1993-07-07July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
000191
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 7, 1993, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte
Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin and Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; Deputy
County Executive, Richard E. Huff, II; County Attorney, George R. St. John;
and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC.
Mr. George Bates commented on the need of an Economic Development Policy
in Albemarle County and establishment of an Economic Development Office. He
is a 1972 graduate of Albemarle High School, a graduate of Princeton Universi-
ty and a graduate of the University of Virginia Law School. He is proud to be
born in Albemarle County, but he is deeply concerned that this County is not
growing with the rest of America in the production of meaningful jobs which
would allow people to afford such things as life insurance, health insurance
and vacations. An Economic Development Office would chart these trends and
assist the County's Department of Social Services. The counties and cities of
Virginia are not doing well, and one of the factors in the inequities of
school funding from the state to the localities is based on economic growth.
Everybody likes to preserve certain ideals of the rural countryside, but
children need jobs, and it is sad that the County's children have to leave the
area to get meaningful jobs. It is baffling to him why the County, particu-
larly the school system, would take great lengths to go outside the County to
find people to teach. There are people who grew up in this County, and they
cannot get a job here. He thinks Albemarle County can do a better job
relative to problems in the area. He is not a proponent who thinks that the
government can solve all of the problems, but it can do its share. The City
of Charlottesville has a minority business assistance program; Albemarle
County was invited to join this program, but did not respond favorably. He
reiterated the need for an Economic Development Policy and establishment of an
Economic Development Office.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Hum-
phris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 5.1, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5, to pull
items 5.2, 5.6 and 5.7 for discussion under highway matters and to accept the
remaining items for information. Discussions are included with individual
items.)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:.
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Item 5.1. Route 29 North Fact Brochure.
It was noted in the staff's report that with the forthcoming improve-
ments to Route 29 North and the continuing discussion by the public, the
business community, the County and VDoT on transportation issues related to
the Route 29 North Corridor, confusion and misinterpretation of information by
the public regarding Route 29 North transportation is highly likely. In an
effort to reaffirm the facts and provide a consistent response to questions
from the public, a facts brochure has been prepared for public dissemination,
and is provided to the Board for review and consideration. If the Board
decides such information is appropriate, the brochure will be distributed
through various County billings (such as tax bills/utility bills), libraries
and other places open to the public.
By the vote set out above, the Board approved the proposed brochure.
Item 5.2. Resolution to take Branchlands Boulevard and Hillsdaie Drive
in Branchlands Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
Mr. Bowerman requested that this item be discussed under highway matters
(Item 7d).
Item 5.3. Authorize Chairman to Execute Health Services Foundation
Agreement for Payment in Lieu of Taxes.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
ooo s2
It was noted in the staff's report that on October 14, 1992, the Board
approved tax exempt bonds for the Health Services Foundation for construction
of a new office building and purchase of the Northridge property. As part of
that process, the Health Services Foundation agreed to remit annually to the
County taxes on the Fontaine Avenue property in the same fashion as the
University of Virginia does in their service agreement with the County. The
agreement memorializes this offer and is submitted to the Board for authority
for the Chairman to execute.
Mrs. Humphris called attention to Section One of the agreement which
indicates that the rate is currently $.70/100 of assessed value. She wondered
if this is a typographical error. Mr. Tucker replied that this is not the
general rate, but it is the rate that will be paid by the University of
Virginia. Mr. Bowerman noted that this is the rate that was agreed upon by
University of Virginia officials.
Mrs. Humphris asked if this is a permanent rate. Mr. Tucker responded
that this is a movable rate. Mr. Bain wondered how the rate was determined.
Mr. Tucker said the rate was determined through the County's Department of
Finance, with assistance from the State, relative to services which are
provided to the students for such things as student housing.
By the vote set out above, the Board authorized the Chairman to execute
the following Health Services Foundation Agreement for payment in lieu of
taxes:
AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES
This Agreement For Payment in Lieu of Taxes is made this __
day of May, 1993 by and between UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH
SERVICES FOUNDATION, a Virginia non-stock corporation (the "Foun-
dation'') and THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a body politic
(the "County").
RECITALS:
R-1. The Foundation has recently acquired property in
Albemarle County known as Parcel F, Fontaine Research Park as
shown on Subdivision Plat Showing Parcel F, dated January 15,
1993, prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. and
recorded at the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County
of Albemarle, Virginia on January 29, 1993, in Deed Book 1286,
page 336 (the "Fontaine Property").
R-2. The Foundation also recently purchased property in
Albemarle County known as the Northridge Building, located at 2955
Ivy Road, Charlottesville, Virginia (the "Northridge Property").
R-3. Pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1-3609, et seq, the
Foundation is exempt from local real estate taxation with respect
to real property which it owns. Accordingly, the Fontaine Proper-
ty and the Northridge Property will be exempt from local real
estate taxation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Foundation
has agreed to make annual payments in lieu of real estate taxes
with respect to the Fontaine Property only, all under the terms
set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH that in consideration of the
premises, TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) cash in hand paid, and other good
and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which
the parties hereby acknowledge, the County and the Foundation
hereby agree as follows:
1. The Foundation, its successors and assigns shall make
annual payments to the County in lieu of taxes pursuant to Va.
Code §58.1-3400 for the Fontaine Property. The Foundation shall
make annual payments based upon the rate then in effect pursuant
to Va. Code §58.1-3400 (currently, the rate is $.70/100 of as-
sessed value); such payment shall be due on December 5 of each
year for the then current year (with penalty and interest applica-
ble to Albemarle County real estate taxes applied if not paid when
due).
2. Pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1-3609, et seq, the
Northridge Property currently is exempt from real estate taxes.
3. ~he effective date of this Agreement as it pertains to
the Fontaine Property, is January 29, 1993; the effective date, as
it pertains to the Northridge Property, is April 29, 1993.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
as of the date and year first written above.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
WITNESS:
(Siqned} Virqinia M. SDrouse
000193
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH
SERVICES FOUNDATION
BY: William E. Carter, Jr.
Its Executive Director
(Siqned/ Ella W. Care¥
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BY: David P. Bowerman
Item 5.4. Hepatitis-B Immunization Policy.
Staff had noted that for the 1992-93 Fiscal Year, the School Board and
the Board offered immunization for the Hepatitis-B'vaccine to all employees
who indicated an interest and attended the training. The 1993-94 budget has
been funded at a level only to provide that immunization for those on what is
known as the "A" and "B" lists which include all employees who are required by
law to be immunized at employer expense.
On June 14, 1993, the School Board approved a revised plan that would
limit the offering of immunizations only to those required by law.
Staff recommends that approval of this item is consistent with the FY
'94 budget and concurs with the School Board's recommendation to offer
immunizations to only those employees as required by law.
By the vote set out above, the Board amended the Hepatitis-B Immuniza-
tion Policy to limit the offering of immunizations only to those required by
law (list on file).
Item 5.5. Route 20 South Entrance Corridor Maintenance.
The Board had previously requested staff to investigate the cost and
manpower needed to provide for mowing a section of Route 20 South between 1-64
and the Thomas Jefferson Parkway (U. S. Route 53).
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, estimated that for
his crews to absorb this work on a 14-day mowing cycle, it would require
overtime work on Saturdays at a cost of approximately $7,000 per year minimum.
This would equate to what the City provides along their streets. An estimate
from a landscape contractor was $37,000 per year. VDOT's estimate for mowing
without the trimming, litter and weed control that the County would provide is
approximately $1,600 per year.
Since these estimates are related to Route 20 South only, staff recom-
mends that they get similar estimates from V DOT for all urban area corridors
and, if financially feasible, contract with VDOT for this service and then
determine if this level of mowing from V DOT is acceptable for an ongoing
contracted agreement.
By the vote set out above, the Board accepted staff's recommendation to
get cost estimates from VDOT for all urban corridors and, if financially
feasible, contract with %'DOT for this service and them determine if this level
of mowing from VDOT is acceptable for an ongoing contracted agreement.
Item 5.6. Letter dated June 25, 1993, from Mr. Jack S. Hodge, Chief
Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Executive, re: clarification of federal funding situation with the Route 29
corridor, received as follows:
"June 25, 1993
Route 29 Corridor
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901-4596
Dear Bob:
Thank you for your June 15 letter requesting clarification of the
federal funding situation within the Route 29 corridor.
VDOT staff was asked to investigate the possibility of funding the
Berkmar Drive improvement using National Highway System (NHS)
funding. The responses we gave Mrs. Kincheloe, and that she gave
to you, were all predicated upon the use of NHS funds.
Federal law will allow the use of NHS funds for projects that are
physically removed from the NHS route, i.e. Berkmar Drive, only
when the off-system improvement will eliminate the need for a NHS
project. In this case we would have to justify improving the
Berkmar Drive by showing that it would eliminate an improvement on
Route 29, which is the NHS corridor route. At this point, the
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
000194
Department does not have sufficient primary system funds available
for the Route 29 project to enable us to divert NHS funds to
Berkmar Drive.
The County does receive federal Surface Transportation Program
(STP) funds as part of its regular secondary allocation, and this
year the County received an additional allocation of STP funds
based upon federal population distribution requirements. These
were also credited to the secondary system. Any of these alloca-
tions could be applied to the Berkmar Drive project if the County
so desired.
I can certainly appreciate your desire to mitigate some of the
traffic disruption that will occur during the construction of
Route 29, but I do not see any way that the Department can provide
funding for Berkmar Drive other than regular secondary alloca-
tions.
I hope this clarified the funding issue.
Sincerely,
(Signed) J. S. Hodge
Chief Engineer"
Mrs. Humphris asked that this item be discussed under highway matters.
Item 5.7. Monthly update on highway improvement projects currently
under construction, received as follows:
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
JULY 1, 1993
Route Location Status Estimated
No. Comp. Date
250 St Clair Ave to Rt 64 Construction 85% Com- Sep 93
plete
20 At Iht Rt 742 - Avon St Ext Construction 34% Com- Aug 93
plete
654 Barracks Rd - Fr Rt 1406 to Geor- Construction 52% Com- Aug 93*
getown Rd plete
631 5th Street Ext S Rt 1-64 Construction 17% Com- Feb 94
plete
* Revised Date
** New Project
PROJECT LISTING
Albemarle County
July 1, 1993
Rout Location - Description Current Est.
e Adv. Con-
No. Date st.
Time
20 3.5 Mi South Rt 53 - Safety Project 07-93 6 MO
29 Hydraulic Rd to Rio Rd - Widen to 8 lanes 07-93 2 YRS
29 Rio Rd to S Fork Rivanna River - Widen to 8 lanes 07-94 2 YRS
29 S Fork Rivanna River to Airport Rd - Widen to 6 lanes 06-97** 2 YRS
601 Rt 250 W to Rt 29 Bypass - Widen to 4 lanes 07-99 18 MO
610 From Rt 20 to 1.8 mi E Rt 20 - Pave gravel road · 07-96 9 MO
627 Railroad crossing signals at Warren 10-93 3 MO
631 Rt 29 to Rt 743 - Rio Rd West 07-96 12 MO
631 NCL Charlottesville to Rt 631 - Meadow Creek Parkway 01-97 2 YRS
637 Rt 635 to 0.55 Mi W Rt 682 - Widen & pave gravel road 07-99 9 MO
656 Georgetown Rd from Rt 654 to Rt 743 - Spot improvements 10-97 6 MO
671 Moormans River - Bridge & approaches ? 12 MO
678 Rt 250 to .2 Mi N Rt 250 at I~ry 10-94 6 MO
682 Rt 250 to 1.7 Mi S Rt 676 - Pave gravel road 08-95 12 MO
691 .4 Mi E Rt 240 to Rt 240 - Park Road 02-94 3 MO
708 Iht Rt 631 - near Southern Regional Park 11-94 5 MO
711 From Rt 29 to Rt 692 - Widen & pave gravel road 07-97 6 MO
712 Rt 29 to Rt 692 - Widen & pave gravel road 07-96 6 MO
743 Hydraulic Rd from Rt 657 to Rt 631 - Widen to 4 lanes 01-95 ! YR
760 From Rt 29 to Rt 712 ~ Pave gravel road 07-97 5 MO
866 Rt 743 to Greenbrier Drive - New alignment 07-97 9 MO
· Indicates new project
· * Indicates revised date
Adv. Indicates that project has been advertised
Mrs. Humphris asked that this item be discussed under highway matters.
Item 5.8. Letter dated June 21, 1993, from Mr. Richard C. Lockwood,
Transportation Planning Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Mr. Robert
W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Route 29 Bypass inclusion in the
National Highway System, received as follows:
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
000195
"June 21~ 1993
National Highway System
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Thank you for your May 25, 1993 letter concerning VDOT's decision
to propose to the Federal Highway Administration that the Route 29
Bypass in Albemarle County be included on the National Highway
System (NHS).
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
includes Route 29 as a high priority corridor and also indicates
Route 29 is to be included in the Nt{S. From a State perspective,
VDOT feels that the recently established Alternative 10 alignment
is in keeping with the intent of ISTEA to improve the Route 29
corridor. Since existing Route 29 currently functions as a
principal arterial and to provide greater funding flexibility
existing Route 29 between Route 250 Bypass and the Route 29 Bypass
has also been recommended to be included in the National Highway
System.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Richard C. Lockwood
Transportation Planning Engineer"
Item 5.9. Letter dated July 1, 1993, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commis-
sioner, Department of Transportation, providing notice that Signal Hill Road
and Beacon Hill Road were accepted into the State Secondary System of High-
ways, effective July 1, 1993, received as follows:
"July 1, 1993
As requested in your resolution dated June 2, 1993, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby
approved, effective July 1, 1993.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
SIGNAL HILL
Route 1170 (Signal Hill Road) - From Route 636 to 0.38 mile East
Route 636 0.38 Mi
Route 1171 (Beacon Hill Road) - From Route 1170 to 0.36 mile
North Route 1170 0.36 Mi"
Item 5.10. Letter dated July 1, 1993, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commis-
sioner, Department of Transportation, providing notice that Highlands Drive
and Grassy Knoll Road were accepted into the State Secondary System of
Highways, effective July 1, 1993, received as follows:
"July 1, 1993
As requested in your resolution dated December 9, 1992, the
following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County
are hereby approved, effective July 1, 1993.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
HIGHLANDS AT MECHUMS RIVER
Route 1240 (Highlands Drive) - From Route 240 to 0.41 mile South
Route 240 0.41 mi
Route 1243 (Grassy Knoll Road)
West Route 1240
From Route 1240 to 0.05 mile
0.05 Mi"
Item 5.11. Financial Management Report for May, 1993, received for
information.
It was noted that projected General Fund expenditures for all General
Government operations continue to be reduced by one percent. Projected
Education revenues and expenditures have not been updated since the April
report. The Capital Fund unrestricted fund balance has been increased for the
sale of the YMCA property to the Monticello Area Community Action Agency.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
00019 ;
Item 5.12. Executive Summary on recommendation from Planning Department
to eliminate recreation fees for youth under the age of 18 and for elimination
of nonresident fees to City of Charlottesville residents, received for
information.
It was noted that on June 8, 1993, the Commission unanimously recommend-
ed that the Board consider eliminating fees for youth under the age of 18, as
well as the elimination of non-resident fees to City of Charlottesville
residents, subject to the City reciprocating in such a policy. Mr. Patrick
Mullaney estimates that there would be a loss to the County in revenue of
approximately $36,520 per year from this change. Staff is concerned that this
change in policy would be contrary to its present philosophy of looking to
user fees to help support the cost of providing these services. Staff
recommends that this idea be part of the analysis identified by the City and
County in studying the possibility of combining City and County Parks and
Recreation operations.
Item 5.13. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road) Monthly Bond and
Progress Report for the month of May, 1993, received for information.
Item 5~14. Copy of Memorandum dated July 1, 1993, from Mr. Tex Weaver,
Information Resource Planner, entitled "Enhanced 911 Project Status," received
for information. (Some sections excerpted below.)
Mr. Weaver noted that all road signs originally contracted for with
Kirk-Neal, Inc. have been installed. The second phase of road sign installa-
tion is being coordinated by the County Departments of Engineering and
Planning/Community Development.
Due to the contractual dispute between the Enhanced 911 consultants
(GTEGIS) and their original sub-contractor (ETG), the new address notification
phase of the project scheduled for February, 1993, was postponed. The
consultants and their new sub-contractor (NDAE) presented staff with a revised
implementation schedule for review with the Post Office, telephone companies,
University of Virginia, the City of Charlottesville, emergency service
providers and other interested parties. Provided field verification activi-
ties are completed by mid-August, new address notifications have been targeted
to take place in November, 1993 immediately following the elections. As of
June 29, 1993, it was estimated that the field verification activities were 51
percent completed for Albemarle County. Should the field verification
activities not be completed by mid-August, it if likely that new address
notifications will be postponed until January, 1994 so as not to interfere
with the Christmas mailing season.
Installation of the Enhanced 911 emergency telephone equipment in the
Emergency Operations Center, Fire Dispatch Center, and Centel Telephone
Company is scheduled to take place in January, 1994. The installation is
expected to take 60 days. Testing of this equipment is scheduled to take
place in March, 1994. The testing will take between 45 and 60 days. The
Enhanced 911 System is scheduled to become operational in May, 1994.
Item 5.15. Memorandum dated June 9, 1993, from The Honorable Thomas J.
Bliley, Jr., Member of Congress, re: Status Report on EPA proposal to
regulate municipal solid waste landfills under Subtitle D, Subpart G of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRA), received for information.
Item 5.16. Memorandum dated June 14, 1993, from Mr. Patrick K. Mulla-
ney, Director of Parks and Recreation, to Mr. Richard E. Huff, II, Deputy
County Executive, re: Veterans Memorial - Permanent Location, received for
information.
It was noted that the American Legion Post 74, Disabled American
Veterans Chapter 33, and Veterans of Foreign Wars 1827 have requested assis-
tance in finding a permanent home for the Veterans Memorial, which until
recently, had been located at the east end of the Charlottesville Downtown
Mall.
Since the Memorial honors both men and women from Albemarle County and
the City of Charlottesville, the veterans feel that a high traffic/visibility
location on County property in the City limits of Charlottesville would be
most appropriate, preferably on the County Office Building grounds with the
Memorial facing either Preston Avenue or McIntire Road.
Mr. Mullaney said he contacted the donor of the fountain and landscaping
to see if that person would have any objection to the Memorial being located
on the grounds. On the contrary, the~donor is very excited about the idea and
has hired Peggy Van Yahres to develop a recommendation on the proper location
for the Memorial on the site. A plan should be ready for review by the donor
at the end of July, With the Veteran organizations reviewing the plans in
August, and with a final recommendation to the Board in September.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Item 5.17. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for June 3 and June 15,
1993, received for information.
Item 5.18. Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expendi-
tures for the Year Ended June 30, 1992, was received for information.
Item 5.19. Letter dated June 24, 1993, from Mr. Neal J. Barber,
Department of Housing and Community Development, to The Honorable David P.
Bowerman, re: County's Community Development Block Grant Proposal in the 1993
competition, was received for information.
It was noted that Albemarle County's application ranked 552 points out
of 1000 points available in the rating system. Grant offers were made to
local governments with projects rating 722 or more.
Item 5.20. Copy of letter dated June 14, 1993, from Mr. Hugh C. Miller,
State Historic Preservation Officer, Virginia Department of Historic Resourc-
es, to Ms. Rosa Luisa Scassa, providing notice that Sunnyfields, Albemarle
County, has been entered in the National Register of Historic Places as of
June 10, 1993, was received for information.
Item 5.21. Memorandum dated June 22, 1993, from Susan L. McLeod, MD,
Director, Thomas Jefferson Health District, to County Supervisors in Planning
District 10, State Senators and Delegates, re: Update on Environmental Health
Plan, was received for information.
Mr. Bain said the Board received follow-up information on this matter
this morning (Memorandum dated June 29, 1993, from Susan L. McLeod, M.D.,
Director addressed to Albemarle County Officials re: Update on Report on
Sewage and Water Programs) and he has some concerns. He said Ms. McLeod has
acknowledged the back-log of building permit issuances. There are people who
applied for building permits three years ago, but still do not have their
permit. He knows this is a problem created by the State, so he does not know
what the Board can do. He also knows Ms. McLeod is doing all that she can do.
He thinks something needs to be done.
Mr. Bowerman asked the staff if a letter could be sent to the County's
legislative representatives. Mr. Tucker explained that a meeting has been
scheduled with Ms. McLeod and Mr. Hackler from the Health Department to
discuss this situation. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Tucker to express the Board's
concerns regarding this issue. Mr. Bain asked for a report from the staff
within two weeks. Mr. Tucker said a report can be prepared after this meeting
takes place.
Item 5.22. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority for March 1, April 26 and May 24, 1993, received for
information.
Item 5.23. Executive Summary on process required for changing names of
magisterial districts and precincts, was forwarded for informational purposes.
The Board had asked staff to investigate the procedure required to
change the name of the Charlottesville Magisterial District, as well as
several of its precincts. Because of time constraints, staff recommended that
the change be initiated after the election this November, with the change to
become effective for elections in 1994. Basically the requirement is adver-
tisement of an amendment to Section 6-2 of the Albemarle County Code, submis-
sion of the change to the U.S. Department of Justice for pre-clearance which
will take 60 days, and then notification of the change to all of the affected
voters.
Item 5.24. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for April 8 and April 22, 1993, was received for
information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: January 15, March 4, April 1
and April 8, 1992; February 17, May 12(A), June 9(A), and June 16(A), 1993.
Mr. Bain said he read the minutes of January 15, 1992, pages 1 to 20,
and found them to be acceptable, with only a couple of typographical errors.
Mr. Bain said he read all of the minutes of June 9 (A), 1993, and found
them to be acceptable.
Mr. Humphris said she read the minutes of January 15, 1992, page 20
(Item #9b) to page 38 (Item #20), and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris said she also read the minutes of June 16 (A), 1993, and
handed to the Clerk a list of typographical corrections.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
000 1. 9
Mr. Bowerman said he read the minutes of March 4, 1992, page 32 to the
end, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowerman said he read the minutes of April 1, 1992, page 1 to page
17 (Item ~8), and found them to be in order with the exception of a couple of
typographical corrections which he has given to the Clerk.
Mr. Martin said he read the minutes of April 1, 1992, page 17 to page
34, and found them to be in order, except for a few minor typos.
Mr. Perkins said he had read the minutes of January 15, 1992, page 38 to
the end, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins also read the minutes of May 12 (A), 1993, and found them to
be in order. ~
At this time, Mr. Bain moved approval of the minutes which had been
read. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was~ called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:.
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Work Session - FY 1993-94
Secondary Road Improvement Budget.
Mr. Cilimberg said Board members have received a list of secondary road
projects for funding for Fiscal Year 1993-94. He referred to Consent Agenda
Item $5.6, relating to a letter from Jack Hodge, Chief Engineer of VDoT, in
reference to clarification of federal funding for the Route 29 corridor. He
noted that the question has been asked of the County Executive's office
whether the STP funds can be identified, to which Mr. Hodge referred in his
letter. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the STP monies within the total
allocation is $1,121,000, but it is unknown if there are additional STP monies
beyond that amount. He added that if the Berkmar Drive project can be funded
with the $1,121,000 STP monies which are in the Six Year budget proposed
today, then it would require a change in the Six Year Plan, since Berkmar
Drive has not been included. He also pointed out that it would require a
revision in the budget, but Mr. Roosevelt can speak to the issue. Otherwise,
the list of projects presented to the Supervisors today, is in accordance with
the adopted Six Year Plan. He went on to say that the staff recommends
approval of this Secondary Road Improvement Budget.
