Loading...
1993-03-03March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) M.B. 43, Pg. 191 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 3, 1993, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 9:09 A.M.). 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 9:00 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There was no one in the audience who wished to speak. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. (See conversation regarding Item 5.2 is set out with that item number. Mrs. Humphris moved that the Board approve Items 5.1 and 5.3 on the Consent Agenda and accept the remaining items for information. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Bain and Bowerman. NAY: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Item 5.1. Appointment of Mr. Joseph T. Henley, III, to replace Mrs. Ruth Chiles, on the Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee. Upon motion set out above, Mr. Henley was appointed to the Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee, as recommended. Item 5.2. Memorandum dated February 25, 1993, from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development, re: upsizing of the water line to Stone Robinson Elementary School. It was noted in a staff report that per an agreement between the County and the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), the ACSA is to notify the Planning Director whenever it proposes to oversize water or sewer lines near the service area boundaries. The Authority has notified staff of its proposal to oversize a water line to Stone Robinson Elementary School, the purpose being to extend water to provide a public water supply with adequate fire protection for the school. This would require an eight-inch line. Oversizing the line to twelve inches would allow that line to accommodate development in the area west of the Rivanna Village boundary to Route 729 should the Rivanna Village ever be expanded to this area. The Authority desires to oversize the line because of the cost efficiencies of oversizing the line during initial construction rather than having to provide the additional capacity if needed in the future. Because recommendations of the Plan are quite clear concerning sizing of utility lines, staff feels the Board should be aware of and take action regarding the proposal of the ACSA. However, staff does believe the upsizing of the water line to Stone Robinson is consistent with past practice and practical long-range planning. Should the Board permit this upsizing, staff would recommend that wording regarding the sizing of utility lines for the Stone Robinson School be deleted during the upcoming review of the Compre- hensive Plan. Mrs. Humphris said because of the decision-making of this Board about the establishment of the Village of Rivanna and its growth limits, it needs to be put into the record that the upsizing of this line should not be taken as an endorsement of expansion of any kind, but the upsizing of this line is simply because there is a need for a bigger water line for Stone-Robinson School. She said this is a matter of common sense since the dollar amount is so small. Mr. Bain said he asked Mr. Cilimberg to provide him with some minutes involving discussions about this water line. He would like to talk about this issue later in the meeting, after he has had a chance to read the minutes which relate specifically to this matter. Mr. Bowerman said the matter will be discussed later in the meeting after the Board members have had a chance to review the minutes. Item 5.3. Authorize Chairman to execute deed conveying underground electric power easement to Appalachian Power Company. Ms. Jo Higgins~ March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) M.B. 43, Pg. 192 Director of Engineering noted that this parcel (Keene, Tax Map 121, Parcel 82A2) was originally purchased by the County for use as a transfer station near the Keene Landfill. Appalachian Power Company needs a ten-foot wide underground electric power easement to extend electric service from Route 715 to property of Mr. Jeffery Allen Haney. A plat attached to the deed adequate- ly locates the easement along the property and will preclude any additional expense to the County for relocating an underground line to accommodate future development of this parcel. Upon the motion set out above, the Chairman was authorized to sign an agreement between the County of Albemarle, a Virginia Municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia by= David P. Bowerman, Chairman, Board of Supervisors (Grantors), and Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian), for an easement as shown on Appa- lachian's Drawing No. A-4567 dated May 30, 1991, revised 1-29-93, attached hereto (on file) and made a part hereof. This is a 10 foot wide easement. ' Item 5.4. