at the University. There are occasions when a hauler does not have a full truck load, and he might be at a place in the City so he completes his load with City refuse although most of what is on the truck is from the County. The haulers recognize this problem, and most of them are good about keeping the refuse separate. Sometimes there could be mixed loads from the City, County and University, and it is up to the driver to determine whether or not it is a County load. Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Tucker thinks that the drivers attempt to be fair, since it is not possible to be ~ompletely accurate. Mr. Tucker replied, "yes." He said this has been discussed with the haulers, and they understand the concern. The Authority staff does its part to try to enforce it, but there will always be those opportunities when the driver does not have a full load, so he will pick up other refuse. He added that the drivers try to schedule as best they can to get refuse from certain areas, but they don't want to drive to the Ivy Landfill with only part of a load. (Note: Mr. Martin left at 1:19 p.m., and Mr. St. John arrived at the same time. Mr. Martin returned at 1530 p.m.) Mr. Bowerman announced that the next step is to take this proposal to public hearing with incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if there had been any comments from interest groups regarding this proposal prior to this work session. Mr. Benish stated that there were no public comments at the Planning Commission's public hearing. Mr. Bowerman commented that he does not want to get to public hearing and find out that there are problems, and he said that this often happens. He would like to know if the environmental groups and the haulers are in general accord with what the Planning Commission has recommended. If there are things that need to be worked out, he would like to know about them prior to the public meeting. Mr. Benish responded that to date, there have not been many comments received. He knows these environmental organizations are aware of the plan, and they have received copies of it. The Blue Ridge Homebuilders are also aware of the plan, and have made no comments. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board is to assume that, since no one has heard from the Piedmont Environmental Council, that the PEC members have no problem with this plan. Ms. Lisa Glass from the PEC responded that she sees no problem with this plan as far as the environmental groups are concerned, unless something else develops. Mr. Bowerman remarked that the Board can set a public hearing date, but he thinks it would be in the best interest to check with some people that the staff can identify to see if they have come up with any significant problems with this plan. It is perfectly appropriate to have a public hearing on this plan, but there might be things that can be addressed at another work session of which this Board is currently unaware. He does not think this Board has a problem with the plan. Mr. Benish said he will make sure that the staff contacts all of the interested organizations. Mr. Perkins made a motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to hold a public hearing on December 8, 1993, relative to CPA-93-04, Community Facilities Plan, Solid Waste Management section. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 23. Cancel November 10, 1993, Board meeting. Upon motion by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, the meeting for November 10, 1993, was ordered canceled because no items had been presented for discussion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: 00022 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 18. Fire Service District Report. Mr. Tucker said state law enables counties to establish fire districts, defined by metes and bounds, which can have a separate levy on real and personal property to fund fire fighting organizations. This can be accom- plished in many ways. The Board asked staff to present information on how the current City- County fire contract could be administered through a fire district. Section 27-23.1 of the Code of Virginia allows the Board to create, by ordinance, a district and to annually levy a tax on the assessed value of all property, real and personal, within the district. The current cost of the fire contract with the City for fire suppression and dispatching services is $570,890. Mr. Tucker said the difficulty in establishing a district under the City-County contract will be in determining the formula for assessing the costs of the services provided to the district. For instance, if the district is drawn such that it includes the "Urban Area", the County will be required to show that those paying for the contracted services are the ones truly receiving the service. Determining what value should be placed on the availability of assistance outside of this defined area versus the actual provision of services will be difficult. Mr. Tucker said concern has been raised in many of the outlying areas of the County because they do not feel that they receive much in the way of suppression services from the contract. That is perceived to be a valid issue since the statistics kept by the City at the present time do not allow a good evaluation of that claim. If the contract were to be funded using this concept, a portion would need to be funded by the General Fund (shared equally by all taxpayers), and the balance from a tax within the defined area in order to accommodate the portion of services all residents receive from the City. Unless real or personal property taxes were lowered for the entire County prior to adding back a fire levy, residents in the new district would be paying a higher amount of taxes than at the present time for essentially the same services. Mr. Tucker said an alternative for consideration is to allow current property rates to remain at present levels and to fund any increase necessary to sustain the fire service from a combination of fire levy and General Fund contributions. The difficulty in that would be allocating the funds to specific areas when the County's goal is to operate the fire service on a County-wide, as-needed basis in an attempt to move away from the turf battles and independence of each fire department, which has hampered coordination in the past through a shifting of resources. Mr. Tucker said the members of the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA) are interested in studying the concept of reducing their dependence on fund-raising activities through a fire district levy county- wide. While they acknowledge the fact that some areas of the County receive a higher number of responses from the City contract, many believe that a county- wide levy for all fire departments bears careful review at this time, and JCFRA would like to be involved in looking at the issue. Mr. St. John commented that he has been unable to find any legal reason for having a county-wide district. It seems to him that the purpose of this legislation is really to have districts which are not county-wide, because people are already getting this urban service. He asked what would be the advantage of establishing a county-wide district and then having to have a separate levy. Mr. Tucker agreed that there would be another level of bureau- cracy, and nothing would change, except that the district would be identified. Mr. St. John noted that a county-wide district would even involve separate bookkeeping, etc. Mr. Tucker said the citizens could identify what they pay for fire service because there would be a separate levy. Whenever the fire fighters or rescue squad ask for more money, it would be reflected in the citizens' levy. He emphasized that the only difference in having a county-wide district is that the money going toward fire and rescue service can be readily identified. Mr. St. John concurred that this is the only thing that the money can be used for once there is a separate levy for fire and rescue. He explained that with a separate levy, any unused balance can only be used for that purpose, and there would not be any flexibility as far as using the money for anything else. Mr. Bowerman remarked that if there was a county-wide fire district, a certain portion of the tax receipts would be identified for a specific use, such as what is done now for schools, just so the public would know exactly how much money is being used for fire and rescue services. The tax rate could stay the same, and in order to change the tax rate, the public would have to be told what is being done and why it is being done. 000222 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) Mr. Martin said he does not see the benefits of a county-wide fire service district versus the negative consequences. What would happen if he had a fire and he lived in the rural area. Mr. Bowerman said the responders would check where Mr. Martin lived before the service was rendered. Mr. Martin said there are people living in rural areas who get benefits from the services offered in urban areas. Mr. Bowerman agreed that this is true whenever people from the rural areas come to the urban areas for shopping, etc. Mr. Marshall said Scottsville has an excellent fire company, but it is 19 miles from his house, and the East Rivanna Fire company is supposed to cover his area. He had an occasion for a fire company to come to his home because of his mother-in-law's heart attack, but the Ridge Street Fire Company is the one which responded. The way the plan is drawn it looks as though his home is located outside of the urban area. Mr. Perkins remarked that the reason he (Mr. Perkins) brought up this matter is because there are known costs. Even though there are no facts and figures to back them up, there are costs that are more directly associated with the urban area or within a five to eight mile circle of Charlottesville. He is not saying the people in Crozet or Scottsville are not receiving some benefit from the current arrangement. If there were a bad fire at Crozet, probably the City units would respond. If there were a bad fire in the City, County units would respond. It is a mutual-aid arrangement, but there is a fixed cost. He commented that 80 percent of the services rendered could be within the circle around Charlottesville, and he noted that some of the rural areas start close to the City. Mr. Marshall agreed that this is his point. He does not mind paying the taxes, but he wondered how his tax would be levied since his home is just outside of the urban area. This is not fair to the people who live on the farm next door to him, because they would have to pay more than he would pay. Mr. Perkins said he wanted this issue to be examined more closely, although he knows it will take a lot of work to develop something fair to everybody. The County is currently paying the City a lot of money for services. He feels this matter needs to be considered as far as whether the contract should continue with the City and, if