Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1993-02-03
M.B. 43, Pg. 145 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February ~3, 1993, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Charles S. Martin, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. and Walter F. Perkins° ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the Chairman, M. 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. Rudolph A. Beverly and Ms. Sharleen J. Martenas, Co-Coordinators, Forum for Hope and Healing, presented a statement expressing outrage at a racial incident that took place in the community on January 22, 1993. Six students from the University of Mississippi have been charged with the assault and battery of a University of Virginia student. The Forum wants to make it clear to all the citizens of the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, as well as the communities of Mississippi and the nation, that it will not tolerate racially motivated behavior. The Forum recognizes that there are numerous racially motivated incidents in the community, and urges the Board to join everyone in working to rid the communities of racial tension and distrust. Mr. Beverly said he hopes the Board will endorse the Forum's position. The Forum was founded in the summer of 1992 to address racism in the community. Ms. Martenas said the Forum took this issue to City Council and they endorsed a version of the Forum's statement. The Forum is also collecting signatures endorsing a statement attesting to the concern of the community which will be sent to the appropriate persons at the University of Missi- ssippi. The University of Virginia is sponsoring a community meeting/rally/ march this Fridays at 7:00 p.m., on the grassy area, across from the Corner. Mr. Bain said he would like to discuss this issue later in the meeting. He suggested that staff draft appropriate language for a resolution for the Board to consider. Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman agreed. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.7 on the Consent Agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain° NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to accept Items 5.8 through 5.28 on the Consent Agenda for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain° NAYS: None° Item 5.1. Resolution supporting Virginia Association of Counties' (VACo) position requesting Congressional representatives to delete the finan- cial assurance requirement for public and waste management facilities. The following staff report, received January 22, 1993, had been fur- nished to the Board: "BACKGROUND: Under current federal regulations from the Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA), privately owned landfills are required to demonstrate financial assurance for the costs of closure, post-closure and corrective action. These regulations will extend to public owned landfills on April 9, 1994. This would affect the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority but not the Keene Landfill. VACo has adopted the attached (on file) resolution requesting Congress to direct the EPA to remove local governments from the financial assurance requirements. Financial assurance from local governments will impose extreme financial burden on the M.B. 43, Pg. 146 February 3~ 1993 (Regular Day Meetxng) (Page 2) taxpayers with little benefit. The purpose of such assurance is to ensure that needed closure, post-closure and corrective action is funded. As this occurs well after closure and the costs are significant, there is concern that the viability of continued funding by private owners is at risk. Such risks are not as significant with public ownership. DISCUSSION: The attached (on file) VACo memorandum provides additional background and requests localities adopt a resolution requesting our Congressional representatives to delete the finan- cial assurance requirement for public and waste management facili- ties. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution such as the draft attached." By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle supports the public ownership of solid waste management facilities through a solid waste authority; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 1991, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency promulgated new regulations pursuant to Subtitle D of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act which establish stringent standards for the location, design and opera- tion of solid waste landfills; and WHEREASv most of the Federal Subtitle D regulations, which were developed over a period of seven years, will become effective on October 9, 1993; and WHEREAS, these regulations will remove the exemption which now applies to local governments in being required to demonstrate financial assurance; and WHEREAS, financial assurance requirements will require local governments to demonstrate the ability to meet the financial costs of closure, thirty-year post-closure monitoring, and correc- tive action; and WHEREAS, financial assurance requirements are expected to impose upon local governments extreme and unnecessary financial burdens; and WHEREAS, local governments will require additional time to develop strategies for meeting financial assurance requirements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle urges Congress to direct the United States Environmental Protection Agency to restore the exemption to local governments in demonstrating financial assurance; AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk is hereby directed to forward copies of this resolution to the Honorable John Warner, the Honorable Charles Robb, the Honorable L. F. Payne and the Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. Item 5.2. Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) regarding central groundwater systems. The ACSA Board recommends that requests for central groundwater systems be carefully evaluated and, if approved, submitted to the ACSA for review and comments and, if requested by ACSA~ required to be designated and constructed in accordance with ACSA specifications. Mr. St. John said he would discuss with staff whether this policy requires an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution: POLICY RESOLUTION WHEREAS, many citizens of Albemarle County have been inconve- nienced by the failure of central groundwater systems; and WHEREAS, central groundwater systems have not been considered to be a reliable, permanent source of water for sizeable populations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, requests that central groundwater systems be carefully evaluated; M.B. 43, Pg. 147 February 3, 1993 (Regular D~ M~t~i~i ~ ~ ~iiiii~ i (Page 3) FURTHER, if these systems are approved, they be submitted to the Albemarle County Service Authority for review and comment; AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that if requested by the Albemarle County Service Authority, these systems be designed and constructed in accor- dance with their specifications. Item 5.3. Appointment of Chairperson to the Rivanna Solid Waste Advisory Committee, By the above reCorded vote, the Board recommended the appointment of Ms. Lorraine Haney as the Chairperson of the Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens Advisory committee, with said term to expire on May 1, 1994. Item 5.4. Approval of lease agreement with the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) for rental space for VPI Extension relocation. The following staff report, received January 28, 1993, had been furnished to the Board: "BACKGROUND: At the January 6, 1993 meeting, Mr. Perkins had asked staff to review County owned space which may be available for use by VPI Extension prior to entering into a lease agreement to provide them space in other facilities. Staff is presently working on an agreement with the School system to move the Media Center out of the County Office Building into a school facility to create additional office space to meet the needs addressed in our Long Range Space Needs Study. The Media Center is currently not paying rent and will be moved into facilities not requiring rent so as not to have a financial impact on our operations. In reviewing other County owned property, there does not appear to be 3100 to 3500 square feet of space available in a location that would meet the needs of VPI Extension. The only other facility owned by the County is the Old Crozet Elementary School which is presently under contract for lease to Crossroads-Waldorf School. They are leasing the entire building which would have a substan- tial financial impact to the County should we lose that income and have to renovate that building for use by Extension. The location of that property also is not conducive to Extension's goal of being located in a centralized location so as to serve the needs of all Albemarle County residents. As indicated in a January 6 memo, staff has been negotiating with private entities to provide the space needed by VPI Extension. At this time, we have a proposal from ACSA to lease space to the Extension Office at a cost of $10.50 per square foot which is certainly well within market rates for office space. This building is to be located on South Pantops Drive, will be built to Extension's specifications, and will provide them with the necessary parking, storage and meeting space needed for their operations. Rental at $10.50 per square foot will be $32,550 annually which, because the space will not be available until December~ 1993, will result in a $16,275 request in the 1993/94 Extension operating budget. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests Board approval to execute a lease agreement with ACSA for rental space for VPI Extension subject to review of the document by the County Attorney's office." By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute a lease agreement with the Albemarle County Service Authority for rental space for VPI Extension, subject to review of the document by the County Attorney's office. Item 5.5. Authorize Chairman to sign well dedication document for the Ivy Creek Natural Area° The following staff report, received January 28, 1993, had been fur- nished to the Board: "BACKGROUND: In the process of drilling a new well at the Ivy Creek Natural Area to replace an old well that had gone dry, the Health Department has advised that, because this is a public water supply, the owners of the property are required to record a dedication document for the well lot for the purpose of protecting the water supply from contamination. The well lot is 100' x 100' as shown on the attached (on file) plat with the documents having been previously approved by the Health Department and the attor- neys from both the City and the County. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the attached (on file) document and that it be forwarded to the City of Charlottesville for a similar approval." M.B. 43, Pg.148 February 3, 1993 (Regular (Page 4) By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the chairman to execute the following well dedicati°n document for the Ivy Creek Natural WELL DEDICATION THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, AND THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, do dedicate a 100' x 100' portion of that tract or parcel of real estate situated, lying and being in Albemarle County, Virginia, more particularly described by deed and plat of survey of record in Deed Book 715, Page 644, Plat 554, Page 357, of the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, and being the identical real estate which said CITY and COUNTY acquired by grant with General Warranty of Title and Modern English covenants from The Nature Conservancy. Said dedication being to establish the aforesaid area, described on the attached plat plan as well lot, for water supply use only and the said CITY and COUNTY agree that only appurtenances pertinent to the water supply system will be constructed in said area dedicated and that said well lot will not be used for human habitation or other sources of contamination. The full interest and control of the aforesaid area dedicated shall remain with the CITY and COUNTY and this instrument is solely for the purpose of assuring the Department of Health of the Commonwealth of Virginia as to the matters hereinabove set forth so long as said parcel is used for a water supply system; and this dedication shall be null and void and of no further effect should the well on the said premises be abandoned and the use thereof for a water supply system cease. WITNESS the following signatures. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA BY: Thomas J. Vandever Mayor COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY: David P. Bowerman Chairman Item 5.6. Towers for Cellular Phones. It was noted that the staff needed additional time to draft language that would allow a simpler form of approval, other than through the special use permit process, and give certain guidelines for towers located in an area established for towers. Staff requested deferral to March 3, 1993. By the above recorded vote, the Board deferred this items until March 3, 1993. Item 5.7. Authorize Chairman to sign Service Agreement for the Earlys- ville Volunteer Fire Company to purchase new firefighting vehicles. The following staff report, received January 29, 1993, had been fur- nished to the Board: "BACKGROUND: Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company has requested an advance of $253,000 from the Advanced Allocation Fire Fund to purchase two fire engines. DISCUSSION: This request has been reviewed and approved by the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue (JCFRA) Finance Committee. The agreement haS also been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to sign the attached Service Agreement approving the disbursement of funds to Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company. By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the Chairman to sign the following Service Agreement approving disbursement of funds to Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company: THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made for purposes of identification, this 3rd day of February, 1993, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the EARLYSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY ("Earlysville"); W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the County has previously entered into service agreements with Earlysville, dated February 22, 1983, May 23, 1984, and May 7, 1987, providing for the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from the County's annual grant to M.B. 43, Pg. 149 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day'Meeting) (Page 5) Earlysville, as set forth in said agreements, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C; and WHEREAS, as a result of said agreements, the outstanding indebtedness now totals $71,600; and WHEREAS, Earlysville now desires to receive from the County Two Hundred Fifty-three Thousand Dollars ($253,000.00) to be used for the purchase of firefighting vehicles; and WHEREAS, Earlysville now desires to enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholding of paymenss by the County; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in considerasion of the operation by Earlysville of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire and the purchase of firefighting vehicles during the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to Earlysville Two Hundred Fifty- three Thousand Dollars ($253,000.00), which payment shall be made when needed from the County's fire fund. Thereafter, the sum of Twenty-nine Thousand Five Hundred and Nine dollars ($29,509.00) per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to Earlysville for a period of ten (10) years beginning July 1993 and extending through July 2002, with a balance of Twenty- nine Thousand Five Hundred Ten Dollars ($29,510.00) due in the eleventh year (July 2003). Thus, at the end of the eleventh year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of Three Hundred Twenty-four thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($324,600.