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Report. It was noted that the new Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) governing surface transportation systems became law in December, 1991'. Its purposes are to improve national mobility and competi- tiveness. It also gives local governments unprecedented flexibility in developing local transportation needs. How this complex and far-reaching legislation will be implemented and how it will affect local government's role is not fully known as the regulations at the Federal and State level are still evolving. A recent example of the dynamics of this evolution was the informa- tion (and lack of information), in making recommendations regarding the designation of local roads for the new National Highway System (NHS). Another facet of ISTEA is the requirement for states to set aside at least ten percent of their share of Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to enhance transportation systems. Each state is allowed to develop its own program. VDOT has released a draft of their program for comments and it should be finalized soon as the filing deadline for enhancement projects for FY 1993 is July 1. Staff is reviewing the draft Enhancement Program guide- lines and will be developing recommended projects for future consideration. Item 5.5. Letter dated February 19, 1993, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, re: intersection of Green- brier Drive and Commonwealth Drive. Mr. Roosevelt noted that the Board had requested his Department to review this intersection to determine what traffic engineering modifications are necessary. He said the section of Commonwealth Drive south from Green- brier Drive has been constructed recently by the County, but has not yet been added to the Secondary System. The Traffic Engineer's Office reviewed pavement markings at the intersection, and all four legs of the intersection, including the section not yet in the system, have been marked to create a left-turn lane for approaching traffic. The Traffic Engineer's Office also undertook a traffic signal study. This study indicates that the amount of traffic approaching this intersection is near the volume needed to meet the warrants for a traffic signal, however, they are less than the minimums usually used to justify the installation of a traffic signal. Experience has shown that installation of a traffic signal prior to a location fully meeting warrants leads to problems which outweigh the value of the signal. For this reason, he is not recommending installa- tion of a traffic signal at this time. Item 5.6. Letter dated February 16, 1993, from The Honorable L. F. Payne, House of Representatives, re: resolution adopted by Board of Supervi- sors concerning proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on financial assurance requirements as they affect local governments in the closure of municipal landfills, was received as information. Item 5.7. Letter dated February 17, 1993, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Roger W. Ray, entitled: Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1 (Tax Map 14, Parcel 42 - Garrison Estate), received as information. Item 5.8. Letter dated February 12, 1993, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Roger W. Ray, entitled: Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1 (Tax Map 39, Parcel 29 - David F. Wayland, et al, owners), received for information. Item 5.9. Letter dated February 22, 1993, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Charles Frankfurt, entitled: Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1 (Tax Map 82, Parcel 3 (known in part as Stanford Hall), received for information. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) M.B. 43, Pg. 193 Item 5.10. Copy of Final Environmental Impact Statement for U.S. Route 29 Corridor Study (State Project: 6029-002-122,PE100) Albemarle County and city of Charlottesville (on file in Clerk's office), received as information. Item 5.11. Copy of notice to the public of an application filed with the State Corporation Commission for an expedited increase in rates by Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, received for information. Item 5.12. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 2, 1993, received for information. Item 5.13. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for January 21, 1993, received for information. Item 5.14. Memorandum dated February 25, 1993, from Mr. Richard E~ Huff, II, Deputy County Executive, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: hunting regulations. Mr. Huff noted that the Board had requested staff to review information disseminated in the State's hunting regulation pamphlet for accuracy when compared with ordinances adopted by the Board. After review, Mr. Huff and the County Attorney believe all of the County's hunting ordinances are represented in the State's regulations summary and no changes are warranted. Item 5.15. Memorandum dated February 25, 1993, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: House Bill 1205 - Landfill issue. Mr. Tucker noted that H.B. 1205 passed both the House and the Senate which basically means an extension in the life of the existing Ivy Landfill. Specifically, the bill will allow the County to vertically expand certain existing cells within the landfill and will result in an extension of the landfill's life by a maximum of two to three years over previous projections. It also results in providing better closure ability. It delays the opening of cell 4, and it should be favorable both fiscally and environmentally to the landfill. Overall, this should provide for a projected life in the landfill of 15 to 18 years rather then the current projected life of twelve to fifteen years. Item 5.16. Financial Management Report for January, 1993v received for information. It was noted that projected General Fund revenues have been adjusted to reflect the January 4, 1993, revisions. Projected General Fund expenditures for all General Government operations have been reduced one percent. Projected School Fund expenditures for certain accounts were