so, for how many years. It needs to be decided if the County will be in a position to take over these services at some time in the future. Mr. Bowerman said the County might be able to get better utilization of the dollars currently being paid to the City. The problem he sees is that even if the County considers a county-wide district, there will still be need for a joint effort with the City because the County has a totally volunteer system with a minimal amount of public assistance. Fire companies do most of their fund-raising themselves, and they pay back the money the County loans them. He is convinced that as soon as the County gets into a discussion with the City and considers staffing County stations with a combination of paid professionals and volunteers, the ultimate cost to the County is going to be greater. He thinks it is going to be difficult, and the Supervisors have to be careful as to how any plan is developed. The volunteers should not be turned off, and the County should not pay for more services than are needed. The total cost to the County now is minuscule per capita compared to what the City is paying. He does not want to do anything to jeopardize the volunteer system already in place in the County. Mr. Martin wondered why a county-wide system would affect the volunteer group. Mr. Tucker said he understands that some groups are concerned about having to raise all of their moneys through benefits and fund-raisers, etc. Mr. Bowerman said half of firefighting time is devoted to fund-raising. Mr. Martin again asked why changing this one situation would affect the volunteer force. Mr. Perkins explained that the problem arises when there are people who are paid a salary, and the volunteers are doing the same things, but the volunteers are not paid. Mr. Bowerman said the volunteers may say they will no longer be involved in fund-raising because they are volunteering as firefighters and not as bingo operators. Mr. Martin asked why the County would pay firefighters when there is already a volunteer system. Mr. Bowerman responded that continuous coverage, such as the urban area currently has, is needed all over the county. Mr. Perkins said he does not see any difference between the current arrangement with the City than if the County decided to build a firehouse somewhere and man it with paid people. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the County is not underwriting the whole cost of the City firehouse. The County is only responsible for the salaries associated with one company in the City's firehouse. As soon as the County supports a whole firehouse, there will have to be more people available. Now the County can draw on the City's fire company, plus the volunteers. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bowerman is saying he does not think there will be enough volunteers in the urban area to manage a firehouse full time. Mr. Bowerman said he does not think the response that needs to be available will be there. Now, it is never known how many firefighters will to come to a fire. The City has commitments from people who are always at the fire company to drive the truck, but they are met at the scene of the fire by numbers of volunteers. It has worked out that volunteers are so dedicated they will get up in the middle of the night and answer calls even though it may be a false November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) 000223 alarm. He does not understand how the system has worked as well as it has all these years. He is just cautioning the Supervisors that the County already has a very efficient fire delivery service for what is being paid. If the Supervisors begin to adjust this system, he thinks it will begin a cost for fire suppression services sooner than if the system already in the County is kept as long as possible. He agrees that ultimately there will have to be paid firefighters, but he thinks it makes sense to push it into the future for as long as possible. Mr. Perkins asked if City staff could not keep records to show where most of the callers are located. He believes there is no question that the urban areas and areas further out in the County are receiving the benefit that comes from everybody's tax dollar, but a number of County residents are not receiving this service. This is the purpose of a service district, and he mentioned that the Crozet community wants to implement a service district to pay for new streets and street lights, etc. (Mr. Bain returned at 1:46 p.m.) Mr. Bowerman replied that these are not the same issues as those for public safety. There have to be people to respond when' there is a threat to life regardless of the area or who is paying for it. Mr. Perkins disagreed. He said this is a clearly definable cost. He feels it is important to define an area in order to consider both area and cost. Mr. Bowerman asked how the people in Crozet would feel about having urban companies answer calls in that area. He wondered what would happen if Crozet had to pay for back-up firefighters, but they were not available. Mr. Perkins answered that the Crozet Fire Company has a better response time than the City of Charlottesville. If the Charlottesville Fire Company did not exist, it would not be a problem for Crozet. He said Crozet has a fine volunteer fire company and there are people at the fire company all the time because a lot of the volunteers work in the community, and they can respond to fires any time of the day or night. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Perkins understands that the Seminole Fire Company would not respond if Crozet had a fire service district. Mr. Marshall stated that Crozet is a unique area, and he feels that what Mr. Perkins said is true. Mr. Perkins commented that there is no one around during the daytime hours in a lot of the communities because the whole community goes to Char- lottesville to work. The only people left may be a couple of farmers who could respond to a call that came in during mid-morning. Mr. Tucker said the County could ease into the program by establishing one district at a time. The Board could also consider establishing districts for every volunteer fire department so they would have their own service district. The report indicates that the rate could be left as it is, but if Crozet needed a new pumper or Earlysville needed to add to its building, only then would the levy increase for that particular district. Mr. Marshall said the Supervisors have talked in the past about both the Scottsville rescue squad and fire department providing services in Fluvanna and Buckingham counties. There is no money coming back to Albemarle County for what it costs to make these calls. It is difficult to refuse service to anyone, so he does not see how a service district could be established in the Scottsville area. Mr. Bowerman said he does not see how false alarms or runs which are turn-arounds can be eliminated. Having the ability to respond to this type of call is part of the operation. No matter where the fire company is located, a certain percentage of the calls will be turn-around calls or false alarms. This is a part of the cost. It would be absurd to consider only the calls where there really isa fire, because the capacity has to be there to deal with all calls. He thinks the cost to the entire community will be higher once a system is set up where the County is paying its own firefighters. Mr. Perkins responded that this is not what he is talking about. He agrees with Mr. Bowerman about the cost if the County has to pay for fire- fighters throughout the whole community. If volunteers are no longer avail- able, this Board would probably take action to encourage people to volunteer. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Perkins is saying the County needs to start a limited number of service districts now. Mr. Perkins said he thinks a clearly defined service area could be established to provide the same ServiCes for which the County is presently paying the City. This can't be done now because records are not good enough to establish where calls are coming from. Mr. Tucker said his staff is currently collecting data so there will be better data in the future. Mr. Perkins said that currently there are fire companies in the County, as far as equipment is concerned, which are comparable to City fire companies. Crozet has a bigger fire company than most of the other communities, and they have more fund-raising drives so they can afford a few more things. Areas such as Dyke and Gordonsville will still have to be considered, and he asked where these places will get fire protection. Mr. Marshall said he wants to know more about service districts because he is thoroughly confused about the whole issue. November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) Mr. Tucker remarked that the funds required to meet the City's contract must be considered. Those funds would have to be divided among the fire companies which could respond in the urban area. Logistics also have to be considered because the Ridge Street Fire Company is fairly centrally located. For example, it could respond to Mr. Marshall's area quicker than East Rivanna or the Seminole Fire Company. The situation needs some close examination because it may not make sense to have the City respond to calls only within the City limits, and to have the County take care of its own calls. A time factor would be involved unless a fire station could be built in the Route 250 West area. Mr. Bowerman inquired as to which fire company handles calls from the Farmington area. Mr. Perkins replied that the Crozet Fire Company answers Farmington's calls. Mr. Bowerman asked what other company would respond. Mr. Tucker responded that the City fire trucks are also dispatched for Farmington, and he pointed out that the City fire trucks are sometimes dispatched as far as Ivyo Mr. Martin mentioned the situation in Crozet where that fire station is always manned because people work in the community, He asked why'the county could not have its own firehouse in the City, and volunteers would be close to it while they were working. Mr. Tucker explained that the Seminole Fire Company has such an arrangement. Mr. Martin said it seems to him that if fire companies can be well- manned with volunteers, the County should be able to have a firehouse close to town that is a total volunteer situation. Mr. Perkins commented that such an arrangement is probably in the future. If this could be done, it would be time to consider whether or not the City contract were needed. Mr. Martin said the County could take the money that is paid to the City and use it for the County's own company. Mr. Tucker remarked that it is not cheap to set up a fire station. It depends on the size of the structure. Mr. Marshall pointed out that the City has a certain truck that the County does not have which costs a considerable amount of money. Mr. Tucker concurred. He said another ladder truck would be needed for the urban area. Mr. Bowerman said in order to renegotiate the City contract for the year following its expiration on June 30, 1995, City officials have to be notified by June 30, 1994. A situation such as Mr. Perkins is referring to would not require County officials to deal with the City. A fire district in the County could be considered over the next six months. Mr. Marshall asked if it would cause a hardship for the City if the County pulled out of the contract. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that City offi- cials want to renegotiate for more money because they do not feel the County pays enough for the services it gets. Mr. Bain said one thing to be considered is the data Mr. Tucker indicat- ed is being collected. It needs to be determined which calls are in the City and which are in the County, as well as false alarms and turn-around times. There is still competition between the companies as to who will get to the scene first and that also needs to be considered. Mr. Bowerman commented that Mr. Bain has a higher degree of cynicism than he does about the nature of the volunteer fire service. Mr. Bain said it is not cynicism, and~oney and calls have to be considered. He gave an example of the Crozet Fire Company responding to a car wreck on the Route 250 bypass when the City's truck is only three miles away. He thinks this is ridiculous and it should not be happening, but he emphasized that it is happening. He added that people don't care what district they live in when there is a problem. They are going to want someone to respond as quickly as they can get there. Mr. Bain said he does not think there is any harm in examining this issue and gathering the information. Mr. Tucker mentioned that one of the things staff will consider is the location of additional fire stations. This subject will be covered in the next update of the Comprehensive Plan. Three areas are being addressed. One station is being considered for the southern urban area near Route 20 and Avon Street. Another fire station is being considered in the northern part of the County near the Hollymead/Forest Lakes area, and a third one is being dis- cussed for the western part of the County where the City has its small station close to the University Police Department. When one or more of these stations are put into place, there will be a better understanding of how the County can respond to the other areas which are now being handled almost entirely by the City because of the City's ability to respond more quickly. Mr. Bowerman said the County's fixed costs will be raised considerably if three new stations are established. Mr. Tucker pointed out that a fire company in the Route 20/Avon Street area could probably get to Pantops quicker than the East Rivanna Fire Company because of its proximity to Interstate 64. Mr. Bowerman asked where volunteers will come from for three new compa- nies. He said there are only so many people available for this type of service. Mr. Tucker said he understands what Mr. Bowerman is saying, but he is simply mentioning possible locations for new fire companies. 000225 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) Mr. Martin said he thinks the different areas could provide enough volunteers, especially in the Hollymead/Forest Lakes area. Mr. Tucker said volunteers would have to be able to respond during the day, and these volun- teers will not be able to do that because they will be working somewhere else. Other companies, such as the Seminole Trail Fire Station, or the one on the Route 250 Bypass, will have to respond to problems during the day because people work close to these companies. Mr. Martin pointed out that there are many people who live in an area who would be able to respond when necessary. A lot of people work out of their homes. Mr. Perkins asked that staff keep track of where the calls are originat- ing, and the nature of the calls. Mr. Marshall asked if the County ever does anything to thank the volunteers. Mr. Bowerman answered that the County makes a contribution which reduces their need to do some fund-raising. He said the volunteers work in this capacity because they enjoy what they are doing and they want to do it. He does not want to do anything in any way that would inhibit them. Mr. Marshall said he had in mind some recognition for certain depart- ments for something which they have accomplished out of the ordinary. Mr. Perkins noted that each active fireman and rescue squad worker is given a break on their personal property tax bill, a free automobile tag, and they get passes to the County parks. Mr. Marshall said the Board is missing his point. He is trying to create some competitiveness between one department and another. For example, the Seminole Trail Fire Department might get an award for service during a certain period of time. Every year an award could be given because it makes people want to do more. Mr. Bowerman said this idea could be investigated, but he is sure the firemen would rather have the County give them more money so they could spend less time fund-raising. Mr. Marshall said a proper way of thanking the volunteers should be considered. He added that a plaque on the wall would be nice. Mr. BoWerman agreed that there are a lot of things that could be done to call attention to the volunteers. Mr. Bain said he is sure the individual companies give their own awards. Perhaps the companies could select certain people for different things that the Board could recognize. Mr. Marshall emphasized that he is talking about one company as opposed to another. One year the Seminole Trail Fire Company could be honored because it did a particular thing that was out of the ordinary. Perhaps the next year, the East Rivanna Fire Company could get an award for having done the same type of thing. He is referring to a meritori- ous service award, so that each station is competing against each other for recognition. Mr. Bowerman said he believes staff has enough ideas from the Board to proceed with studying this issue. He said the idea has a lot of problems, but it is something that this Board will have to face in the future. Agenda Item No. 2la. Work Session: FY 1994-95/1998-99 Capital Improve- ments Program (CIP). (Nr. Bowerman left the room at 2:08 p.m. and returned at 2:10 p.m.) Mr. Tucker summarized the FY 1994-95/1998-99 Capital Improvements Program saying the recommended CIP totals $3,479,200, which includes $1,997,970 in General Government projects and $1,481,230 in School Division projects. The recommended projects are balanced to available revenues which are derived from $2.28 million in current revenues in addition to $1,097,400 in Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) bond revenues. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the way funds were allocated generally followed the Commission's recommendation until funding sources were exhausted. Although higher on the Commission's list, several large projects such as Berkmar Drive extension, the Avon Street connector road and the Rivanna Park were not included because of funding limitations. The last six School projects on the priority list were not prioritized by the Commission. They are shown in the priority order set by the School Board. Mr. Tucker said in allocating funds for School and Recreation projects, several decisions were made on the use of current revenues versus VPSA bonds. All ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) projects, have been funded over a three-year period instead of all in one year. All are funded within current revenues, although all the School projects, and the Recreation projects on School grounds, would have qualified for VPSA funding. Also, several small recreational improvement projects on School grounds were funded within current revenues rather than depending on VPSA bonds as has been done in prior years. These projects have been retained under the General Government function rather then categorized as School projects since they serve as neighborhood parks and are considered a function of General Government under the Community Facilities Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000226 (Page 31) Mr. Tucker said VPSA bonds are utilized for only six School projects. The new high school and the northern elementary school will not be included in the recommendation until such time as the committees charged with looking at enrollment and alternatives complete their evaluations and recommendations to the Board. Limiting VPSA borrowing to $1.0 million in FY 1994-95 Will result in a decrease of approximately $400,000 in the FY 1995-96 Debt Service payment and with small increments in the following years for renovation projects at Red Hill, Brownsville and Woodbrook, total Debt Service in the following years should remain at the current level of approximately $6.5 million. Mr. Tucker said that at the end of this work session, the Board will need to approve the proposed FY 1994-95/1998-99 CapitalImprovements program on which a public hearing should be held on November 17, 1993. He mentioned that Mr. David Benish is at this meeting to respond to questions the Board may have about specific projects. The proposed plan is as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES AND FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDED Note: FUNDING The fimt 16 projec~ were not individually ranked by the Commission but ware ranked according to a 1, 2 and 3 category of mandated and committed projects. ADA CompLiance - Various Parks/Recreation FaciLities. Removal of architectural barriers at ALbemarLe County parks that are detailed in the ADA transition plan (Greenwood Com- munity Center, Scottsvi[[e Community Center, Mint Springs, Totier, the Meadows Community Center, Chris Greene, WaLnut Creek, Ivy Creek and Rivanna. Original request was $247,005. The Commission recommended funding over a three-year period so the FY 1994-95 [eve[ is approximately 35 percent of the total request. ADA CompLiance - School Parks. Funds for accessibility improvements for outdoor areas at ALbemarLe County SchooLs which serve as community and district parks (signage, paving for parking, accessible pathways, ground cover under playground equipment and some accessi- bility improvements to equipment. Original request was $275,000. The FY 1994-95 recom- mendation reflects 35 percent of total request, with remainder being spread over a two- year period of time. $96,250 ADA Structural Changes - Various School Locations. Many school facilities require struc- tural changes to aLLow for accessibility. Major renovations to facilities in this plan wiLL meet present ADA requirements and include elevators, ramps, restrooms, drinking fountains, signage, etc. Original request was $57'5,800 which is recommended for funding over a three-year period. County Office BuiLdings (COB) ADA Renovations. Modifications to County buildings to comply with ADA regulations which includes instaLLing power doors, modifying bathrooms, replacing door knobs, signage and Lowering