Mrs. Humphris inquired as to the length of the segment of the Berkmar
Drive project, and the approximate dollar amount that it will cost for
completion. Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, responded that the Berkmar Drive
project from Woodbrook Drive to behind Walmart is 3,000 feet. The approximate
dollar amount is slightly under $1,200,000. She added that the water line and
grading will be approximately $600,000, and if the road is constructed later,
it will be another $600,000. She pointed out that if it is done all together,
there will be significant savings.
Mr. Bain asked who was responsible for these estimates. Ms. Higgins
replied that the consultant for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority estimat-
ed the cost for the water lines. The road is being designed, and plans will
be forthcoming. Mr. Bain asked if the Berkmar project will require signifi-
cant grading. Ms. Higgins answered affirmatively. The cost will be approxi-
mately $600,000 for this grading.
Mr. Bain next wondered if the total cost is $1,200,000 for the water
line and the road. Ms. Higgins responded that if the water line and the
construction of the road are done together, the cost will be less than that
amount. The water line is estimated to cost $367,000, which will be funded
through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. This is in addition to the two
$600,000 costs for the remainder of the project. Mr. Bain responded that the
costs to him seem significantly low.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that Ms. Higgins had not mentioned rights-of-way
costs. Ms. Higgins agreed. She stated that 90 percent of the property
required for rights-of-way have had letters of intent signed by the property
owners saying that they will dedicate the necessary rights-of-way for the road
and the water line. She noted that these properties are extremely valuable,
because of the way they are zoned, but the cost of obtaining these rights-of-
way has almost been eliminated.
Mr. Bowerman recalled that the first estimates he heard relating to the
Berkmar Drive project were close to $2,000,000. Ms. Higgins stated that she
believes the first estimate of this project was in excess of $1,600,000. Mr.
Bowerman agreed that there have been significant savings because of the
dedication of the rights-of-way by the affected property owners. Ms. Higgins
concurred that this has contributed a lot to the savings, as well as having a
design of the road.
Mr. Bain asked what is the width of the right-of-way projected for the
road. Ms. Higgins replied that the design is for a two lane road, a turn
lane, sidewalk and water line. She believes the width of the right-of-way
July 7~ 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
will be 60 feet. Ail of this has to be considered when acquiring property for
the right-of-way.
Mr. Bain then asked about the width of the right-of-way in front of the
Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. Ms. Higgins answered that the width of the
section of road in front of Agnor-Hurt will tie into the road that is already
built behind Walmart. The property owners hope that when the portion of Rio
Road to the River is under construction for the Route 29 improvements, that it
be constructed through the CIP process next summer. She is not sure if the
Six Year Plan will accommodate this project, but if it could be constructed,
it would give significant relief to traffic on Route 29.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the potential effect of this road construction
on the school should be considered. Ms. Higgins responded that she has
contacted the Superintendent of Schools, and she expects something back from
him in writing relative to this matter. However, due to the districting of
Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, there are no school buses from the north coming
to this school. It would be advantageous if there should be another redis-
tricting that would cause students from the north to come to this school, for
the school buses to be on Berkmar Drive, instead of Route 29. She pointed out
that this recommendation is in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he was referring to the additional traffic
when Route 29 is under construction. Me believes special allowances need to
be considered for access to the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. He noted that
there will be more traffic using Berkmar Drive during the Route 29 construc-
tion, because the traffic will be diverting from Route 29. Ms. Higgins
answered that during the Route 29 construction, there can be coordination with
the Police Department, as far as getting traffic in and out of Berkmar. She
added, though, that this would not be a long term problem.
Mr. Bain inquired if it was ever anticipated for that section of the
Berkmar Drive project to be four lanes. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the
traffic study did not recommend four lanes.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board needs to take the Secondary Road
Improvement Budget for 1993-94 to public hearing. Mr. Tucker responded that
this is the staff's recommendation. The Clerk noted that a time has been
tentatively set for the public hearing for July 14, 1993 at 7:00~'~'?~. There
was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Discussion: FY 1993-94 Revenue Sharing Projects
Mr. Tucker said during the FY 93-94 CIP process, the Board appropriated
$276,734 for road revenue sharing projects with the understanding that this
amount might be insufficient if the State approved the Board's request for't~
full allocation of $500,000. VDOT has since approved $424,300 in revenue
sharing for FY 93-94 projects, thus requiring an additional appropriation of
$147,566 if the Board wished to pull down the full amount.
The Planning Department has reported that although VDOT has made
$424,300 available to Albemarle County, they have also indicated that two of
the FY 93-94 proposed road projects on the revenue sharing list, Route 678 and
Route 682, will not be ready for construction until FY 94-95. Therefore, even
at the current local funding share of $276,734, there will be an excess of
$44,234 in local funds for eligible revenue sharing projects. A list of the
proposed projects is attached.
In lieu of these two delayed projects, the one eligible revenue sharing
project that could be completed in FY 93-94 is the development of landscaping
for the Route 250 East project. Revenue sharing funds can be used on primary
road projects and can be used towards landscaping projects related to projects
identified in the primary road plan. Route 250 East will be completed this
fiscal year and there is a landscape plan approved for this project.
The total amount estimated for the landscaping project is $85,800, which
would be more than covered by the excess local funds of $44,234 or a total
funding amount of $88,468.
For the reasons cited above that two previously identified road pro-
jects, Route 678 and Route 682, will not be ready for construction in the FY
93-94 project year and that no other eligible road projects will be ready with
the exception of the Route 250 East landscaping project, staff recommends that
the current local appropriation of $276,734 be maintained. This will enable
the County to complete the Route 250 landscaping project, which had been
requested in the FY 93-94 CIP, but will not require any further appropriation
of local funds to pull down the additional $147,566 in state funds.
Mrs. Humphris inquired as to which categories of projects are eligible
for revenue sharing funds. Mr. Roosevelt stated that revenue sharing funds
can be used for just about any highway project. Revenue sharing funds can be
used for the primary or secondary systems, and they can be used for mainte-
nance or improvements. These funds can also be used to bring roads up to
state standards for acceptance into the state system.
Mrs. Humphris asked if revenue sharing funds can be used for new roads.
Mr. Roosevelt inquired if Mrs. Humphris was referring to roads such as Berkmar
O00200
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Drive. Mrs. Humphris answered, "yes." She was wondering, if there were funds
for which there was not an immediate need, if they could be held for a future
project, such as the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Roosevelt responded that VDoT
prefers that the funds be spent during the year in which they are allocated.
Mr. Bain asked what is the amount that is included in the budget for
revenue sharing. Mr. Tucker responded that the revenue sharing amount is
$276,734~
Mr. Martin recalled that revenue sharing is one of the items that the
Board reduced during some of its budget work sessions. Mr. Bowerman stated
that the original figure for revenue sharing was $500,000. Mr. Tucker ex-
plained that it is never known if the state will be able to match the total
amount. However, now it has been discovered that the state will be able to
match an additional amount of money up to $424,000. -
Mr. Bowerman asked where the remainder of the money will come from to
match the state's most recent revenue sharing figure. Mr. Tucker replied that
a transfer from the CIP fund balance or the general fund would have to be
considered. He is attempting, because of the Debt Service with which the
County will be faced during the next fiscal year due to the new middle school,
to make sure that as much of the funds as possible be found during next year's
budget process. Anything that is taken from other sources of revenue,
particularly fund balances, will force Debt Service funds to be found else-
where. Debt Service will be in the amount of $1,000,000 for next year.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the funds will be put into the Route 250 landscap-
ing project, if the Supervisors do nothing. Mr. Tucker answered that this
will be done, if the Board concurs. This is the only project which is
currently in the CIP which could go forward next year. Mr. Bowerman then
asked if the remainder of the money will be moved forward. Mr. Tucker
replied, "yes." He went on to explain that the $44,000 is proposed to be used
with matching funds from the state. There will only be a few thousand dollars
remaining, which will stay in the CIP revenue sharing category.
At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to maintain the $276,734 appro-
priation, as it is, and to use an additional $44,234 of revenue sharing funds
to complete the Route 250 landscaping project, which is currently in the
1993-94 Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he needs to understand what is happening. He
noted that the VDoT office has been officially advised that the County wants
to match $430,000, but it sounds to him as though the Supervisors are reducing
this request to $276,734. It also appears that the Supervisors are advising
VDoT officials that they are going to drop the Routes 678 and 682 revenue
sharing projects and add an amount of money to cover the Route 250 landscaping
project. Mr. Tucker agreed that Mr. Roosevelt's comments are basically
correct. However, the original amount of $276,734 will not change.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that the County's first request was for $500,000.
VDoT officials indicated, however, that only $430,000 could be made available
for revenue sharing, so the County's request was reduced to this amount. Now
the request is being cut back to $276,734. He wants to make sure that this is
understood by everybody.
Mr. Tucker stated that the County always requests the maximum amount of
revenue sharing funds, because it is not known in the beginning what the state
will be able to fund. However, it is not always known which projects are
ready for design and can be moved forward for the next fiscal year. The
figure is not firm until a decision has to be made, and by that time, the
stages of the projects are also known. Mr. Bain noted that usually the County
has gone along with the State's maximum. Mr. Tucker agreed. Mr. Bain stated
that it appears the Board will not approve the maximum amount of matching
funds this time.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the funds are not available to match the
maximum amount for FY 1993-94. Mr. Bain then noted that the maximum match is
shown in the Six Year Plan for each year.
Mr. Tucker explained that the reason for not matching the maximum amount
of revenue sharing funds for FY 1993-94 is not just that funds are not
available. The projects are not ready to be constructed in this next fiscal
year.
Mr. Roosevelt reiterated that Highway Department officials prefer for
the money to go to projects that will be under construction for the 1993-94
fiscal year. Whether or not the matching funds amount to $276,000 or
$500,000, the money will be spent on qualifying projects. Mr. Bain stated
that this is what VDoT has done in the past.
Mrs. Humphris commented that the Supervisors need to be really careful
because the County is giving up money from the State to save money. She
pointed out that it is not known, at this time, how this situation will
evolve. Mr. Tucker reiterated that the County staff understands that the two
previously mentioned projects are not ready for construction next year. Mrs.
Humphris stated that Mr. Roosevelt's point is that the County does not need to
have projects ready for construction, but the funds could still be reserved,
even if they are not going to be used until a later date.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
000201
Mr. Bain mentioned that, for example, the Ivy project is a qualifying
project, and the project might move forward this Fall.
Mr. Roosevelt remarked that he thinks what is driving the Board's
decision is that only $276,000 available. If more than this amount is put
forward to be matched, the County will have to borrow money to pay interest.
Mrs. Humphris disagreed. Mr. Tucker agreed with Mrs. Humphris that the money
for the interest would not be borrowed. He indicated that it would have to be
taken from some other source. Mr. Roosevelt stated that if the request to
VDoT is reduced by approximately $225,000, then the matching revenue sharing
funds will not be available.
Mrs. Humphris emphasized that she wants to make sure that the Supervi-
sors are not making a mistake in giving up the matching funds.
Mr. Bowerman noted that there are two things about this situation which
concern him. The CIP within the regular budget was based upon a certain
review.by the Supervisors. During that review the Supervisors considered
everything and decided that $276,000 was the appropriate amount for matching
funds for the secondary highway system. He is worried about using money from
the fund balances, because it gives the impression that fund balances can be
used whenever there is a shortage, and that is not the case. He then recom-
mended that no changes be made to the CIP, unless the Supervisors are fully
aware of all the aspects that were considered in the beginning of the budget
process.
Mr. Martin stated that he remembers how the Supervisors arrived at the
$276,000 figure. He realizes the maximum amount of revenue sharing started
out at $500,000, but the Supervisors had reasons for reducing that amount to
$276,000. Mr. Bowerman recalled that the amount was reduced because that was
the best the Supervisors could do at the time, with all of the factors
considered.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that Mr. Roosevelt had indicated this money could
be held over, but that neither he (Mr. Tucker) nor the staff had been clear on
this matter. Mr. Bain stated that this had been done in the past. Mr. Tucker
agreed that it had been done in the past, but only when projects were ready
for construction. Previously, it was always known which projects could be
moved forward. He reiterated that, at the present time, he is uncertain which
projects will be ready for construction during the next fiscal year. However,
the project at Ivy, to which Mr. Bain referred, might be a good possibility.
He emphasized that the staff had thought it would not be advisable to hold
this money until it was known what projects would be ready for construction,
however, the opportunity would be lost for matching funds. He also mentioned
the problem of finding funds somewhere else in the budget.
Mrs. Humphris commented that the other transportation discussions on the
agenda feed into this topic. She does not believe there is a plan which has
been carefully thought through, but it seems the financial decisions are being
made, while it is still unknown what will be done on the other potential
projects° Mr. Tucker pointed out that some of the projects have been identi-
fied.
Mrs. Humphris wondered what would happen if the Supervisors made a
decision to go forward with the Hillsdale Drive extension. This cannot be
done without the money, and the matching funds might have been part of these
funds. If the Supervisors vote today to approve the motion which has been
made, these matching funds will be gone. She stated that the Board will be
closing off its options before the plan is known. Mr. Tucker agreed.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that it is still unknown what the discussion will
be concerning Hillsdale Drive, or what the timing schedule will be, etc. She
cautioned the Supervisors against closing off the revenue sharing funds, when
it is not yet known what will be done with the other projects. Mr. Bowerman
asked Mrs. Humphris what she was suggesting. Mrs. Humphris replied that she
would recommend deferring the vote on the motion until the other transporta-
tion items on the agenda have been discussed.
Mr. Martin stated that he is willing to defer his motion until after
these discussions.
Mrs. Humphris explained that she does not mean to imply that she is
opposing the motion. She said, however, that she thinks more information is
needed before this vote is taken.
At this time, Mr. Bain withdrew his second to the motion.
Mr. Bowerman stated that this issue would be decided later in the
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Discussion: Barracks Road (Route 654) Retaining
Wall Mural.
Mr. Tucker said VDoT is willing to consider the possibility of painting
a mural on the new retaining wall being constructed along Barracks Road and
suggests a committee be established to undertake the project. This wall is
near completion, and the staff is suggesting that a committee be formed with
000202
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
the task of determining the public interest of such a project, as well as
developing a design and determining the cost of maintenance and completion.
He suggested that Mrs. Humphris be a member of this committee and, perhaps,
lead the group.
If the Board chooses to pursue the possibility of painting of a mural on
this retaining wall, staff recommends a committee be established with the
following membership: 1) representatives from the adjacent residential
communities to include Hessian Hills, Canterbury Hills, Colonnades and
Huntwood Townhomes; 2) representative from VDOT; 3) representative(s) of the
County School Division; and 4) representatives from County staff (Planning,
Engineering, Parks/Recreation as appropriate).
The initial task of the committee would be to determine the public
interest in such a project, develop a process for design and selection of a
mural, and determine the feasibility of the project in terms of its comple-
tion, maintenance and costs.
Mrs. Humphris said she is interested in the idea of the mural. She and
Mr. Roosevelt had discussed the possibility of talking to the Hessian Hills
Apartments owners/managers about planting ivy on their property in the event
that the mural was found not to be the best option. Mrs. Humphris then
remarked that funds will be needed, if the plan for the mural is approved, and
she asked where this money would be found. Mr. Tucker answered that different
sources would have to be considered. First, it has to be determined what the
cost will be. At this point, he does not have any idea as to the cost of the
project.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the cost would only involve the materials. Mrs.
Humphris replied affirmatively. Mr. Tucker pointed out that there could be
some maintenance costs involved. Mr. Bowerman suggested that these costs
could probably be covered through the private sector. Mrs. Humphris agreed
with Mr. Tucker that there could be maintenance costs as well as other
problems. There would need to be a plan as to how these costs and problems
would be handled. She asked Mr. Tucker to have a staff person communicate
this project idea to the citizens. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that the Piedmont
Council for the Arts might participate in such a project. Mr. Tucker noted
that the staff has also considered contacting the Art Department at Albemarle
High School about the project.
Mr. Martin stated that if the committee suggests a mural project which
will cost a lot of money, he will probably oppose it. Mrs. Humphris agreed
that she does not want to spend a lot of money on such a project, either.
Mr. Bowerman commented that as soon as an idea is articulated, the
funding can be determined. He reiterated the funding could possibly come from
the private sector. Mr. Martin agreed that this is something for which the
people in that community could be responsible. Mrs. Humphris agreed. She
went on to say that there will be small amounts of money involved for paint,
if this project is approved.
At this time, Mr. Bain made a motion to approve the concept of painting
a mural on the new retaining wall being constructed along Barrack's Road and
the formation of a committee as recommended by staff to bring back a recommen-
dation. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 7d. Discussion: Hillsdale Drive and Branchlands Boule-
vard - Cost sharing to get road into State Secondary System.
Mr. Tucker said Hillsdale Drive and Branchlands Boulevard were substan-
tially complete with very little work remaining in late Fall, 1992. The only
work that remained at that time was to correct a drainage problem at the
intersection of Hillsdale Drive to Branchlands Boulevard. The developer made
several attempts to correct the problem but was not successful prior to severe
winter weather setting in.
The significant concrete and asphalt work is currently underway to fully
correct the problem. In April 1993, VDOT's interpretation of ADA accessibili-
ty requirements were received by the County. Under the current interpreta-
tion, ADA ramps must be provided in locations to access areas within the
right-of-way where there is at least a three foot wide slip resistant area
behind the curb even though no sidewalk or pathway is constructed or even
planned to be constructed in the future. Even though the plans that were
approved for the construction of these roads did not include ramps at these
locations, ADA requirements are imposed retroactively to all roads not yet
accepted into the VDOT system for maintenance. Based on this interpretation,
there are seven locations where additional ADA ramps are required. The cost
of these improvements would be $500 per ramp location. The total cost of the
improvements would be $3,500.
ooo: Oa
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Due to the high traffic use of these two roads and in order to prevent
further delay with the acceptance of these roads, VDOT has agreed to accept
the roads without the ramps being constructed provided the County guarantee
that the ADA ramps be constructed within a reasonable time and that the cost
of these improvements are not VDOT's responsibility. To facilitate this
agreement, the developer and the County would each bond/appropriate 50 percent
of the cost ($1,750 each).
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends the Board appropriate $3,500 for the
cost to construct seven ADA ramps; $1,750 of this will be reimbursed by the
developer prior to expenditure.
Mr. Bowerman said he had asked the County staff and the developer to
meet relative to this matter, because the roads have been used for two years,
and they are still not in the state system. He has been concerned about the
way traffic is controlled along the roadway, since there is no center line at
this time. There should be a double, yellow center line to keep vehicles on
each side of the road. The roads have been posted with a 35 mile per hour
speed limit, even though they are not in the state system, and the Police
Department has been requested to provide enforcement. He indicated that the
only way speed can be controlled on a road when it is not in the state system
is to specifically ask the Police Department for this help. He has become
very concerned because of complaints he received, as well as problems he has
seen along that roadway. He emphasized that these roads need to be taken into
the system sooner rather than later. He has already met with the developer's
representatives and the County staff. Mr. Bowerman felt it was in the
County's best interest to expedite getting the roads into the system, and VDoT
officials have been asked to waive the ADA requirement. The developer has
made a reasonable effort to get these roads into the system over the years,
and during the last two years has made a number of improvements. Mr. Bowerman
explained, however, that, as the length of time matured, additional items
became necessary to repair. He pointed out that if the roads had been
completed six months ago, ADA regulations would not have been required. He
thought the situation was unreasonable, and he did not want to delay it any
further. Originally eleven potential ramps were being considered, but now
they have been reduced to seven. He agreed to ask the Board to underwrite
one-half the costs, if VDoT would not waive the requirement. He emphasized
that there is a possibility VDoT will not require these ramps, and the ramps
may not have to be built before the state will accept the roads. This plan
would guarantee the roads be taken into the state system in the event that
VDoT did require the~ramps be built. The cost will be split fifty/fifty
between the developer and the County.
Mr. Bain stated that he has no problem with this request.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to where Mr. Tucker expected to get the funds.
Mr. Tucker replied that the money will come from the fund balances shown in
the appropriation request. He said that two actions need to be taken by the
Board. He explained that the appropriation request for the funds, as well as
the request for the roads to be taken into the state system need to be
approved.
Mr. Martin commented that he has no problem with this request, because
the longer the road is in such high use, the more risk the County will have if
something happens that cannot quickly be taken care of by the developer. He
recalled that the County has been caught several times in the past with roads
that were not taken into the system and over the years deteriorated to the
point that they were below standard. He noted that it costs a lot of money to
bring these roads up to standard.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he thinks good efforts were made on the part
of the developer and the County staff. The County staff reviewed the roads,
as well as VDoT representatives. However, it has been a long time, and it is
unreasonable to continue it any further.
Mr. Bain commented that the amount of money to be appropriated is for
ADA requirements. It has nothing to do with the roads, as far as what was
done or what was in the plan. That is why he sees a distinction with this
project. It certainly was not anticipated, when this project started, that
these regulations would be required.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the developer has already constructed a number
of ramps, where other improvements have been made along that roadway over the
last few months, to get it into the state system.
Mr. Bain then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution to request VDoT to accept Hillsdale Drive and Branchlands
Boulevard into the state system.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr0 Marshall.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
000 04
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Branchlands Subdivision described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5{A), fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised this Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation to add Branchlands Boulevard and Hillsdale Drive as
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary
system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia,
and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board guarantees a clear
and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Next, Mr. Bain made a motion to approve Appropriation #930002 for $3500
to construct the ADA required ramps on Hillsdale Drive and Branchlands
Boulevard with one-half to be reimbursed by the developer conditioned upon
VDoT not granting a waiver. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION ON HILLSDALE
DRIVE AND BRANCHLANDS BLVD.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1900041000950043
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
HILLSDALE DR/BRANCHLANDS
TOTAL
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900051000510100
2900019000199926
FUND BALANCE
DEVELOPER-VA LAND
TOTAL
$1,750.00
1,750.00
$3,500.00
Agenda Item No. 7e. Discussion: Hillsdale Drive Extension.
Mrs. Humphris stated that the charlottesville/Albemarle Metropolitan
Planning Organization had a request from Albemarle County and several inter-
ested citizens about looking into the possibility of constructing an extension
of Hillsdale Drive east of Route 29 North. The MPO examined this matter with
help from the County staff and cooperation of two of the business people in
that area. She mentioned that the two businessmen were Don Wagner of Great
Eastern Management and James Jessup of the Pepsi Cola Bottling Company. After
significant time spent considering this matter, it was decided that if it were
deemed possible to extend the road from the area of the Pepsi Cola Plant to
the Seminole Square Shopping Center, it would be a very valuable parallel
alternative to Route 29. It was then decided to request that City Council,
the Board of Supervisors and V DoT consider all of the information that has
been gathered to see if it is possible to design and construct such a road.
She reiterated that this is the request from the MPO to this Board, as well as
to City Council. (Mr. Bain left at 10:01 a.m.)
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that it is his understanding the relevant
property owners would dedicate the rights-of-way necessary. Mrs. Humphris
responded that this is the understanding, but there is not anything officially
on paper.
Mr. Bowerman commented that approximately three-fourths of the property
is in the City of Charlottesville. He wondered if the situation would be
approached in terms of a 50/50 cost sharing, or if it would have to be
discussed. Mrs. Humphris answered that these are matters which still have to
be discussed. She called attention to her June 18, 1993, letter to Mr.
Bowerman relative to the extension of Hillsdale Drive east of Route 29 North,
and she pointed out that attached to the letter is a brief explanation on the
background of the road, and a rough estimate of the costs as far as surfacing
and rights-of-way. The costs are estimated at approximately $300,000.
Considerable grading will need to be done, and she noted that VDoT staff have
been very helpful in providing aerial photographs and approximate estimates.