previously reduced fifteen percent. The Fund Balance report indicates that the School Fund has a deficit of $15,858. Adjustments are in process which will eliminate the deficit. Item 5.17. Executive Summary received February 26, 1993~ from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Route 29 Bypass and Proposed Subdivisions, in response to a letter dated February 16, 1993, received from Mr. J. S. Hodge, Chief Engineer, Department of Transportation. Mr. Hodge's letter is set out in full below: "February 16, 1993 Mr. David P. Bowerman, Chairman Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Dear Mr. Bowerman: The Department has recently reviewed three preliminary site plans for proposed subdivisions that would be severely impacted or rendered not feasible to develop with the present alignment of the Route 29 Alternate 10 Corridor. The three plans reviewed were Woodburn Ridge, Rivanna Ridge, and Rivanna Ridge North. The Department has been working with the County to revise and adjust the Corridor alignment to provide the most feasible and acceptable alignment throughout the entire corridor. We would hope the County would work toward preservation of the corridor and the development of compatible land use plans for this area as well. It would be ironic indeed, if VDOT, at the County's request, spends millions of taxpayer dollars buying hardship property, and on the other hand, additional residential development occurs within the same corri- dor. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.43, Pg.194 (Page 4) I look forward to hea~ing from ~6~"ahd working with the Board as we continue with this project. Sincerely, (Signed) J. S. Hodge Chief Engineer" Mr. Tucker noted that the three plans for subdivision which have caused VDOT concern have been through the initial stage of site review by staff. The potential impact of the Bypass alignment was noted by staff and VDOT and comments provided to the applicant who has not yet responded to the site review comments. This item has not been before the Planning Commission, so staff recommends no action be considered until that time. Item 5.18. Letter dated February 18, 1993, from The Honorable Charles S. Robb, Senator, re: resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors concerning proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and financial assurance requirements as they affect local governments in the closure of municipal landfills, received for information. Item 5.'19. Memorandum dated February 26, 1993, from Ms. Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Waynesboro solid waste bailing operation. The Board had recently made a site visit to the Waynesboro facility, and Ms. Higgins provided some comments on that visit. Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: March ll(N), 1992 and January 13, 1993. Mr. Martin stated that he had read the minutes of March ll(N), 1992, and he found them to be in order. Mr. Bowerman reported that he read January 13, 1993, Pages 10-240 and found them to be in order, with one typographical error which he will give to the Clerk. Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the minutes of March ll(N), 1992, and January 13, 1993, Pages 10-24. Mr. Perkins arrived, and indicated that he had read the minutes of January 13, 1993~ Pages 24 to the end, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bain stated that he would amend his motion to include the minutes read by Mr. Perkins. Mrs. Humphris, as the seconder~ agreed. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Discussion - 1992-98 Six-Year Secondary Road Construction Program. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT submitted a list of changes in the Six-Year Plan and County staff met with VDOT staff regarding the reasons for the recommended changes. VDOT now indicates that the Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) project will not be advertised until January, 1995 and the Route 682 project will not be advertised until August, 1995. The staff's meeting with VDOT focused on the effect that moving the Meadow Creek Parkway up to a January, 1997 advertising date would have on the Rio Road project. Rio Road will be delayed one year (to July, 1996) because of the funding changes needed in order to get the Meadow Creek Parkway project advertised in January, 1997. However, keeping even Rio Road (the portion from Berkmar Drive east toward U.S. 29) on the fastest track possible, it could not be advertised until the original date of July, 1995 because of VDOT's plan development and public hearing requirements. By that time, the first phase of the U.S. 29 North reconstruction, which includes improvements to Rio Road west to about the Daily Progress property, will be virtually complete and the second phase of U.S. 29 reconstruction will be underway. Therefore, the benefits of trying to build the secondary plan portion of Rio Road concurrent with the U.S. 29 project portion cannot be realized. Mr. Cilimberg said staff feels the adjusted schedule for the Meadow Creek Parkway is consistent with County priorities and its desire to see the City and County sections built together. As there would be no overriding benefit to keeping other secondary projects on the prior schedule in lieu of moving Meadow Creek Parkway forward, staff concurs with VDOT~s recommendation. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) ALBEMARLE COUNTY SIX yEAR PLAN REVISED 10-92 PRIORITY RouTE'PROJECT :i~'?