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of prior service agreements with Earlysville, dated May 7, 1987, February 22, 1983, and May 23, 1984. If at any time during the term of this agreement, Earlysville is no longer in the business of providing fire fighting services or the firefighting vehicles are no longer used for firefighting purposes, Earlysville covenants that it will convey its interest in the fire-fighting vehicles, or the fire station and the proper- ty upon which it sits, as the case may be, to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or i~s assigns will use the property for fire-fighting purposes. All covenants set forth in the agreements dated May 7, 1987, February 22, 1983, and May 23, 1984 remain in full force and effect. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By David P. Bowerman Chairman, Board of Supervisors EARLYSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY By John T. Sweeney President, E.V.F.D. Item 5.8. Letter dated January 21, 1993, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, re: Route 708, request for guardrailo The following letter was received for the record: "At their January 12, 1993, meeting the Board requested that the Department consider installing guardrai! along Rou~e 708 on the curve just west of its intersection with 631. I have reviewed this location and this is my report to the Board of Supervisors. I have determined that sufficient shoulder exists to install guardrail at this location. The length which qualifies for guardrail due to height of fill is about 1000 feet long. I estimate it will cost approximately $11,300 to install guardrail at this location. While I understand there have been a number of unreported acci- dents in this area, official records do no5 support this location being particularly accident prone. For this reason, I do not believe special safety funds are available for the installation of guardrail at this location. Certainly secondary improvement funds allocated for use in Albemarle County could be used for this purpose. If the Board feels this potential problem is of such a magnitude that secondary improvement funds should be used, I will include an allocation in the 1993-94 budget. I request that this information be relayed to the Board of Supervisors and that they advise me concerning their desire prior to the adoption of a secondary improvement budget for next year." Item 5.9. Letter dated January 20, 1993, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Department of Transportation, addressed to Mr. David Kalergis, M.B. 43, Pg.150 Febru'ary 3, 1993 (Regular ~ay .Meeting) (page 6) re: proposed Charlottesville bypass; with attached copy of letter dated January 11, 1993, from Mr. David Kalergis, addressed to Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, received for information. Item 5.10. Letter dated January 15, 1993, from Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr., State Location and Design Engineer, Department of Transportation, providing notification of a Location and Design Public Hearing on March 11, 1993, to consider the proposed location and design of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) from Route 657 (Lambs Road) to Route 631 (Rio Road) in Albemarle County, received for information. Item 5.11. Summary of statements by Ms. Constance Kinchloe, Culpeper District Representative on the Commonwealth Transportation Board, to the North Charlottesville Business Council on January 26, 1993. The following letter was received for the record: "BACKGROUND: Ms. Kinchloe was the guest speaker at the North Charlottesville Business Council meeting on January 26, 1993 at which she provided information on three issues: (1) Study of Route #29 North between the entrance of the proposed by-pass to Warrenton, (2) Grade separated interchanges on 29N, and (3) By- pass planning. This information reflected the earliest dates VDoT staff could commence staff work assuminq the fundinq were avail- able for the various projects. Current road budgets do not support this planning schedule. Ms. Kinchloe prefaced her remarks that the Commonwealth Transportation Board and VDOT were committed to the agreement reached with the City, University and County. DISCUSSION: Ms. Kinchloe addressed the following timelines: Study of Rt. 29N to Warrenton: This is associated with Rt. 29 being identified in the Federal Highway System as one of many corridors of special interest. Federal funding was available to states to undertake studies of these corridors. Virginia obtained $1.5 million to begin the study of this section of Route 29. Grade Separated Interchanqes: Propose to advertise for a consul- tant in February, 1993 followed by a notice to proceed in June, 1993~ design public hearing in February, 1995; bid for detail design in May, 1995; contract to build in November, 1996. Esti- mated costs for the three interchanges at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive and Rio Road is $45 million. By-Pass: Propose a notice to proceed in July, 1993; design public hearing in May, 1996; advertise to build in October, 1997. Esti- mated cost is $110 million. Two issues that must be completed are additional studies for (1) the location and environmental impact statements for a north grounds connector, and (2) a location and Environmental Impact Study for an alternative access to Route 29N that would shift from the current access near Kegler's to a point north of the South Fork Rivanna River that would align with the Route 29 access to the Meadow Creek Parkway. One rationale for proceeding to a design/location public hearing phase is to establish the detailed footprint to allow VDoT to deal with additional hardship cases and to commence purchase of right- of-way. It was emphasized that these events are predicated on the availability of funding. RECOMMENDATION: None, provided for information." Mr. Bain expressed concern about the speed with which this project is moving and the expenditure of funds. He sees little reference to anything about Meadow Creek Parkway and he senses that VDoT is doing everything to avoid building Meadow Creek. Mr. Martin said the sense he received from Ms. Kinchloe is that the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) is a driving force behind VDoT's actions. Also this Board's attempt ~o speed up the process by which people's homes are paid for seem to have some impact on VDoT's decision to move forward on the actual boundary lines. Ms. Kinchloe said at the opening of her statements that this was the best case scenario. Ms. Humphris said she was not at the meeting, but she did listen to a tape of the meeting. She found the comments very disturbing. She took extensive notes of the tape. She was disturbed because it seemed to bear out what this Board has been fearing for the last several years which is that the CTB and VDoT are doing everything in their power to avoid building the grade separated interchanges which are absolutely essential to this area locally to move traffic on Route 29 North. There was minimal mention of Meadow Creek in the discussion at the meeting. There was a very disturbing element at that meeting of encouragement to people to try to subvert the building of the grade separated interchanges and move directly to the bypass. There was a M.B. 43, Pg.151 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) , . (Page 7) disturbing element of lack of information on the part of those people who attended the me~ti~g-and ~Sk~dq~:stiogs. Those people seemed to believe that the construction of the bypass was a g~ven. This Board knows that in every resolution that has been adopted by the CTB, the County, the City and the University, time after time, the sequence has been ending with the construc- tion of a bypass if traffic conditions warran~ it and, if, and when, funds are available. Mrs. Humphris said she was disturbed by the reluctance of Ms. Kinchloe to clearly state the facts in response to questions asked. The questions that came in were how can we move directly to the bypass and not build the interchanges; her response was very weak given the fact that the interchanges are imperative. Mrs. Humphris said she was appreciative of Mr. Bowerman's comments to try to straighten things out and if her interpretation of the voice on the tape was correct, she believes that Mr. Cole Hendrix, City Manager, spoke firmly and forcefully on behalf of the City, County and University by saying that this three-party agreement which has been in place for approximately two years had been hammered out over a period of three years, had been very difficult to come by and is the implementation of a plan that has been in place for 15 years, and now there are people who are setting out to undo this plan. Those grade separated interchanges are needed for Charlottesville, Albemarle and this part of Virginia. If anything happens to cause this area not to get those interchanges and not to get the Meadow Creek Parkway, in the year 2010, there will be 2500 cars or less a day sailing through here and 60,000 cars sitting in grid lock on Route 29 North. If VDoT builds the bypass before building the grade separated interchanges, those interchanges will never get built which the County has been fearful of all along. Mrs. Humphris reminded the Board of what happened in October, 1986. There was a public hearing at Albemarle High School on the grade separated interchange at Rio Road. Her notes show that about 26 people spoke in opposition to that interchange; the public was overwhelmingly in favor of the interchange, but saw no need to get up and say they were in favor because they assumed it was obvious. From that year to this VDoT has said there was overwhelming opposition to that interchange. There are 3000 to 4000 people who oppose this bypass; a bypass shown no~ to help £n any significant way this locality, but only to appease Culpeper, Danville, etc. If this Board is to get what it needs for the people in this area, it had better watch exactly what is happening every step of the way and she thinks Ms. Kinchloe's speech was a warning and should be taken as such. Mr. Martin said he was at the meeting and he did not take the comments in the same context as Mrs. Humphris. His impression was that clearly the majority of the people did not want the interchanges and in his opinion Ms. Kinchloe does not want the interchanges, but she did keep referring to the three-party agreement. Ms. Kinchloe agreed with the majority of the people present but had to defend the agreement. Mr. Bowerman said Ms. Kinchloe called him the day before the meeting and told him what she was going to say in terms of the change in schedule. He told her in that conversation that it is important that the Highway Department knows why those grade separated interchanges are necessary rather than just because the County wants them. The whole issue of the interchanges was driven by traffic counts, traffic studies and increased traffic flow along Route 29 with a bypass. It was a level of service "F" at those intersections with a bypass, and with Meadow Creek Parkway in the year 2010, and the study is what drove the need for those interchanges. Ms. Kinchloe understood his concern. He agrees that she repeatedly referred to the agreement. Item 5.12. Letter dated January 11, 1993, from Mr. Richard W. Kienle, Norfolk Southern Corporation, addressed to Mr. David ?. Bowerman, Chairman, transmitting copy of application of Norfolk Southern Railway Company filed with the State Corporation Commission for authority to close the Charlottes- ville, Virginia, agency and place Charlottesville under the jurisdiction of the agency at Manassas, Virginia, received for information. Any person who desires to file written comments concerning the application or request a formal hearing on a substantive objection must do so on or before February 22~ 1993o Item 5.13. Memorandum dated January 6, 1993, from Dr. Susan L. McLeod, Director, Thomas Jefferson Health District, to Delegates Mitchell Van Yahres, Peter T. Way, V. Earl Dickinson and Watkins M. Abbitt; and Senators Edgar Robb and R. Edward Houck, re: Local Health Department State Budget Concerns, received for information. Mro Bain suggested that a l~tter be drafted for the Chairman's signature requesting the State legislators support of Dr. McLeod's budget concerns as they relate to Albemarle County. Board members agreed. Item 5.14. Memorandum dated January 21, 1993, from Mr. Jim Klein, Project Director, Shenandoah National Park Related Lands Study, re: notice of open houses to be held in Rockingham and Albemarle Counties to review the M.B. 43, Pg. 152 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) final draft inventory maps prepared for the Related Lands Study, received for information. ~ -~"~ '- '~'-~ Item 5.15. Letter dated January 5, 1993, 5o Mr. Alfred C. Shackelford, III, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1; Tax Map 48, Parcel 19, received for information. Item 5.16. Status Report - Scottsville Boundary Line Adjustment. The following staff report, received January 29, 1993, was furnished to the Board: "BACKGROUND: The County and Town of Scottsville have formed a transition team to begin the process of identifying all the issues and actions necessary to implement the boundary line change. The following is a summary of these planning efforss. Effective Date - For reasons cited below the planning efforts are working toward completing all actions to support a January 1, 1994 effective date. Boundary Survey - A selection committee of County staff and Town representatives have completed their interviews. We expect a contractor (with a binding fee) will be selected by February 5. Award of a contract will be dependent on the Town Council's and Board's appropriation of funding° A proposal for the Board's consideration will be scheduled for the February 10 or 17 meeting. The contract will be administered by the