00020
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
The letter includes the names of the staff people who have been researching
this matter, and who would be the logical ones to continue the study. (Mr.
Bain returned at 10:05 a.m.)
Mr. Bowerman inquired if this road would be extended on the western side
between the Post Office and the Pepsi Plant. Mrs. Humphris answered that a
firm decision has not yet been made. However, she believes the road would be
located between the Post Office and the Pepsi Plant. Mr. Bowerman stated that
if the road was extended on the other side of the Pepsi Plant, the project
would require extensive filling and costs, because of a stream which is
located in that direction. Mrs. Humphris agreed.
Mr. Bowerman indicated that he is very much in support of this project,
because he thinks the improvement could take thousands of vehicles off of
Route 29. It would allow people to get back and forth while shopping without
going onto Route 29.
Mr. Bain stated that a study was done showing the vehicle trips per day,
and even though it was substantial, there were not a tremendous amount of
vehicle trips involved. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the study indicated there
were 3500 trips per day.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that all of these vehicles can be seen turnin9
left into Seminole Square during the day. A majority of the cars will have to
do that because they are traveling onto Route 29 at Greenbrier Drive to get
back to Seminole Square.
Mr. Tucker commented that public involvement will be considered as far
as funding for this project is concerned, as well as the private sector. Mrs.
Humphris concurred.
Mr. Bain pointed out that if this project is completed, and the over-
passes and grade separated interchanges are built for Route 29, vehicles
coming from the reservoir area would not have to drive on Route 29, at all.
This is another short segment of road that would be very helpful.
Mr. Bowerman noted that this project has been included in the CATS plan
for 15 years.
Mrs. Humphris said a problem was presented when the Pepsi Plant was
built in the corridor where this road was supposed to be located. She stated
that the project was dormant for awhile, but then realizing the need for
parallel roads to Route 29, the MPO considered it again. She said, too, that
representatives of the private sector have requested this road, and they are
willing to help with it. These representatives are offering help in terms of
rights-of-way, but it is not known if they will contribute any funds.
However, they might be encouraged to make a contribution.
At this time, Mrs. Humphris made a motion to direct staff to meet with
City representatives to discuss the design, engineering and associated costs
of constructing an extension of Hillsdale Drive. Mr. Bain seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 7f. Discussion: Beltair Intersection.
Mr. Bain said he and Mrs. Humphris have been in communication with VDoT
regarding the Route 250 and Bellair interchange. A new recommendation which
suggested a lesser intrusion has been proposed. They decided that this new
proposal needed to come to the Board for consideration. A representative from
Bellair Subdivision is present.
Mr. Bain then discussed the first proposal which was to construct a new
light at Route 250, where the ramp comes up from the bypass at the bridge for
traffic going westbound. He indicated that this arrangement would discourage
traffic coming west on the bypass to take the Ivy exit. Traffic would be
encouraged, through signage, to continue under the bridge, come onto the ramp
and go through the light. The current proposal, which is the least intrusive,
is to place a stop sign where traffic comes under the bridge onto the ramp,
have a "T" intersection there and eliminate the merge lane. He reiterated
that this could be tried as a first step, and it is what VDoT is currently
recommendinH. He thinks the neighborhood representatives will speak to this
recommendation, and they are in accord that this first step is somethinH worth
considering, rather than altering other sections of the ramp. He mentioned
that there were other proposals which came from the consultant who was hired
to study this intersection and the section of road which was involved. He
then wondered if the decision for this proposal can be decided without goinH
to a public hearinH. He remarked that there miHht be a need for a public
hearing which would involve other people who use that intersection but who
come from further out on Route 250, and who do not live or work in that exact
location. He noted that there have been a lot of people working on this
situation for more than 18 months.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
00020
Mr. Bowerman noted that this is not a public hearing, but Board members
would be interested in hearing from affected citizens who live in that area.
He asked if anyone would like to speak to this issue.
Mr. Lockwood Frizzell, President of the Bellair Homeowners Association,
stated that a Task Force has been meeting during the last 12 months to address
this situation. The Task Force is composed of representatives of the area
homeowner associations, businesses along the corridor, St. Anne's Belfield
School, the University of Virginia, and County and University Police Depart-
ments. The Task Force met yesterday and unanimously passed a resolution
asking that VDoT put in a new light at the intersection of the cloverleaf and
Route 250 West. He noted that there was a light there several years ago. Mr.
Roosevelt has stated that the warrants justified a light at this location.
Other recommendations include modification of the signage on the Route 29/250
bypass to redirect traffic further downward; erection of a stop sign under the
railroad underpass and to reroute the traffic under the ramp from the section
close to St Anne's Belfield to Old Garth Road. Although this may cause an
inconvenience to people who are using the road, this would not affect St.
Arine's Belfield or the businesses that are in the group of buildings. He
feels this is probably one of the most dangerous stretches of highway in the
state. He understands that the fourth recommendation is a controversial
issue, but the Task Force would like to see them all implemented. Mr.
Frizzell stated that Kellerco, the independent expert, recommended closing the
ramp, but the Task Forces recognizes that would cause an inconvenience to
everyone who uses that road.
Mr. Roosevelt introduced Gall Lipscomb, VDoT District Construction
Engineer, who has been chairing the Task Force. Ms. Lipscomb stated that Mr.
Frizzell had covered everything that she was going to say. One of the major
concerns out there is the volume of high traffic. There are a lot of busi-
nesses at that intersection area. Kellerco and VDoT's Traffic Engineering
Division determined that there are a lot of conflicting movements which is one
of the concerns. VDoT supports the Task Forces' first three recommendations
which are operational in nature and can be implemented as soon as the plans
are prepared. If the Board feels that VDoT should hold a public hearing, it
can do so or the Board can hold the hearing.
Mr. Martin asked if VDoT is supporting the committee's recommendation.
Ms. Lipscomb replied, "yes" Mr. Bowerman stated that the fourth item is not
being recommended at this time. He added that everybody is in agreement with
the first three recommendations.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she has been wondering what would happen if
that section of road was closed. She likes the concept but she is concerned
about the creation of another safety problem, because she wonders if traffic
will really stop where it is supposed to stop. Ms. Lipscomb said she does not
think the speed will be there for the short distances as it is now for the
straight stretch of highway. VDoT will have to monitor closely whatever is
done in that area to make sure problems have not been created somewhere else.
Mr. Bain asked how many of the warrants were not met at the light at the
ramp. Mr. Roosevelt answered that under a classic traffic signal study, none
of the warrants were met for a signal at that location. The purpose for a
signal at that location is to create gaps of traffic along that stretch of
Route 250. He said the light would allow traffic to get into the traffic flow
from the side of the road. He stated that, secondly, a traffic light would
influence traffic that is on the bypass to use that ramp to go west on Route
250. This would eliminate the situation which now occurs at the Bellair
Market ramp and Route 250 intersection.
Mr. Bain commented that he understands what is being said, but he still
thinks the people who are not in that immediate area, but who use Route 250
coming from all points west, need to have a chance to be heard. He would like
to have a hearing on this issue, and he suggested that the hearing be held at
the August 18th meeting. He also noted that he would like to have by that
time, if the Board concurs, backup information on traffic which will come
under the bridge and use the loop. There is enough width in that loop road to
have two lanes of traffic for rush hour times, at least part of the way up to
the light. He would like to have verification of this, and he would like to
be able to show this to the people. It may even be possible, without a
significant amount of money, to be able to double the lanes all the way up to
that light. He would like to know how many vehicles will fit into that area,
if there is a partial second lane, as well as a second lane that could be put
all the way to the light. The holding count is already known in that area,
particularly during rush hour.
Ms. Lipscomb replied that this is one of the things the Traffic Division
model addressed. VDoT staff also had concerns about holding traffic in that
area, but all indications were that there would be no problem. Mr. Bain asked
if the model related to the situation that is currently in that area, or if
improvements were involved. Ms. Lipscomb responded that the model addressed
holding traffic in that area, but she is unsure if the model used one or two
lanes of traffic. She would check on this information.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Task Force had discussed closing only the
southbound lane. She wondered if the recommendation now is to close the whole
section of road between Route 856 and Old Garth Road, so that if a vehicle was
traveling east on Route 250 and chose to go under the railroad bridge, it
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
000207
would have to make the detour of stops, or could the vehicle go straight
north. Ms. Lipscomb replied that the recommendation was to close that section
of road completely° There were also discussions about making that section one
way~ but there were concerns about vehicles coming off the ramp and meeting a
one way road.
Mr. Bowerman informed the Board members that the VDoT staff can make
such decisions without a public hearing. A public hearing could be held on
this matter, however, so that everyone could be made aware of additional
concerns or questions which might arise and have not been considered, and to
hear people from outside the area.
Mr. Bain stated that he thinks the project should be started with
minimum intrusion. The light and stop signs could be done, and the merge lane
going west could be closed. This could then be studied to-see how it helps
the traffic situation. He thinks he can support such a concept, but he also
wants to hear from the other users of the road in that area. Mr. Bain added
that he does not think he can support the fourth recommendation. He will
listen to what people are saying, but he thinks minimum intrusion should be
tried first.
Mrs. Humphris said the meeting will allow VDoT staff to present a plan
so that it would be understandable to the public. She said that maps, etc.,
could be used, and the options could be described, as well as the purpose of
them.
Ms. Lipscomb asked if the Supervisors do not want the staff to address
the fourth option in August.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the preferred option should be shown. If there
is an engineering strategy which will work and in which the VDoT staff
believes, then he thinks it should be shown as part of the total package. In
his opinion, if that is not the case, then he would not mention the option.
Mr. Frizzell mentioned that the different groups have been working on
this program for over a year, and VDoT can carry through the recommendation
without a public hearing and without a motion from the Board of Supervisors.
His Association is perfectly willing to go through the process, but he thinks
that the VDoT staff should be given the approval to proceed with the first
three items, regardless of what comes out of the August 18th meeting. This
process is just being delayed, again. There was an accident in that area a
few days ago, and the reason there are not more accidents at this intersection
is because most people recognize how dangerous it is.
At this time, Mr. Bain made motion to hold an advisory public hearing on
August 18, 1993 to receive comments from citizens regarding the proposal to
alter and rework the intersection of Bellair and to install a traffic light.
'Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Bain commented that he realizes how much effort has gone into this
process, but he still thinks it is important that other users of the road,
which amounts to thousands of vehicle trips a day, have a chance to be heard.
He then asked that Option Four be shown in the advertisement for the public
hearing, if VDoT staff intends to discuss it at the public hearing. The
advertisement will need to give a general idea of everything that is going to
be proposed.
Mr. Martin stated that he is going to vote in support of this public
hearing. He added that he does not understand why a public hearing is being
held to help the Supervisors make up their minds about something when they
will not have a part in making the decision. He does not necessarily see the
logic in that, but he will honor the Board's intentions. VDoT staff can make
all of these options happen, without this Board's approval.
Mrs. Humphris concurred that it is VDoT's decision. However, Mr.
Roosevelt has informed the Task Force that if this decision is made without a
meeting for public comments, since it affects so many people, then the VDoT
staff will get the calls and complaints. If this problem escalates, then the
VDoT hierarchy will want an explanation from the local VDoT staff as to why
this decision was made without public input. She stated that Mr. Roosevelt
felt when such a large number of the public is affected, then it is wise that
people know what is going to happen and they be able to give their thoughts on
the situation. Also, somebody might add something new at the public meeting.
Mr. Martin agreed that what Mrs. Humphris is saying makes sense, but it
seems to him that VDoT should hold the public hearing rather than the Board of
Supervisors, since the Supervisors do not have the decision making power in
this matter. He reiterated that the situation seems odd to him, but he will
vote in favor of the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(The Board recessed at 10:35 a.m. and reconvened at 10:45 a.m.)
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
000208
Agenda Item No. 7g. Discussion: Route 769 Improvements.
Mr. Bowerman called attention to Mr. Roosevelt's June 15th letter (copy
on file) to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors relative to the Route 769
Improvement Study. He asked Mr. Roosevelt to discuss the letter, as well as
the outcome of the meeting with Mr. Wilson Cropp and Mr. Granville Brown, who
are residents of Route 769.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he has discussed the Route 769 situation with
the two residents, and he has basically broken the route down into 11 loca-
tions where relatively minor improvements could be made. These are areas
which can be graded for width and sight distance or the pipes can be replaced
to improve the drainage. However, most of the 11 locations had some need for
easements or permission that would have to be obtained before improvements
could be made. He has supplied an estimate of the costs and the problems
which exist with each location, and he called attention to the total cost for
this work, which is approximately $65,000. He has supplied this as basic
information. He recommends that if the Supervisors feel this is a valid
request~ they finance it in a future secondary budget, and then indicate to
the people who represent the property owners in that area, as well as to him.
Time will have to be allowed to acquire easements and permission, and the
project will be brought back to the Supervisors sometime in the future,
probably within three to six months. If this can be done, then the Supervi-
sors charge will be to recommend the funding for the improvements. If the
Supervisors are not prepared to go that far, then he needs to know, because he
does not want his staff to work on a project which does not have the potential
of being put into the County's budget in the near future. He emphasized that
this is where he stands. He went on to say that if the Supervisors indicate
to him that this amount of money is something which can be put into a future
budget, or if it can be worked into the priorities that the County already
have, then he will try to get the required easements, but that is the only way
he can proceed at this point.
Mr. Martin commented that he understands that acquiring rights-of-way
for these particular locations will not be a problem. He then called atten-
tion to one of the recommendations which called for replacing an 18 inch
diameter pipe with two 36 inch pipes. It seems to him that if there is a need
for larger pipes in these locations, then some of the money should come from
VDoT's maintenance fund.
Mr. Roosevelt responded that VDoT defines improvements as anything which
increases the width, depth or standard of a roadway. For many years VDoT has
put plant mix on roads which were surface treated, and the County has funded
these with improvement funds. The Six Year Plan, which this Board has adopted
over the last six years, puts approximately $100,000 a year into the plan to
fund the plant mix that is put on surface treated roads. The budgets which
flow from the Six Year Plan have shown the specific locations where the plant
mix has been put on these surface treated roads. To a layman, putting plant
mix on a surface road makes the road look as though it is resurfaced. He
commented, though, that VDoT considers it to be an improvement which needs to
be funded through improvement funds. He does not have funds in his mainte-
nance budget for replacing pipes. He cannot legally replace an existing pipe
with a larger pipe without having public meetings because of the effect that a
larger pipe will have downstream. Changing pipes will cause the stream flow
to change.
Mr. Bain informed Mr. Martin that there have been a number of such
improvements over the years. He recalled that Route 679 needed the same sort
of improvements which were going to cost a considerable amount. The Board
found a way to fund a few things, such as larger pipes, etc., but there are
still significant problems in that location.
Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that the County used improvement funds for
Route 679. There are literally hundreds of minor improvements such as this
that could be done around the County. The recommendations shown in his June
15th letter will make some improvements on/Route 769, but time will tell if it
is an improvement that people will notice five years from now. It will
certainly be an improvement to the range and sight distance at a few loca-
tions. He emphasized that there are probably another 500 miles of roads in
the County where spot improvements could be made. He explained that if spot
improvements were made at all of these locations, the scarce secondary
improvement funds would be depleted, and there would not be anything left for
major improvements that are also needed. It is important that every time such
a road is brought to the attention of the Supervisors and the V/DoT staff, they
consider the request against the other needs in Albemarle County and decide if
this is where they want to spend $65,000 for spot improvements. There are
probably another 100 to 200 groups of people who could come to the Supervisors
and ask for $60,000 to $80,000 of improvements on their mile or two miles of
gravel roads, and he wondered how the Board will deal with these people, soon
there will be a 15 page budget of spot improvements which involve roads such
as Hydraulic and Rio, and he pointed out that the County is already years
behind making improvements on those roads. He reiterated that VDoT and the
Supervisors need to consider each one of the roads each time there is such a
request.
Mr. Bain stated that there are a lot of issues involved with Route 769,
and the safety of the people who live on that road has to be considered. He
asked if it is Mr. Roosevelt's perspective that correcting the sight distance
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
000209
problem is more important than the drainage problem. He noted that there are
some places on the road where two vehicles cannot pass, and there are a lot of
other roads in the County which have the same situation. The sight distance
does not seem to be a significant part of the $65,000, and it might be some-
thing could be done about that, as opposed to correcting the drainage problem.
Mr. Martin remarked that there are at least a couple of locations on
Route 769 where a bus and a car cannot get by each other. A vehicle will
literally have to back up or find a place to pull off the road. There is at
least one location where the drainage has to be corrected, and this drainage
problem is close to the area where the school bus turns around. This area
washes completely out so that the bus cannot get across it, and the bus has to
back out of that area.
Mr. Bain asked what is the vehicle count for the entire length of this
road. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the vehicle count for Route 769 in 1990 was
168. Mr. Martin pointed out that this vehicle count was made with the counter
stationed midpoint of the road, and it missed a lot of people. Mr. Roosevelt
agreed that there are some houses between this location and Route 20 which
would not have been counted.
Mr. Perkins indicated that he thinks this is a step in the right
direction. The improvements which need to be done to this road need to be
prioritized and the most critical ones could be done first, such as the sight
distance and the bad drainage problem. The problem with so many roads is that
10 or 20 years ago they were nothing more than farmlands. Now people are
moving onto these roads, and the traffic count has increased. He gets calls
often about such things, and people will ask how they can get their roads
blacktopped. Years and years are involved before blacktopping can be done.
In the past, there were probably ten vehicle trips a day, and a few farm
tractors traveling on the roads, but, now, there are some very bad safety
issues involved. Some of these spot improvements have to be done, and
although it is a big task to identify all of them, the process has to start
somewhere.
Mr. Bain stated that there are so many roads around the County with such
problems that it is incredible. People are moving and building on these
roads, even though they see the condition of the roads, at the time that they
build their homes. Mr. Perkins said the people start complaining after they
build on these problem roads. Mr. Bain agreed, and he recalled when Waverly
Subdivision was built. After the Subdivision had been in its location for
approximately six years, someone called him and asked when Barracks Road would
be four-laned. People know the condition of the road when they build on it,
such as whether it is gravel or hard surfaced, as well as the width. People
will buy property on these roads with no assurances that anybody will do
anything, but then they start making requests.
Mr. Martin commented that this is not the case with the people who live
on Route 769. These are not people who have just moved to that area. The
fact that the school bus travels that road and does not have room to meet a
car in at least two places needs to be taken into consideration.
Mr. Bain pointed out that the people from North Garden were complaining
about the same type of conditions during the Clark public hearing. There was
no turn around point for the school bus and two vehicles could not pass in
certain spots on Route 711. He reiterated that there are plenty of these type
of situations in the County.
Mr. Martin stated that he would at least like to get the rights-of-way
acquired for sight distance in certain locations on Route 769. Mr. Bain
agreed that he thinks the sight distance is critical. Maybe in some of these
areas, drain pipes might be included with the project.
Mr. Martin said that he would like, with the Board's permission, for
VDoT to work with the concerned citizens in that area to get the rights-of-way
project prioritized, as well as some of the drain pipe projects. He has a
feeling that there is one particular place that if problems are corrected, a
lot will be involved.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Martin is looking for the funds for these
projects to come from VDoT's maintenance fund budget, or from this Board. Mr.
Martin replied that he is looking for funds from this Board. Mr. Bain said
Mr. Roosevelt has already indicated that the funds to make such improvements
are not available in VDOT's maintenance budget. He said that Mr. Roosevelt
wants the Supervisors to indicate whether they will spend some of the second-
ary road funds for these improvements, before he (Mr. Roosevelt) talks to the
people in that area about the rights-of-way. Mr. Bain stated that he does not
have a dollar figure in mind, but he is willing to support some of these
improvements. He agreed that the improvements should be prioritized, so that
some of them could be done in the next year.
Mr. Bowerman commented that this can be done, as long as the Supervisors
understand that there will be other groups of people from around the County
coming to the Board meetings and requesting the same thing. Mr. Bain remarked
that this is why he thinks it is really important the improvements be priori-
tized. He noted that Mr. Martin had mentioned one place where improvements
could be made on Route 769 which would really make a difference. Mr. Bain
stated that this place could be improved, but others may not be done, because
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
O002 tO
it depends on the money that is available. Mr. Martin indicated that he had
no problem with Mr. Bain's statements. Mr. Bowerman stated that this Board
will have some tough decisions to make in the future. Mr. Martin responded
that so much of what the Supervisors do involves tough decisions. Mr. Bain
said that the problem with these improvements is the lack of funding.
Mr. Perkins commented that the County will get a bigger result from its
money this way, than spending over $2,000,000 on a project such as Route 682.
He said that it is nice to build a good road, but it will take a long time to
get all of them constructed which are needed in the County. He does not think
some improvements can wait that long.
Mr. Bain remarked that maybe the time will come when the Supervisors can
allocate a certain sum of money out of the gravel roads funds every year for
spot improvements, and start prioritizing some of the roads that the Supervi-
sors and VDoT know about.
Mr. Roosevelt responded that he does not believe the unpaved road funds
can be used for spot improvements. The wording of that legislation is to
improve those unpaved roads to a hard surface state so that the unpaved
problem has been remedied. The funding for spot improvements will have to
come out of the regular portion of the secondary road funds.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roosevelt to review that legislation. He under-
stands what Mr. Roosevelt is saying, but he does not think it is appropriate.
At this time, Mr. Martin offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to
request the Highway Department to try and obtain rights-of-way to do spot
improvements and improve drainage problems on parts of Route 769. Once the
rights-of-way are obtained, Mr. Roosevelt is to submit a prioritized list of
improvements that need to be made. The Board will then consider appropriating
a portion of the money in the upcoming CIP. ~
Mr. Martin commented that he thinks it is important to call attention to
the fact that the most this Board will consider funding will be in the $7000
to $20,000 range.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 7h. Discussion: Intermodal Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA), Transportation Enhancement Projects.
Mr. Cilimberg said this program provides a means of financing activities
that go beyond the normal elements of a transportation project. A unique and
innovative element of ISTEA is a set-aside for transportation enhancement. He
described what constitutes enhancement projects in his July 2nd (copy on file)
memorandum to the Board. He also listed the six priority types of enhancement
projects that the Supervisors established in the Spring for consideration.
The County has received two requests for these funds, and both would
provide for the local match through private sources. In both cases there is
no request for the County to actually appropriate any money. The County
would, however, have to adopt a resolution at a public hearing. This resolu-
tion would endorse the project and guarantee that the funds would be avail-
able, or if the project was not undertaken, and the funds were expended by
VDoT, those funds would be reimbursed by the County. A sample resolution is
included in the Supervisors' packets.
He pointed out that one of the requests for these funds relates to the
screening of the gas facilities and CSX rail siding and yard in Keswick along
Route 22. The other request is for improvements along the Thomas Jefferson
Parkway from Route 20 to the entrance to Monticello. Both applicants have
their representatives present at the meeting.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the effect of the resolution would be to ask for
ISTEA funds to be set aside for these two projects. Mr. Cilimberg replied,
"yes". Mr. Bowerman asked if the local government will be looked to for the
appropriate action. Mr. Cilimberg responded, "yes." He said the County would
be, as a local government, guaranteeing the local match and that the projects
would be undertaken.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Supervisors wanted to take part in this
enhancement program. Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin answered affirmatively.
Mr. Bowerman asked if anybody from the public wanted to make a presenta-
tion at this time.
Mr. Archibald Craig, representing the Keswick area, noted that it will
not cost the County anything to take part in the CSX project, and he reminded
Board members that Route 22 is a scenic highway.