~ ADPREVIOUSDATE (0) 631 0631-002-128,C503 (DEFICIT) (1) - CO. WIDE BUDGET ITEM 7-92 (2) 625 HATTON FERRY 7-92 (3) 664 0664-002 PLANT MIX 7-92 (3) 684 0684-002 PLANT MIX 7-93 (3) 692 0692-002 PLANT MIX 7-93 (3) 729 0729-002 PLANT MIX 7-92 (3) 738 0738-002 PLANT MIX 7-93 (3) 788 0788-002 PLANT MIX 7-93 (3)~ .... ~ ''800 0800-002 PLANT MIX 7-92 (3) 810 0810-002 PLANT MIX 7-92 (3) - CO. WIDE PLANT MIX 7-94 (4) 708 0708-002-241,C501 1-94 (5) 654 0654-002-242,C501 6-92 (6) 631 0631-002-128,C502 1-99 (6) 631 0631-002-128,B612 1-99 (7) 671 0671-002 191,B646 11-92 (8) 631 0631-002-224,C502 7-92 (9) 678 0678-002-223,C501 2-94 (10) 743 0743-002-153,C502 6-94 (11) 631 0631-002-185,C501 7-95 (12) 691 0691-002-234,C501 2-94 (13) 866 0866-002-236,C501 7-96 (14) 631 0631-002- ,C 1-2010 (15) 656 0656-002- ,C 10-97 (16) 601 0601-002 237,C501 10-97 (17) 649 0649-002-158,C501 7-99 (18) 691 0691-002- ,C. 7-2000 (19) 651 0651-002- ,B 7-2000 (20) 627 0627-002- ,C 10-93 (21) 682 0682 002-P33,N501 7-92 (22) 610 0610-002-P ,N 7-94 (23) 712 0712-002-P ,N 1-96 (24) 711 0711-002-P ,N 7-96 (25) 760 0760-002-P ,N 7-96 (26) 637 0637-002-P ,N 7-97 (27) 759 0759-002-P ,N 7-97 M.B. 43, Pg. 195 REVISED AD DATE 1-97 1-97 7-94 7-96 7-97 7-99 10-99 7-2001 1-95 7-96 7-96 7-97 7-97 7-99 DELETED Mr. Cilimberg also noted that the increased cost of the hard-surfacing project for Route 682 will delay other gravel road projects. Mr. Bowerman called attention to a conflict of interest which he has regarding Rio Road and Berkmar Drive. His company is almost ready to sign a contract with Smith/Lebo for a parcel of property in Berkmar Crossing which has frontage on Rio Road. He has discussed this with the County Attorney and although the County Attorney did not give him an official opinion, Mr. Bowerman thinks it is clear that if a public official serves to benefit greater than the public at large on a particular item, he or she certainly has the appearance of a conflict. He does not want to remove himself from discussion of the entire Six-Year Plan or items such as the Meadow Creek Parkway, however, he will not be able to involve himself with the discussions of the improvements of Rio Road, especially in the section to which he referred. He said that he will do his best to avoid any involvement with those two particular roads, or anything else which he thinks could impact that situation. He then mentioned that if he votes to adopt the Six Year Plan, he will do so with the exception of those two items. He emphasized that he does not want to lose his input on the total Six-Year Plan or other major highway issues. Mr. St. John suggested that the Board take a separate vote on the entire Six-Year Plan, with the exception of those two items. He stated that Mr. Bowerman could then leave the room, and the remaining Supervisors could vote on those items. Mr. Bain stated that he understands what Mr. Bowerman is trying to doo Mr. Bowerman commented that, having revealed his conflict to the Board and general public, he hopes that in upcoming discussions within that framework he can still deal with other items in the Six-Year Plan. Mr. Martin said Mr. Bowerman has stated his conflict, and he (Mr. Martin) sees no reason to play games such as to vote on the two items sepa- rately. Mr. St. John emphasized that the games to which Mr. Martin referred, are incorporated into the rules of the procedure. He stated that if a person feels as though there is a conflict of interest, then that person has to follow the rule. Mr. Martin commented that he thinks it is just playing a game if when it appears that someone has a conflict two items from a certain plan are removed when everybody knows that if these two projects are removed, it will affect everything else involved. He would rather for Mr. Bowerman to just state his possible conflict of interest, and the Board continue with the discussion. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.43, Pg.196 (Page 6) Mr. Bain suggested that the Board handle the situation as the discussion evolves. Mr. Roosevelt said he would like to briefly review the Six-Year planning process. Mr. Bain said he would prefer that Mr. Roosevelt focus on the sequence of the Rio Road, the Meadow Creek Parkway, and the Hydraulic Road projects. He would like a clear picture of the sequence of these projects. Mr. Roosevelt commented that the Six-Year planning process, basically~ has two steps. The first step is for County officials to advise the Highway Department of their priorities for improvements. The County goes through a process obtaining public input and developing a tentative priority list which is then taken to public hearing. The Board then adopts a priority list. Once the Board adopts its priority list, the second part of the Six-Year process is for VDOT officials to develop'a financial plan that will get these projects to c6nstr~ction as close to the priority order as County officials set. Mr. Roosevelt said that a couple of things'influence how quickly these projects get to the construction phase, and that is how much money is needed to make the improvement and how much time it takes to go through the prelimi- nary engineering process. Mr. Roosevelt said the current Six-Year Plan, the County's priority list and his financial plan, take into consideration the fact that the City's section of the Meadow Creek Parkway could not be financed by the City until 1999. This was anticipated when he developed the financial plan, however, he found after the financial plan was prepared, that