County (Director of Engineering) and will take 60 to 90 days to complete. Joint Aqreement - The County Attorney is preparing a joint agree- ment for ultimate filing with the Court. Ordinances - The transition team's objective is to have all necessary changes to Town ordinances in place prior to the effec- tive date of the boundary line change. The Town will be prepared to assume all administrative responsibilities of the new area at that time. This will avoid any overlap of dual ordinances and the need for County staff to function as administrative staff to the Town than if an earlier effective date preceded updating of Town ordinances. The Town is investigating the use of services from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in this updating effort. Specific areas identified to date are the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance (text and map), SubdivisLon Ordinance, Runoff Control Ordinance, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, Road Naming and Addressing Ordinance, Inoperative Vehicles and Illegal Dumping Ordinances. Taxes - The County will continue to collec5 real and personal property taxes as the Town will discontinue these. Utility taxes for the new area will transfer at the effective date. Vehicle decals will shift to the Town January 1, 1994. Business license renewal dates are different and still under review. (May 1 for the County and August 1 for the Town). Sales taxes are determined by school census. Buildinq and Fire Prevention Inspection Services - The Town has requested the County to provide these services to the Town as soon as feasible. County staff is developing a proposal to meet this request. Other Issues - The following are additional issues requiring transition planning: Road name sign maintenance, street lights and historical files. RECOMMENDATION: None, provided as an overview of the transition planning effort." Item 5.17. Quarterly report of activities of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District during the months of October, November and December 1992, was received for information. Item 5.18. Semi-Annual sulnmary of activities of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council, dated January 22, 1993. The following report was received from Mr. Robert J. Walters, Jr.: "I was appointed to the Advisory Council in June 1990. Since that time, I try to make brief semi-annual summaries of activities in an effort to keep the Board of Supervisors Lnformed of issues. The Advisory Council is mandated by the Older Americans Act. It consists of individuals who are active as advocates for the M.B. 43, Pg. 153 February 3, 1993 (Regular D'ay~Meeting) (Page 9) elderly in various community organizations. The Council meets the third Tuesday of each month, usually in the County Office Build- ing. We try to conduct public forums a~ least once a year at a meal site located in each of the six localities which make up JABA. Additionally, most members act as individual advisors to JABA staff in various capacities. Three major issues in process since June 1992 include: 1. Joint JABA Board, Advisory Councils, Trustees, and Staff Retreat. A retreat was held November 23 from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm at the Kappa Sigma Auditorium on 250 West. The retreat objectives were: * To understand JABA's funding needs and staff's percep- tion of their order of priority, and * To begin to examine the feasibility of a capital campaign for a consolidated facility for all JABA programs and our Thomas Jefferson Adult Healthcare Center. The five year lease will expire soon. 2. Formation of a Transportation Committee. Access to suitable transportation is perceived to be a major problem for the elderly and handicapped. The committee will study the: * Change in demographics, * What happens as people age, * Need to plan for future, and * Improving seniors access to public ~ransportation. 3. The Council finished its series of public hearings with our visit to the Carysbrook Senior center in Fluvanna. The hearings allow us to personally visit with participants of JABA's services and discuss issues. JABA £s committed to these visits and senior staff members participate. We have all received a new awareness of the problems the elderly and handicapped face with poverty, health, accessibility and lack of transportation. Enclosed (on file) are copies of the Statements of Needs for the Jefferson Area Board for Aging and the Thomas Jefferson Adult Healthcare Center. These Statements provide a vision of where JABA is headed and how it will get there. Please contact me if you would like additional information about the goals and activities of JABA." Item 5o19. Copy of the Land Use Chart and Development Code Index as prepared by the Department of Zoning, was received for information. Item 5.20. Financial Management Report for December, 1992, received for information. It was noted that the Fund Balance Report has been added to the monthly report since the Independent Auditor's Report for the 1991/92 fiscal year has been completed and final balances are available. The report indicates that the School Fund has a deficit of $15,858. Adjustments are in process which will eliminate the deficit. Additionally, the School Fund budget for December, 1992 is slightly less than November, 1992. This is due to the appropriation transfer for personnel currently classified as Informa- tion Services-Local Government, which was formerly classified as Education. Item 5.21. Letter dated January 15, 1993, from Mr. Hugh C. Miller, Director, Department of Historic Resources, to Mr. M. Joseph Conte, Michie Tavern, re: Request from Michie Tavern, Albemarle County, (DHR File No. 02- 93) to be included on the Virginia Landmarks Register and also to be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, received as information. The State Review Board will meet concerning this request on February 16, 1993. Item 5.22. 1992 Fourth Quarter Building Report prepared by the Depart- ment of Planning and Community Development, was received as information. Item 5.23. 1992 Year End Building Report prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for information. Item 5.24. Copies of Planning Co~nission minuses for December 22, 1992, and January 5, 1993, received as information. M.B. 43, Pg. 154 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day :M~ting) · (Page 10) Item 5.25. Copies of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for October 22, November 19 and December 17, 1992, received as information. Item 5.26. Copy of minutes of the Blue Ridge Committee for Shenandoah National Park Relations for January 7, 1993, received for information. Item 5.27. Letter dated January 22, 1993, from Mr. H. Allen Glover, Jr., Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, re: application of Appalachian Power Company for a general increase in rates filed with the State Corporation Commission, received for information. A hearing before the Hearing Examiner is scheduled for May 18, 1993, in the Commission's Second Floor Courtroom in the Tyler Building, Richmond, Virginia. Item 5.28. Memorandum dated January 29, 1993, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Recycling Data - Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. Attached to the memo was a sheet of recycling statistics for the Charlottesville/Albemarle area, reflecting a 23.6 percent recycling rate for the area. The Environmental Protection Agency and State mandates require a recycling rate of 20 percent by the end of 1993 and a rate of 25 percent by 1995. It appears that the County will easily exceed the 1995 mandate. Also attached is a sheet for the results of a one-week survey of the McIntire Recycling Center. Mr. Tucker believes educational efforts have had a positive affect on this data, particularly from business participation and reporting. Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: February 12, February 19 and March ll(A), 1992o Mr. Martin had read the minutes of February 12, 1992, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Designation of Roads for the National Highway System. Mro Tucker said staff requests the Board defer action on this item until February 17, 1993 to allow the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) an opportunity to review this matter. This item is scheduled for review by the MPO tomorrow° MoLion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer action on designation of roads for the National Highway System until February 17, 1993 to allow the Metropolitan Planning Organization an opportunity to review this matter. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Bowerman said there have been some changes in the Six Year Secondary Road Plan. He knows that the advertisement date for bids for Meadow Creek Parkway has been moved up to 1997 from 1999. He noticed that the section of Rio Road that will be affected by the Berkmar Drive interchange and improve- ments to Route 29 have be moved backwards. He has some serious reservations about that being pushed back. With Greenbrier Drive and that section of Rio Road not being done, he sees a significant problem if the County chooses to move ahead with the extension of Berkmar Drive through to the Sheraton Hotel. Mro Roosevelt said within the past week he has sent a copy of the County's revised financial plan to Mr. Cilimberg which is still in compliance with the Board's priority list. There is a meeting scheduled for Friday, February 6 to discuss this. He plans to discuss this issue with the Planning staff and send something to the Board for review at its March meeting. The basic thrust here is to advise the Board the affect moving Meadow Creek ahead two years will have on other projects in the plan. If the Board feels it needs to change its priority list, then he will discuss the options of when and how to make that change. He felt the Board would want some direction from the Planning staff. Mr. Bowerman said he wanted to highlight this issue as soon as he found out about it because he does see some problems in terms of priorities and funding. February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) M.B. 43, Pg. 155 Mr. Bain asked if Board members are interested in getting information on a possible bond referendum for roads and transportation issues to go on the Fall ballot. There are several road projects that are on the Board's priority list and cost a lot of money and funds are not available. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Bain how he proposes to educate the public, given past history. Mr. Bain said the Board would have to get out into the community and inform the people. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it would be appropriate for the Board to get more information and look at the whole issue. Mr. Perkins thinks the issue is how this money would be paid back. He also thinks the users should pay for the roads. Mrs. Humphris asked staff to include, along with the information, her analysis of NOvember 20, 1992 she presented to the Board about the long range status of paying for roads in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS). The consensus of the Board was that staff prepare a report on the mechanics of holding a bond issue, estimate of the size of the issue necessary to fund road projects that are pending and related information. Mr. Roosevelt said he supports Mr. Bain comments. He does not see a way to keep up with the need for road improvements. Mrs. Humphris said residents from Georgetown Road and the surrounding community met with Mr. Thomas Farley in Culpeper recently to discuss what could be done from an engineering standpoint to improve safety conditions on Seorgetown Road. Some of the residents also met with the Chief of Police, John Miller, to ask for his cooperation. Chief Miller's response was wonderful, and the residents expressed appreciation for what he did and indicated that they could already see some changes. Chief Miller set up a program of education and enforcement. (Mr. Marshall left the meeting at 9:54 a.m.) Chief Miller informed her that the program has been successful in the past in raising drivers' awareness to the safety problems that their breaking the speed limit cause. The residents are grateful for Chief Miller's concern and his action. Mr. Roosevelt provided the Board with a copy of his monthly project ~onstruction report. This report adds the 5th Street Extended project (Route ~31) to the list and shows an estimated completion date of December, 1993. ~here was no change in the status of the remaining three projects. Mr. Roosevelt said at the last meeting the Board requested a status report of the Greenbrier Drive/Commonwealth Drive intersection. The )epartment has reviewed the intersection for pavement markings. If weather :onditions allow, pavement markings will be done shortly. The Department will ~lso mark the portion of Commonwealth Drive that is currently not in the State ~econdary System. (Mr. Marshall returned to the meeting at 9:56 a.m.) The )epartment has collected the data for a traffic signal study at that location ~nd the information is being reviewed. He hopes to meet with the traffic ~ngineer soon will update the Board at its next meeting. Agenda Item No. 8. Resolution to request Industrial Access Funds from Department of Transportation to construct Industrial Access Road in Mill ~reek Industrial Park. Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report to the Board: "BACKGROUND: Section 33.1-221, of the Code of Virginia, as amended, provides for a program commonly known as the Industrial Access Fund Program. The purpose of this program is to provide state funding for construction of roads for adequate access to sites on which new or substantially expanding manufacturing, processing or other qualifying establishments will be built. Representatives of Mill Creek Land Trust have made a request to the County to consider a request for Industrial Access Funds to construct Stony Ridge Road in Mill Creek Industrial Park. This park is presently zoned for industry and being actively marketed by its owner for industrial uses. The attached request asks that the County apply to the state for a 'bonded project' whereby the Board will guarantee to the state that qualifying industries will locate along this new road within a three year period sufficient to cover state participation in the road. Mill Creek Land Trust will, in turn, provide surety to the County for this guarantee to be made such that no County funds will be at risk by the Board's action which is being requested. DISCUSSION: There are presently several companies which have been negotiating with Mill Creek Land Trust to locate on sites within Mill Creek Industrial Park. A requirement of many industries is M.B. 43, Pg. 156 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meet~ng~i Page 12) that their new facility be located on a state maintained road within an industrial park. The State's Industrial Access Fund Program allows for two methods whereby roads can be constructed in industrial parks using state funds. The first method is used when an industry is ready to sign a letter of commitment, come to a locality and the road is generally constructed to serve the property line of that industry. The second method involves speculative industrial sites where a commitment is made to locate enough qualified investment in the park within a three year period to meet the requirements of the state for the program. The latter is being requested at this time by the owners of Mill Creek Industrial Park in order to continue development of the industrial park at Mill Creek. If the Board participates in this bonded project, the state will put up the majority cost of the road and provide for a three year period to place qualifying industries on the remaining sites which abut the new road. In the event suffi- cient qualifying industries are not located within the time period, Mill Creek Land Trust understands that they will be responsible for the repayment of any difference to the Virginia Department of Transportation. Participation in this project will require that the County Engineering Department administer the contract for the construction of this road much as was done on the Walnut Creek Recreational Access project. One of the policy issues involved in this request is how to handle other requests from developers who may seek the same assistance from the state in building roads into other speculative industrial parks. It is clear that this process will enhance the inventory of existing parks and our ability to show sites that are "ready to go." The Industrial Access Program limits the amount of funding given to a locality in any one year to $300,000 in unmatched funds and another $150,000 to be matched dollar for dollar by either the County or a developer. Funding is established on a fiscal year basis. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that, if the Board is interested in proceeding with the request made by Mill Creek Land Trust, the attached resolution be adopted and the County Attorney be instruc- ted to obtain the necessary surety from Mill Creek Land Trust to guarantee that the Board will not involve local funds in this project should the Board's bond to the state be forfeited at the end of the three-year period. Staff further recommends that as a policy guideline, other requests be handled on a first-come, first-serve basis for available funding in any one fiscal year using the following criteria: (1) All property adjoining a proposed industrial access road shall be currently zoned for industrial uses that will qualify under the state's industrial access program. (2) All costs and potential obligations of the program shall be borne by any applicant such that no local funds are in any way involved in any such project." Mr. Marshall explained that the road will cost approximately $150,000 to build. The state will reimburse proportionately to the builder the amount of land used for industrial use around the road. The developer can use the money for three years before he has to repay it. Mr. Martin said he supports the request. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconfed by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following Resolution for Industrial Access Funds from the Department of Transportation to construct an Industrial Access Road in Mill Creek Industrial Park, and to instruct the County Attorney to obtain the necessary surety from Mill Creek Land Trust to guarantee that the Board will not involve local funds in this project should the Board's bond to the state be forfeited at the end of the three-year period. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. WHEREAS, Mill Creek Land Trust has acquired property located in the County of Albemarle for the purpose of industrial develop- ment; and WHEREAS, this property is expected to be the site of new private capital investment in land, building and manufacturing equipment which will provide substantial employment; and WHEREAS, the subject property has no access to a public street or highway and will require the construction of a new roadway to connect with the Southern Parkway; and M.B. 43, Pg. 157 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle hereby guarantees that the necessary right-of-way for this new roadway and utility reloca- tions or adjustments, if necessary, will be provided at no cost to the Virginia Department of Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors hereby requests that the Commonwealth Transpor- tation Board provide Industrial Access Road funding to provide an adequate road to this property; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors hereby agrees to provide a surety or bond acceptable to, and payable to, the Virginia Department of Transportation in the full amount of the cost of the road; this surety shall be exercised by the Department of Transportation in the event that sufficient qualifying capital investment does not occur on Tax Map 76M(1) Parcels 11, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 20 within three years of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's allocation of funds pursuant to this request. AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors hereby agrees that the new roadway, so constructed, will be added to, and become a part of, the State Secondary System. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adopt the ~ollowing policy governing requests for use of Industrial Access Funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia to construct an industrial access road. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. POLICY GOVERNING REQUESTS FOR USE OF INDUSTRIAL ACCESS FUNDS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA TO CONSTRUCT AN INDUSTRIAL ACCESS ROAD It shall be the policy of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, to handle developers' requests for use of industrial access funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia, to construct an Industrial Access Road, on a first-come, first-serve basis, or in the event that more than one request is received, concurrently, funds to be distributed proportionately, for available funding in any one fiscal year using the following criteria: (1) Ail property adjoining a proposed industrial access road shall be currently zoned for industrial uses that will qualify under the state's Industrial Access Program. (2) Ail costs and potential obligations of the program shall be borne by any applicant such that no local funds are in any way involved in any such project. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on request to include property of David W. Booth/Sandra Andrews and Sherwood Exum (Goco, Inc.) in service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority; water service only to TM79,P19 zoned C-l; water service only to existing structures to TM79,P18, zoned RA. Properties located at inters of Rt 22 & Rt 250E. Rivanna District. The Chairman said the applicant is requesting deferral until March 3, 1993. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer this request until March 3, 1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-92-06 and SP-92-33. Donnie and Catherine Dunn (deferred from January 13, 1993). Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following report: "The Board has asked for research into the information listed below as to length of time to complete the work, who can supply this information and the costs associated in collecting the information. The areas of additional information I have re- searched are: February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)· (Page 14) M.B. 43, Pg. 158 1. Detailed flow data on springs; Se The maximum amount of water usage (from all sources and for all purposes); 3. A hydrologic analysis of the area to determine: How spring water withdrawal affects area ground and surface water; and How a well used in conjunction with the bottling facility would affect area ground and surface water. The following statements are based on conversations with various individuals/agencies/firms capable of performing various hydrolog- ic studies. To obtain flow data on the springs, private consultants would be needed. The method of calculation would involve the construction of channeling devices and the use of measuring equipment t© measure the flow. (This equipment is available.) Tests of the flow would need to be conducted over a period of time. Tests would be most appropriately conducted now, in the spring and during the dry summer months. The cost of these tests according to conversations with a private firm could range from $2500 to $3000 per source (some reduction in per source cost can be antici- pated due to the testing of more than one source). A determination of maximum water usage and feasibility of the operation can be provided only by the applicant. The applicant has not provided that information to the County. Costs and time frame for the preparation of this data is unknown. The preparation of a hydrologic analysis is a complex procedure which requires the use of consultants outside of the County. The United Stated Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) is conducting a nine state regional aquifer study. The first report from this study will not be released until September. This study will provide insight into the geology of the area. However, the data will not be site specific. The U.S.G.S. may be able to conduct a site specific study. The cost of such a study is unknown. Most U.S.G.S. studies take from two to three years to complete. Contact with private consultants indicates that a hydrologic analysis would not be able to be completed until the Fall. A study would involve gauging the springs/streams, conducting a geologic study and well monitoring. The determination of impact of any spring withdrawal or well on the hydrology of the area can be determined through modeling (using flow data, geologic informa- tion, and weather information). In addition, to determine well impact it would be desirable to install a source well and other monitoring wells. The cost of a hydrologic analysis could range from $10,000 to $15,000. Costs for wells would be additional. I have also researched the feasibility of monitoring water usage and enforcement of conditions. The use of a meter is possible. The metering process would be similar to that used by public water systems. The enforcement of conditions would be the responsibility of the Zoning Department. The Zoning Administrator has stated that any conditions would be enforced as all current conditions are enforced. Conditions requiring periodic inspection are not favored as they require substantial manpower." ~The Chairman asked if there were any public comments. i Mr. Donnie Dunn, the applicant, said he has looked at the request for detailed flow data. The flow data can be done, but it will take four to six and will cost approximately $10,000. If the Board is concerned about maximum water usage, the usage can be limited. The minimum usage would be 30,000 gallons per month at the start of the business. It was his feeling that this request was deferred on November 11 to provide information on how spring water withdrawal affects area ground and surface water, and how the , used in conjunction with the bottling facility, would affect area ground and surface water. His responses to those questions apparently were not to the satisfaction of Board members. Actual studies are going to take some time. Mr. Dunn suggested that a local firm look at the site and provide an opinion rather than he going through the tremendous expense of paying for studies. He thinks, in reality, it will cost him $25,000 to $50,000 to conduct those studies. He also thinks this has moved beyond the scope of the original request. This was envisioned as a small business and somehow it has grown beyond that. His request was for a maximum 1500 square foot building and the ability to tap a few springs to divert water to a storage facility at the building. He thinks that a lot of the information being requested is February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) M.B. 43, Pg. 159 general. He is concerned about the time factor. He thinks it will take too much time to get this information. He also thinks the interest in this project will start diminishing rather quickly. Mr. Dunn said some of information from studies will be indications and in that case the Board might as well rely on what information is already available. He then asked the Board what if the sources he gets to supply the information is still not acceptable to certain Board members. Again, he thinks the Board has lost touch with his original proposal. He is concerned about what it will cost to retrieve this information. He thinks that before he provides this information, the Board should show a vote of confidence or firm guarantee of approval of the request. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Dunn comments meant he was not willing to expend these funds and then have the request denied. Mr. Dunn replied that was correct. This is a small business operation and he needs some guarantee that he will receive a favorable response from the Board. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Dunn if he has done a feasibility study. Mr. Dunn responded "no". It is his intent to gather all the necessary information after receiving Board approval. Mr. Curtis Wood, an adjacent land owner, said he does not think Mr. Dunn did any planning before he applied for this permit. The first thing he should have done was set up and measure how much water was running off those springs. He could get that information without spending $50,000. In addition, Mr. Dunn not know if the land will perk. He does not think the Board should use ,ers money to run these tests because that would be giving Mr. Dunn a gain. (Mr. Bain left the meeting at 10:20 a.m.) Ms. Marjorie Maupin Paul said she has read the information provided by ~taff. She has talked to people at the State Water Control Board and she this Board is not allowing a long enough time period to get flow data. low water flow in this area is from July through October. The Board would be able to get accurate readings on the flow of Buck Mountain Creek unless it was measured through November. It is important that the Board discuss the ~ow flow because that is what is important to the nearby property owners and property owners downstream. She agrees with Mr. Wood that her tax should not be used for the personal gain of another taxpayer. She strongly that if this study is to be done, it should be done by the )licant. Ms. Treva Cromwell felt this request should be deferred for the reasons by Ms. Paul and to give the applicant time to put in writing exactly much water he plans to use. Mr. Tucker commented that in terms of the low water flow, any determi- made during this year would only be data for this year so the Board not really have a good indication of the low flow unless there is a over a certain period of time. Mrs. Humphris said she is not willing to play "Russian Roulette" with s water supply. She cannot support this request without more informa- from the applicant about water usage and without information from a ~essional on flow data. (Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 10:24 a.m.) agrees that the County should not bear the expense of acquiring this She is willing to defer the request if the applicant is willing provide the information. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Dunn if he would prefer the Board to act on this tonight or defer it until he can gather the information being Mr. Dunn said he would like to keep the "door open" on the Again, he is not sure who will be acceptable to the Board for the information. He would prefer to use a local firm to provide the He also is not sure whether he will get any substantial infor- other than the generic opinions he has already received. Mrs. Humphris commented that the Board needs specific information about intent, what is the plan, how much water will be withdrawn, how much water be used in the operation, information about the septic, etc. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the applicant needs to Prepare a feasibility ~tudy, which if prepared would provide the answers to some of these questions. Dunn said he agrees, but he thinks the information should come from a firm )f his choice, not a firm of someone else's choosing. In addition, he wants a ~trong indication from the Board that if he proceeds with the study, this request will get approved. He does not want to spend time and money and have Lt denied. Mr. Bain said he is willing to defer the request. If the applicant to move forward with the request, he needs to provide the information. suggests that before Mr. Dunn spend a large sum of money on a consultant, submit the name of the consultant to the Board and the Board can indicate Lf that person is satisfactory. M.B. 43, Pg. 160 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) Mr. Cilimberg asked the Board to confirm which questions need answers. The Board agreed that it wanted answers to the three questions outlined in the staff report. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 10:20 a.m.) Mrs. Humphris said, in addition to the previous questions, the Board needs to know the septic requirements of the proposal. Board members agreed. Mrs. Humphris also asked for information on chemicals to be used and what affect they would have on the disposal system. Mr. Cilimberg thought that informa-tion would be a part of Mr. Dunn's operation plan. Motio~ was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin to defer ZMA-92-06 and SP-92-33 until the applicant can bring back information regard- ing the consultant that will be used to provide the following information: 1. Detailed flow data on springs; 2e The maximum amount of water usage (from all sources and for all purposes); A hydrologic analysis of the area to determine: me How spring water withdrawal affects area ground and surface water; and How a well used in conjunction with the bottling facility would affect area ground and surface water. 4. Septic requirements of the proposal. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 10:31 a.m.) Mr. Perkins said this information being requested is ambiguous. He asked what it means by "detailed flow data on springs". Mr. Cilimberg said staff sees that as monitoring the springs. Mr. Perkins asked how long the springs would be monitored. Mr. Cilimberg said the consultant would indicate what is a reason- · ble period of time. ~YES: ~AYS: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. (The Chairman called a recess at 10:33 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:44 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 11. Request to Support Petition of Citizens for ~lbemarle to designate the Moorman's River as an exceptional water. Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report: "Virqinia Water Control Board Requlations: Attached is a copy of VR 680-21-01.3.C which is a recently adopted section of the Virginia Water Control Board Surface Water Standards. The new standards for 'exceptional water' were approved in March, 1992, effective May 20, 1992, in order to comply with the federal anti- degradation regulation, which implements the Clean Water Act. There was an anti-degradation policy in the surface water stan- dards previously, which on its face appeared to comply with the federal regulations, but actually did not. Therefore, the new regulation was adopted last year. Comprehensive Plan and Zoninq: The location of the Moorman's River is entirely within the Rural Area. All adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas. Most of the North Fork and South Fork lie within the Shenandoah National Park. The Moorman's River is within the South Fork Rivanna River Reser- voir watershed area, which area is subject to the Runoff Control Ordinance. The Moorman's River, North Fork and South Fork are perennial streams, subject to the Water Resource Protection Area Ordinance. The North Fork and South Fork are designated natural trout streams by the Virginia Water Control Board. Moorman's River is designated both a County Scenic Stream and a Virginia Scenic River from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir to the Mechums River. In addition to the conservation easements refer- enced in the petition, there are two agricultural/forestal dis- tricts which serve to protect the Moorman's River watershed: Sugar Hollow (3,280 acres) and Moorman's River (10,922 acres). The Open Space Plan designates the Moorman's River and North Fork as Major Stream Valleys. Effect of Desiqnation: February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) M.B. 43, Pg. 161 1. The quality of waters shall be maintained and protected to prevent permanent or long-term degradation or impairment. (680-21-01.3.C.2.a.) 2. No new, additional, or increased discharge of sewage, indus- trial wastes or other pollution shall be allowed. (680-21- 01.3.C.2.b) 3. Non-permitted activities causing temporary sources of pollu- tion, which are under the jurisdiction of the Board, may be allowed even if degradation may be expected to temporarily occur as long as after a minimal period of time the waters are returned or restored to conditions equal to or better than those existing just prior to the temporary source of pollution. (680-21-01.3.C.2.c.) 4. No new or expanded mixing zones shall be allowed. (680-21- 01.2.C.6.a.) Conclusions: There are approximately 50 stream nominations pending across the state for this type of designation. Because the designation is new, there have been no designations to date. The major effect of designation is that no new discharges (which would require a VPDES permit) are allowed. Mr. Rob Bodkin at the Virginia Water Control Board Bridgewater Office stated that there are currently no VPDES permits on the Moorman's River. (See Engineering memo for clarification regarding sedimentation ponds and agricultural BMPs.) The designation would have no effect on water withdrawals. Ms. Jean Gregory at the Virginia Water Control Board Richmond office said that a reservoir without a water treatment plant is not a problem. (Discharges from a water treatment plant would not be permitted.) She qualified that construction of a new intake would be considered a source of temporary pollution. (Guidelines would limit the temporary pollution caused by construction to one year or less; preferably three months.) However, Mr. Gene Potter with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority stated that the Sugar Hollow intake is limited by the fixed safe yield of the watershed, so that a new intake is not likely. No water treatment plant is currently planned at Sugar Hollow. An 'exceptional water' designation is more limiting than a Public Water Supply (PWS) designation because discharges are still permitted within a PWS, provided certain standards are met. The designation would have a very positive effect on the County's efforts to protect the South Fork Rivanna Watershed in general, and the Moorman's River in particular." Ms. Deborah Wassenaar, representing the Citizens for Albemarle, said this is a new regulation that the State Water Control Board (SWCB) adopted to iprovide special protection for waters that are exceptional in terms of their environmental settings, aquatic communities and recreational opportunities. Citizens for Albemarle believes that the Moorman's River meets the criteria under this regulation. Citizens for Albemarle proposes, for designation, the North Fork and South Fork of the Moorman's River, and then the main stem of the Moorman's River to its confluence with the Mechums River. Citizens for Albemarle believes that the Moorman's River is exceptional- ly beautiful. The Moorman's River is a natural trout stream, and provides outstanding fishery and recreational opportunities for paddlers and swimmers. The main affect of the regulation is to prohibit new point source discharges or increases in existing point source discharges. There currently are no point source discharges and none are proposed. This particular regulation deals with water quality and what can be discharged into the RiVer. Ms. Wassenaar said the procedure is that the SWCB makes the ultimate decision after input from the localities and interested citizens. The current status is that the time for submitting nominations has been closed and the SWCB will be considering the nominations. If the SWCB believes that the petition has sufficient merit to meet its regulatory criteria of what constitutes an exceptional water, it will schedule public hearings on the proposal where all questions can be addressed. The SWCB would then make the decision of whether or not to designate the water. The current schedule is that the petitions will be submitted to the SWCB at its March or June meeting and the SWCB will decide whether to move forward to public hearings. Public hearings would be scheduled sometime in the summer. Citizens for Albemarle would appreciate it if the Board would support the proposal and submit a letter to the SWCB endorsing the petition. Mr. Perkins said the Moorman's River is already a State and County Scenic River, and it seems to him this designation would not put any more restrictions on the use of property along the stream than there already is. M.B. 43, Pg. 162 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) He suggests that when this designation is scheduled for public hearings, the people who own land that adjoins the River be personally contacted to make sure they are aware of the hearings. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to support the petition of the Citizens for Albemarle to designate the Moorman's River as an exceptional water and to authorize a letter be drafted for the Chairman's signature to members of the State Water Control BOard. In addition, staff to work with members of Citizens for Albemarle to notify and inform property owners of public hearings scheduled on this designation by the State Water Control Board. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. Non-Agenda Item. Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. David Hirschman, the new Water Resource Manager. Agenda Item No. 12. Update - MACAA Funding Request. (Mr. Bowerman said based on reasons stated in the past, he will excuse himself from the discussions on this item. He left the meeting at 10:53 a.m. Mr. Bain assumed the position of Chairman.) Mr. Tucker presented the following report: "BACKGROUND: On January 6, 1993, the Board heard a request from the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) for supplemen- tal funding for their ongoing operational budget. This request was for $19,973 per year for ten years to be used to help pay the interest costs associated with a mortgage in order to purchase the YMCA property on Park Street. At that meeting, staff was in- structed to review the financing request and bring back possible alternatives that will fit within both MACAA's and their lending institution's requirements. Attached, you will find a financing structure sheet which indicates a total project cost of $1,160,000. Of this total project cost, MACAA intends to borrow $1 million in industrial revenue bonds from the City of Charlottesville's Industrial Development Authority at an anticipated interest rate of six percent for 20 years. The financing is structured such that the loan would have to be refinanced at the end of ten years assuming a balance owed of $447,091 at that time. The key question that had to be addressed in this scenario, was whether or not the lending institution would, in fact, require that the full $199,973 expected from the County be distributed at closing and held in escrow by the bank to guarantee that the funds would be available or whether they would accept a non-binding good faith commitment from the County to appropriate one-tenth of the total amount each year. After meeting with Mr. Ken Ackerman, Executive Director of MACAA, he has advised us that the lending institutions will require the total amount of $199,973 to be distributed to MACAA prior to closing. This will provide the assurance that the lending institution needs, but will also allow MACAA to benefit from the investment potential of those funds over the ten year period. The second issue staff addressed was the relationship between anticipated County participation in the rental costs of the proposed Teen Center, should it be located at the YMCA property. In discussions with Mr. Ackerman, he indicated that anticipated fees generated from rental of facilities has not been used in forecasting revenue streams to make this project successful. His feelings at the present time are that any rental fees generated by the facility would be used to help maintain the property, improve it, and used as a contingency for unforeseen problems. The costs projected for rental at the YMCA for the Teen Center amount to $7.00 per square foot for a total annual cost of approximately $32,350 of which the County would be asked to fund $16,175. Mr. Ackerman does not see that these rental costs would supplant the commitment that is being requested of the county in order to secure the financing. The third issue researched was the potential participation in this request by outlying jurisdictions who may also benefit from this move. Mr. Ackerman feels very strongly that because MACAA pres- ently has satellite facilities in the outlying counties, with space being donated in most cases by those participating jurisdic- tions that there is little chance that surrounding counties will see the benefit of financially participating in this move. M.B. 43, Pg. 163 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) Lastly, Mr. Ackerman has provided some additional information regarding services provided to Albemarle County residents which he feels helps to justify the request for additional funding given the level of service provided in comparison with other similar non-profit agencies. His figures show that for each local dollar spent, MACAA 'pulls down' $14.00 in monies from other sources