Mr. O'Brien, representing the Thomas Jefferson Parkway project, stated
that he will be happy to defer his presentation until the public hearing. He
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
said Board members were already in receipt of information about this request,
and he noted that he would answer any questions that they might have.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Architectural Review Board, at its last
meeting, endorsed these projects. He also pointed out that the County staff
will be involved with some grant management.
Mr. Roosevelt then noted that he had a few enhancement program brochures
available for the Supervisors which describes the program.
There was no further discussion. The public hearing was set for July
14, 1993.
At this time, the Board returned to Item 7b to continue its discussion
on revenue sharing. Mr. Tucker said the question is whether the Supervisors
want to appropriate any additional funds for the revenue sharing projects.
Mr. Martin said that he will restate his motion to maintain the appro-
priation of $276,744 and that $44,234 be used for the Route 250 East landscap-
ing project.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. Martin's motion contemplates no additional
funding. Mr. Martin concurred.
Mr. Bain seconded the motion. He added that Mr. Roosevelt has pointed
out to the Supervisors that they are foregoing the matching funds on more than
$147,000 from the state for FY 1993-94. He does not like to do this.
Mr. Bowerman said the only thing he can suggest is to defer this item
and ask the staff to present some specific ways to match the entire amount and
the effect it would have on the CIP.
Mr. Bain asked when Mr. Roosevelt would need to know the Supervisors'
decision. He noted that if Albemarle County turns down some of the matching
funds, it will make some of the money available for other localities, so a
quick decision is necessary.
Mr. Roosevelt explained that VDoT has come back to the counties two
times to inform them that there is less money available than the $500,000. At
first~ the County was informed that there was $430,000, but now another $6,000
has been taken off of that amount. Now V DoT staff needs to get an idea from
each county as to what projects they want to cut back. He pointed out that
Albemarle County has not only cut back $6,000, but it has cut back $200,000.
Now the Supervisors want to change the project listing and use approximately
$44,000 for the landscaping project on Route 250 East. He is not sure that
VDoT officials will allow the County to change its project listing. He
recalled that the County turned in a project listing in the Spring. It is
possible to take projects away from the list, but he is not sure that projects
can be added to it.
Mr. Bowerman asked, if the Supervisors used more funds for the match,
would not this be adding projects to the list. Mr. Roosevelt replied, "no."
The project listing shows $500,000 of projects.
Mr. Bain suggested deferring this item until the July 14th meeting.
Mr. Tucker said he is not trying to place the blame on Mr. Roosevelt's
staff, but when VDoT staff met with County staff, County staff members were
told that this money could not be banked, even though they knew this has been
done in the past. This is why County staff made its recommendation relative
to the Route 250 East project. With other projects not being in the position
to go to construction, the County will be giving the state an additional
$150,000 knowing it cannot be spent next year. This money will be put with
the state's match, and it will be floated. Unless other projects can be found
that can be moved forward for construction next year, that is going to be what
will happen.
Mr. Martin remarked that he just heard Mr. Roosevelt say that if the two
projects are taken off the list, at this point, other projects cannot be
added. Mr. Tucker commented that Mr. Roosevelt has indicated that the Route
682 project can be left on the list, but that is not what the staff had
originally understood.
Mr. Roosevelt explained that financing can be continued on whatever
projects are currently on the list. The Supervisors are discussing dropping
two projects from the list which will bring the matching funds below the
$274,000 that was already set. However, they are also thinking about bringing
their contribution back up to the $274,000, by adding a new project, which has
not been discussed with VDoT officials.
Mr. Bain suggested, again, that this item be deferred until July 14.
Mr. Martin agreed. It appears to him that he has made a motion which Mr.
Roosevelt has indicated might not be possible. He would like to find out
exactly what is possible and what is not.
There was no further discussion.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
000: 1
Agenda Item No. 7i. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Tucker referred to an earlier discussion regarding Item 5.21 on the
Consent Agenda. He informed the Board that the meeting between Ms. McLeod and
representatives from Richmond will be held on Tuesday, July 20. The staff
will get the results of this meeting to the Board members sometime in August.
Mr. Perkins asked the Highway Department to conduct a speed study on
Chris Greene Lake Road and consider reducing the current speed limit. He also
asked that this road be policed to correct the speeding problem.
Mr. Perkins said he received a complaint from Mrs. Jensen who lives at
the first driveway on the left of Route 611. The Highway Department is
plowing the ditches on Route 611 due to heavy rains. The situation has made
it difficult for vehicles to get into and out of her road.
Mr. Bain requested a cost estimate on the Berkmar Drive connector.
Mrs. Humphris called attention to the traffic light at Berkmar Drive
when vehicles are traveling east on Rio Road West. The same problem developed
when the right turn lane was constructed at Barracks Road, and traffic was
trying to turn right onto Georgetown Road, that she is seeing now with
vehicles trying to make a right turn at Berkmar Drive. The pavement goes at
almost a 90 degree angle, but vehicles are cutting across the edge of the road
where there is no pavement. She is sure the situation is going to get worse.
Referring to Item 5.7 from the Consent Agenda, Mrs. Humphris asked if
there was any particular reason for the change in the advertising date of the
third segment of the Route 29 North improvements. Mr. Roosevelt called
attention to a letter he had written the Board, and he said this change was
discussed in the second paragraph of that letter. Mrs. Humphris read from
the letter that it is anticipated the corridor study will delay the detail,
location and design of the Route 29 project until this study is completed.
Mr. Roosevelt commented that there is a corridor study relating to the area
from the River to Warrenton.
Mrs. Humphris said she knows about the corridor study, but she asked if
Mr. Roosevelt is indicating that the third segment of the Route 29 improve-
ments will be delayed until the corridor is completed. Mr. Roosevelt answered
that this is correct. (Mr. Bowerman left at 11:35 a.m.)
Mrs. Humphris pointed out that the letter indicates there will be a six
month delay time. Mr. Roosevelt answered that he assumes VDoT staff feels as
though it can rearrange the schedule so that only six months will need to be
added to the advertising schedule. The original advertising date was based on
financing.
Mrs. Humphris asked what the corridor study has to do with delaying the
completion of the Route 29 improvements to Airport Road, since the plan is
already in place. Mr. Roosevelt replied that the corridor study is being done
to determine if it is feasible to make Route 29, between the River and
Warrenton, into a limited access facility, and whether or not VDoT officials
want to designate that area as limited access and put limited access into
effect as improvements are made along Route 29. The corridor study can have a
major effect upon the design of Route 29 between the River and Airport Road.
If the decision is reached to make Route 29 a limited access highway, then the
design would have to be done, as well as acquiring rights-of-way to limit the
access. However, if the decision is not to make that portion of Route 29 a
limited access, then the properties along Route 29 would already have their
accesses. A major decision has to be made which will affect the design of the
road.
Mrs. Humphris asked whether the City's segment of the Meadow Creek
Parkway's construction dove-tails with the County's segment of that road, as
far as timing is concerned. Mr. Roosevelt said the advertisement date has
been moved ahead to January 1997 from 1999, so that the advertisement dates
for the two projects would be the same. The intent of VDoT officials' is to
do the design and preliminary engineering work as a single project and to
build them as a single project. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 11:36 a.m.)
Mrs. Humphris mentioned that she has been told from two different
sources that after the North Charlottesville Business Council meeting a couple
of weeks ago, a VDoT official was telling people that there has been a
significant change in the southern terminus of the Alternative 10 bypass so
that it will now go on to the Westover property, where before it was not going
to touch that property.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he had not heard this, but he could not say
that it was not mentioned at the North Charlottesville Business Council
meeting. He added that VDoT officials are considering whether or not it would
be feasible to bind the connection of the spur which will go into the Univer-
sity North Grounds and the western bypass connection at the southern terminus
and make that one alignment with an interchange at that location. He reiter-
0002 3
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
ated that the details of the plan to see if it is physically feasible, will be
considered as part of the location and design of the bypass, and VDoT is
currently in the process of hiring a consultant.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she thought it was really interesting the
statement was made at the North Charlottesville Business Council meeting. She
looked at the FEIS which states that there will be no impact on Westover. She
wondered if there has been such a change, how does that fit in with the fact
that it is not included in the FEIS. Mr. Roosevelt answered that probably
someone has heard about the idea of constructing the bypass down the alignment
of the spur and has gotten confused. If the bypass follows the alignment of
the spur, it will actually come east from the alignment which is currently on
the drawings. He added that to go into Westover, the alignment would have to
go west. If the alignment went into Westover, the roadway would not be able
to get back to Route 29 without coming through Bellair. At this moment, he
does not see how this alignment would work. He emphasized that he does not
think VDoT officials would run the alignment of the bypass further west
because railroad tracks would have to be crossed, a congested area would have
to be dealt with, and the alignment would have to pass through Bellair
Subdivision. He remarked that he thinks this is just a misunderstanding.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the Board could have this situation clarified.
Mro Bain stated that he thinks the VDoT officials should not make comments
about the bypass, unless they are true. He understands that some of these
comments are not coming from the local VDoT staff. Mr. Roosevelt replied that
Jack Hodge was at the North Charlottesville Business Council meeting. He
could call him, or if the Board prefers, a County staff member could call him.
This would be the easiest way to have the matter clarified.
Mr. Bain remarked that the lines of communication need to be kept open.
He suggested that it would be good if County staff could be informed of
matters, even if they are just being discussed and are not official. This
would be preferable to the Board getting information secondhand from people
who are attending meetings with VDoT officials. This is not healthy communi-
cation, from his perspective, or from a public perspective.
Mr. Martin commented that he thinks part of the problem is that there
are a lot of different groups inviting a lot of different department heads
from VDoT to meetings.
Mrs. Humphris stated that this Board really needs to know about this
situation, and she asked if the County staff could get this information for
the Board. This Board should know about anything which is being considered
that is a change from the information in the FEIS and what it was led to
believe. She said the Supervisors need to know this because it could affect
County citizens who did not know that they were going to be affected.
Agenda Item No. 8. Set public hearing to amend the County Code to
eliminate commercial, industrial and planned residential development districts
from land use taxation.
Mr. Tucker said this amendment is submitted based on a change in State
legislation requested by Albemarle County and approved by the General Assembly
effective for July 1, 1993. The amendment would exclude properties in a
planned development, industrial or commercial zoning district established
prior to 1981 from taxation based on land use. The amendment would affect an
estimated 22 landowners with 1834 acres from land use taxation effective for
tax year 1994. The properties are currently receiving a tax deferral of
approximately $93,000.
The amendment would also subject properties rezoned to a more intensive
use at the owner's request to the roll-back tax immediately, instead of being
delayed until the actual change of use. Interest rates on the deferred tax
and for late payment are also being adjusted to be consistent with the rate
applicable to delinquent taxes.
Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set a public
hearing for August 11, 1993 to amend the County Code to eliminate commercial,
industrial and planned residential development districts from land use
taxation.
Mr. Bain stated that he has read the necessary changes relating to this
item. He is unclear as to whether a property owner would pay regular taxes
effective January, 1994, and disregard the previous year. Mr. Tucker said
provisions in the Code will not allow for roll-back taxes. He explained that
the properties are currently receiving a tax deferral of approximately
$93,000, but this amount of money is due to straight deferrals of taxes.
Mr. Bain said since this amendment is the County's initiation, there is
a concern in the community.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that this land use taxation is supposed to help
situations where landowners might want to create an agricultural/forestal
district. Mr. Tucker agreed that such a district can be done as an urban
agricultural/forestal district, where only 25 acres minimum are needed.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
0002 .4
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 9. Set public hearing to amend the County Code to
eliminate Section 11-21 requiring subcontractors to display a county business
license. .Set public hearing for August 11, 1993.
Mr. Tucker said Section 11-21 of the County Code provides that a
contractor must require all subcontractors to exhibit their county license
prior to performing any work. This requirement has been in the Code since its
original enactment in 1967.
The County has recently been confronted by an attorney questioning the
County's authority to impose such a requirement. Research by the Finance
Office and County Attorney's office have not revealed any state enabling
legislation. The County has no way of verifying that contractors are comply-
ing with this requirement and there is no record of anyone ever being prose-
cuted for failing to do so.
It is recommended that County Code Section 11-21 be amended to remove
this requirement with a public hearing to consider the amendment to be held on
August 11, 1993.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to set a public hearing on
August 11, 1993 to consider amending the County Code to eliminate Section
11-21 requiring subcontractors to display a County business license.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 10. Request to extend time limit for SP-90-31, Little
Keswick School.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Little Keswick School representatives
have been unable to finalize negotiations for purchase of a building from the
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, so they have requested a six month
extension of SP-90-31. Staff is recommending a full 18 month extension of
SP-90-31. This seems reasonable, and it would allow all the time that is
necessary for these negotiations.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bain, to extend
SP-90-31, Little Keswick School, for 18 months.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if this request only needs Board action or if a
public hearing is necessary. Mr. Cilimberg replied that a public hearing has
not been scheduled, and he does not believe that public hearings have been
held for such things in the past.
Roi1 was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on a request from Gordon Ford to
amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority
for water only to existing structures to Tax Map 59, Parcels 80 and 80C.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 22 and June 29, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Gordon Ford's request for jurisdictional area
designation for water service only to three existing structures for Parcels 80
and 80C on Tax Map 59 (the Knickerbocker Estate) was deferred until further
information could be received by this Board. The staff has outlined in a
report the opinions of the County Engineer and the Albemarle County Service
Authority. He said the water line does not come all the way to Parcel 80, and
it would need to be extended into the property from Route 250 West. He noted
that two alternatives have been outlined in the report, and he described these
alternatives. The staff believes the effect of amendment to the jurisdiction-
al area on the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is minimal, and he added that
the staff recommends approval of the request.
Mr. Bain asked about Parcel 80D. Mr. Cilimberg replied that Parcel 80D
is the third parcel which was part of the original Parcel 80. This parcel is
also owned by the Knickerbocker Estate.
A representative of the office of Richmond and Fishburne, stated that he
and Christopher Chapman, the Farm Manager of Windsor Hill, are present at this
meeting on behalf of Mr. Ford. They would be happy to answer questions from
Board members.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
O00Zl$
Mr. Bain inquired as to what else is located on Parcel 80D, besides the
Knickerbocker home. Mr. Chapman replied that there is no structure on Parcel
80D.
Mr. Bain commented that he thinks every action has been taken in this
area that is necessary in an attempt to maintain water. The Board is not
inclined to take such action often, but in this particular case, he thinks it
is appropriate to amend the jurisdictional area.
At this time, Mr. Bain moved approval of the request to amend the
service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water
only to existing structures on Tax Map 59, Parcels 80 and 80C. Mrs. Humphris
seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(Mr. Tucker left the meeting at 11:30 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 12. 1993 VPSA Bond Resolution.
Mr. Huff said the FY 93/94 Capital Improvements Budget anticipates
funding approximately $11,930,800 in school projects by issuing VPSA bonds.
Many of these projects will be started in July, 1993 prior to the issuance of
the VPSA bonds, currently anticipated for November, 1993.
Currently, U. S. Treasury regulations require a resolution of "official
intent" prior to expenditure of any funds if the locality intends to reimburse
itself for expenses incurred prior to issuance of bonds. This requirement was
imposed to prevent the issuance of tax exempt bonds for projects solely for
investment purposes (arbitrary bonds). At one point, it was advantageous to
issue tax exempt bonds at a low rate of interest and invest the proceeds at a
higher rate. The current market is not conducive to this situation.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt a
resolution of official intent to reimburse expenditures for various public
improvements with proceeds of bonds.
Mr. Perkins remarked that it seems as though some of the projects listed
should come under the maintenance category rather than capital improvements.
He mentioned such things as carpet replacing, etc. He suggested that this
situation needs to be examined in the future.
Mr. Huff replied that there is an administrative review team set up for
the beginning of the CIP process this year before the requests actually go to
the Planning Commission. This team has already discussed the types of items
which are being put in the CIP and what really should be maintenance and
replacement as opposed to CIP items. This committee will make recommendations
to the Commission and Board.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES
FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia (the "County"), intends to undertake various improvements
to public schools in the approximate amounts and as described in
Exhibit A (on file) attached hereto (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project
prior to issuance of the Bonds, as hereinafter defined, and to
receive reimbursement for such expenditures from proceeds of the
sale of the Bonds;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY:
1. The County intends to finance the Project through the
issuance of bonds in an amount not to exceed $11,930,800 (the
"Bonds").
2. The County intends to receive reimbursement from pro-
ceeds of the sale of the Bonds for costs of the Project paid by
the County prior to the issuance of the Bonds.
3. The County intends that the adoption of this resolution
be considered as "official intent" within the meaning of Treasury
Regulations Section 1.103-18 promulgated under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
0002 .6
4. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is directed to
make a copy of this resolution continuously available for inspec-
tion by the general public during normal business hours at the
Clerk's office from the date of adoption hereof through the date
of the issuance of the Bonds.
Not Docketed: Mr. Bain asked for an update on the fixed asset inventory
situation.
Mr. Huff stated that Melvin Breeden, the Director of Finance, has worked
out an arrangement with the auditor that should not cost much money. He does
not have a definite figure at this time. Mr. Bain then inquired as to the
time frame of the fixed asset program, and he wondered if it would be ready
for the next budget cycle. ~ .....
Mr. Bowerman said he assumed the figures relating to this inventory
would be known, and it would only involve an accounting of the fixed assets.
Mr. Huff noted that the biggest issue for the staff was setting the threshold
high enough so that every desk and chair in the County did not have to be
inventoried. Mr. Bain agreed. This would meet the auditor's requirements and
would cover 98 percent of the County's fixed assets. (Mr. Bain left the
meeting at 11:35 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Request from Children, Youth & Family Services,
Inc., for $1500 to support the Runaway Emergency Shelter Program.
Mr. Huff said Ms. Catherine J. Bodkin, Executive Director of the
Children, Youth and Family Services Agency has made a request for the Char-
lottesville City Council and the Board of Supervisors to each fund $1,500 to
support the Run-Away Emergency Shelter Program from August 1st through
September 30, 1993. This request is being made due to a change in the federal
grant cycle for this program from a start-up of August 1st to a start-up of
October 1st with no additional funds being provided for the sixty day gap in
the funding cycle. Ms. Bodkin has provided a letter outlining benefits of the
program as well as the efforts made to try to overcome this funding shortage.
Social Services representatives indicate that they frequently refer their
clients to this program and have found the agency to be most responsive in
attending to County staff's needs.
Ms. Bodkin's outline of the benefits of this program appears to justify
the Board's approval of this request and staff recommends that an appropria-
tion in the amount of $1,500 be made from carry-over funds expected in the
Social Services Department's budget from the 1992-93 fiscal year, subject to
the City Council making a similar appropriation.
Ms. Bodkin distributed brochures relating to Children, Youth and Family
Services, Inc., and the Run-Away Emergency Shelter Program. She said this
matter was presented to City Council last night. The Councilors started to
vote in favor of the appropriation, but then decided to wait until the hearing
was held~
Mr. Martin made a motion to appropriate $1,500 to the Children, Youth
and Family Services Agency, specifically for the Run-Away Emergency Shelter
Program, from carry-over funds expected in the Social Services Department's
budget from FY 1992-93. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Huff asked if the intent of the resolution is subject to the City's
appropriation relative to this same request. Mr. Bowerman stated that this
was not his intent.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain and Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appropriation: Health Department Clinic Wing
Mr. Huff said this Capital Improvements Project (CIP) is to renovate
existing space and construct an 8,000 square foot addition. The total
approved project cost in the CIP process is $1,166,000. This is a 50/50 share
for the County and City. At present, the $528,500 required to fully fund this
project is requested in FY 94-95. The County's share of this amount is
$264,250. (Mr. Bain returned at 11:50 a.m.)
Mr. Huff said this project was to be phased in order to accomplish the
renovations while the Health Department continues to provide services within
the building. Although this can be done, moving staff around within the
building while the construction is underway and maintaining services to the
public becomes a project cost. A revised phasing is possible because the
City's Jefferson Elementary School will be vacant until July 1, 1994. The
Health Department staff will be completely relocated while the renovation of
existing space and new addition is constructed.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
0002 .?
In order to accomplish the revised phasing, one-half of both the City
and County's share requested for FY 94-95 would need to be available in this
fiscal year. The City staff has advised that this same request will be
presented to the City Council later during the month of July. The funding has
been identified and staff anticipates Council approval.
Mr. Huff said in order to maximize the funds spent for this project and
minimize impact to the public, staff recommends the Board appropriate the
$132,125 which is one-half of the County's final share.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he is fairly knowledgeable about finances
and funds, but he has never fully understood how there can be no funds
available, but there is money in the fund balances.
Ms. Higgins said for this particular project, the money will be taken
from the Broadus Wood Elementary School project and returned to the CIP fund
balance. She explained that the process involves taking all of the excess
funds from different projects and putting the money in the CIP fund balance.
She also pointed out that there is some money in the Commonwealth Drive
project which will be used to cover the amount of money that the Board will
appropriate for the Hillsdale/Branchlands roadway project.
Mr. Huff said the difference between a fund balance in the General Fund
and a CIP fund balance is that an amount is always carried in the General Fund
for cash flow purposes. This same cushion is not needed in the CIP fund
balance. If there is a CIP fund balance, it is because a project did not cost
as much as was anticipated. At the end of the year, if there are any remain-
ing funds in the CIP fund balance, it is budgeted back into the next year's
CIP budget. He added that $264,000 was budgeted for the Health Department
next year. He stated that $132,000 of this money will be moved forward, and
the remainder will be in the CIP budget for next year.
Mr. Perkins moved approval of Appropriation #930001 in the amount of
$132,125 to accomplish the revised phasing of the Health Department Clinic
Wing project. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT PROJECT
TO MOVE ENTIRE PROJECT INTO FY 1993/94
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1900051020950095
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
HEALTH DEPT.-NEW WING
TOTAL
$132,125.00
$132,125.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900051000510100
CIP FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$132,125.00
$132,125.00
(Mr. Bain noted that he was absent when the vote was taken on the
Run-Away Emergency Shelter Program. He asked that the minutes reflect that he
supports the appropriation of $1,500 for this program.)
(Mr. Martin left at 11:55 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 15a. Work Session: Personnel Policy Revisions (de-
ferred from June 2).
Mr. Bowerman indicated that Dr. Hastings, Director of Human Resources,
was present to discuss the Personnel Policy revisions. This item was deferred
from June 2, 1993. He recalled that the Board had gotten to the point, during
the last meeting, of discussing communications through the County Executive.
Dr. Hastings pointed out that at the June 2nd meeting, the Supervisors
had indicated that they were not in support of the policy on Board/Staff
Communications, so this policy will either be deleted or taken back to the
School Board for further discussion. The Supervisors had talked about
Commonality of Personnel Policies, and the majority of the Board agreed that
the County should have this policy. There had not been further questions
about the policies on the first page of the summary.
Mr. Bowerman recalled that there had been a discussion on the policy
relating to third-party complaints against employees. Dr. Hastings said the
County Attorney felt the County should have such a policy.
Mr. Bain referred to the Board's discussion on the County and State
grievance procedures. Dr. Hastings said the amendments to the policy were
taken from the State Grievance Procedure. Mr. Bowling, the Deputy County
Attorney, has reviewed all of the amendments. The only major change is that
the State Grievance procedure allows a person to either retain the right to
use the administrative hearing officer during cases of retaliation or termina-
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
OOO218
tion, or not to do so. Mr. Bowling felt the right should be retained to
request an administrative hearing officer to be the third party panel member,
rather than a choice between the grievant and the County Executive.
Mr. Bain referred to the second paragraph of Mr. Bowling's letter of
April 30th to Dr. Hastings regarding the statement that the County's Grievance
Procedure provides that disciplinary action rendered at subsequent levels
after the initial appeal may be either more or less stringent than that
recommended at the previous level. Mr. Bowling indicated that this policy has
been challenged by a grievance attorney as a violation of due process. This
concerns him.