counter sections to accommodate wheeLchairs. Original request was $158,950 which is recommended for funding over a three-year period. $56,630 Jail ADA CompLiance. To make structural changes to remove barriers which currently Limit handicapped accessibility in the visitor's area of the Joint Security CompLex. FuLL funding is recommended. $35,250 Remove SheLving and Reorganize to meet ADA Standards for PubLic Library FaciLities. SheLving must be moved and rearranged to comply with distance regulations required by ADA. FuLL funding is recommended. $3,000 Peyton Drive Stormwater Detention Basin. There is an existing Large ravine with deveL- oped [and on one side upstream, and it is Located in the urban area. The upstream development occurred prior to adoption of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance, therefore, there is no control over stormwater runoff in the drainage basin. The runoff eventuaLLy drains into Meadow Creek which is susceptible to frequent flooding. The construction of a regional detention basin is based upon recommendations in the 1984 Urban Drainage Report. The property owners have agreed to dedicate the necessary Land. Fees have already been accepted. FuLL funding is recommended. Emergency Stop Switches - Various Industrial Arts Shops. InstaLL emergency stop switches for aLL major pieces of equipment in the shops at HenLey, Jouett and Wa[ton middle schools. It is recommended that this project be funded fuLLy with current revenues and that it not be funded with VPSA bonds. $18,000 Stone-Robinson School Renovations. The seLf-contained electric heating and cooling units in the Library and surrounding classrooms wiLL be replaced. The boilers and chiLLer were ized to handle only the new equipment in the previous renovations, therefore, new piping and unit veni[ators wi[[ be instaLLed. ALso, an EffLuent Discharge Diffuser (EFF) wiLL be instaL[ed on the discharge Line of the sewage system. The EDD is mandated by the State Water Control Board. It is recommended that it be fuLLy funded with VPSA bonds. $25,000 Contaminated Soil Removal and Monitoring - Various Locations. Remove contaminated soil from six facilities and monitor the sites as required. It is recommended that it be fuLLy funded with VPSA bonds. $95,000 WaterLine Improvements - Various Locations. InstaLL backfLow prevention in aLL schools serviced by the ALbemarLe County Service Authority. InstaLLing this device in the main waterline prevents any possible contamination from the user to the public supply. This project is mandated by the State Water Control Board and the ALbemarLe County Service Authority. It is recommended that it be fuLLy funded with VPSA bonds. HeaLth Department CLinic Wing. Addition of 8000 square feet to the HeaLth Department facility and renovation of existing space to meet increased demand for health care ser- vices with resulting expansion in staff. This is the second year of funding for a joint City/County renovation project which is already in progress. The project is already fuLLy funded. $86,450 $200,830 $145,515 $122,500 $115,125 November 3, (Page 32) 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000227 Enhanced 911 Building Locator System (BLS). Development of an Enhanced 911 system began with the installation of a BLS which will Provide an accurate, up-to-date reference of alt Locations in the City of Charlottesville and ALbemarle County from which an emergency call can be received. This project is recommended for full funding offset by revenues collected from the telephone surcharge. Police Satellite Receivers. This is second year funding to set up four receiver/massage reply sites which wilt increase the reception to 95 percent of transmissions to field officers with hand-held radios. Full funding is recommended. 3. County Master Drainage PLan. The original CIP request proposed a study to identify and correct drainage problems from existing and future development. The scope of this pro- ject has been expanded to include a master drainage plan for the entire County in antici- pation of new State of Virginia and Federal EPA storm~ater management regulations. $60,000 The City/County/University of Virginia shared Moore's Creek basin area is to be done in FY 1992-93 and FY 1993-94. ALso, due to funds received from the City and the University, the South Fork Basin will be done in FY 1993-94. 3. Real Estate Appraisal System. The administration assessment system is a comprehensive mass appraisal system for accurate and defensible property values using [and, cost, market and income approaches. It Nil[ also be a geographic system that integrates data bases with computerized maps, including tax maps, showing zoning districts, etc. The total cost of the project is $225,000, $50,000 of which is funded in the current year. The original request for FY 1994-95 was $175,000. ALthough the project is not fully funded, a Lease/purchase arrangement may be pursued in order to have the system in place in time to begin using it for the next full reassessment cycle. $100,000 {Note: The remaining CIP projects were individually ranked by the Commission exoept for the last six School projects.) 4. County Computer Upgrade $65,000 5. Fire/Rescue Building/Equipment Fund $125,000 6. Hydraulic/Rio aike Path & Sidewalk $43,000 7. Piedmont Virginia ConmJnity College (PVCC) Humanities and Social Sciences Building $62,335 8. HVAC - Central Library $77,500 9. St. ives Road Cul-de-Sac $7100 10. Ricky Road Drainage $31,295 11. Replace Carpet - Central Library $17,000 12. Revenue Sharing Road Projects $400,000 13. Greenwood Community Center Building Improvements $15,000 14. Crozet Park Building/Grounds Improvements $10,000 15. ScottsviLle Community Center Outdoor Recreation Improvements $20,400 16. Scottsvi[le Community Center Maintenance and Repair $16,000 17. Berkmar Drive North and Waterline Extension $-0- 18. Replacement of Voting Machines $109,000 19. Hollymead Elementary Outdoor Recreation Improvements $51,500 20. Avon Street/Route 20 Connector Road $-0- 21. Landscaping - Route 250 East $12,400 22. Cale Outdoor Basketball Court $10,400 23. Rivanna Park $-0- 24. Walton Tennis Court Resurfacing $12,400 25. Jack Jouett Tennis Court Resurfacing $12,400 (Note: The remaining General Government projects in order of the Commission's priorities are not funded due to lack of available funds.) $82,020 $109,000 26. Greenwood Community Center Parking Improvements $5,000 27. Wa[nut Creek Park $75,000 28. Chris Greene/Mint Springs Shop Security Improvements $20,000 29. Landscaping - Route 29 North $13,000 30. Routes 250/616 Turn Lane $10,000 31. Milton Boat Launch Improvements $10,000 32. Forest Lakes/Ho[Lymead Dam Connector Road $300,000 33. Zan Road Extension to Hi[Lsda[e Drive $540,000 34. Rivanna Greenbelt Access/Path $40,000 35. Avon Street/Route 20/I-64 Interchange Study $50,000 36. Route 29 North Beautification PLan $1,750,000 37. OLd Brook Road Asphalt Sidewalk $1,700 38. Carrsbrook Road Extension $294,000 39. Chris Greene Lake Property Acquisition - Miller $135,000 40. Chris Greene Lake Property Acquisition - General Realty $500,000 (Note: The following school projects were not prioritized by the Commission, but are presented herein the same priority as selby the School Board. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. New High School. Build a new high school for initial enrollment of 1000 students; plan for future expansion of 500 additional students. S-O- Northern Area Elementary School. Construct a new 600-student eLemantary school. S-O- Red Hill ELementary School Expansion. Expand from a 250-student, 28,950 square foot facility to a 59,000 square feet facility with a rated capacity of 575 students. $410,000 Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconfiguration. To correct certain inefficient and inadequate design constraints which have a negative impact on facilities utilization. $324,900 Instructional Technology for the School Division. To provide computer technology to the Schools by the Department of Information Services. $165,000 Western ALbemarle High School (WANS) Underground Pedestrian Crossing. To provide safe means of passage from the grounds at WAHS to the grounds at Henley Middle School. $120,000 Mr. Bowerman said he understands the Commission took items out because of funding limitations. He also understands that prioritization was based on cost, so it is not a true priority list from the Commission as it has been in the past. Mr. Tucker concurred. Some of the bigger projects, particularly road projects, were removed from the plan because of cost. The Berkmar Drive extension and waterline improvement is of interest to the Supervisors because of impending improvements to Route 29 North. Staff has talked to VDoT representatives about the possibility of using State Revenue Sharing Funds to complete Berkmar Drive. Mr. Tucker said this Project would qualify if the 000228 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) Board wished to go forward using those funds. Mr. Bowerman asked if the project would have to be removed from the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan in that event. Mr. Tucker said the~e is $400,000 proposed in this CIP to match State Revenue Sharing Funds. If the State approved the use of those funds, that would be the bulk of the costs and the project could be completed over a two- year period. Later, other major road projects could be handled in the same manner, such as the Route 20/Avon Street connector road. Mr. Bowerman said there is a change in the amount of funds shown for the Old Brook Road pathway. He asked if the $1700 shown in the CIP is substan- tially lower than the original amount the Commission members looked at. Mr. Benish replied, "no." The $1700 is for planning. The cost estimate for this pathway is approximately $17,000. Property owners along the pathway have been contacted and there seems to be an interest in the pathway, but there has only been one commitment for donated right-of-way. Mr. Bain asked for a status report on the Claudius Crozet Park project. Mr. Tucker said he is not sure if the project has been completed. He will check with Pat Mullaney to see how this project is progressing. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Meadow Creek Parkway north of Rio Road is in the Commission's recommendations. Mr. Tucker said it is shown in the 1995-96 year of the CIP. Next, Mr. Bowerman asked if the $28.0 million is an estimate for that portion of the Parkway running from Rio Road to Route 29 North. Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, said the alignments the Board has been consid- ering do not include the Timberwood Parkway alignment which is the connector at Forest Lakes, but other recommended alignments are included. Mr. Bowerman said he is referring to the main alignment from Dunlora to Route 29 without a connector road. Ms. Higgins said that is the Timberwood Parkway. Mr. Bowerman asked if the western alignment for the Parkway was included in the $70.0 million the Commission considered. Mr. Tucker replied that this figure included all of the connector roads and the western alignment of the Parkway out to the Airport. This is the reason the figure was so high. Mr. Martin said he has heard that the road across the dam in Hollymead might be done with donated funds. Ms. Higgins said, at the time of the public hearing, there was discussion that the developer of Forest Lakes would build the connector road across the dam in exchange for the County taking over responsibility for the stormwater facility. Mr. Martin next inquired if the $300,000 cost for the dam connector road is really not going to be used. Ms. Higgins reiterated that if the dam connector road is donated, the County will have to take on the cost of the stormwater facility. Mr. Tucker told the Board members that these projects were not taken out of the CIP. The Commission members prioritized all of the projects, and then they tried to find available funds to allocate to the projects. Mr. Bowerman asked if the number one items were prioritized without regard to the amount of money required based upon recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Facilities Plan. Mr. Benish answered that all of this was taken into consideration, but the ultimate prioritization related to funding. He explained that the Commission prioritized all of the mandated, committed projects as the highest priority projects. This year the Commission members offered an alternative plan for funding these projects over a number of years with a set amount and that opened up funding to continue with the priority list. The Commission prioritized projects down to Number 17 on their list. Once all of the money had been expended on the projects the Commission felt were most important in terms of commitment to health, safety and welfare, the list was essentially left as the Planning staff had priori- tized it. He went on to explain that after Priority Number 17, the Commission made no significant alterations to the Planning staff's recommendations. The Commission did not prioritize school projects at all because they felt they had insufficient information on which to base a decision. These projects were intentionally taken out of the priority list and given a value, and they showed up at the bottom of the list. Mr. Bowerman wanted to make sure the Commission did not take projects out of the plan because they are not health and safety items. He was confused about what the Commission was doing, and he still does not have a clear rationale of their actions. He also feels the Commission minutes are somewhat ambiguous. Mr. Benish said the Commission's first note to the Supervisors states that the Commission established project priorities based on consideration of the impact that each would have on the health, safety, welfare, security, education, economic benefit and development needs of the County. The Commis- sion considered available funds and then they examined the priority list and focused on projects where that money could be expended. He reiterated that the first 17 projects on the list are projects that the Commission focused on and prioritized. Essentially, they did not change the Planning staff's recommendations as to priorities. November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000229 (Page 34) Mr. Marshall pointed out that the School projects were not pulled out because of money. He said the Commission felt the School Board knew more about prioritizing these items than they did. Mr. Tucker agreed that the Commission members felt there was information that they did not have, so they were not sure how to rank the School projects. Mr. Marshall said the Commis- sion felt it was a waste of their time, since there is a School Board to advise the Supervisors on its priorities. Mr. Bowerman said the Supervisors used to get a list from the Commission which numbered projects one through 87, and the items were ranked in order of ADA, health and safety and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Martin said the Supervisors still have such a list from the Commission other than on School items, but the Commission did not fund some things they thought were priori- ties such as Number 17, Berkmar Drive project. The Commission felt this project was 17th in priority, but they didn't fund it. If this project had been funded, there wouldn't have been enough money to fund some of the other first 25 items on the list. The Commission removed the School priorities altogether. If the School projects are going t© be included in the CIP, they will have to be interjected throughout the list. Other than school-related items, the Commission listed its priorities. Mrs. Humphris said the School priorities have to be included. Mr. Bowerman said the Commission's priority list is meaningless because the money is not there for certain priorities. Mr. Martin agreed it is going to be difficult for the Supervisors to put projects back into the CIP. He read the Commission's minutes and he can see the rationale for taking the School projects out. Mr. Bowerman said the list doesn't mean anything, because at least one of the school projects will have to be included. The Commission knew it had to be included, so funding will not get down to Number 17 on the Priority list. He got confused when he read the information he was given. He could not figure out what the Commission was recommending. Mr. Marshall said the only thing different with this information is that the Commission members did not feel as though they should spent their time on School projects because the Supervisors have the School Board for that. It would be double work involved if the Commission prioritized School projects. Mr. Bowerman asked if the State Code requires the Commission to make a CIP recommendation to this Board based upon the needs of the County. Mr. Tucker replied affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman then inquired if this responsibil- ity includes the school system. Mr. Tucker answered that this is true, as far as the CIP is concerned. Mr. Bowerman said School staff gives information to the Commission and local government staff as to the needs of the School system. The Commission's ultimate responsibility is to recommend the overall priorities within those projects and all other County projects. He asked if the Commission has done what the Code required. Mr. Tucker responded that staff cannot defend the Commission, and that Mr. Bowerman would have to ask the Commission that question. The Commission has made a recommendation, although there was no recommendation with regard to the School System. The Commission felt the School Board had more expertise and understanding of the School System's needs so they did not prioritize the School Board's requests, and they were left unfunded. Staff took the School Board's priority list and submitted it to the Supervisors, excluding the costs for the high school and the elementary school. Perhaps the Commission members looked at the situation from the perspective that the Schools are probably going to have to be funded through VPSA bonds because of the County's limited resources. The Commission members could have made a recommendation stating that they agree with the School Board's priority list. Mr. Martin called attention to the fact that some projects are shown as being fully funded by VPSA bonds. He asked if these are funds that are currently available. Mr. Tucker responded, "yes." Funding for the ADA requests, as well as any of the related recreational projects, are proposed to be funded out of the General Fund and not through the VPSA. Mr. Marshall said he talked with the Commission member from his district about the Commission's recommendations for the cIP. This commissioner was confused as to why Parks and Recreation funds were being Put int© SchOOl projects. Mr. Marshall said he explained that years ago when Yancey was being redone, the plan was to build a half-gym, and the same thing was going to be done at the Crozet School, but a half-gym was not something that could be used by the full community. Money was taken from Parks and Recreation and more money was added to it so that a full-size gym could be constructed so it could be used for the school as well as the community. His explanation made it clearer as to why there were two separate funding sources involved in some projects. He emphasized that this was, in fact, a savings to the County, because it saved the Parks and Recreation Department money by using School facilities. Mr. Tucker agreed. He said that the Parks and Recreation Department tries to work with the Schools to provide an area in the schools that is located for use by the whole community. November 3, 1993 (Regular DaY Meeting) (Page 35) 000230 Mr. Marshall noted that the Commission thought that two separate fundings would cost the COunty more money, but it actually costs the County less. Mrs. Humphris called attention to a recommendation ~hat the ADA Advisory Committee reconvene and prioritize all of the ADA projects based on the total funding allotment. She asked if this will automatically happen or will something have to trigger it. Mr. Tucker answered that the ADA Advisory Committee is probably already reviewing these projects because the staff is recommending that not all of the ADA requirements be funded in one year. Staff discussed this with the County Attorney's staff, and the County Attorney feels this is fine as long as the County is showing a good faith effort to meet ADA standards and requirements. With this in mind, staff is proposing that these requirements be funded through the General Fund over a three-year period. These standards have been broken down into three increments, and the first increment is due for completion during the next fiscal year. The Advisory Committee will look at prioritizing which of the remaining projects should be funded in the second year or postponed to the third year. Mr. Bain said he not in favor of the WAHS Underground Pedestrian Crossing project. Mr. Tucker said it was shown as a high priority by the School Board, and it is shown to be funded with VPSA funds. Mr. Marshall said he agrees with Mr. Bain. There are no savings with an underground crossing, because children are going to take the shortest distance between two points. Mrs. Humphris asked if the amount shown for the Jail ADA compliance project is the County's half of the funding. Mr. Tucker replied, "yes." Ms. Humphris then inquired about the contaminated soil removal and monitoring project. She wondered where the contaminated soil is located. Ms. Higgins replied that the County has to meet state requirements to pull some underground storage tanks at several schools. The soil around these tanks is contaminated. Mr. Marshall asked if ~he new storage tanks will have to be put above ground. Ms. Higgins answered, "no." She said the requirement relates to pulling the old tanks and putting in double-walled tanks. She explained that the tanks will have to be monitored. Mr. Bain called attention to the revenues listed in the Board's paper- work today. He asked if this is the correct listing. Mr. Tucker agreed that these figures were correct. He also mentioned that the SuPervisors had discussed trying to increase the Fund Balance transfer at least during reassessment years. Mr. Tucker said a new process was established for this CIP update. Applications were reviewed at staff level, and one of the Commissioners served on the committee. He said this worked well this year in terms of having a liaison with staff and the Commission. He explained that he is speaking of the County Executive's staff and not just Planning Department staff. The document the Commission presented to this Board basically covers the staff's priorities, but he noted that he cannot say the same thing about the school system's recommendations, because they were not included. He stated that the time his staff worked on the Schools' portion of the CIP was used to prior- itize the School Board's recommendations. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Tucker to give him a priority list of projects that represent the figure of $3,479,200, whether or not the projects are included in the recommended list. Mr. Marshall suggested that Mr. Bowerman might, instead, want a priority list of the projects that make up the subtotal figure of $2,281,800. Mr. Marshall pointed out that the other projects relate to borrowed money. Mr. Bowerman said he wanted the grand total figure, because even though borrowed money is involved, the projects have to fit somewhere in the priority list. Mr. Martin commented that the borrowed money to which Mr. Bowerman is referring relates to money that has already been borrowed. Mr. Bowerman remarked that money may need to be borrowed for Item Number Six. Mr. Bain said that this item relates to a new bond for next year. Mr. Bowerman said it seems to him that the staff could give the Board a priority list which totals the figure of $3,479,200 and includes projects using all sources of funds. Mr. Bain mentioned the following projects totalling $1,097,400 which are to be paid from VPSA borrowed fund. Mr. Tucker agreed that this is what he tried to point out earlier in the meeting. Mr. Marshall asked if the WAHS underground crossing is included in the priority list. Mr. Tucker said this is the dilemma the staff had because the Commission did not review the School Board's recommendations. Mr. Bain said it seems to him that the Board does not have to approve' any VPSA projects for next year. Mr. Tucker answered that this is true, if that is the direction in which the Board wants to go. 00023'1 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) Mr. Bain mentioned the critical nature of the vehicular maintenance facility. Me asked if the commission diScussed this at all. Mrs. Humphris said this project has been discussed on everY level. Mr Bain agreed, but said the project has not been done. Mrs. Humphris said the Board never thought the project needed to be done that badly. Mr. Tucker said the Board's work sessions have normally been with staff, but it may be helpful if the School Board or school staff could at least talk about some of these issues with the Supervisors. He senses that there are a lot of questions the Supervisors have that the Commission members or the School Board could answer better. Mr. Bain said he has read most of the Commission's minutes and he wonders if the vehicular maintenance facility was even discussed as to the substance of it. Mr. Benish replied that this project was discussed at committee level, but he is not sure if the particulars were discussed by the Commission this year. He pointed out that this project has been discussed for at least the last four years. Mr. Tucker said this project has been continu- ally postponed, and it has finally gotten to a year to be funded, and the School Board had it as a high priority. Mr. Bain agreed that there have been discussions about this project for several years. He stated that it has been re-evaluated, and there has been an engineering and architectural study done. He had not seen a dollar amount for the project until today. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Bain is willing to approve the other five School items on the list. Mr. Bain commented that he is not sure any of the projects are needed. A couple of the smaller projects could be funded with some funds from General Government. Mr. Marshall wondered if Mr. Bain is suggesting that not any money be borrowed. Mr. Bain resPOnded that he would like for someone to do a lot of justification for borrowing the money. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bain is referring to this year. Mr. Bain answered affirmatively. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the items which are listed under the mandated and committed projects need to be considered closely. He said Ms. Higgins can explain those projects in terms of their urgency. Mr. Bain wondered if the third project, shown under the mandated and committee projects list, relative to the waterline is critical. Ms. Higgins explained that this project will keep contamination from being sucked back into the public water system. She noted that a list is shown of the affected schools, and it is expected that the City will pick up the cost of the requirement for the Burley and Murray buildings in the near future. She pointed out that if a building is connected to a public utility, it is subject to the utility company's mandates. Mr. Bain stated that he thinks the first three items on the mandated and committed projects list can be funded with existing budget funds, and the others can be eliminated for this year. Mr. Tucker remarked that computer technology is a very high priority both for Information Services and the School System. The original request was for $300,000, and it was reduced to $165,000 per year to try to maintain and upgrade the instructional technology of the individual schools. Mr. Marshall wondered if the Board can make available the $242,000 without having to borrow money. Mr. Tucker responded that some items may have to be altered and reduced, but $130,000 should be available next spring, based on the savings from the interest rates on the VPSA loan for this current year. He said the remainder of the money would have to come out of the projects that the Commission is recommending. He added that the projects would have to be reexamined until the additional money needed is found. Mr. Bain said he was not saying he did not want to fund some of the projects, but it appears that only a few items are being considered this year. On the other hand, since interest rates are so low, it may be a good time to consider other projects. He added that money will be tighter during this next year, so he is not sure if borrowing the money is the answer. Mr. Martin asked if the Board is expected to approve the CIP just for FY 1994-95. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." Mr. Martin then referred to the funded and unfunded projects shown for ~1995-96 through 1998-99 and wondered if the Supervisors need to pay attention to future years at this point. Mr. Tucker explained that the CIP is a program, and the Supervisors will be adopting the program. A budget will also need to be adopted by the Supervisors for 1994-95. He said that now is the appropriate time to deal with the program, but the Supervisors need to keep in mind that they are not committing themselves totally to funding those future projects. This is a five-year Capital Improvements Plan. If any of the Supervisors have a question or want to take issue with any of the future projects then it is fine to deal with that now. He pointed out that these projects will come back to this Board next year because at that time, the Supervisors will be dealing with FY 1995-96 from a budgetary standpoint. Mr. Martin mentioned the projects which were listed for zero funding, and he asked if they were no longer included even for future years. Mr. Tucker stated that if the projects which are not funded are important, they will show up again in next year's CIP. November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) 000232 Mr. Martin called attention to the Grand Total of Resources figure on Page 15, and he asked if some of the unf6nded prOjects might be included in the $11,206,000 figure for 1995-96. Mr. Tucker replied that most of these projects are probably included in that figure, and he suggested that the Board might want to have another work session on the CIP. Mr. Bowerman commented that he would like for the staff to make a presentation to the Board on November 17 which would be easier to follow. He said he would like for this presentation to incorporate the Commission's recommendations, but perhaps they could be rearranged. He suggested that the requested items for funding be put in priority order to accomplish what is needed. Mr. Martin agreed. Mr. Bowerman said that he would work with the staff to accomplish this presentation, because he is having a hard time understanding enough of this document to be able to comment intelligently on what is before this Board. He said he has never seen anything like it before. Mr. Bain asked if the public hearing has been advertised for November 17. Ms. Carey answered, "yes." She added that the advertisement could be canceled. Mr. Bain asked if the public hearing could be held in December. Mr. Bowerman stated that the public hearing on the CIP could be held on the night of December 8, 1993. Mr. Bain and Mr. Marshall concurred that another work session with the staff would be helpful to them. Mr. Martin said that another work session would make the CIP easier for him to understand also. He said that usually the Board gets a narrative, a summarY and then the details, and they all three flow. Me said the Board is really looking at the same thing from three different perspectives. He stated that each CIP document seems to have its own perspective, and it is hard to incorporate them together. Mr. Tucker agreed that it is a lot of information. Mr. Bowerman said he understands that staff was trying to present the CIP in the manner in which the Commission wanted to have it shown, and the staff was trying to take into account the Commission's considerations. He cannot imagine the public trying to understand this document. Mr. Tucker mentioned that the process changed this year. Normally there are "mandated projects", "necessary projects" and "desirable projects" listed. The Commis- sion was trying to encourage the changing of the process, and this is the way that it developed. The process can be rearranged in whatever manner this Board desires. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he would like the flexibility to meet with Mr. Tucker and Mr. Benish and develop a plan that he and the remainder of the Board can understand. Mr. Bain commented that the Supervisors have the option of considering some of the future projects when it doesn't appear that they will get funding, because there might be some that they want to fund now. Mr. Bowerman announced that it was time to meet with the School Board. He said this completes the discussion on the CIP until November 17. Note: At 3~01 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 3:10 p.m. in Room 5/6.) Agenda Item No. 22. Joint Meeting with School Board. School Board members present at this time were: Messrs. William Finley, George Landrith, Michael Marshall, Mrs. Patricia Moore and Mrs. Karen Powell. Also present was Dr. Robert Paskel, Division Superintendent. Item 22a. Discussion: Revenue Projections for FY 1994-95. Mr. Tucker indicated that the Supervisors were given the revenue projections for next year at its meeting this morning (see Agenda Item No. 16). Me stated that it is a bleak outlook, and he gave the School Board a history of how the County has arrived at this point, and why the situation is worse than usual. He explained that in March the staff did a projection for FY 1994-95 to give the Supervisors an indication of what the County would be facing in next year's budget. The staff wanted to give the Supervisors an idea of how difficult it might be specifically because of the opening of the new middle school. He added that everyone has to always be cognizant of the fact that when a new schogl building is funded, the enormous cost in the year in which it is opened is sometimes forgotten. This coming year will be no different. Mr. Tucker said that up until three weeks ago, staff was working with a figure of approximately $1.3 million for opening the new middle school. This figure has now grown to $1.9 million, and coupled with that is a new revenue projection for the County. While the cost of opening the new middle school increased from $1.3 million to $1.9 million, the County's revenue decreased due primarily to new construction. He pointed out that new construction decreased approximately $600,000 for the month of March. November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) Mr. Tucker told the School Board members that he had some good news and he asked them to look at the Set of~numbers showing total revenue of approxi- mately $2,944,868 in new revenue for FY 1994-95. He said some committed expenditures have been shown also, and he discussed these exPenditures. He noted that the Supervisors have asked that they be provided with a Reserve Fund that they can work with during the budget cycle and work sessions. A total of $140,000 has been provided. He pointed out that Net Available New Revenue, with the expenditures subtracted, amounts to $1,625,738. This is split with the School System by a 60/40 percentage, which would have the School System receiving $975,443 and General Government receive $650,295. Mr. Tucker pointed out that staff is recommending some additional reve- nues. The VPSA has refinanced all of its loans because of prevailing lower interest rates. All of the savings have been allocated back to the localities which have borrowed funds, and Albemarle County's pro rata share of this will be apProximately $380,000. Staff is recommending that the enrollment reserve be maintained until it is known if the 7 1/2 percent holdback is adequate to cover the loss in School enrollment. If this is adequate, the School System will have an additional $654,000 for a total of $1.6 million. He then mentioned that last Friday, VPSA sold the bonds for the County's new middle school, and the interest rate was 4.71 percent. Seven percent had been budgeted, so the savings were significant. He noted that the amount shown for Debt Service of $1,023,250 will be approximately $270,000 less. This is money that will not have to be spent on Debt Service. Mr. Tucker told the School Board that the Supervisors decided this morning to add this amount to their Reserve Fund as a separate amount to have at their discretion during the budget cycle this coming winter and spring. He reiterated that projected revenues for FY 1994-94 are bleak, even with the good news. He said he knows the School Board members are aware of the cost of opening the new middle school. He mentioned that at the bottom of the report he has requested that the additional revenues be used for the one-time costs of opening the new middle school. He reminded the Board members that this will not be a reassessment year, and that is one of the reasons revenues are less. Mr. Tucker commented that everybody should be aware that there will perhaps be a reduction in State funding. The State is in a dilemma because it has to find $500.0 million, and he is afraid that local government will feel the effects of that. It is not known what level of local government will be affected at this point. This situation continues to show the difficulties with which the County will be faced during the next budget cycle. Dr. Paskel remarked that there is every indication from the Department of Education that Grades K - 12, will not be spared. This year, the State has tried to balance its budget, as it has during the past few years. Mr. Forrest Marshall asked what caused the amount of money related to the opening of the new school, to increase from $1.3 million to $1.9 million. Dr. Paskel replied that most of the new costs relate to the number of school buses which may be needed, depending on the redistricting plan. The cost of these buses was not in the $1.3 million at all. Additional pieces of equipment will have to be either taken out of the pool of substitute buses, since they are all road worthy vehicles, or they will have to be bought. Mr. Martin said he definitely does not want to get into the redistrict- ing plans, but if one plan puts the school's opening costs at $1.3 million, and another is $1.9 million, that is a lot of difference. Dr. Paskel indicat- ed that there are differences in the costs of the plans. The one the School Board has tentatively decided to bring forward for endorsement is as inexpen- sive as any of the other plans. There is also the possibility, depending on how the grandfathering issue works out, of reducing that costs once the actual bus routes are developed. He said the increase in costs was not impacted by which plan was chosen. It was the cost of transportation being put into the plan that increased the costs. Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. Martin's comment relative to the amount of money for opening the new school. He said if the grandfathering issue is causing the money to increase, then perhaps it should not be done. He feels the figures need to be examined also to make sure staff has supplied the schools with accurate information. He is sure the School Board members will consider the plan at budget time to see if they have chosen the plan that is the most economical and efficient. He would rather not be spending the money in transportation, and he knows the School Board members feel the same way. Mr. Bowerman said he knows there are a lot of policy implications with which the School Board has to deal. He asked how much differential in costs would be involved with the plan in which the School Board is currently involved versus a strictly geographic plan. He is talking about a system-wide plan where School officials would not be concerned with the feeder patterns for middle schools in terms of breaking up the elementary population between two middle schools. Ms. Moore responded that she can only guess, but the two plans would probably involve the same amount of buses, but there might be savings in gasoline and fuel. O00; ,.q4 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) Dr. Paskel said in reference to the different redistricting plans, Plan D is the plan currently being considered. It is almost identical to Plan C, but there are people who would disagree, depending on where they live. Redistricting is principally a geographical mark, but Plan C is the plan which came forth originally to the Oversight Committee from the Transportation De- partment. It was the most efficient from a cost standpoint, as well as the amount of time students were on the bus. He said the differential in cost between the plans was approximately $50,000. One plan was approximately $1.17 million and the other was approximately $1.12 million. Mr. Mike Marshall remarked that he thinks the current plan is the cheapest one, but he has been told that it might be even cheaper after the bus routes have been developed. Ms. Moore noted that feeder plans are the most expensive. Mr. Bowerman stated that feeder plans keep elementary students together when they go to middle schools. Mr. Mike Marshall pointed out that currently there are a lot of middle school children riding on the same buses as the high school students. If middle school lines were done geographically, circumstances would be created where a new bus would have to be introduced to go in the other direction when those children could have been left on an existing bus. He emphasized that a lot of times feeder routes are just as efficient. Mr. Bowerman remarked that there may be criticisms of the current plan because certain children have to travel long distances to reach a middle school. Me said that Mr. Marshall has indicated that when feeder patterns are considered, as well as the other aspects of the total plan including being able to transport high school and middle school students together the overall plan is usually as efficient from a dollar point of view, and it is the best if everything is taken into consideration. Mr. Mike Marshall answered that the School Board had suspected that the outcome was not going to develop in such a manner, but it has turned out that way. Dr. Paskel noted that at the School Board retreat in October, the School Board indicated to him that there were areas in the budget where the Supervi- sors wanted the School Board members to concentrate to see if there were some cost savings. One area related to transportation and the other to special education. School officials are trying to look at both of these programs, because they are locally funded, and they are funded to a greater extent than is found in other systems across the State. As far as transportation is concerned, he knows dollars can be saved. There are some schools where buses are sent back to pick up another load of students rather than putting on a second bus. Convenience factors are involved in terms of how people are currently conducting their own daily schedules, but some money can be saved with this process. He said that School officials will be considering some of these things. Mr. Bowerman stated that his question has been answered. He realizes the amount of effort that has gone into the current plan, and he realizes that everyone will not be satisfied. He said if they look hard enough, everybody will be able to find something wrong with it as it might affect their chil- dren. He is hearing that the School Board as considered a total plan, and the proposed plan is basically within a few thousand dollars