for a total program of $564,705 in Albemarle County which includes a local appropriation of $40,283. Of the total dollars spent in Albemarle, almost 50 percent is in the Head Start Program for disadvantaged four-year olds. DISCUSSION: The issue of precedent of the Board funding this request for MACAA is one that cannot at this time be addressed other than to say that MACAA feels their current funding level is disproportionate to the level of service being provided and, therefore, warrants additional funds. The fact that the County stands to recover the $385,000 balance on the second deed of trust when the YMCA property is sold, leads MACAA to feel that this request is, in fact, unique given the property involved and should not be looked upon by other agencies as precedent setting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that if the Board is interested in participating in this project, the procedure will require that the Board designate that $199,973 from the proceeds of the sale be appropriated and distributed to MACAA with the express understand- ing that the funds would be used for the purposes outlined in their request, subject to participation by the City as outlined in their financial proposal." Mr. Tucker said a concern was expressed about whether interest from ifunds in escrowed would be returned to the County or retained by MACAA. MACAA made it clear that their intent was to return all funds from interest to the County. Mr. Tucker talked to Mr. Ackerman yesterday and he indicated that it may be better for the County to determine what that interest would be over a ten year period and hold back that amount from the request. Therefore, rather than designating $199,973 to MACAA, the amount would be adjusted to $140,000. Mr. Tucker said City Council heard MACAA's proposal at its meeting of February 1, but took no action at that time. City Council is supposed to act on the request on February 15. Mr. Bain asked how many organizations currently rent from the YMCA. Mr. Ackerman said, not including the YMCA, there are about seven organizations currently using the building. Total rental projections are approximately $13,000 per year. Although they have made no commitment, the YMCA may be interested in using the gymnasium for some limited activities. The Child Care Center will not be maintained at that location. MACAA has not been actively involved in any discussions with the Teen Center. He knows that the Teen Center has been looking at other sites. He thinks the rental figures included in the staff report are excessive. Mr. Ackerman said this project will help MACAA to consolidate five of its present locations into one site and will give them greatly improved space for job training classes, head start services, all above and beyond the improved management and support they have to lend to these services. Addi- tionally, this facility will give MACAA the opportunity to expand. MACAA has the opportunity to add more children to its head start program and it needs facilities to do that. Mr. Ackerman said following MACAA's presentation to City Council on Monday, February 1st, it appears that a lower one-time payment is preferred by the City to the proposed escrow arrangement previously considered. Additionally, the potential to base financing on a 25 or 30 year term was suggested. MACAA contacted the banks and they have agreed that a 25 year term would be acceptable. As a result, a reduced amount has been computed to support MACAA's borrowing needs based on a 25 year mortgage without the provision of escrow funding. The adjusted amount for the County is now $140,000 rather than $199,973. Mr. Ackerman said MACAA's annual funding from the County of $40,283 would only be increased by $14,000 to $15,000 if the new (one-time) appropriation is prorated over a nine or ten year period (the present term in effect for the YMCA's repayment schedule). This new amount of approximately $55,000 results in a continued level of relatively lower funding for MACAA - than other agencies receive considering the value of services provided in the County through MACAA. MACAA is providing $564,705 in services to the County. The YMCA's repayment to the County in the amount of $385,000 through the sale of the property to MACAA enables a quicker return to the County. A contribution to MACAA in the amount of $140,000 will enable the County to reinvest the net amount of $245,000 on an immediate basis. Over the remaining period of the YMCA's loan (through June 30, 2002), the County would realize earnings of $138,877 on the conservative basis of a five percent rate of return. M.B. 43, Pg. 164 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) Mr. Ackerman said MACAA has benefitted from phenomenal voluntary support from the private sector to make.this project successful. Three local law firms have provided assistance with various phases of the project; site plans and drawings have been provided at no cost by Mr. William Atwood; McKee/Carson is assisting with engineering/land use matters; CATEC and several area contractors are serving as advisors on methods to economically handle site cenovations; and CATEC is also anticipating the possibility of student involvement in some components of the renovation work. Additionally, The Perry Foundation has committed $100,000 toward the project, and three area banks have agreed to participate in a partnership with the financing. Mr. Ackerman said he is requesting the Board's support to help make this project a reality. Mr. Martin complimented Mr. Ackerman on the good job he has done in pulling all of this together. Mo%ion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to designate that $140,000 from the proceeds of the sale of the YMCA property be appropriated and distributed to MACAAwith the express understanding that the funds be used for the purposes outlined in their request. This approval is subject to participation by the City of Charlottesville, as outlined in MACAA's financial proposal. Mr. Marshall thanked Mr. Ackerman for taking the time to explain the request to him. Mr. Bain said he will support the motion. He thinks this is a unique situation. He thinks the Board has learned a lesson in terms of financing property over years. He thinks this is a beneficial situation for the County as well as the community. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman. (Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 11:10 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 13. Constitutional Officers Supplemental Funding Request. The following staff report was presented by Mr. Tucker: "BACKGROUND: As you may recall, our constitutional officers requested supplements for their employees during last year's budget deliberations. It was the Board's feeling at that time that it was a policy decision and chose not to address their request in the current year's budget. Again, in next year's request, several constitutional officers have again requested that the Board review the practice of supplementing various positions as is done in many other localities. These supplements are being requested in order to bring their employees up to a wage that is comparable with similar county funded positions which may be at a pay grade higher than that which is approved by the Compensation Board for positions state-wide. DISCUSSION: After hearing the requests from various constitution- al officers, it is staff's opinion that this issue should be studied comprehensively in order to make a recommendation to the Board as to how this could be implemented should the Board choose to proceed further. It does not appear to be equitable to supple- ment the salaries in one constitutional officer's office and not another office when the same argument can often be made as to the relationship of their employees' salaries with county positions. It should be noted that there are several mechanisms by which other jurisdictions supplement salaries in these offices. Some will give a straight salary supplement as a percentage of base salary, some a straight dollar amount per employee, others place the employees on the county's or city's pay scale and factor them accordingly, while still others choose to supplement based on longevity or related factors. In order to make a recommendation to the Board, should this be requested, it is staff's opinion that a thorough review be completed of the practices of those locali- ties which the County normally surveys in its market survey to set compensation levels for all county employees. This review would be done for all constitutional officers, their employees, and the Registrar, as well as, the Joint Security Complex, because of its relationship to jail funding in localities which have sheriffs operating jails. Any supplement to the Joint Security Complex, however, would require concurrence and participation by the City of Charlottesville. RECOMMENDATION: If the Board is interested in considering the requests made by the constitutional officers for their employees, M.B 43, Pg. 165 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) staff requests that the.Board'direct a review be done as outlined above to be 'b~ought~back ~t°'~the Board in time for review during budget deliberations." Mr. Bowerman said he feels that with the growth in this community and the unwillingness of the State Compensation Board to address the needs articulated by constitutional officers, the Board needs to take a comprehen- sive look at this issue. He thinks it is important that the Board look at the services provided to the community by these officers. Mrs. Humphris asked if it was envisioned that this study by staff encompass, not only the dollar amounts, but the whole philosophy of the position of constitutional officers and the lack of control a locality has over that position. Mr. Bowerman said the study Would also include loOking at the option of making them all County employees, subject to County guidelines and policies, and all compensation would flow through the County. Certainly the control over expenditure of funds would be one of the considerations. Mr. St. John said he thinks that would require a change in the Virginia Constitu- tion. Mr. Bain said he also wants to get all that information. Mr. Marshall said this is all about money. A few years ago employees of constitutional officers were paid more money than County employees. Because of state cutbacks the salaries are now less and the people want more money. Mr. Perkins agreed that a study needed to be done. Mr. Bain said as.part of the study he wants to see the salary scale of the positions. Mr. Bowerman asked that the study include what other jurisdictions are doing. Motion wa offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to direct staff to proceed with a comprehensive review of supplementing salaries for employees of Constitutional officers, as outlined in the staff report. The review should include what other jurisdictions are doing. The information to be brought back to the Board in time for review during budget deliberations. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Report: Arson Investigator Position. The following staff report was presented by Mr. Tucker: "BACKGROUND: On November 25, 1992, the members of the Jefferson County Fire and Rescue Association unanimously approved the attached report regarding cause and origin/arson investigations. This report was compiled by a committee of JCFRA members in response to ongoing concerns regarding suspicious fires and the ability of the volunteer organizations to conduct the proper investigation of such fires. The report outlines the issues surrounding the request by the volunteers for the County to fund a position to assist in doing investigations of fires. It is the recommendation of JCFRA that this position would serve as an additional Fire Prevention Inspector who would also have the role of Fire Marshal for Albemarle County to conduct necessary inves- tigations of fires in which no origin can be determined by the volunteers or which are reported as suspicious by some volunteer chiefs. The two major points surrounding the request have to do with the lack of proper training of some of the volunteer chiefs to conduct the proper investigation to determine if it appears to be suspicious and warrants further investigation and secondly, the tremendous time commitment required of the chief once the fire is extinguished to conduct a thorough investigation. A good example of the issues involved would be the recent fire at Shoney's at Rio Hill Shopping Center. There did not appear to be any immediate or readily apparent cause for such fire intensity that the fire fighters experienced when responding with a six minute response time. The volunteer fire chief on the scene had been on the scene from 2:30 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. prior to the state police investigator arriving and did not feel that he could conduct a proper investi- gation to determine if the fire appeared to be suspicious. To have left the scene and returned when he was fully rested would have meant the loss of valuable time and possibly contamination of the scene prior to an investigation being conducted. He requested that the County Fire Prevention Officer respond to the scene for assistance before contacting a state police investigator to respond from Lynchburg. This is a fairly common occurrence where the chief would like some additional advice before asking the M.B. 43, Pg. 166 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) state police to travel long distances in the middle of the night before determining whether suspicious origin is, indeed, present. The attached report outlines very succinctly the issues as ex- pressed by the chiefs in numerous interviews regarding this subject. As addressed in quality of investigation in the JCFRA report, many fire chiefs are greatly disturbed at the length of time it takes to get a state police officer from Lynchburg or Appomattox to perform the investigations. Once on scene, the investigator is often unfamiliar with procedures of the volunteers and related issues. Chiefs report instances of concerns about the quality of investigation done. Discussions with State Police officials seem to have had little impact on these concerns. Obviously, this appears to be a manpower issue for the state as well, as each state investigator is responsible for 10 to 17 jurisdictions. DISCUSSION: The reason this.request is before the Board now and not at budget time, is that in the process of reorganizing the County's Fire/Rescue Administration Division, the County's current Fire Prevention Officer was promoted to Division Chief of Fire/Rescue Administration, thereby leaving the Fire Prevention Officer slot vacant. It is staff's recommendation that, if the Board is desirous of providing this assistance to the volunteers, that it be done at the Fire Prevention Officer level and not at a level below the Fire Prevention Officer. Obviously, there would be a number of details that would need to be worked out if the Board desires to move in this direction, but again it is the feeling of staff that if this function is to be provided, it should be advertised as the responsibility of the new Fire Preven- tion Officer when that vacancy is filled. The level of expertise required to do these investigations is significant and it is felt that the COunty will attract a much better qualified and experi- enced candidate if this aspect is included in the Fire Prevention Officer's responsibilities. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Board provide some guidance on this issue prior to filling the Fire Prevention Officer's current vacancy. If this function is not to be provid- ed, staff would like to fill the current Fire Prevention Officer's position as soon as possible in order to provide the manpower necessary to meet the existing workload. If cause and origin/ arson investigations are to be provided, staff would recommend that the Fire Prevention Officer position be rewritten to include this responsibility and that a Fire Prevention Inspector's posi- tion be considered in the FY '94 budget to help assume some of the workload of the Fire Prevention Officer who would be more heavily involved with these investigations." Mr. Bowerman asked if the salary would be adjusted to reflect the Fire Prevention Officer position responsibilities. Mr. Tucker said "yes," there will probably be some minor adjustment. Mr. Martin asked if it would be possible to contract these duties out, on an as needed basis, to someone who has these skills but has another job. Mr. Tucker said that is possible, but would be difficult because the individual could be called out at different hours of the day or night and, and the call could take hours. Mr. Perkins said he thinks this position is needed. He talked with the Chief at the Crozet Fire Department who explained to him that fire department personnel cannot leave the site until the investigator arrives. A lot of manpower is being wasted. Mr. Bain concurred. Mo%ion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to request the Fire Prevention Officer position be rewritten to include the responsibili- ties of an Arson Investigator. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Report: Bus Service to Pantops and Route 29 North (Walmart). (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:29 a.m.) The following staff report was presented by Mr. Tucker: "BACKGROUND: Over the last Several months, staff has received requests for the County to consider providing bus service to the Pantops Shopping Center area as well as the new Walmart store on Route 29 North. Due to the significant costs involved and poten- tial policy issues surrounding what criteria will be used in February 3, 1993 (Regular'DaY Meeting) (Page 23) M.B. 43, Pg. 167 considering these requests, staff has prepared the attached report for the Board's Consideration. DISCUSSION: The County currently helps fund two routes which serve Albemarle County residents and a third route is provided to Piedmont Virginia Community College by Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS). In order to evaluate the two requests that the County has received regarding expanding CTS, the staff has recom- mended that the seven criteria for estimating potential transit demand found in the Public/Private Transit Alternatives for Urban Albemarle County - 1990, which was adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, be used for Albemarle County. These seven criteria provide a stable evaluation of whether additional requests for service can be justified. Staff has evaluated both of the current requests using these criteria and have found both to meet the necessary elements in order to qualify for funding consideration. The estimated cost of starting a new route to Walmart or Pantops would be a net cost of $60,000 per year for each route requested by the County. The County cannot expect any state or federal assistance to offset the cost at this time given current funding allocations. CTS advises that it has the necessary buses to add one or the other of the new routes without purchasing new buses but indicates that if both routes are added a new bus would have to be purchased at an estimated cost of $200,000. The County could expect 50 percent to 90 percent of the cost of a new bus to be reimbursed at some future date. Should the County wish to proceed immediately with both routes, an additional bus could be leased at a cost of approximately $21,600 per year. The issue of participation in these costs by those requesting the service is one that is difficult to review. At the present time, Seminole Square Shopping Center, Shopper's World Shopping Center, Fashion Square Mall, Albemarle Square and Rio Hill Shopping Center do not pay for the bus service they are receiving. Obviously, the routes provide service to residential areas adjacent to each route making participation by commercial applicants difficult to evalu- ate. CTS officials advise that due to the printing of route schedules, they need some direction from the County by April 1st. This printing of schedules would preclude doing a route for anything less than a one year trial. RECOMMENDATION: Staff suggests that the recommendations listed on Page 11, section 6, Paragraph A and B be adopted as the policy criteria bywhich all requests will be evaluated. Funding neces- sary to support the addition of any additional routes at this time does not appear to be available within the allocation provided for General Government during budget direction guidelines set for the 1993-94 budget. If the Board is interested in reviewing these requests financially, in light of other unfunded requests, staff could add the routes to the unfunded priority list for consider- ation by the Board during budget deliberations." Mr. Martin suggested staff also look at the initial capital costs of the bus being contributed by the users that benefit from the service. Mr. Tucker said that would tie into the service district concept. Mr. Martin asked if the County can hold fundraisers. It seems to him that for issues such as this, sidewalks and beautification of Route 29, the community hold a large fundraiser. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks if the private sector initiated the event and it was in the their interest, the Board could be an advocate. He is not sure he would agree with the Board being proponents of a fundraiser. Mr. Tucker said this type fundraiser may be difficult because it would be a long term commitment. Mr. Martin said he thinks these and certain other issues are things that the Board could put together in a package and see if it can raise funds to cover the costs. Mr. Bain said a service district is needed to do some of these things. Mr. Scott Hilles, representing Westminster Canterbury and a member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization Commuter Opportunities Group, whose goal is to reduce traffic congestion, said the Pantops area businesses met in October, 1992, and were in favor of bus service to the Pantops area. He thinks there is enough support is in the Pantops area to make a public transportation project in that area feasible. Mrs. Humphris asked if a survey has been done at Westminster. Mr. Hilles responded "yes". There are approximately 150 employees and 150 residents at Westminster, of which 30 percent have indicated they would be interested in public transportation if it can to Westminster. There are a number of potential employees who cannot work at Westminster because they do not have transportation to get to the location. M.B. 43, Pg.168 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) Mr. John Lloyd, representing Hallmark Cards, located in Pantops Shopping Center, said a couple of years ago he started putting petitions in the store to see if there was interest in public transportation to the shopping center. A lot of the customers signed the petition. There are a lot of potential customers who cannot shop at the store because they do not have the transpor- tation. He thinks the cost would be offset by additional sales revenues. Mr. Tom Luzynski, Store Manager of Foodlion in Pantops Shopping Center, said he also supports bus service to Pantops. He has had many requests for bus service. This lack of service affects mostly the lower income and elderly people who cannot afford their own transportation. Bus service would remove some of the traffic congestion from Route 250. He supports bus service to the Pantops area. Mr. Martin asked about the possibility of stores in Pantops Shopping Center in putting together a carnival, fair, or whatever it takes to raise some money for the purpose of paying the capital expense for a bus. Mr. Luzynski said he does not think the people who can afford their own trans- portation is willing to do that. Ms. Kristen Peura, from Great Eastern Management Company, spoke in support of a bus route to Pantops. The area east of Route 20 has been ear- marked as one of the two significant areas for growth in the County. Cur- rently there are 25,000 cars per day traveling over Free Bridge and that is projected to increase to 40,000 cars within ten years. In meeting the goals of public transportation, bus service would take some of the cars off Route 250. The Pantops area provides sizeable revenues to the County. Pantops Shopping Center has $30 million in sales per year and generates $300,000 in sales tax. Real estate and personal property taxes add another $100,000 and business license fees generate an additional $75,000 to $100,000 per year. Pantops is forced to compete with other areas of the County, specifically Route 29 North, and is at a distinct competitive disadvantage. Walmart, on its own merits, can take away enough business from the Route 250 East area without CTS subsidizing it by providing additional service when there are no bus routes in the eastern portion of the County. Population density is not the issue; the issue is attracting City bus riders to the County. The County will increase its sale tax revenues by providing shoppers with transportation to Pantops. Making sure that riders in areas such as Belmont and high density Charlottesville locations have access to jobs offered in the pantops areas should be a vital interest to the County. Ms. Peura presented the Board with petitions of over 800 names of people who came to Pantops to work or shop and who eagerly await a bus route. Each person who signed the petition said he/she would ride or know someone who would ride the bus. She does not understand why one of the present bus routes could not be modified to cross Free Bridge and do a turnaround at Pantops. It would add an additional five to seven minutes to the route and it seems a natural extension of public transportation into the County. There are six separate covered areas inside Pantops Shopping Center that would be ideal bus stops. The Shopping Center would be happy to allow CTS to use any or all of these areas and no additional expense for construction need occur. She. realizes that funding is a concern, therefore, she encourages the Board to add this route to its list of unfunded priorities for future consideration. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the following policy (set out below) for evaluating requests for public trans- portation in Albemarle County. Mr. Marshall said he will abstain from voting on this motion. He owns a business in the area that is in direct competition with the shopping center and he does not feel he can in good conscience vote on the motion. If he did vote, he would probably vote against the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Marshall (The adopted policy is set out in full below:) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE POLICY FOR EVALUATING REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY It shall be the policy of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, to evaluate all requests for public transportation service to an area or shopping center using the following criteria: Ail requests be directed to the Department of Planning and Community Development for the Transportation Planner's review. February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) M.B. 43, Pg. 169 2e The Department will evaluate the request through the following process: ae Obtain comments/recommendations from the Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) including information on potential ridership and cost of service. Comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) will also be obtained. Obtain comments/recommendations from the Metropoli- tan Planning Organization (MPO) regarding regional impact of proposed service. Evaluate the request based on its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and other County transpor- tation and human/public service policies/plans. The Department will provide CTS and MPO comments and Planning staff recommendations to the County Executive's office. The County Executive's office will then make recommen- dations to the Board of Supervisors on the service request. In addition, retail merchants and citizens requesting new or expanded bus service can contact the Department of Planning and Community Development. If other departments or individuals receive requests, they should be directed to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Staff will use the existing criterion established in the Public-Private Sector Transportation Alternatives (PPSTA) report, the objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan and any associated Neighborhood Plans in consi- dering public requests. The Department will work with CTS in evaluating the feasibility of service. The recommendation will then be forwarded to the County Executive for budgetary consider- ation. Mo%ion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, that staff add the proposed routes (Pantops and Route 29 North) to the unfunded priority list for consideration by the Board during budget deliberations. Mr. Martin said this is an important issue and he would like to find some way of providing this service. He thinks there are some things the community could do to help with some of the capital outlay costs and then the County would be responsibility for operating costs. Mr. Bain said he has suggested in the past year that parking be limited at certain places to cut down on use of individual vehicles and encourage ridesharing and carpooling. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 16. Interim Report of the Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee. Mr. Tucker said the Fiscal Impact Committee has provided information on the committee's activities and discussions during the past six months. As part of the report, the committee is soliciting the Board's approval to proceed with a Request for Proposal for a Fiscal Impact Model. Mo%ion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, se¢on4e~ by Mr. Bain, to direct the Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee to proceed with a Request for Proposal for a Fiscal Impact Model. The proposed RFP would solicit bids for a basic fiscal impact analysis model, as well as an added component to look at the impact of regulations or development policies on the economic community. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris,' Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. Agenda Item No. 17a. Appropriation: Transfer of funds from Greenwood Community Center to Mint Springs. Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum from Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation: M.B. 43, Pg. 170 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) "We are currently finishing up the beach expansion project at Mint Springs. The only two items remaining are the installation of 200 feet of fence with a gate around the new beach area, and a bridge that our park crews will be building over the feeder stream linking the new beach with the old. At this point we have exhausted the funding in the project code. The remaining work will cost approximately $4700. During the course of this project we experienced some significant expenses that could not be anticipated. As you may remember when we initiated this project, the gate valve on the riser broke in the closed position. This required the rental of pumps and exhaust pipes to pump the lake down to the level of the break, which happened to be all the way at the bottom of the lake. Since we could not find enough exhaust pipe to reach the second lake, we experienced some erosion damage to the dam from the pumped water. The total cost of pump rental, gate valve repair and erosion repair was approximately $7500. The original budget for the beach expansion project was $29,300. In order to complete the project, I would like to request that the Board of Supervisors authorize the transfer of the unexpended balance of $4900 from the Greenwood Community Center baseball field project code to the Mint Spring project code. The $4900 is left over from the original appropriation of $7500 to replace the outfield fence at Greenwood and clear and grade the slope behind it. That project has been completed." Motion was offered Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation to transfer $4900 from Greenwood Community Center to Mint Springs. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920037 FUND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM GREENWOOD TO MINT SPRINGS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1900071000950080 P&R-SWIM AREA IMPROVEMENT 1900071000950027 GREENWOOD COMMUNITY CENTER TOTAL $4,900.00 (4,900.00) $0.00 Agenda Item No. 17b. Appropriation: Adjustment to School Board Reserve based on actual June 30, 1992, Fund Balance. Mr. Tucker said on November 4, 1992 the Board approved reappropriation of the entire School Fund balance for teacher bonuses and the School Board reserve. Based on the final audit adjustments, the actual balance is $15,857.57 less than projected at that time. This reduction results primarily from inventory adjustments. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $15,857.57 to adjust the School Board reserve based on actual June 30, 1992 fund balance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920035 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADJUSTMENT TO SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE BASED ON ACTUAL JUNE 30, 1992 FUND BALANCE EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1241061101580000 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE TOTAL ($15,857.57) ($15,857.57) REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200051000510100 SCHOOL FUND BALANCE ($15,857.57) TOTAL ($15,857.57) February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) M.B. 43, Pg. 171 Agenda Item No. 17c. Appropriation: Additional funding for CATEC. Mr. Tucker summarized the following request received from the School Board: "At its April 6, 1992, meeting, the School Board authorized an additional allocation of $48,108 to the Albemarle County share of funding for CATEC for 1992-93. The State revenue for jointly operated vocational/technical centers in Virginia was reduced in the 1991-92 fiscal year and has been eliminated for the 1992-93 fiscal year. The Joint Committee for the Control of CATEC is requesting the two School Boards replace the reduced State revenue of $68,726 for 1992-93. The Albemarle County share is approxi- mately $48,108. Adding revenue for the 1992-93 fiscal year would enable the Joint Committee to fund a portion of the equipment needs without reducing programs. It is requested that the Board of Supervisors approve the reappro- priation of $48,108 from FY 1991-92 carryover funds." Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution to reappropriate $48,108 from FY 1991-92 carryover funds. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920036 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CATEC EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1210261103701100 1241061101580000 CATEC-LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE TOTAL $48,108.00 ($48,108.00) $0.00 Agenda Item No. 17d. Walnut Creek Park Nature Trail. Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum received from Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation: "Enclosed please find a request for financial assistance from the Cove Garden Ruritan Club, which has been working to develop a trail system at Walnut Creek. We have an understanding with the Club that if they provide the manpower, we will supply the materials for developing the trails. Unfortunately, they have hit a section of trail that will require a larger piece of equipment than either we or the Club members possess. The cost estimate for hiring a contractor is $3000 to $4000. We have had to make several unanticipated expenditures out of our 1992-93 operating budget, and do not feel comfortable with funding this request from that source. Therefore, would like to request that the Board of Supervisors appropriate the balance of $3,375.92 in Capital Improvements Code, 1-9000-71000-950078 - Chris Greene Entrance Booth, for this purpose. These funds are remaining from the project in which we replaced the ticket booths at Chris Greene and Mint Springs. We had intended to use these funds to run electric to the booths, but the cost of doing so well exceeds the funds available. It is my recommendation to use these funds for this purpose now so that the Cove Garden Ruritans can continue their work. We will reevaluate the ticket booth electrical work, and if necessary, make a new request in a future CIP. If you concur, I would appreciate your placing this item on the Board's agenda. If I need to provide any additional information, please let me know." Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $3,375.92 to transfer funds from Chris Greene to Walnut Creek Park for a Nature Trail. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: NUMBER: FUND: CAPITAL February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) M.B. 43, Pg. 172 PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM CHRIS GREENE TO WALNUT CREEK PARK FOR NATURE TRAIL EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1900071001800605 WALNUT CREEK PARK-NATURE TRAIL 1900071000950078 CHRIS GREENE LAKE-ENTRANCE BOOTH TOTAL (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:59 a.m.) $3,375,92 ($3,375.92) $0.00 Agenda Item No. 17e. Additional approved positions in Social Services. Mr. Tucker said this request is to transfer $10,250.00 from the Board's Contingency Fund to Social Services for the eligibility worker positions funded by the State. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $10,250.00 to transfer funds from the Board of Supervisors' Contingency Fund to fund additional approved positions in Social Services. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920040 PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' CONTINGENCY TO FUND ADDITIONAL APPROVED POSITIONS IN SOCIAL SERVICES. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100053012110000 SOCIAL SERVICES-SALARIES 1100053012210000 SOCIAL SERVICES-FICA 1100053012221000 SOCIAL SERVICES-VRS 1100011010999902 B.0.S.-CONTINGENCY TOTAL AMOUNT $8,700.00 665.00 885.00 (10,250.00) $0.00 Agenda Item No. 17f. Teen Center. Mr. Tucker said the Board appropriated $5930 at the December 16 meeting to fund the County's share of the Albemarle/Charlottesville Teen Center through June 1993. The City similarly appropriated $5930 at its meeting on January 16. Since the County will be responsible for administering the program, a separate fund similar to Rivanna Park has been set up for City and County funds, as well as other future revenue sources. As fiscal agent for the total fund, the County must appropriate its own transfer share, as well as the City's share for a total appropriation of $11,860. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $11,860 to fund the Charlottesville/Albemarle Teen Center. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920041 FUND: TEEN CENTER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 92/93 FUNDING OF JOINT TEEN CENTER EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1421071017110000 1421071017210000 1421071017221000 1421071017231000 1421071017232000 1421071017241000 1421071017270000 1421071017311000 1421071017580505 1421071017600200 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT COMPENSATION-REGULAR FICA VSRS HEALTH INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE LIFE INSURANCE WORKER'S COMPENSATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SECURITY SERVICES FOOD SERVICE SUPPLIES REVENUE TOTAL DESCRIPTION $8,020.00 575.00 695.00 550.00 25.00 70.00 150.00 675.00 900.00 200.00 $11,860.00 AMOUNT 2421016000160503 2421016000160502 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE TOTAL $5,930.00 5r930.00 $11,860.00 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) M.B. 43, Pg. 173 Agenda Item No. 20. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 12:05 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjourn into executive session under Va. Code Section 2.1-344-A.1 for the purpose of discussing personnel matters and to interview individuals for boards and commissions; and Va. Code Section 2.1-344-A.7 for legal matters to discuss litigation involving the Police Department. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphrisr Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 21. Certify Executive Session. At 2:15 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and adopted the following certification of executive session: MOTION: Mr. Bain SECOND: Mrs. Humphris MEETING DATE: February 3, 1993 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity 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. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 22. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint Mr. Stephen C. Ayers to the Joint Airport Commission with said term to expire on December 1, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint Mr. Arthur B. Brown, Jr., to the Community Services Board (Region Ten) with said term to expire on June 30, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint Mr. Frank Rice from the Charlottesville District to the Equalization Board with said term to expire on December 31, 1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: M.B. 43, Pg. 174 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint Mr. Bruce W. Kirtley to the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvements Corporation with said term to expire on December 31, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to reappoint Mr. Thomas F. Stephens to the Jordan Development Corporation with said term to expire on August 13, 1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowerman said there is still one vacancy on the Jordan Development Corporation. He asked the Clerk to readvertise for applications for that vacancy. Mo%ion was offered by Mrs. HUmphris, seconde4 by Mr. Marshall, to reappoint Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom and Mr. Scott B. Peyton, and to appoint Mr. Tim Michel to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority, with said terms to expire on December 13, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Tucker presented a draft resolution for the Board to consider in response to the Forum for Hope and Healing. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Forum for Hope and Healing appeared before this Board to express its moral outrage at an incident that took place in this community on the evening of January 22, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Board wants to make it clear to all citizens of the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville that it will not tolerate racially motivated behavior; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby requests the support of its citizens in ridding this community of racial tension and prejudices, and, .also, requests that positive steps be undertaken to address issues of racism in our community. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. Mr. Bowerman said he traveled to Richmond on Monday to speak before a subcommittee of the House Finance Committee in support of a bill, introduced by Delegate Mitchell VanYahres, to remove land from land use in the urban area. Mr. Kevin Cox was also present and made a presentation in support of the bill. The Farm Bureau made a presentation in opposition. The vote was six to three against the legislation. The Farm Bureau is against any attempt by government to remove land from land use regardless of the reason. Mr. Bowerman then asked staff to do a comprehensive study of the current land use program in terms of the way it is implemented and administered to see if there are any changes that can be made to the program. Mr. Martin said a property owner in Deerwood Subdivision has been paying taxes on land believed to be zoned R-4 and the computer records show the land M.B. 43, Pg. 175 February 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) as R-4. In actually, the land is zoned RA. The land is more appropriately zoned R-4. He asked the Board.to adopt a Resolution of Intent to rezone the property. Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt the following Resolution of Intent: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to rezone Tax Map 32C, Section. 3, Parcel 2, for Robert O. and Victoria Ho Burton~ to R-4, Residential, from RA, Rural Areas; and FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on said intent to rezone this property, and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date. Agenda Item No. 19. Cancel February 10, 1993, meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to cancel the Board meeting of February 10, 1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 23. Trip to Waynesboro to review bailing facility. At 2:35 p.m., the Board traveled to Waynesboro to take a tour and receive a presentation, from Mr. Jack Moore, of its bailing facility. Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn. At 4:30 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Chairman