Dr. Hastings replied that if the Board supports the language in this
particular policy, then it will put employees on notice that appealing any
disciplinary action is asking for a new review of that action. There is the
possibility, whenever anything comes to a supervisor or a department head,
that it could actually increase the disciplinary action. She stated that Mr.
Bowling's feeling is that the Board's approval will have to be received to
include that language, because with this Board's support of having the
language in the Grievance Procedure, then State approval could be requested.
This same language has been included in the Disciplinary Policy, but she said
the language could be deleted in the Grievance Procedure and retained in the
Disciplinary Policy. She remarked that the employees on the Personnel Policy
Committee felt as though if this is going to be done, due notice needs to be
given to everybody that if there is an appeal, disciplinary action is not
always reduced. She said, in fact, it can be increased. She suggested that
this language be left in the Grievance Procedure to see if it is approved by
the State.
Mr. Bain commented that, according to Mr. Bowling's letter, there is no
direct state authority on this language. He does not have a problem with the
language, if it is clearly understood that the state has to give final
approval. He does not want to encourage a lot of lawsuits. Dr. Hastings
agreed. She went on to say that if the State will not agree to having the
language included in the Grievance Procedure, it can be deleted from that
policy, but it will still be retained in the Disciplinary Policy. This would
mean that if a situation comes to a Supervisor from someone that person
supervises, then the supervisor has the right to increase or decrease the
punishment. Mr. Bain asked if the situation is grievable under the Disciplin-
ary Policy action. Dr. Hastings responded that the language would not be
included in the Grievance Procedure because the employee would see that
language as offering a way to file grievances. She indicated that this was
Mr. Bowling's concern.
(Mr. Martin returned at 11:58 p.m.)
Mr. Huff said he is partially responsible for requesting this policy be
implemented. He had a fairly serious infraction brought to him in a griev-
ance, and the action taken by the immediate supervisor was ridiculous. When
the grievance was brought to him, he increased the punishment, because he
thought the situation needed to be dealt with more severely than a letter of
reprimand. He was not successful with his increase of punishment, on the
grounds that notice was not given to the employee that this was a possibility,
in the beginning.
Mr. Bowerman commented that staff members are familiar with the Fair
Labor Standards Act, state requirements, etc. This Board is totally dependent
upon the County staff to make these recommendations. He is not going to
question the recommendations. Dr. Hastings pointed out that the staff relies
on the County Attorney's office, and Mr. Bowling is raising the issue that the
state may not be comfortable with the language in the Grievance Procedure.
Mr. Huff mentioned that the staff would like to have this Board's
approval to keep the language wherever the State will allow it.
Dr. Hastings stated that problems may not always come to a supervisor's
attention through the Grievance Procedure. She stated that a citizen might
inform Mr. Huff that he or she does not think the action taken on a complaint
against an employee was severe enough. It may not even involve the Grievance
Procedure. She added that in such a situation, Mr. Huff would need to know if
he has the right to get involved. Mr. Bowerman felt it made a lot of sense to
include this language wherever possible.
Mr. Bain called attention to §P-02, Procedure for Compliance - Defini-
tion of Employee Status. There is a typographical error in Paragraph B, under
l(c). The line should state, School Board "or" Planning Commission instead of
School Board "of" Planning Commission. Mr. Bain also indicated that he was
missing a page relating to §P-03.
Dr. Hastings said staff will make sure Board members have all of the
policies after they are edited, etc. She then discussed the second page of
the summary as follows, and she said that the majority of the policies do not
have any major changes proposed.
Dr. Hastings referred to §P-25, Standards of Conduct Policy. The
Personnel Policies Committee suggested that items which result in immediate
dismissal be asterisked, so that employees will know that they are more
severe. She added that one suggestion relating to a tiered process was
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
0002 .9
discarded, because the Committee liked the flexibility of the supervisor being
able to decide on the appropriate disciplinary action.
Dr. Hastings next discussed §P-26, Termination of Employment Policy,
which clarifies when salary and benefit payments cease in the event of a
dismissal. This was not clear in the current policy and has caused difficulty
with some situations.
Dr. Hastings then pointed out that §P-35, Staff Health, is a new policy
that speaks to the Employee Assistance Program, which has been in effect for
approximately seven years. This policy is helpful to new employees because it
describes the Employee Assistance Program and affords an approach to the
program.
Dr. Hastings said §P-36, Assignment and Transfers; is also a new policy.
It establishes the right of the County Executive to assign and transfer staff
and to reorganize County functions. She noted that this would be the Board's
policy giving the County Executive approval for such things.
Dr. Hastings next called attention to §P-42, Staff Representation on
Committee/Task Forces. Employees engage in a lot of this work, and it is good
for them to know their responsibilities. If someone agrees to serve on a
committee, they should attend the meetings, and chairmen of committees should
assume their responsibilities. A lot of employees do not know these things,
and if they agree to be on a committee, they might not put forth good repre-
sentation.
Dr. Hastings then discussed §P-60, Salary Administration, and she said
the Board should be aware that this policy could have financial implications.
She explained that employees in the past were hired at Steps A through E,
which was the hiring range for new employees. Because of the salary compres-
sion problem, the County has not actually been using this range for the last
several years. Every new employee is put on the beginning step, regardless of
his or her experience, so there would not be hard feelings with the current
employees. She added that as the County has moved away from hiring employees
at the beginning step, it was felt that it would be important to use the A
through E approach, again, to establish some criteria on which supervisors are
bringing in new employees on those steps.
She noted problems in the past where an office assistant might be hired
with no experience at Step E, and someone else in another department might
hire a person with four years of experience at Step A to save money in that
department. This policy would make the process more consistent. It would not
take away the ability to hire people, but it would make the salary approach
more consistent. This policy is also being used in the school system. The
policy applies to a lot of people, and the inconsistency creates a lot of
problems. She also commented that this policy would provide equity. She
added that if a person is promoted internally, the current practice is that
the person would get a ten percent promotion. If a new employee is hired into
the same position, it has been the practice to negotiate salary with that
person and agree on one of the A through E steps. In the past, there has been
an effect on current employees who are promoted, and they have actually been
at a disadvantage from someone else coming into the County from the outside.
This policy would allow a current employees' pertinent experience applicable
to that job to be considered and would place them on an A through E step equal
to that of a new person coming into the County. She also felt this would
eliminate the dissatisfaction with present employees.
Dr~ Hastings then called attention to the most significant change in
this policy. During reclassifications the current policy limits salary
increases to five percent, and in the past this is what led to the salary
compression policy. If an employee was at Step C in the old range and
reclassified at the beginning of the new range, new people could be hired at
the same salary rate. She went on to say that if a person was at Step C and
Pay Grade 12, and that position was reclassified to Pay Grade 14, the new
policy would allow that person to move to a Step 14-C. This is a step for
step movement so that employees do not have to go back to the beginning of the
range and lose their seniority which has been built up, due to good perfor-
mance evaluation. The only way an employee can move forward in the range
system is by getting good performance evaluations. Employees have felt in the
past that just because a position was a higher pay grade, they should not have
to move all the way back to the beginning of the new range. This is a way to
address the problem, but it does mean that a person could get additional
money, and more than the five percent which was the limit in the past.
Mr. Bowerman asked Dr. Hastings if, by taking FY 1993/94 as an example,
she would know the cost effect of these policy changes. Dr. Hastings respond-
ed that the County does not approach reclassifications any longer with the
massive approach every three years where everybody is reclassified. Reclas-
sifications are being done as they come along. She recalled that the Informa-
tion Services Department was just affected by several reclassifications, due
to the combination of instructional technology, etc., and out of seven or
eight people who are being reclassified, only one would have received more
money, in terms of an increase, from the previous policy. This person would
have received ten percent versus five percent. She does not have any exact
dollar data, but she does not think the cost will be significant.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
000220
Mr. Bowerman asked which policies will be retroactive, and which ones
are new, if this Board and the School Board approves these policies. A lot
has already been done relating to inequities, and he wondered if all of the
inequities would be addressed, or would they be addressed as they occur in the
future. Dr. Hastings replied that the Boards are going to be asked to approve
several policies effective July 1, 1993. She had discussed those policies
with the Supervisors on June 2, 1993. The Boards are also going to be
requested to approve those reclassifications which went into effect July 1,
1993 under the new policy.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Dr. Hastings is saying the Salary Administration
Policy would become effective as of July 1, 1993 for the 1993-94 budget year.
Dr. Hastings answered affirmatively. The departments affected did not feel
the impact regarding the salaries would be significant.
Mr. Bain asked how many steps are involved with the whole salary range.
Dr. Hastings replied that the salary range goes from step A through O.
Mr. Bain inquired if Dr. Hastings is implying that if someone was new to
the County and warrants placement above the A step, and even if they had 18
years of experience, they would not be placed above the E step. Dr. Hastings
answered that this is correct. This has always been the case with regard to
bringing employees into the salary range system. In the last several years,
employees have not been brought into the system above the A step, except for
some department heads, etc. She reiterated that classified staff have all
been brought into the A step, because of the salary compression issue, and
this is beginning to affect the ability to hire. If the new policy is
adopted, it would be acceptable to hire someone on Step E, which would be
helpful if someone had a lot of experience.
Mr. Bain remarked that he does not know why the policy would limit a
person to Step E, if he or she is so qualified. Mr. Bowerman suggested that a
higher grade could be considered.
Dr. Hastings stated that the grade system is set by the job description,
etc. The rationale behind this policy was that the A to E steps are based on
experience, and beyond that, employees have to prove themselves. It is not a
longevity based system, with the exception of bringing in new people to the
system. She reiterated that the other two-thirds of the system is limited to
performance.
Mr. Bain said he appreciates this system, but he pointed out that when
employees are told they have to prove themselves, they are very limited in
what they can prove, on an annual basis. Dr. Hastings responded that if the
salary range for a position is a competitive one, then bringing employees in
at the E step should be fine. The issue is keeping the range competitive with
the market. She mentioned Range 15 as an example of a range for a maintenance
mechanic. If the maintenance mechanic's salary range is competitive with the
market, and employees can be paid up to the E step based on experience, there
should not be a problem.
Mr. Bain remarked that he can relate this situation to the County
Attorney's position. He said the full fee was suggested as to what it would
take to find someone for this position. He knows this is a top position in
the County, but he wondered how many more situations such as this will
develop.
Dr. Hastings stated that, in her opinion, the majority of the County's
problems have been caused by not keeping the range system increased each year,
and maintaining it at a competitive range system. She thinks if this is done
on an annual basis, there should not be a problem. She mentioned that the
County Attorney's position had to be placed on a range which was far and above
everybody else. This is a market consideration, because it is what attorneys
demand. She added that sometimes something of this nature has to be done, but
she believes the system will work for the majority of the 249 job classes.
Next, Dr. Hastings called the Board's attention to §P-84, Vacation
Leave. The request is to increase the amount of vacation leave which is
provided for employees of 15 years or more service from the current one and
one-half days to one and three-quarters days. This will increase the maximum
leave accumulation to 40 days versus the current 36 days. She noted that a
survey was done in other localities, and it was found that as far as employees
with 15 or more years of service, Albemarle County's annual leave was very
low. This recommendation came forward from the Committee. She pointed out
that this is an increased benefit, and she wanted to make sure that Board
members were aware of this policy.
She does not have any other changes that need to be brought to the
Board's attention. It appears that the only policy which this Board would
want deleted is §P-11, Board/Staff Communications. She mentioned that she
would go back to the School Board and report this Board's discussion. She
will then come back to this Board with the final document.
Mr. Bain called attention to §P-85, Sick Leave/Acceptable Attendance.
The change is to remove graduated guidelines for determining acceptable atten-
dance and establish over four percent of available work time as the guide for
deciding whether sick leave usage is unacceptable. He asked why four percent
was chosen as a guideline for this policy.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
00022 .
Dr. Hastings said this guideline was developed because of a concern
raised by the teachers. The teachers felt the previous way of approaching
sick leave was not professional. It was felt that if the four percent was the
maximum which would cause concern, then it should be left up to the supervi-
sors to monitor and implement the guideline. She said it was a very heated
discussion by the teachers, and the Committee members felt that if the four
percent maximum guideline was desired, then it would be fine with them. She
noted that the County has had an excellent record with regard to attendance,
since the attendance policy was adopted. She mentioned that last year, the
overall General Government and School system sick leave usage was 1.98
percent. Everything she has read indicates that two percent sick leave usage
is the best that any employer will ever get.
Mr. Bain said he could agree to this policy, but whoever is supposed to
monitor it, will need to know what is happening. Dr. Hastings stated that
monthly reports are sent out describing departments' and the school system's
usages of sick leave.
Mr. Bain remarked that the policy was acceptable to him. He then
pointed out a typographical error in the thirteenth sentence of the last
paragraph of §P-26~ Termination of Employment. The word, "to," should be
inserted after the word, "retroactively."
Mrs. Humphris noted that there were several places where the policies
refer only the School Board or the Board of Supervisors instead of indicating
both governing bodies.
Mr. Huff asked if it was anticipated that the final version of the
policies would be back to this Board for adoption by the end of August.
Dr. Hastings responded affirmatively.
Agenda Item No. 15b. Work Session: Housing Committee Report Recommen-
dations (deferred from June 2).
Mr. Huff stated that the Planning Commission has reviewed 17 of the 39
strategies in the Housing Advisory Committee's report and has made recommenda-
tions on 13 of them. He noted that there are two specific Planning Commission
recommendations, attached to the Executive Summary, that the staff is avail-
able to speak to which deal with a policy on Rental Assisted Housing and
Accessory Apartments.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, summarized the
Commission's recommendations on the Housing Committee report and pointed out
the strategies involved. The Commission has recently recommended to this
Board an outline for a standing housing commission. The information will be
coming from the County Executive's office to the Supervisors soon. This
recommendation is for the commission to answer directly to the Board of
Supervisors, and it will be charged with certain duties and functions. This
is the only additional issue which has been covered since the report. The
Commission is requesting the Supervisors' endorsement to go to public hearing
on the mobile homes issue.
Mr. Bowerman wondered why the Commission is asking for the Board's
permission to go to public hearing. Mr. Benish answered that, in this case,
there is potential controversy surrounding the mobile homes issue.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that it is his understanding the Commission is
recommending a Housing Commission instead of a Housing Committee. Mr. Benish
responded that this is correct.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if Mr. Benish's report, which is going to come to
the Supervisors in the near future, will give the pros and cons and differenc-
es between a committee and commission. She would also like for the report to
indicate what it would cost for establishing a committee or a commission.
Mr. Benish replied that this has not been done, yet. He said the
Commission's recommendation, relative to establishing a commission, has been
forwarded to the County Executive's office. He recalled the Commission's
conversation that giving the group the title of commission gave it more
importance than the title of committee, which gives an indication that it is
not an ongoing process.
Mrs. Humphris said she needs answers to all of these questions. She
read in some of the information the suggestion that the commission would be
given the power to implement. She noted that without the right to appropriate
funds, this would not be possible. The powers of a commission, versus a
committee, need to be clearly defined, as well as staffing requirements for
each one. There are a lot of things which she did not see addressed in any of
the information. She mentioned, too, that the legalities of the status of a
commission need to be addressed.
Mr. Benish replied that the proposed commission would make recommenda-
tions to this Board. The staffing would be handled by the Housing Coordinator
with some assistance from the Department of Social Services and the Department
of Planning. The Housing Coordinator is seen as the lead staff person. He
said additional information will be provided to the Board. He mentioned that
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
membership has been identified, in terms of how the commission should be made
up, as well as the general purpose of the commission. He noted, however, that
specific duties of the commission have not been defined.
Mr. Martin referred to Mr. Benish's response to Mrs. Humphris' ques-
tions, and he said that when he read the Commission's minutes, he noticed that
part of the discussion centered around the term "committee" versus "commis-
sion''. He also read that there was a discussion of staffing at the Commis-
sion's meeting.
Mrs. Humphris agreed, but some of her questions have not been answered,
such as whether or not additional staff will be required.
Mr. Benish responded that the staffing will have to be done through
trial and error in the beginning, and this is going to be difficult for the
Mousing Coordinator. Me pointed out that there are a lot of expectations
relating to that position, based on the recommendations coming from the
Planning Commission, as well as the housing strategies. The Mousing Coordina-
tor will have to be involved with the actual implementation of the program,
and the position will be quite demanding.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the Supervisors have not received the
recommendations from the Planning Commission. These recommendations have been
sent to the County Executive's office, but they have raised some good points.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is unsure what this Board is supposed to do
today with the information. This is a work session, but he wondered what is
the next step. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this work session was scheduled to
give the Board a status report. Since the Supervisors do not have all of the
information, he does not believe they can do much work on this item today.
The Board members' comments will give the staff an idea of things that need to
be addressed in bringing the Commission's recommendations forward to this
Board.
Mr. Bain recalled a March letter from Mr. Ron Keeler to the Commission
which suggested that the implementation of the program be left until the
Comprehensive Plan process. Now it seems the Commission supports going to a
public hearing with this matter, and he questioned the reasons that the
Commission had for overriding this suggestion.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that there is another report on accessory apart-
ments, but he is unsure if this Board has received it. At the Commission's
first work session on this matter, the Commissioners generally felt that
accessory apartments went beyond providing low cost housing. Me added that
accessory apartments are potentially a type of unit that is necessary, in
general, in the County to be available in residential areas.
Mr. Bowerman asked what criteria relates to the necessity of accessory
apartments. Mr. Cilimberg responded that accessory apartments are looked upon
as being necessary in support of families for such things as caretakers and
housing for additional income. Me explained that a family might have a unit
occupied by someone who will bring this income to the homeowner. Accessory
apartments are considered beyond just an affordable housing measurement. Me
noted that the Commission asked staff to draft the type of language that would
be acceptable for the accessory apartments allowance under the Zoning Ordi-
nance. Staff brought back this basic language to the Commissioners, and this
is what is being forwarded to the Supervisors.
Mr. Bowerman stated that this is an'ordinance change, and it has nothing
to do with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. However,
since this is a concept which has not been explored, and the Commissioners are
asking the Supervisors to consider the matter from a concept standpoint before
it goes through the Zoning Text Amendment process.
Mr. Bain asked if the Supervisors have seen the information relating to
accessory apartments. Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin replied, "no." Mr. Huff
said the package of information which was given to the Supervisors last month
relating to this report had two attachments which dealt with the rental of
housing and accessory apartments. Me stated that the memo with the two
attachments was dated April 29, 1993.
Mrs. Humphris said there were a lot of gaps in the information. She
recalled that in one place the information stated the Health Department had
dealt with the septic problem which might arise because of accessory apart-
ments. She does not feel the problem has been dealt with because all that was
said was the septic system was sized to suit the number of bedrooms of a
particular building. This does not answer the question of adding more
bedrooms to the building. She added that there were a lot of similar things
such as this~ and she pointed out that the whole idea of the concept relates
to limiting development in the rural area. To make a change such as this does
the exact opposite, and she does not understand this direction without taking
the matter through the Comprehensive Plan review process. She remarked that
this direction will cause something different to happen in the rural area and
that was not a part of the whole idea of the Comprehensive Plan for protection
of the rural areas.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that this matter will have implications in all
of the residential districts. Mr. Bain noted that the housing issue will
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
000: : 3
involve vehicle trips per day in the different neighborhoods, as well as road
standards, etc. Mrs. Humphris agreed that this issue will affect the County's
roads, schools, fire departments and septic facilities, etc. She does not
think these things were properly addressed.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked this is why the Commission sent the matter to the
Supervisors. The Commissioners are saying this is what they have found at
this point, and they have recommended the approach through the Comprehensive
Plan, with a Zoning Text Amendment. If the Commissioners need to consider
other things, then they will certainly do so. He then mentioned VDoT's
comments, which were included in the Supervisors' packets. VDoT officials
were not stating a concern about the potential of traffic which would be
associated with accessory apartments.
Mrs. Humphris commented that the statement from VDoT was vague. She
thought other alternatives to achieve some of the same end, such as increased
densities in the growth areas, were going to be considered. She thought the
County was trying to achieve more affordable units, and not challenge the
rural areas and disrupt existing neighborhoods. She also mentioned that it
has tremendous implications for the CIP. Certain levels have been established
in the CIP, but this will change everything, as far as public facilities are
concerned. She felt as though all of the information which was given to the
Supervisors was fraught with unanswered questions and important issues. These
things need to be dealt with, but she does not know when or where this is
supposed to be done. She emphasized that she is not prepared to take this
matter to public hearing until a lot more work has been done.
Mr. Martin commented that he agrees with Mrs. Humphris to a certain
extent. The way the Board members' packet of information was put together was
difficult to follow. As he was reading through the information, a letter from
Mr. Tucker to Mr. Benish was stuck in the middle of other things. He then
recalled that the letter talks about recommending an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance, but it still does not describe what the amendment will entail. Mr.
Cilimberg pointed out that there is some information relating to this amend-
ment included after the letter. Mr. Martin said he has not found anything
pertaining to this proposed amendment which was stated clearly. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that there should be an Attachment B directly behind the letter.
Mr. Bowerman commented that this is a recommendation from the Housing
Committee and the Planning Commission which, in his opinion, needs to have a
comprehensive review process. The implications are broad reaching, and there
are different implications in the various zoning classifications. There is a
multiplier effect in terms of suddenly increasing the supply of available
housing and what potential it will have on the County's infrastructure, such
as the schools. It seems to him that it is a large enough area that it should
be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan review, and then ordinance changes
developed.
Mr. Martin stated that he does not necessarily agree with what Mr.
Bowerman is saying. He then asked for an explanation of Attachment B. Mr.
Cilimberg~explained that Attachment B was presented to the Commission by staff
as a review of the Housing Committee Report.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the accessory apartment strategy is to be
employed everywhere in the County or in all zones except rural areas.
Mr. Bain referred to R-1 neighborhoods, and he asked how many covenants
in these subdivisions would not permit accessory apartments. Regardless of
what ordinance changes are involved, legally it cannot be done according to
some subdivision covenants. He also wondered how many subdivisions would
permit accessory apartments, ~nd he noted that there will be an affected
number of people involved, as well as the school system. He pointed out that
most of the covenants in the neighborhoods in which he has legally been
involved, do not allow accessory apartments. He said that R-1 neighborhoods
only allow single family dwellings. He stated that there are other subdivi-
sions, even in rural areas, which will not allow accessory apartments.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Commission has discussed this matter,
and the ability to find out how many neighborhoods allow accessory apartments
and how many do not, would be very time consuming.
Mr. Bain mentioned that the County Attorney could probably get this
information quickly from dealing with one of the insurance title companies.
He said the County would only have to spend approximately $200 for this
information.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the staff is saying that not allowing accessory
apartments might only apply to rural areas. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the
staff is also referring to older neighborhoods. Mr. Bain agreed. He went on
to say that, even in rural areas where there are subdivisions, there could be
as few as 10 or 15 lots which will not be affected. He said the neighborhood
covenants do not always just apply to larger neighborhoods. Mrs. Humphris
emphasized that the Board needs to know these things.
Mr. Bain stated that he thinks this is a Comprehensive Plan item, but he
is willing to consider the matter, if the public is in favor of it, and if
some of the questions are answered satisfactorily.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34) ..
000224
Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Board would like the staff to try to pursue a
Zoning Text Amendment, or would the Board prefer to have this item drafted
into the Comprehensive Plan. He said the staff needs to know how to move
forward with this matter.