of the total plan. Me has also heard that it is the best plan from every point of view such as cost and feeder patterns, etc. He is satisfied that the enormous amount of hours which have been put into it have created the best plan that can be developed for the children this year and next. Mr. Mike Marshall stated that Dr. Paskel deserves a lot of credit for the current plan. Mr. Marshall said that when all of the variables are considered, a fewer number of people are affected with the proposed plan. He added that the dollar figure was also considered, and it works out to be within a few thousand dollars of what Transportation Department personnel thought would be an efficient system. Transportation Department personnel have said they think the plan can be even cheaper than original estimates. Mr. Finley said there will never be a plan where school officials have not tried to adhere to the whole school concept as much as possible. Me said a geographic plan has never been considered where school population would be split because a school is closer. Ne emphasized that a purely geographical or feeder plan has never been done. He said the costs for the proposed plan are based on routings so some entire schools can stay together and the bus routes be maintained. Ms. Powell commented that the Oversight Committee selected a feeder plan to be considered and cost breakdowns for that plan are available. The plan cost $300,000 more than Option C which was what the Transportation Department recommended. Ms. Moore remarked that the end result is that the School Board attempt- ed to find a feeder plan or a geographic plan that would work, but the combination plan was the most efficient. She added that the combination plan also met the School Board's criteria, and it was the most cost efficient. November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000225 (Page 40) Mr. Perkins said he spent about two hours on the phone last night discussing the redistricting plan, because there are some upset people in his district. He had some general questions about the redistricting plan, but other Supervisors have already asked most of them. All of the people to which he referred are from Waverly Subdivision, and they are questioning why their children can't go to Henley Middle School. These people live seven or eight miles from Henley, yet there are children who live three miles from Jouett, who will go to Henley. This doesn't make a lot of sense to these people, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to him either. He realizes the School Board is trying to keep School populations together. The people in Waverly feel as though their concerns have not been listened to, and that the whole process has been a farce. These people feel the School Board members are going to do what they want to do anyway. He then asked why those middle school students cannot continue to go to Henley when their older brothers and sisters are going to Western Albemarle High School. Some of the students, who will have to go to Jouett, will have to come back to Western for their high school years. Ms. Moore responded that one of the things the School Board attempted to do was to keep a large group of students at Jouett who would then go on to Western Albemarle High School. She added that at the public hearing, the School Board was told there were some Broadus Wood students going to Henley and Western, and there would be a group of Broadus Wood students at Jouett. She said students need to be drawn from Henley, but the School Board wanted to keep students in a larger group together at Jouett who would then go on to Western. Mr. Landrith noted that one of the plans had a very small group of students going to Jouett and then back to Western, and the complaint was that these children would only have five or ten friends. It was then decided to make the group larger so there would be a group of peers to travel with through the system. He added that friendship was a big issue. He said he labeled it as a critical mass issue so that what he just said would not have to be repeated every time the subject was mentioned. Mr. Perkins wondered why the critical mass could not be made up of students who live three miles from Jouett instead of the students who live eight or ten miles away. Mr. Mike Marshall said that two school populations would have to be split to do that. He added that the Consistent advice is not to split any school population. He added that one had to be split so the Meriwether Lewis School population was chosen because it is larger. If a new bus was added, it would have to go to the place where the children live three miles from Jouett, and there would only be a few students on it. This bus would not have been necessary previously because all of the students were on the Western Albemarle High School bus. He said it is cheaper to consider hauling the children farther, because the high school bus has to operate anyway. He is hearing from the Waverly people that a new bus was bought to send them to Jouett, and they could have ridden a high school bus to Henley. He emphasized that the basic premise of the redistricting plan in the first place was because some children had to be taken out of Henley, and the School Board considered all of the subdivisions. The Waverly people did not come to any of the meetings and nothing was heard from that neighborhood until recently when the proposed redistricting line was drawn. He added that some subdivision will be affect- ed, and if it hadn't been the people in Waverly, then Mr. Perkins would have heard from somebody else. Mr. Bowerman said this is the reason this issue was brought up today. By no means were the Supervisors trying to undo anything the School Board did. Every time a decision was made, the School Board members had other consequenc- es to consider, and he knows they tried to minimize the consequences and to achieve the overall objective of reducing the population of one middle school. He said there had to be a trade-off. He went on to say that he does not see how the School Board could come up with any plan where a group of people would not feel that they were singled out or mistreated. Mr. Martin said he had gotten two such calls, and he told these people that he would talk to his School Board member about the issue. He stated that redistricting has to be done logically and rationally, and regardless of how fair it is done, somebody will be treated unfairly. He said this cannot be taken into consideration. He added that people have to be told that the redistricting plan is rational and logical, and the appropriate reasons have to be given. Ms. Moore commented that she doesn't understand why the people feel the School Board hasn't listened. She feels the School Board members have listened and listened and listened. She remarked that since the School Board has not been able to make a change for a group of people whose only concern is nothing more than the fact that they do not want to leave Henley, then they are saying that the School Board didn't listen. She said that everybody in the room today knows the School Board has been listening for six months, and it is now time to take some action. Ms. Powell agreed that these people are comparing themselves to the people in the other subdivisions, and they'are saying that if their population has to be split, then the others should be split, too. She noted that there are other things which have to be considered. 000: 36 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 41) Mr. Finley said the School Board should go back to the basic question that Mr. Bowerman asked. He said the School Board did not make a strictly geographical plan which would have meant splitting more than one elementary school population. All of the plans tried to hold as many schools as possible together, rather than a strictly geographic line, which considers the closest points. Also, when the original decision was made on the middle school, new transportation costs were not considered, but this happened three years ago. Mr. Finley noted that the Supervisors' Reserve Fund would amount to $410,000 with the extra savings from the VPSA bond interest. He asked if this is money that might be divided with the School System during the budget process. Mr. Tucker replied that the Supervisors decided this morning to hold the extra $270,000 in their reserve rather than dividing it at this time. Mr~ Bain said it was the Supervisors' thinking that depending on the new school's opening costs, etc., that the $270,000 might be applied to that item. Mr. Martin commented that the Supervisors are not making such a commit- ment now, but the money could be used for the new school's start-up costs. He said the Supervisors want to keep the money under their control at this time. Mr. Mike Marshall said, on behalf of the School Board, that the document shows that all of the new money is going to the opening of the school, and there is no new money available for salary increases or to accommodate the growth in student population. The School Board understands that it will have to save more money if it wants to accomplish those necessary things. He commented that the School Board is going to try to hold down costs on opening the school, as well as other categories. There were no further comments, so Mr. Mike Marshall asked for a motion for the School Board to adjourn. Item 22b. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. There were no other matters to discuss. Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Humphris asked that letters, such as the one received from the League of Women Voters today, be placed on the consent agenda instead of being forwarded to the Board as non-agenda information items. Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Tom Muncaster has looked at the new alignment for the Route 29 North Alternative 10 and tried to overlay it with the Berkmar Drive Extension. He thinks there is a conflict. She asked staff to look at this plan and see how Berkmar is impacted. Agenda Item No. 25. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 3:40 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters, and legal matters in the way of the Lee suit. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Mar- shall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 26. Certify Executive Session. At 4:30 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt the following certification of executive meeting: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County 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 Board of County Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformi- ty with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County 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 November 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 42) 000287 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 Board of County Supervisors. VOTE: AXES: NAYS: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.