Mr. Bain replied that he could consider, without a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, housing strategies in one or more residential districts. He said
this is a piece-meal approach, and it will put more work on the staff, with
probably not much results. A certain portion of the housing strategies could
be segregated out of the Comprehensive Plan review, and the remainder could
involve the Comprehensive Plan. He does not have a strong feeling about this
approach, but he would not mind addressing the matter in this manner.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Bain thinks the Board has enough information
to answer questions, if the issue goes to public hearing. Mr. Martin comment-
ed that the Supervisors will not be taking the matter to public hearing. He
said the Planning Commission would be responsible for the public hearing. Mr.
Bowerman answered that the Supervisors and the Commissioners will both be
involved. He wondered if the scope of the housing report is narrowed, would
the Supervisors be able to get the answers to their questions. If the
Supervisors know what information they want included with the Zoning Text
Amendment, then that is fine.
Mr. Bain asked if only the rural areas district is considered, would the
staff feel comfortable with a Zoning Text Amendment for accessory apartments
in the rural areas, as opposed to looking at the whole picture.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that this will raise the question of whether
this is an arbitrary approach. He added that this approach brings back some
of the issues involving mobile homes.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, called attention to the March 2, 1993
memo in the Supervisors' packet of information from himself and Mr. Benish,
and he said that most of these issues were discussed in that memo. He agreed
that Mrs. Humphris is correct when she said that neither the school population
nor traffic generation, etc., have been fully examined.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that, since there was no recommendation from
staff on this matter, the Board wait for a staff recommendation. He asked
that the staff review issues raised and report back with recommendations of
possible scenarios that the Board could pursue. The negatives and benefits of
each scenario should be included. He added that this will give the Board more
information with which to work for the next step in the process.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the same memo to which Mr. Keeler referred. She
said this memo indicated that the staff needed to get findings about the
purpose of this change. The purpose is not clear, and she wondered about the
demonstrated need, as well as the purpose that is trying to be achieved. She
also wondered about the anticipated effectiveness of the change. She then
mentioned that staff, in this same memo, indicated the "shadow unit" would
overwhelm this process. She said the memo indicated that these units could be
located anywhere including existing developed areas where infrastructure is in
place, and would possibly result in expensive upgrading. She noted that there
are so many potential impacts to a momentous change such as this, and there
are no answers to the questions.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Supervisors have gotten information from
the March 2, 1993 memo, but they are not at the same point as the Commission-
ers. He said the Commissioners made a decision to void this direction for
some of the reasons he mentioned, and the reasons were not necessarily related
to affordable housing. He added, however, that the Supervisors are still
wondering about the route to go with this matter, and they feel the questions
raised in this first memo need to be answered. He added that staff needs to
address the issues raised in the March 2, 1993 memo. He noted that staff
would have already done this with the Commission members, if they had not
decided to change directions.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he is not sure the Commission has the same
concerns as the Supervisors about the ultimate effects on different functions
of the County government. He agreed that Mr. Cilimberg's suggestion is the
way to deal with the issue, before moving on to the next step.
Mr. Martin suggested that a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors
and the Planning Commission might be appropriate.
Mr. Bain said he is not suggesting the staff wait 90 days to answer some
of the questions which have been raised. If it is something that the staff
feels need to be considered fairly soon, it does not have to wait for the
Comprehensive Plan review.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he will report to the Commission that the
Supervisors want some questions answered from the first memo before they say
whether or not they are willing to proceed with the Commissioners' recommenda-
tion.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
000225
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the Supervisors may follow the Commission's
suggestion, but they want some additional information before that decision is
made.
Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12;53 p.m., Mr. Bain made motion that the Board adjourn into execu-
tive session for personnel matters pertaining to interviews relating to Boards
and Commissions, as well as a discussion about the County Attorney's position.
Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall°
Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Executive Session.
The Board reconvened from executive session at 2:35 p.m. Motion was
immediately offered by Mr. Bain, and seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the
following certification of executive meeting:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma-
tive recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The
Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 and 2.1-344.A.7 of the Code of
Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformi-
ty with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each
member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins,
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Martin.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to reappoint Mr. Mitchell E. Neuman
to the Jail Board for a term to end May 22, 1996.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to reappoint Mr. Forrest R. Mar-
shall, Jr., to the JAUNT Board of Directors for a term to end on September 30,
1996.
(Mr. Martin returned at 2:40 p.m.)
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain to reappoint Mr. Eduard J. Jones and Mr.
John K. Plantz to the JABA Board of Directors for a term to end on March 31,
1995.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain to reappoint Mrs. Cindy Caughron to the
Jefferson Madison Regional Library Board for a term to end on June 30, 1997.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to appoint Mr. David C. Robinson to
the Regional Disability Services Board.
All of the foregoing motions were seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was
called and the motions carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bain, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
000226
Agenda Item No. 15c. Groundwater Protection Study (deferred from
June 2 ) .
Mr. Tucker said the status report is provided in response to the Board's
request for an update on the progress made on implementing the 1990 Groundwa-
ter Protection Study. Mr. David Hirschman, the Water Resource Manager, has
been working with the Water Resources Committee in updating this report and
they will continue to evaluate each recommendation. Of the original 20
recommendations, one has been completed, four have been partially implemented,
six have been identified as needing further discussion/clarification and the
remaining 11 have been prioritized by the Committee. As cost is a significant
factor in implementing many of these recommendations, the Committee will be
reviewing these for consideration during the next budget cycle. A pilot
project will commence this summer in the Hardware River/North Garden area in
an effort to define requirements for monitoring/assessing groundwater quality
and quantity before broader implementation plans can be developed.
Mr. Hirschman said groundwater is a complex subject. Two wells drilled
50 to 100 feet apart can be dramatically different in terms of water produced.
The original groundwater study produced by the Planning Department was
accepted in principle by the Board on June 13, 1990. This study is a compen-
dium of the tools available to local government for dealing with and managing
groundwater. The Water Resources Committee has been updating itself on
groundwater. They have been evaluating the study to find the proper tools in
the study which will specifically address the needs in Albemarle County. They
were in the process of doing that when the Board requested an update on its'
work. That staff report was distributed to the Board in May.
This study outlines an activity process going from the problem identifi-
cation stage to selecting proper tools for implementation. Beyond that, each
of the 20 recommendations has been updated and an evaluation based on feasi-
bility has been given based on human health and the environment. Finally, the
study has a summary of the different recommendations based on the evaluation.
They also identified high priority actions which are separate from the
recommendations, but which the committee felt needed to be done to implement
the study, using the stepwise process.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an update of the pilot project on the Hardware
River which is supposedly being done this summer using interns. Mr. Hirschman
reported that there were some perceived problems with quality control because
of the history of collecting well water reports and other data on groundwater
from the Health Department. He explained that there was so much data coming
in that there were problems envisioning a product. The idea of splitting off
the pilot area was to use this process as a way to debug the way the County
deals with groundwater and to use the data collection to evaluate some of the
tools in the study. It was felt that if a small part of the County was
chosen, a methodology or process could be developed, and instead of making
mistakes county-wide, they would be made on a smaller scale. Then, when the
process goes county-wide, there will already be lessons learned.
The committee decided to pick an area that was mostly dependent on
groundwater for drinking water and an area where there were land use issues.
The study area is not North Garden, but is a watershed that drains into both
the North Fork Hardware River and South Fork Hardware River ending at where
the two forks combine to make the Hardware River. The area includes North
Garden, South Garden, Alberene, Covesville and some of the outlying areas. It
is a big geographic area.
Mr. Bain said he understands the process, but wonders what will be done
with the information. He asked if there is a way to test the water relative
to existing wells, where there is no data on the depth and flow. Mr. Hirsch-
man replied that an intern is collecting information on all of the different
available well resources. There is a data base which consists of well data
since September 1990 from the Division of Mineral Resources and the State
Water Control Board. He noted that the Health Department has been receiving
copies of these reports on GW-2 forms, as well as the County Planning Depart-
ment, since that time. He said that flow, depth of the wells, etc., are
documented. He noted that information on geology is also being analyzed. He
added that, based on representation of geology, soils and land use, 100 wells
in the North Garden watershed area will be selected to collect water samples.
He mentioned that a Richmond laboratory will analyze the samples, and a survey
will be administered to the owners of those wells about their history of using
the wells and whether or not there were any flow problems, etc.
Mr. Bain asked if this will be coordinated with the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission (TJPDC). Mr. Hirschman said he had met with Mike
Collins and with a geologist at the Division of Mineral Resources. The
Committee is trying to make sure that its process is established before this
information is collected.
Mr. Bowerman asked if contamination reports can be integrated with this
information. Mr. Hirschman answered that the sources of contamination will be
updated on the maps. He went on to say that the contamination reports which
are available relate to leaking underground storage tanks and chemical
incidents. Mr. Bowerman inquired if there is any information on bacteriologi-
cal coliform. Mr. Hirschman replied that the only requirement for tests from
the Health Department deals with new wells, and they have to be tested for
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
000227
coliform. Beyond this source, Mr. Hirschman indicated there is no formal way
to get this information, which is one of the reasons for the survey. The
study will not present definitive results.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the information will be related to the depth of
casing and other criteria. Mr. Hirschman answered affirmatively. He added
that this is a planning study, and he is not a hydrogeologist, so the study
does have limitations. He indicated that he and an intern from the University
of Virginia are basically the only people collecting this information for the
study. He cautioned the Board that the study will not answer all the ques-
tions, and it will not point out areas where there is no good drinking water
available. He said, however, that the study will provide some focus and
insight into groundwater.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the results of this study can be used for a
planning tool. Mr. Hirschman replied, "yes." He said this would be the idea
behind the study. He added that information will be collected to well yield
and vulnerability to contamination. If the Board wants these lines defined,
it would have to be done by a qualified consultant, a geologist or a hydroge-
olist.
Mrs. Humphris referred to Mr. Hirschman's comment about the process
being established before information is collected. She inquired as to whether
or not this data has been collected. Mr. Hirschman replied that there is a
data base already in place, but it has resulted from a lot of volunteer work
and available interns were used. He added that some of this information on
wells has come from the Health Department, but now it is found that this has
been inconsistent, and not all of the reports are available. He said that, in
some cases, information has not been updated in the data base and information
is not reliable as far as a lot of the quality control issues are concerned.
He went on to say that keeping the data base going is a fundamental part of
the program, but a better process for the quality control issues needs to be
developed.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the time period for the pilot project. Mr.
Hirschman responded that the intern is currently working approximately 20
hours a week. The time frame depends on how long it takes to collect the 100
samples and go through the survey process. He estimated that it will probably
be October before the pilot project is completed. They will then produce a
report and distribute same to the Board.
Mr. Bain called attention to recommendation #7 on page 10 and recommen-
dation #8 on page 11. He has looked at all that these two recommendations
entail, and he has considered this Board's authority, as far as following
through on such recommendations. He is not saying he wants to support an
ordinance at this time, but he would be in favor of an ordinance which would
allow the County to get needed information as an ongoing process, which is not
available now. He said it would be helpful to know some of these things
before subdivisions are constructed. He added that if hydrogeologists can
recommend certain things be incorporated as a tool in the County's process, it
would help in making some of these decisions on land use planning, particular-
ly in rural areas. He would like to see the Board move in that direction to a
certain extent. He emphasized that he does not just want to develop another
ordinance, but he would like to see such an ordinance in place which would
help the Supervisors as they deal with the rural areas in the immediate, as
well as the distant future.
Mr. Hirschman stated that any course of action in that area needs to be
evaluated. The Water Resources Committee had a representative from Loudoun
County talk to the committee about the lessons that he (the representative)
has learned. Mr. Hirschman noted that Loudoun County requires hydrogeological
testing for subdivisions. All of the institutional capabilities for this
requirement have to be developed, such as having a hydrogeologist on staff for
these reviews. Such a requirement has possibilities, because it provides the
information at the beginning of the process. He mentioned that this study
gives Loudoun County an advantage, because by doing the study in the begin-
ning, the wells in subdivisions can be located and high yield spots can be
determined on certain parcels. He stated, also, that a lot of details have to
be worked out, as well as costs, etc.
Mr. Bain concurred. He suggested that Albemarle County learn from what
the other counties have done. The best examples can be taken from these
counties, and they can be studied to see how they can be developed for
Albemarle County.
Mr. Perkins asked if well drillers in this general area have been
interviewed to get their feeling and knowledge about the County. Mr. Hirsch-
mann said the intern has been in contact with the well drillers in the County,
and is in the process of setting up interviews. He went on to say that the
information which the committee is receiving relates to successful wells, so
this is a somewhat biased standpoint, because a well driller may drill four
dry holes. He added that if the well driller will submit information on dry
holes in certain locations, then this can be compared to successful well
locations, and more complete information can be compiled.
Mr. Bain mentioned that there are other well drillers who work in
Albemarle County, but who do not live here. He stated that all of the people
who drill wells here could probably furnish information on what they are
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
000 ; 8
hitting as they drill the wells, in terms of soil and bedrock, etc., and at
what depth these things are found. He said there could be a form used as
wells are drilled, and it would not have to be a time consuming exercise. He
does not know all of the ramifications of this, but he knows that some of
these things can be helpful in determining depth, and the quality of water.
Mr. Hirschman said the committee had considered getting the Health
Department to put an addendum on the GW-2 forms which could get some of the
County info,nation that the committee desires. He noted that the committee
wants, at this point, to establish an amiable relationship with the well
drillers.
Mr. Bain stated that the well drillers have comments to make which can
be helpful. He added that some well drillers work in other counties, and they
will already know some of the regulations, etc. He said the well drillers are
not happy with some of these regulations for which there seems to be no
purpose, and he does not want Albemarle County to be in that position. He
wants this gathering of information to help people in the future. He has
talked to a couple of the well drillers, and they are willing to provide such
information. He said, however, that the well drillers do not necessarily like
mandates, but if there is a form that can be quickly completed, then that
should be fine.
Mr. Hirschman remarked that the well drillers could also have access to
this information, which could help them find the best spots to drill wells.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Hirschman for his input, and he said that the
Board would be interested to hear the next report on how things are proceed-
ing. He added that this information could be a valuable tool. He knows that
what Mr. Collins is doing at TJPDC and on the TJSpare project is very impor-
tant for the community and the region. Any work that Mr. Hirschman could do
with Mr. Collins would be beneficial.
Mr. Bain commented that he does not want to put too much burden on the
staff. A status report every 90 days or so would be sufficient. He noted
that if legislation needs to be studied, it cannot wait until December to get
started.
Mr. Tucker agreed that a quarterly report would be good, because there
is an estimated October date for the Hardware River project. He suggested
that Mr. Hirschman prepare a status report for the Board's October 6 meeting
as a consent agenda item. This would also allow time, if legislation is
involved.
Agenda Item No. 19. Joint Meeting with School Board. At 3:06 P.M., the
Board reconvened in Room 5/6.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. William W. Finley, Mr. Clifford
W. Haury, Mr. Michael J. Marshall, Mrs. Patricia L. Moore and Mrs. Karen L.
Powell.
ABSENT: Mr. George C. Landrith, III and Mrs. Sharon Wood.
Also present were Dr. Robert Paskel, Superintenden~ and Assistant
Superintendent, Dr. Carole Hastings.
Item 19a. Discussion: New High School.
Mr. Bowerman said at the last joint meeting of the two Boards there was
discussion about the new high school. The School Board was going to have a
work session on the consultant's report on Western Albemarle High School.
From that meeting, the School Board sent a memo (dated June 3, 1993) back to
him which he circulated to the Supervisors. He would like to start with a
discussion of this memo.
Mrs. Moore said the School Board met and went over the feasibility study
which contained three options. The Board concluded:
1)
2)
that improvements to Western Albemarle High School should be made
for compliance and instruction only. The staff was instructed to
bring back recommended improvements through the CIP process.
that the option of reducing the capacity at WAHS was not something
it wished Go pursue.
3)
that although the School Board did not take a vote, it concluded
unanimously that a new 1000 capacity high school was the first
priority option in relation to all options presented in the study.
The School Board also agreed the prospect of a November, 1993
referendum on a new high school should be kept open.
Mr. Bowerman commented that this is the reason the other aspects being
considered by the School Board is in the CIP should be examined. He added
that there are some substantial resources needed, in addition to the high
school funds. If the idea of a referendum is approached, then the total
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000229
(Page 39)
picture of the school system's CIP needs to be clearly defined, even if all of
the details have not been worked out. He asked if the Supervisors had any
questions regarding the Feasibility Study. He noted that the recommendation
of the School Board is for a new high school, with the site yet to be deter-
mined.
Ms. Moore commented that the School Board will meet on July 12, 1993 to
discuss the CIP. Unless School Board members change their minds, she antici-
pates that the 1,000 student new high school will be included in the school
system's CIP.
Mr. Bain said he would like to form a committee of two Board members to
meet with City Council to discuss the shared use of Charlottesville High
School. He thinks this option needs to be examined first before a referendum
or a new high school are even considered. City Council may not support such a
plan, but the plan needs to be examined to see what the parameters are and the
feasibility. He emphasized that he is not suggesting six months be spent on
this option.
Mr. Bowerman said it is his understanding that if Albemarle County
shared space at CHS, it would only be a two year solution. Mr. Bain responded
that the time could be substantially longer than two years, given the figures
that the Supervisors were supplied with previously.
At this time, Mr. Haury distributed a numbers analysis based on the High
School Feasibility Study, which he said was the work of the Oversight Commit-
tee. He pointed out that it is not work that has been reviewed by the School
Board. He went back to the notes from the High School Feasibility Study and
put the notes with a commentary. He said this will provide a basis for the
Supervisors in making some of their remarks. He excerpted the capacities for
AMS and WAHS to show where they are with a 22:1 and a 25:1 ratio. He also
showed high school enrollments in the analysis, and they are based on the
County's own high school enrollment package which the Supervisors should
already have received. He pointed out that if the 22:1 ratio is considered,
in ten years, the County will be short 863 seats. Currently, just because of
AMS, the effected capacity is exceeded for both schools by 73. He emphasized
that this is largely due to a function of AHS and does not involve WAHS. He
then called attention to the 25:1 ratio, during the ten year time period, and
said there will be 559 students over the County's capacity for both schools.
These figures'are assuming that nothing will be done. These numbers are taken
from the Committee's enrollments and projections package.
He then discussed the Committee's five points. First, he stated that as
of 1997-98, the County's enrollments exceed the rated capacities of both high
schools by 250. He noted that focus was put on this point because something
has to be done by 1997-98, or there will be trailers everywhere. Secondly, an
expansion of WAHS of 200 seats leaves the County short 50 seats in 1997-98,
and it leaves the County short as far as effective capacity is concerned, if
the staffing is at 22:1. Mr. Haury's third point related to the fact that
Western's expansion to 1,500 students leaves the County 359 seats short by the
year 2002, based on the Committee's projections and 663 seats short based on
the effective capacities. Mr. Haury said the fourth point indicates that
without expansion at WAHS, the County is 559 seats short rated and 863 seats
short of effective capacity. He stated that the School Board has not agreed
to this argument. He explained that he is representing the remarks of the
Committee without knowing what the School Board's vote will be on this issue.
The Committee concluded, after examining these figures, that the expansion of
WAHS to 1,500 students does not solve the long range problem for the County.
He is not saying that a new high school is the only solution.
Mr. Haury then instructed the Supervisors to turn to the second page of
the analysis where there was a second set of enrollment projections for the
County schools, which was prepared by the Center for Public Service at the
University of Virginia. These figures are even more complex. The Committee
projected figures for ten years, but the Center projections were for 20 years.
He called attention to the 20 year projection, and noted that these projec-
tions for the County declined, after reaching a high point in 1998-99. The
Committee's high point in the projections was reached in the years 2001-2002.
He stated that the Center's figures come from the gross statistics of the
state going down to the small entity. The Committee's projections go from
kindergarten to twelfth grade. He remarked that if the totals in the report
are considered, it will show that the Committee's and the state's projections
are close, as far as overall enrollments for the school division. He men-
tioned that on the second set of projections there is a plateau and then a
trailing off, and he thinks the complexity of the situation revolves around
that. He wondered if the County will reach a peak in enrollment, and he said
that this is a good question to ask, considering the figures on page one of
the analysis. He noted that, at one point, the County will be 863 seats
short, but he asked if this will be the high point of enrollment, and will
there be a leveling off after that. He inquired, if this is the case, what
can be done to fix it. He pointed out that the Committee had this informa-
tion, but it was not written up in this fashion, because the Committee was
generally engaged with the middle school and elementary school situations. He
said that this is the dilemma, and he asked if a 1,000 pupil school will take
care of the problem. He wondered, too, if enrollments will decline, or are
there other options besides a 1,000 pupil school.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000230
(Page 40)
In terms of the Committee's judgment, Mr. Haury said the simple math of
the situation is that if the 3,605 student enrollment is reached in 2002 at
the high school level, and there are three high schools, then it will be easy
to take care of the enrollments, with 1,200 students per school. The gamble
that is being taken is whether or not the enrollments will stay at that level.
He does not know if the Center's projections will be more closer to reality
than the Committee's projections. He noted that the Committee has had good
luck with its projections, and this is the first time, to his knowledge, that
the state has supplied all of the information from kindergarten through
twelfth grade.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Center had determined a relationship between
the projected enrollment of the school system and the population of Albemarle
County. Mr. Haury replied that the Center did show such a relationship, but
it is counting on having the birth rate in Albemarle County remain in the 800s
for the next 20 years. He pointed out that, in the years he served on the
School Board, live births have gone from the 500s per year to the 800s. The
Center is using a flat birth rate, and the reason for this is that statisti-
cally it is really difficult to project more than five years. If projections
are done exactly right by live births five years prior, the enrollments should
only be projected for five years. This is all that can be identified, because
the children who are born will be in school in five years. The Committee did
projections for ten years because that is a middle distance, but he reiterated
that the Center projects for 20 years. He added that the jeopardy that he
sees in these projections is that it simply surrounds the fact that live
births in Albemarle County will stay at 800. If the population grows, the
projections will depend on a number of factors of which he knows nothing. He
mentioned that there are a number of people who retire here, as well as the
number of people of childbearing age. He has seen the birth rate in the
County go over 900 live births per year. This figure indicates to him that
the Center's projections of 800 live births per year may not be correct. He
added that this is the first time he has seen projections which reach a peak
and then level off. The Committee has studied the figures from the Center, in
addition to the documents that they already have. He simply put the projec-
tions on a page for the Supervisors to examine. He noted that the Center's
figures makes the issue more complex.
Mr. Bain called attention to the Committee's figures where it shows the
high schools exceed the rated capacity of 559 in the tenth year. He pointed
out that using the City's facility is one possibility where there are 400
available seats, which reduces this figure substantially. It appears that the
same projection is being used for Murray High School throughout the report.
Mr. Haury responded that the Committee's projection was for 80 students per
year for the whole ten year period. This projection was not mixed with the
other school projections, because it is an admission by application procedure.
He stated that the School Board has discussed whether or not additional seats
should be projected for Murray High School, but it was decided to leave the
enrollment at 80, unless the time comes when the applications outnumber the
current enrollment. However, Murray High School does have 93 students this
year, but he reiterated that for the purposes of the projections, the figure
of 80 students was used throughout the study.
Mr. Bain recalled that at the last joint meeting, the possibility of a
magnet school was discussed. He wondered if this option has been considered
at this point. He asked if, nothing has already been done with this option,
will it be considered in the future. He asked, too, what is the time frame,
as far as studying this option. Mr. Haury said at the School Board's follow-
up meeting after the last joint meeting, most of the discussion was devoted to
the Feasibility Study, of which this option was a part and was discussed. Ms.
Moore said the School Board discussed several options. She said time spent
discussing the magnet school option would be better utilized, if the direction
that the Boards are taking is known.
Mr. Bain said he sees the possibilities of a magnet school, as well as
the under utilization of the City's facilities which could be converted for
County use. Some capital funds will have to be spent, but consideration needs
to be given to renovating existing facilities for a magnet school. The
overall need has to be examined. He mentioned that there may be some enroll-
ment growth over what is projected, but it may not be significant. If the
growth becomes significant, then these would not be the long term answers.
These options will give the County officials at least a couple of years to
examine what is happening and compare and track the figures so that it will be
more clear where the enrollment will be in the future. He said this would
alleviate building a new school by 1997-98.
Ms. Moore remarked that from a Board member's perspective, it would be
difficult for her to decide who would attend CHS. She wondered if everybody
who drives past that school would be chosen as the ones to attend. Mr. Bain
said he did not say it was going to be easy, but he thinks the possibility
should be considered. He also is not saying how he will vote on any of these
options. He added that dollars are scarce in this community, and a new high
school will be costly.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like staff to offer different scenarios under
which an option such as Mr. Bain has suggested would actually work. He asked
if there would be children from Albemarle County graduating from CHS, or would
there be an Albemarle High School within CHS. He needs some idea of the
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
00023 .
practicality of utilizing that facility. He does not understand how this
situation could be accomplished.
Dr. Paskel remarked that, from a practical standpoint, he does not see
it being operated as anything but a single entity at CHS. The administration
would have to be negotiated, and he agreed that to identify the students would
be very difficult. He then gave an example of 400 students from AHS being
sent to CHS. He said that Albemarle County would probably pay tuition to the
City on an annual basis, and his feeling is that those 400 students would
graduate from CHS. He thinks this would work better than setting up a
separate school at CHS where the 400 students would go, but they would still
remain Albemarle County students.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that it would change the schools' classifica-
tions. Dr. Paskel agreed. It would change the classification for music
competition, debate competition, sports, etc. Mr. Bowerman asked what is the
current enrollment at CHS. Mr. Bain replied that the enrollment at CHS is
approximately 1,000 students. Mr. Bowerman remarked that CHS will hold
approximately 1,400 or 1,500 students. Mr. Bain said that these figures were
given to the School Board a couple of years ago.
Dr. Paskel stated that Dr. McGeehan, City School Superintendent, had
sent these figures at the request of the Oversight Committee. He suggested
that County officials need to ascertain how the City staff is planning to use
that space, and he noted that the City has already expanded its vocational
course offerings. He added that the City has made a strong effort to reduce
its pupil/teacher ratio which changes the school's capacity. Students can
physically be placed in the classrooms, but he is not sure that this is
desirable from a quality standpoint.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the time frame, as far as when the additional
high school capacity is needed. Dr. Paskel replied that AHS's capacity will
be exceeded next year. Mr. Bain emphasized that the rated capacity of the
high schools will not be a problem until 1996-97 or 1997-98. Mr. Bowerman
inquired as to when the School Board would expect the new high school to be
ready for students. Mr. Tucker answered that it would be four years from now
before a new high school could become operational.
Mr. Bowerman asked what would be the time frame for acquiring the space
at CHS, if Mr. Bain's suggestion is taken and City officials will agree to
meet with the County officials. Mr. Bain said that he thinks it would take
six months.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if this committee, suggested by Mr. Bain, would
consider such things as CATEC issues, etc. Mr. Bain responded that he thinks
such things should be examined.
Mrs. Humphris asked if tuition would be paid by the County per pupil, if
this situation developed between the County and the City. She wondered, too,
if tuition was paid per pupil, would it be at the City's rate per pupil cost.
Dr~ Paskel stated that this would have to be negotiated, but it is typically
the practice. There could be an agreement between the two governing bodies
which would allow the situation to be handled some other way. He went on to
say that there is an operational cost which will be annualized, whether the
County or the City serves the students. He reiterated that usually when
tuition is paid for students to go to another school system the going rate in
that school system is paid. He noted that there is a substantial difference
between the City's and County's per pupil rate.
Mr. Bain agreed that there is a substantial difference, but he pointed
out that a lot of the funding comes from the state. Dr. Paskel said that,
through negotiations with the City, it might be found that there are some
economies of scale that the City would realize. Mrs. Humphris recalled that
the City's per pupil cost is approximately $2,500 a pupil more than the
County's. Dr. Paskel stated that the County is charging $3,550 and the City
is charging $5,157 for tuition for students outside of their districts. He
suggested that the difference between these two numbers could be multiplied by
400 students, to get a quick idea of the cost. Mrs. Humphris commented that
this is one way of getting an estimate of the cost, and it would be an
$800,000 differential annually. Dr. Paskel noted that the County would have a
similar expense to house those students, as well as operating expenses.
Mr. Martin said he is not opposed to exploring the idea of County
students using the 400 seats at CHS, but he thinks the only way it would work
would be if there were something there to attract students. While he thinks
it is a good idea, it would make more sense to move ahead with the idea of a
new high school, or, perhaps, present the idea of a new high school to the
voters and see what the voters think about it. At the same time, the City
option could be examined. He commented that even if the City option could be
worked out, the County would have to be willing to let the students be
redistricted into the City of Charlottesville, in terms of bus routes. Even
if there is something to draw students to CHS, he still does not think it will
encourage all 400 students by the first year that it is proposed. He thinks
it is a situation where the numbers will increase over the years, after people
feel safe and feel drawn into it. This is a situation where the City is
running the school, and Albemarle County students would be graduating from the
City of Charlottesville school system. He does not think the voters would be
in favor of it, at this point, if it is forced, and he wondered which dis-
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
000232
tricts would be affected by this change. He thinks if this option is consid-
ered, then a program needs to be developed that will act as a magnet.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he understands Mr. Martin's point. Mr.
Bowerman went on to say that if there could be a magnet high school inside of
the CHS facility, it would be something different for the community, because
it would be a magnet school separate from the City of Charlottesville and
separate from Albemarle County.
Mr. Tucker suggested that it might be wise to start out with a committee
of two Supervisors and two School Board members to look at the various
options. The Oversight Committee considered several different options, such
as using CATEC or a magnet school, etc. He emphasized that there are some
other options, but he does not think these options have yet been focused on,
although they have been discussed in generalities. He suggested that, first,
the Supervisors and the School Board members reach a consensus on a plan
relative to some of these issues before County representatives meet with the
City officials.
Mr. Bowerman remarked he is not sure that two representatives from each
Board will be able to reach a consensus with which both Boards will concur.
Mr. Tucker reiterated that the two members from each Board could reach a
consensus, and that committee of two would have the mission of explaining to
the other Board members what they are attempting to do. He has heard a lot of
good ideas and questions raised that probably need to be examined more
closely.
Mr. Bowerman said he understood that the School Board members did not
consider the excess capacity at CHS, because they felt that it was a political
decision. Ms. Moore responded that the last report from the Oversight
Committee refers to the CHS option and the fact that Mr. Haury talked to Dr.
McGeehan. This report indicated that Dr. McGeehan would like for the City
Council and the Board of Supervisors to have these discussions before the
School Boards are involved.
Mr. Martin concurred that it is a political question. If this option is
approved, parents of 300 to 400 students will be told that, even though they
pay their tax dollars to Albemarle County and up to 70 percent of it is used
for the schools, their children will have to go to a City school. He would be
upset if his tax money was being paid to the County and the County was using
it to send his child to a City school. However, if there was something at CHS
which was a magnet and made him want his child to go there, then that would be
a different scenario. He would then send his child to a City school and pay
for transportation, because there is something to draw the child there, but
this type of program takes time to develop.
Dr. Paskel asked how long would it take to design and implement a magnet
school program. Mr. Martin said first, it would take some negotiations
between City Council and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bain mentioned that
there is a magnet school in Augusta County where three jurisdictions partici-
pate. He said the school will be in place this Fall, but he is unsure as to
when the plans for the school began. Mr. Martin said even with a magnet
school, he does not think the seats will be full on the first day. It will
probably take two or three years to reach full capacity. Mr. Bowerman said if
this is the case, the school system would still have capacity problems. Mr.
Bain said that may or may not be true. He has no problem with Mr. Tucker's
suggestion. He just thinks this option needs to be considered. Mr. Martin
commented that the first thing to do is for the Supervisors and the Councilors
to meet to see if they would even allow Albemarle County to use the space.
Mr. Bain mentioned that if, three years from now, the County finds
enrollment projections have increased by 400 or 500, then it will be known
that the problem has not been solved. At some point, if this happens, a
facility will have to be built. This is not known now, and it probably will
not be known by next year.
Mr. Perkins recalled that Ms. Moore indicated the School Board has
explored all of the options in the Feasibility Study, but he said it is
important that all of the options that anybody can suggest be considered. An
option might only involve 50 students. For instance, he mentioned perhaps
English or government could be taught at CATEC. Everything needs to be
considered, and maybe the new high school could be deferred for three or four
years. A new high school might have to be built, however, but he wondered
when it will happen. He went on to say that nobody can tell him how much
money will be saved by building a new school, although he noted that it is not
known what building costs or inflation rates will be in the future, and it
might even cost more money. He thinks any time a school system can put off
building a new school, money is saved.
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Martin that it may be possible to utilize
excess capacity in one way or another as long as it would be on a voluntary
basis. A school might be created that people want to attend because it is
unique, such as a magnet school. The school could be for some special type of
education or something else that makes it unique. He reiterated that Mr.
Martin has made a very valid point. Otherwise, it will be extremely difficult
to work out the problems.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
00O23.3
Mr. Perkins wondered why a magnet school in Albemarle County could not
be considered. Mr. Bowerman said the difference would be that City students
could attend the magnet school in CHS, if they chose to.
Mr. M. Marshall said he thinks Mr. Martin made a good point when he
questioned whether or not a magnet school would draw students quickly enough
to take care of the other high schools' capacity problems. The magnet school
idea originated in urban settings, in what was called "white flight," which
meant that students were leaving impoverished school divisions. He explained
that these magnet schools were developed, and they had a special package to
offer to attract students back into the systems to rejuvenate the systems. He
does not think that Albemarle County and Charlottesville City have the types
of problems that the magnet school concept was first developed to address. He
thinks that if magnet schools were a solution, the Albemarle County School
Board would be considering it, because the public is coming to the School
Board saying that it is obvious this County needs a magnet school. He thinks
Mr. Martin is right when he said that a magnet school might be funded, but
there might not be enough interest in it in the beginning.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the voters have not been asked if they
will approve a $40.0 million increase in Debt Service, when possibilities have
not been explored. Mr. M. Marshall said he understands what the Supervisors
are saying. The School Board, assuming the projections are accurate, felt if
the quality of education is to be maintained that is currently enjoyed in the
County, then the logical extension of that is to build a third high school.
He went on to say that the only way it can be built is to be approved by the
voters. It has already been established that there is a four year planning
cycle to build a high school, so, unless the voters were surveyed by a
referendum this November, the planning cycle for the high school could not be
started until 1994. He emphasized that one of the questions the School Board
needs to ask itself is whether or not there is one year of time to study all
of these options. He added that the reason the School Board members came
forward with the new high school option was because they did not want to delay
asking the voters if this is what they want. He knows the taxpayers in the
County will not be happy at the prospect of paying the bill for a new high
school, and the message could come back that this growth will have to be
accommodated in other ways. These other ways will be a degradation to what is
now called the Standards of Quality. If this is the message from the taxpay-
er, then the School Board is prepared to go along. However, the School Board
members are not prepared to come forward to tell the taxpayer that they think
one of these other options is appropriate. He emphasized that the School
Board members believe they should try to maintain the same quality of educa-
tion in the County.
Mr. Bain wondered why there would necessarily be a degradation of
quality with these other options. Mr. M. Marshall replied that if the new
high school is not built, the County will probably end up with large capaci-
ties and additions at AHS and WAI~S. There are cases of large high schools in
metropolitan areas where it has been undertaken to teach 2,000 to 2,200
children, but those are not the environments within which Albemarle County
traditionally operates, or that the parents in the County expect for their
children. He also raised the point that in the old days, it was possible to
educate children in larger concentrations, because of the different discipline
environments. The School Board is now seeing a lot more cases of weapons in
schools and other acts of hazard, and it is easier to control such things in
smaller schools. He suggested that if the County is going to trend in any
way, it would be wise to trend toward multiplying smaller schools, rather than
increasing the concentration at existing schools.
Mr. Bain noted that a referendum can go on the ballot at any time. Mr.
M. Marshall said that this was not his understanding.
Mr. Martin stated that he would like for the County to take the referen-
dum approach where the voters will have three choices. He said that the first
choice could be to vote in favor of building a new high school; the second
choice could be not to vote for it, at all; and the third choice would relate
to approval of the new high school, along with approval of the meals tax.
Mr. Bowerman said he assumes there are questions which deal with Murray
High School. There are also other questions about whether or not another
urban elementary school will be added, or if there will be an addition to an
existing elementary school. He pointed out, too, that there is a question as
to whether Murray High School should be accommodated where it is currently
located with improvements or at some other facility. He asked if he is right
in thinking that these things have not had closure, in terms of the School
Board's sessions on them. Ms. Moore agreed that Mr. Bowerman's statements are
correct.
Mr. Perkins remarked that there will probably have to be a referendum,
regardless of whether or not a new high school is built. Mr. Bowerman agreed
that a referendum is desirable because of the dollars and the bonding indebt-
edness that the County already has in total. Any significant increase in Debt
Service would not be good, and it was the County Executive's recommendation to
cautiously approach the situation. Mr. Tucker concurred with Mr. Bowerman's
statements. He said that, fiscally, it would be a safer avenue if Debt
Service was not increased significantly.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
000234
Mr. Perkins suggested the County Executive's recommendation that a
committee of two School Board members and two Board of Supervisors' members be
formed to explore options.
Ms. Moore said this could be done. She suggested, however, that the
Oversight Committee compile all of the suggestions which have been made, and
she pointed out there have been a lot of things mentioned, which have not been
put into the report. After a list is compiled, the two Boards could, at
least, build a consensus on certain items to be examined.
Mr. Martin felt time was being wasted on things which have already been
explored, and the School Board has basically voted to endorse building a new
high school. He went on to say that if the Supervisors want to look at other
options, particularly the CHS option, then the first place to start is a joint
meeting with City Council to find out if it is even possible. He added that
if it is not possible, then all of the other things which have been discussed
can still be considered, even though they are just temporary types of ap-
proaches. The idea of a new high school will still have to be taken to the
voters for a decision. He does not think the other options will give the
County more than 200 or 300 possible seats without having the capacity of the
400 seats at CHS. However, it is already known that 200 to 300 more seats
will not help the situation.
Mr. Perkins commented that 100 more students might be placed at WAHS and
100 more at AHS, as well as 50 more at Murray High School; and 50 to 75 more
students at CATEC. There are so many possibilities and combinations that need
to be considered. If the County can take care of the immediate future needs,
then maybe the high school won't have to be built, because of the type of
future enrollments.
Ms. Moore said she thinks the County will definitely have continued
growth. A map would be presented at another time to show the developments and
the projected growth. She added that this is all intertwined with the CIP.
Dr. Paskel asked if the Supervisors would like for the County to
maintain the quality opportunities that the children have in the school system
now, such as the 22:1 average pupil/teacher ratio. He has not heard anyone
suggest seriously that the pupil/teacher ratio be raised to 25:1, 28:1 or even
30:1, which the state allows. If the School Board holds to its assumption
that the high school will not exceed 1,500 students, and that the projections
are correct, and if it is realized that the projections do not include any new
developments that may be approved as Albemarle County continues its growth,
then it will be concluded that the proposed space is needed for high school
age students. He emphasized that the question is how will this space be
provided. He pointed out that the projections have been exactly correct over
the last three years for kindergarten students. As he looks at the 1996-97
projections, there are 450 students which exceed the 22:1 ratio, for an
effective capacity. This amounts to 23 portable classrooms. He pointed out
that four years later in the year 2000, it is projected that there will be 800
students beyond capacity, which will involve even more portable classrooms. A
decision has to be made as soon as possible as to how these students will be
accommodated, because the planning time involves four years. He noted that
there are a lot of different things to be considered with this issue, but he
has to look at the situation as far as quality of instruction is concerned.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned that it concerns her that the state's projec-
tions are relying on a flat birth rate for those years beginning in the year
2000. She said that this is not realistic.
Mr. Bain remarked that some of the growth in the last few years have
come from elderly homes which do not involve children. He said, however, more
subdivisions are being built every day, and that situation does not look as
though it will change.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would rather have a referendum supporting a
position of the need for more infrastructure for Albemarle County, in terms of
the County's requirement to house elementary, middle or high school age
children in classrooms, than to try to work out a program to use CHS. He
supports the formation of a committee, but he does not think the use of CHS is
very practical for the long term, or even short term solution. He thinks it
will cause more divisiveness than anything else. He went on to say, though,
that as keepers of the fiscal purse, perhaps this option should be considered,
but he reiterated that he does not think it is something that will ultimately
be pursued.
Mrs. Humphris commented that she supports Mr. Tucker's suggestion that
the Supervisors and County School Board members look at the situation jointly,
before anybody else is approached. She stated that County officials do not,
yet, know what to ask.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is glad the subject has been brought forward
today, rather than to be put off until later. These problems have to be
examined now, in order to get a resolution to them, before all of the space is
gone for the children.
Mr. Bain remarked that one reason it might be good to have a referendum
sometime after November, is because there are already a lot of local and state
issues on the fall ballot. If a referendum is presented to the citizens,
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
000235
there should be an educational process. He noted that the School Board, as
well as the Board of Supervisors, will need to have meetings on this issue, if
there is a consensus that this is what needs to be done. The meals tax failed
before, because the process was not followed through by all of the Board
members. He is not indicating the meals tax would have passed, even if all of
the Supervisors had done their part. He pointed out, however, that the meals
tax did pass in several magisterial districts. If the School Board wants to
add a referendum issue to the November ballot, then it is fine with him, but
he does not think that it will pass, at that time.
Mr. Martin stated that he had mentioned November because that is when
the ballot will be presented to the voters. He agreed, however, that a
referendum on the new high school would probably do better, if it was given to
the citizens at some other time.
Mr. Bowerman asked if he is correct in assuming that everybody is in
support of a committee made up of two members each from the Board of Supervi-
sors and the School Board, along with the County Executive and the Superinten-
dent of Schools. Mrs. Humphris replied, "yes."
Mr. Bowerman next inquired as to whom would serve on the committee from
the Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Humphris suggested Mr. Bain as a member of
this committee. Mr. Bain suggested Mrs. Humphris, as well as Mr. F. Marshall.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Supervisors wanted three members from the
Board of Supervisors to serve on this committee. He noted that it does not
make any difference how many members the committee has, because the committee
meetings will be open to the public and press, since it will be a formal
committee involving public business. Mr. Bain indicated that he was not
suggesting that three members from the Board of Supervisors be appointed to
the proposed committee. Mr. Bowerman then asked if it was agreeable with the
other Supervisors for Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain to be the two appointees from
the Board of Supervisors to serve on a committee to discuss the shared use of
CHS. Board members concurred.
Mr. Martin stated that he would be willing to serve on the committee, if
it was being formed to meet with City Council. He said, however, that if this
committee is just going to be discussing the possibility locally for a long
period of time, it will only frustrate him.
Mr. Bowerman concurred with Mrs. Humphris that County officials need to
discuss this option, so they will know the types of questions to ask City
Council. He thinks the reason this matter has become an issue today is
because the Supervisors and School Board members do not have all of the
information needed to make a good decision. He then said that Mrs. Humphris
and Mr. Bain would serve on the committee, along with two School Board
members, as well as Mr. Tucker and Dr. Paskel.
Ms. Moore stated that the School Board was not going to appoint their
members to this committee today. She noted that these two appointments would
be made at the School Board's July 12, 1993 meeting.
Mr. Perkins wondered why the committee members would have to meet
publicly. Mr. Bowerman answered that it will be a formal committee. The
meetings have to be advertised for all formal committees, and members from the
public can attend, if they so desire. Mr. Perkins disagreed. He thinks the
committee can meet at any time and there is no requirement that the members
meet publicly. Mr. Tucker said he would have the County Attorney look into
this matter.
Mr. Martin wondered if there was a time frame associated with the
committee's findings. Mr. Bain said October 1, 1993 would be a reasonable
time frame.
Item 19b. Discussion: Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Bowerman said he understands the School Board will be requesting a
new high school on a site yet to be determined in its CIP requests for next
year. He thought there might have to be a referendum presented to the voters
in November. The School Board needs to give the Supervisors a recommendation
and tell them what the options are.
Ms. Moore indicated that the School Board has not yet done its work on
the CIP, so there are no recommendations at the moment. It is a large CIP
with a lot of additions, renovations, as well as a new high school and a new
elementary school. The School Board would like to see where the County is as
far as potential growth is concerned, because of the needs in the CIP.
Mr. Cilimberg said he put together some information in the last 24
hours. The information is based on the current school districts, so any
changes for new developments or redistricting are not included in the numbers.
The multipliers will give a total student enrollment that might come out of
the developments which will be discussed, based on a national multiplier which
is a K through six, seven through nine and ten through twelve. This is not,
however, how the County is set up, because the County has a K through five,
six through eight and nine through twelve system. It has also been found that
the multipliers may be somewhat high, based on more current types of tenden-
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
000236
cies seen for developments which have occurred in this area, in terms of the
numbers of students which are aetually being put into the school system. The
development information has no time frame for when the build-out will occur,
although the developers have some ideas as to what they would like to see
happen. The County staff did not talk to each of the developers about the
time frame as far as when development might occur. This information is based
on the plans which have been approved or which have been presented to the
County for review, and the numbers are based on this fact, only, and that is
why there is no specific time frame. These numbers will be discussed with the
staff of the Department of Education, as far as exactly what the numbers
represent, and how they could be adjusted to better fit Albemarle County. If
the Boards want to get more explanation as to what the numbers mean over the
next ten years or more, then the Planning staff can help the Education staff
do that. He then stated that Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, would discuss
the information given to Board members and the map which was posted.
Mr. Keeler remarked that there has been some concern about projections
for the future, but he was concerned about using some information which was
available from the past. There are a few observations based on developments
which occurred during the mid 1970s, but he pointed out that this information
might not be valid now or in the future, because of changes in how newspapers
and magazines are read, as well as changes in family structure, etc. He then
referred to the first table in the information which showed a list of develop-
ments, and he explained that this information is not to be viewed as a total
increase of students, because some of the students are already in the locali-
ty. The most dramatic increase in students is shown for the Cale and Holly-
mead Elementary school districts, and he discussed these increases. The
increase in enrollment at Crozet Elementary School is anticipated to be
relatively steady, and the increase to Broadus Wood Elementary School would be
comparatively fast. He added that the increased development in the Agnor-Hurt
school district will be slow. He stated that the figures for Stone-Robinson
Elementary School are high, and he pointed out that these figures relate to
one development which is not directed toward families with children. However,
the developer has indicated that more houses have been sold to people with
children than anticipated.
Mr. Bowerman asked to which development was Mr. Keeler referring. Mr.
Keeler answered that he was talking about the Glenmore Subdivision, and he
noted that Glenmore has a lot of people from the County relocating there. He
pointed out that the enrollment figures to which he referred are not necessar-
ily relating to people moving into the area. The information also reflects
the effect that the increased enrollments will have on the middle schools, as
well as the high schools. He noted that this does not include all the school
districts. He said the information represents approximately 4,300 units in
the County as a whole, with approximately 600 new units being constructed a
year. If these figures captured all the development in the County, the
build-out would be in seven or eight years, but he emphasized that this is not
occurring.
Ms. Powell asked if these figures include the students who are already
enrolled in the County schools. Mr. Keeler replied, "yes."
Mr. Bowerman commented that there are not any children in Forest Lakes
South or some of the trailer courts, because they are not yet ready for
occupancy. Mr. Cilimberg said every year the staff has to be cognizant of
certain districts. He said those districts serve Hollymead Elementary School
and Cale Elementary School. He added that there were no projections which
could adequately capture these two districts.
Mr. Bowerman asked when the School Board would have a recommendation to
the Supervisors about the CIP. Ms. Moore replied that the School Board should
have a recommendation relating to the CIP by July 12.
Item 19c. Discussion: Health Insurance.
Mr. Tucker said the County's hospitalization insurance contract for
employees of both local government and the school division is slated to be
renewed on October 1, 1993. In order to provide educational opportunities to
employees as to their choices and associated costs, especially in light of
returning teachers, staff is hopeful that the rates can be set and the plan be
adopted by the end of July so the brochures can be printed and schedules set
for appropriate training.
In order to do a comprehensive review of the County's existing coverage
and related costs, the Health Care Advisory Committee, made up of both school
and local government employees, was established in April to discuss employee
concerns regarding health insurance as well as begin to identify ways to slow
down escalating medical insurance costs. This committee, after much discus-
sion, has made a recommendation to significantly change the 1993-94 health
insurance package offered to all County staff. This recommendation will go to
the Administrative Committee for final recommendation to the School Board and
the Board of Supervisors. Action on adopting the new rates and changes that
are eventually proposed are slated for the School Board on July 12th and for
the Board of Supervisors on July 21st so that staff will have the time
necessary to prepare the appropriate educational materials prior to the open
enrollment period to make changes.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
000287
Mr. Tucker said as reported to the two Boards earlier, the County has
incurred a significant deficit in its self-funded health care program, largely
due to higher than projected expenses and several very costly claims incurred
during the year. This deficit was a major consideration when the Health Care
Advisory Committee developed its proposal with an eye toward changing benefit
design in such a fashion as to offset the majority of this deficit in a 12-
month period, beginning October 1, 1993. It was their goal to change the
design rather than have to significantly increase premiums to cover the
deficit on top of what was anticipated to be a 20 percent increase in premiums
due to medical inflation.
While rates are not yet available, staff has attached the Advisory
Committee's recommendation which has been reviewed by the Administrative
Committee prior to this joint meeting. In summary, the Committee proposes to
continue offering three plans, however, the Key Care I plan would be eliminat-
ed and a new Key Care IV plan would be added to the three tiers presently
offered. It is emphasized that this proposal from the Advisory Committee has
not yet been reviewed and other alternatives identified. It should be noted
that the Health Care Advisory Committee was given information that the Key
Care I plan presently offered by the County is no longer being sold by Blue
Cross/Blue Shield to new groups as it is perceived to be too all-encompassing
to be cost-effective. In light of this, and in an effort to control rising
costs by having the employees that use the program participate in a greater
fashion relative to the costs, the proposal made by the group presently would
offer a Key Care III, a Key Care IV and a Comp 500 Plan for 1993-94.
Mr. Tucker said, after consideration, the Administrative Committee has
recommended that action not be taken at this time. Further analysis is needed
on this matter, and information will be brought back to the Boards at the
August joint meeting.
Ms. Powell asked if the insurance information will also include the
retirees~ rate package. Mr. Tucker replied, "yes."
At 4:15 p.m., Ms. Moore adjourned the School Board meeting.
(Note: Mr. Perkins left the meeting at 4:15 p.m.)
and reconvened in Room 7 at 4:20 P.M.)
The Board recessed
Agenda Item No. 15d. Work Session: CPA-93-03 - Rural Service Center.
Mr. Cilimberg said the intent of the Rural Service Center designation is
to recognize and support certain areas as the preferred location for providing
services to the Rural Area. This was being looked at in an attempt to
accommodate the Schuyler Enterprises facility with an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. Two basic approaches were identified, and one related to
a growth area approach. After examining the geology, land use and availabili-
ty of utilities in the area, the use did not fit any type of growth area
designation. He noted that the staff went to Nelson County and talked to the
people who had an interest in the Schuyler community, and these people
indicated that they were interested in activities which would support tourism
and employment.
Mr. Cilimberg said Schuyler Enterprises is actually Nelson County's
biggest employer. He emphasized that the staff members discussed an approach
which would deal with very specific types of service provisions to the Rural
Area, and they finally identified a plan which would establish particular
locations as meeting particular needs in the Rural Area. The Planning
Commission members were concerned about having a number of these locations all
over the County, and they were also concerned that such a plan would bring
another level of development activity to the Rural Area. The Commission
members finally decided to recommend to the Supervisors that the Rural Service
Center concept be considered for application now only in Schuyler for a
short-term. During the Comprehensive Plan review, if it was desired by the
Commission and Board, applications of the Rural Service Center concept could
be considered in other locations. He understands that the initial effort
centered on dealing with Schuyler Enterprises. He pointed out that this is
not intended as a way to accommodate Schuyler, in particular. It is intended
as a way of establishing a plan for very unique proposals in the County,
whether it be for daycare, a country store, a public garage, etc., or
something more unique which may not be seen more than once every ten years.
Such things might be considered as to their relationship to a particular area,
and the Rural Service Center would be the correct approach. He pointed out
that for the Schuyler area, the particular geographic area near Schuyler would
be identified, and focus would be on that designation with concentrations on
those types of uses which would support tourism and employment in the area.
This would affect Schuyler Enterprises, since it is the biggest employer in
that area. He emphasized, however, that this plan will not designate residen-
tial growth areas, and it would not designate new, industrial commercial
growth areas, which are normally associated with a Village or Community
designation. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the staff has prepared the language
that would be used for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would
establish the Rural Service Center.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that in addition to the focus on tourism in the
Schuyler area with the Walton Museum, there is also the fact that Schuyler has
served a lot of the communities in that part of the County as an old company
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
000238
town. Some of the dwelling units located there are a part of the old company
town. Some of the residents have indicated that some day they may be able to
build on the tourism in relationship to the soapstone operation which is also
located in the community.
Mr. Martin stated that he thinks the Planning Commission did the right
thing in terms of focusing only on Schuyler Enterprises and leaving any
discussion for the Rural Service Center across the entire County until the
Comprehensive Plan review. He said the concept of the Rural Service Center is
frightening.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he does not recall the Board's charge to the
staff when the Schuyler Enterprises request to change its special permit was
deferred. Mr. Martin indicated that it was his understanding the Board did
not want to do anything special for Schuyler Enterprises, but neither did the
Board want Schuyler Enterprises to continue to operate illegally with the
Board's knowledge. He added, however, that the Board did want to do something
that would fit within the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bain recalled that when the initial Schuyler Enterprises proposal
came to this Board, he opposed it then, until some study and thought could be
given to what could be done in that community. He said that after approval
was given to the first application, representatives from Schuyler Enterprises
came back with another request. He emphasized that he did not remember
suggesting that something be developed that would also apply in other areas of
the County.
Mr. Martin said he remembers the conversation as asking the staff to
develop something that could be placed within the Comprehensive Plan that
would fit this particular situation, but he does not think the staff was asked
to develop something which would work throughout the County. He noted,
however, that it depends on how the conversation was interpreted.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that he thought the Board was asking the staff to
consider a possible amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would be applica-
ble in the Schuyler area. The first approach was a village or community,
although it became obvious that this approach was not going to work, because
of the way the Comprehensive Plan is structured. The reason this approach
will not work is because the village, community and urban area~designations
are geared toward residential development, and this is not such an area, based
on the geology and the availability of utilities or the adequacy of septic
systems. He commented that this left the staff without a good option that was
growth oriented in that area. That is when the staff started to consider what
else was available in the Comprehensive Plan to deal with the situation. In
fact, the staff realized there was no other option available in the Comprehen-
sive Plan as it is currently structured. He emphasized that the staff members
were not considering how they would deal with services in the rural areas in
the next 20 years, when they did not suggest the Rural Service Center concept
for this area. He noted that when a special permit request comes to the
County for a garage or a country store, there is no way to judge whether or
not it is the right location in the rural area, because there is no criteria
in the ordinance to specifically deal with this matter. The staff was
thinking that this option would have implications beyond Schuyler. The only
other thing that the staff has been able to identify which would deal with
this situation would be to amend the Comprehensive Plan in the industrial land
use standards section and put a dot on the map to show the location of
Schuyler. He went on to say that Mr. St. John has advised that if the plan
identifies specific locations as necessary for industrial use, and it is set
up in such a way in the Comprehensive Plan, then it is not considered spot
zoning.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the plan that the staff is suggesting is spot
zoning. Mr. Cilimberg responded, "no."
Mr. Bain wondered if there was a way to have some language under the
village or community section which would distinguish Schuyler, without the
residential aspect, but which would be separate from anything that relates to
villages now. He said that Earlysville and North Garden do not have utili-
ties, but the other two villages do have them. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that
the villages in the County are all primarily residential growth areas.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that if a Village Residential designation was
considered for Schuyler, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
would have to become involved, and Nelson County would also have to be
examined. It would be more of a spill over into Nelson and very minimal
development in Albemarle County. He emphasized, again, that the Schuyler
community is really in Nelson County.
Mr. Bain said a lot of that area would relate to natural resource
overlay. The soapstone operation is a significant area and it is located in
Albemarle County. He wondered if there was a way to encompass that and see
what would work residentially. He said the staff might already have some of
this information from the northwest side of the road that goes into Schuyler,
because there is some residential area.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that much of the area on the Albemarle County
side relates to mineral rights. Much of it has underlying soapstone which has
presented a problem in trying to establish on-site septic systems in almost
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
000239
any location reasonably close to Schuyler. He said the staff talked about
possibly extending the utilities of Schuyler, but it was found through
discussions with the Albemarle County Service Authority, that it would be very
costly.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, stated that the
existing system in that area is substandard for the citizens' own service. It
needs to be upgraded and there would have to be some feasibility for extending
it into areas that were determined as being reasonable for development.
Mr. Bain commented that Schuyler is a unique area that might justify
something different from the rest of the County. He mentioned that Mr. St.
John had said a dot on the map representing the Schuyler area would not be
spot zoning. He would clearly rather focus on doing something only in the
Schuyler area.
Mr. Bowerman said it seems to him the Commission would not have done
anything had not Mr. Benish made a statement with which the Commission could
move forward. He pointed out this statement on Page 16 of the Planning
Commission minutes which indicated that "this concept could be applied to that
one area and fine-tuned so that it would just work for that one area". He
said that Mr. Benish further indicated that "if the Commission and Board were
going to consider a wider concept, then it would be done during the Comprehen-
sive Plan review". Mr. Bowerman noted that when he looked at the original
application from Schuyler Enterprises three years ago, it was to accommodate
an existing use. He said the use was in Nelson County, but it was the same
use. Eight months ago when Schuyler Enterprises' representatives came back
with another proposal, it was an expansion of that use, which amounts to two
different things. It is different because one proposal recognizes Schuyler as
a unique area with a soapstone quarry. He added that Schuyler Enterprises is
located in Schuyler, but representatives of Schuyler Enterprises indicated
that they needed the extra facility outside of Schuyler because the road into
Schuyler was dangerous. He added that the same use was involved, and it was
not an increase in the use. He went on to say that Mr. Bain has pointed out
that there is a soapstone quarry located there, which is a use. Mr. Bowerman
wondered why these uses cannot be legitimized without doing anything else. He
asked why this would be inconsistent. He noted, however, that this would not
accommodate the special use permit request.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that, with the Comprehensive Plan, the natural
resource extraction area would be identified, which is not identifiable on a
map at this time. He said other natural resources are identified in other
places, and he emphasized that this could be done for the Schuyler area. He
went on to explain that this action would entail identifying existing indus-
trial locations, such as Gleco Mills. The staff was trying to have a plan
which dealt with, not only this circumstance, but other things which might
come along in the future. In terms of dealing with what is in the Schuyler
area now, this could be done, and other unique situations all over the County
could be recognized. He told Board members, however, that some day they will
probably have to deal with the Schuyler situation all over again somewhere
else, and there would not be anything in the Comprehensive Plan to help them.
This is the choice that the Board will have to make.
Mr. Bowerman noted that any other action would have the potential of
promoting development in the rural areas. He said any type of service
delivery that enhances rural living would tend to be counter to the current
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Martin stated that there may be other times when the Board may want
to make improvements because of a Unique situation, but that is why there is a
special use permit. He would rather do something individually, than to set up
something which might encourage small centers throughout the County.
Mr. Bain pointed out that Mr. Bowerman had said in the beginning, if the
facility had not already been there, he would not have been in favor of it.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that he had made that statement. He went on to say that
this is why it was problematic for him when the representatives of Schuyler
Enterprises came back with another request. He pointed out that it was not
what he voted for the first time, and the concept has grown totally out of
proportion, from the initial decision. The ramifications of what the situa-
tion has grown into are not something that he wants to contemplate.
Mrs. Humphris commented that she had written in big, red letters across
this item after she had finished reading and studying it, "Who asked for
this" She realizes how the matter evolved, but she thinks it departed so
dramatically and drastically from the whole thrust of the Comprehensive Plan
that she was overwhelmed by the whole idea when she read the plan to allow a
variety of commercial, public, business and agricultural support activities
and services to locate in the rural areas. She thinks this plan does the
exact opposite of discouraging development in the rural areas and directing it
to the growth areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff members were put in a situation of trying
to develop a plan for something they had not recommended in the beginning.
The staff has to look at the situation from a professional standpoint of what
to do to try to deal with these types of situations that make sense from a
planning perspective, and this was a way that made sense. If the Supervisors
want to become very particular and say they recognize what is there and that
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
000240
is it, then the request from Schuyler Enterprises will still have to be dealt
with to expand its facilities.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would rather recognize the first Schuyler
Enterprises request as a mistake that was made, and deal with the situation in
that manner. The Board could then deal with the current request. He added if
the matter is handled in this way, it will not set a precedent.
Mrs. Humphris wondered if the Board members can agree to forget about
this plan and focus on the Schuyler Enterprises special use permit.
Mr. Bain suggested that consideration could be given to the concept of
recognizing natural resources throughout the County during the Comprehensive
Plan review. Mr. Cilimberg concurred that this could easily be done. He said
that during the Comprehensive Plan review, the staff can inform the Board
members as to how industrial standards are applied. There use to be a window
of opportunity to do some unique industrial development outside a growth area,
but it was removed in 1989. Mr. Bowerman suggested that maybe there are
opportunities which this Board should consider.
Mr. Cilimberg then asked how the Supervisors want to proceed with this
matter. Mr. Bain said it would be great if the utilities could be expanded in
the Schuyler area, although he understands that it would be costly. He said
utilities are there on the Nelson County side. He added that because of it
being an old town, there should be the ability to obtain a grant, but he
pointed out he is not implying Albemarle County should apply for it. Even if
it is just to upgrade the residential units on Albemarle County's side, it
would be good if these lines could be expanded and a grant could be obtained
to pay for a significant amount of the upgrading. It would benefit Nelson
County, as well as the residents who live there in Albemarle County.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that such grants are very competitive, but the
matter can be considered as a possibility. Mr. Bain said he understands this;
however, the income level in that community, etc., may very well qualify for
some federal and state funds. He added that application could be made for the
grants in conjunction with Nelson County or the TJPDC. The grant could be
used to upgrade the facilities for the people living in the area.
Mr. Bowerman noted that neither Mr. Perkins nor Mr. Marshall were
present to represent the other side of the issue.
Mr. Martin stated that he is not in favor of this plan, and he is not
sure that Mr. Perkins or Mr. Marshall would support it. When the special use
permit comes back to this Board, with the possibility of allowing some
additional trucks for Schuyler Enterprises, that will be a whole different
issue than what is before the Board today. He said the matter before the
Board today is frightening to him.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the majority of the conclusion on the part of
the Board is that the matter is too convoluted to follow any further. He said
the Board respects the amount of work that the staff has done, and it also
respects the difficult position in which the staff was placed, but it is clear
that the Planning Commission had a great deal of difficulty with the issue.
It is also clear that this Board is having trouble with the issue.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that Mr. Cilimberg contact Mr. Clark and do
whatever is necessary to proceed with the special use permit process. He
asked that the information be brought back to the Board on July 14, 1993.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Board wished for the staff to look at any
other approach to the Comprehensive Plan regarding this matter. Mr. Bowerman
answered that it looks as though the staff has already considered everything
that can be done. He said the plan that the staff brought to this Board seems
to be the best that can be done, and the Board is uncomfortable with it. He
thinks the matter is finished. He added that the Board will next be consider-
ing Mr. Clark's second special use permit request.
Agenda Item NO. 20.
BOARD.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Mr. Tucker said Mr. William Colony has resigned from the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Council effective immediately. There are
people already scheduled for interviews for the other vacancy later in the
year, so this will not be advertised.
Mr. Tucker noted that JAUNT has requested the Board to appoint a fourth
member. Mr. Bowerman remarked that this request came about because the JAUNT
ridership has changed so that the bylaws now allow for 12 members, thus it has
been suggested that the County increase its membership from three to four.
Mr. Tucker noted that the JAUNT Board would like to have this appointment by
October 1, 1993. Mr. Bowerman asked that a letter be written to JAUNT stating
what the Board intends to do and that it hopes the process will be finished by
October 11, 1993.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
000241
Mr. Martin said he would not be present for the July 21, 1993 Board
meeting. Mr. Bowerman then wondered if Mr. Marshall would be present for this
meeting. Mr. Tucker said he thought Mr. Marshall would be present. He noted
that Mrs. Humphris also will not be present. Mr. Bowerman commented that if
Mr. Marshall is not present, the meeting will have to be canceled since there
would not be a quorum.
Mr. Bain said as the Comprehensive Plan review begins, he would like to
look at things from a planning perspective from the entire community, includ-
ing the City of Charlottesville and University of Virginia. He would like for
staff to get in touch with the people who won the Thomas Jefferson Architec-
tural Award in the spring of this year. Although he does not recall their
names, they have a national reputation. (Someone said their last name was
Douany.) He asked staff to see if they will act as consultants on Comprehen-
sive Plan amendments to bring forth new ideas for handling growth.
(NOTE: Mr. Martin left at 4:55 p.m. There was no longer a quorum
present at this time.)
Mr. Bain wants to involve both the City and the University in the next
Comprehensive Plan amendments. The Planning and Coordination Council Techni-
cal Committee (PACC-TECH) has already discussed this idea.
Mr. Tucker stated that a similar thing is already being discussed and
will probably come as a recommendation from the PACC Board.
Mr. Ciiimberg said he completed a memorandum yesterday to be reviewed by
the Planning Commission, and this Board will be seeing it soon. The discus-
sion evolved out of the idea that under the agreement between the City, County
and University, planning is supposed to be done together. He stated that it
expanded to the idea that the community, as a whole, needs to look at itself
and vision for itself, and that plans should not just pertain to Albemarle
County or the City of Charlottesville or the University of Virginia. He added
that the City is interested in this and is a big proponent of visioning for
some of its particular interests. He said they were also interested in the
idea of having some community effort in that regard.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the University officials are interested in the
same thing. Mr. Cilimberg concurred. He went on to say that a scientific
type of random survey would give good community participation and an idea of
the feelings of the County and the community. He pointed out that there is an
organization at the University of Virginia which will do such a survey,
although there is a charge. He said this organization has already done some
work in the City, and it is possible for them to do a community survey with
the County. He noted that a survey is already planned for the fall in the
City, and questions could be incorporated in the survey which would cover both
the City and the County, as well as the University interests. He added that
this survey could be completed by October, and it could be followed by Mr.
Bain's suggestion of a forum or forums to take the opportunity to get ideas
from the community and give people the opportunity to think about ideas. This
would be the first step in the County's individual Comprehensive Plan review.
He commented that the process could then move from that first step into each
plan review for the City, County and University, probably after November. He
said this would change the schedule slightly, but it would get the process
started with the idea of community participation and visioning, as well as
goals and objectives.
Mrs. Humphris asked what would be surveyed with this questionnaire. Mr.
Cilimberg said the County's survey could actually focus on County issues in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that there had been a form of a
survey during the last Comprehensive Plan review, although the final decision
was to not do it. A person representing the organization to which he re-
ferred, at the University, has looked at the County's questions and format and
already suggested things to be changed to make it work better. He explained
that the County's survey would be random sampling, probably by telephone,
because it is usually the best way to do this type of surveying.
Mrs. Humphris stated that it concerns her because a survey such as this
needs to presuppose some knowledge on the part of the person being surveyed.
She said that it is found with a lot of these issues very often this is not
true. She then asked Mr. Cilimberg if he knows who developed the survey that
the Crozet community is using. Mr. Cilimberg did not know, but would find
out.
Mrs. Humphris said in a quick overview, it seemed to her that the Crozet
survey was well done. The questions on the survey were pertinent and people
could answer them without a huge amount of knowledge. She commented that she
wants to make sure such a survey has a chance to be meaningful.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the man with whom he spoke at the Universi-
ty of Virginia raised the same observation that such a survey needs to go back
to the basics, so people can reasonably respond with their knowledge base. He
said this gentleman is experienced in doing these types of surveys. He stated
that the County staff knows the kind of answers that are desired, in terms of
coverage area, but thought needs to be given to the questions.
July 7, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
000242
Mr. Bain remarked that he is unsure if the survey should be done before
the forums. He said the couple to which he referred has worked with such
things internationally, such as creating new towns and communities, etc. It
might be important to get some of their ideas before the survey is done. He
added, however, that he does not feel strongly about first holding the forums.
Mrs. Humphris concurred that Mr. Bain is probably right in thinking that
having the forums first might be better. She said this couple is so stimulat-
ing and they make people think. She remarked that their very names may
attract people to come and pay attention, and it could be a big draw to get
people involved in the process.
Mr. Bowerman asked the staff to make contact with this couple to see
about their availability.
Mr. Tucker said this can be done, but he said this plan will also end up
in the PACC-Tech's review, as well, based on the fact that it is PACC's
recommendation to consider such a plan and to see if the City and University
officials are also interested.
Mr. Bain commented that if the City and University officials are not
interested, he would still like to pursue the idea. He noted that the County
is a community. He emphasized, however, that he thinks the City and Universi-
ty officials will want to take part in this process.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that if the organization at the University of
Virginia is used for the survey, then the process will need to be completed by
October, because in October general election surveying will be done statewide.
He added that if the County cannot get prepared to do the survey by September,
it will have to be done after October.
Mr. Bain stated that if a survey has to be scheduled quickly before the
forums can be held, it does not mean that another survey cannot be done
depending'on other information which might come out of the forums. He went on
to say that if this couple is not available, there might be somebody at the
University who could handle the forums. He emphasized, however, that he would
rather see the couple participate in this process, if possible.
Next, Mr. Bowerman remarked that he does not want any more minutes sent
to him, except the ones that he is supposed to read. He barely has time to
read the ones for which he is responsible. He pointed out, however, that Mrs.
Humphris wants to receive all of the minutes, because she maintains them. Mr.
Bain said he also only wanted to receive the minutes that are assigned to him
to read. Mr. Bowerman said he also does not want to receive minutes from the
Albemarle County Service Authority or the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
The staff can keep the Board apprised of anything that it needs to know.
Mrs. Humphris asked that staff obtain a copy of a new catalogue of state
mandates which is available from the General Assembly.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned a letter distributed at the Board meeting from a
Mrs. Cauline Cowen about her mailing address. She asked that staff write a
letter, diplomatically, to Mrs. Cowen explaining that she is and has always
been a HCR route until some change is made by the Post Office.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. There being no further business the Board
could conduct in the absence of a quorum, the meeting was adjourned at 5:08
P.M.