the Highway Department's Urban Division had somehow-gotten additional money, so the City's portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway could possibly have an advertisement date of January, 1997. He is now revising the County's financial plan to match more closely the priorities which County officials set. Mr. Roosevelt said there really is no need for the Supervisors to go through the revision of their priority list at this time. Moving the Meadow Creek Parkway project forward in the financial plan to match the City's portion has already been decided. What he is trying to do is show what effect adding money to the Meadow Creek Parkway will have on other projects. The Meadow Creek Parkway is the No. 6 priority on the list now. Changing the Meadow Creek Parkway advertisement date changes the financial ability to finance other projects, and some projects have to be dropped back. He remarked that Mr. Bain had mentioned three projects earlier, and they were Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) which is Priority No. 10, Route 631 (Rio Road) is Priority No. 11, and Route 866 (Greenbrier Drive) is Priority No. 13. He emphasized that moving the Meadow Creek Parkway forward means that money for these three projects has to be spread over a longer period of time, and he pointed out the revised advertisement dates for these three projects, July, 1996 for Rio Road, July, 1994 for Hydraulic Road, and July, 1997 for Green- brier Drive. Mr. Roosevelt said since he sent the Supervisors this new list, he has been advised by VDOT officials in Culpeper that even if the Hydraulic Road construction can be financed for a July, 1994 advertisement date, the prelimi- nary engineering process cannot be done that quickly. This advertisement date has been set back to January, 1995. Mr. Bain asked if the portion of Hydraulic Road from Lamb's Road to Route 29 will be a four-lane road, or will it be constructed in the same way as the existing Hydraulic Road from Route 29 to Albemarle High School. Mr. Roosevelt said the new section of Hydraulic Road will be similar to the existing section, however, there will be left-turn lanes at major intersec- tions, such as the intersection at the Rock Store. There will be a fifth lane, which will be a left turn lane, at the Berkmar Road intersection. There are the only two locations where a separate left-turn lane is being created. Mr. Bain asked if there is a two-lane roadway planned for Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Roosevelt responded that Greenbrier Drive will be a four-lane roadway. Mr. Marshall asked if they were referring to Greenbrier at the Lamb's Road intersection. Mr. Bain explained that this is the new section of Greenbrier from the Rock Store on Hydraulic to the existing section of Greenbrier Drive at Commonwealth. Mr. Roosevelt said the improvements will start at the intersection of Rio Road and Hydraulic Road and tie into Green- brier. He said that survey work has not yet been done. The original plan was to improve the section of road from Greenbrier/Whitewood to Rio Road. VDOT officials now know that Greenbrier needs to be improved all the way to where it ties into the Route 29 improvements. Survey work will have to be done, as well as additional planning, for the piece of property between Whitewood Road and the Comdial facility. Mr~ Bowerman asked if the money will come from the Six-Year Plan or under the funds being used for the Route 29 improvements. Mr. Roosevelt said the money will come from the Six-Year Plan. The plans for Route 29 only show an improvement of Greenbrier Drive to a point close to Comdial. The original plan was to leave existing Greenbrier Drive the way it is, but it has become clear that it will have to be improved to four lanes the entire distance from Rio Road to Route 29. The widening of the existing Greenbrier roadway will be done from the end of the Route 29 improvements to Whitewood Road. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) ~4.B.Pg.]97 (Page 7) Mr. Bowerman asked if this plan would coincide with the new alignment of Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Roosevelt answered that this project will coincide with Greenbrier'sNnew alignment. He noted that the money is not available, so the money is affecting the new adye~tisement date. Mr. Bowerman noted that there is no action contemplated by this Board today. He said Mr. Roosevelt is just informing the Board that there have been some adjustments in the scheduled advertising dates for some projects. Mrs. Humphris asked if any of the new Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds will be applied to the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not know, but he feels sure that if Federal legislation allows STP money to be used for secondary improvements, the money will be distributed using State Code provisions, and the secondary system will be expected to bear part of the burden of the federal requirements. Mrs. Mumphris asked if it is possible that some of the additional state funds (freed up because of the NHS [National Highway System] funds) could be used for the Meadow Creek Parkway. She noted that NMS funds might be avail- able for Route 29 improvements because Route 29 is a designated NHS corridor. Mr. Roosevelt answered that he feels VDOT officials will follow all the rules and do everything that is necessary in order to get all of the money that is possible into the State of Virginia. Mrs. Humphris stated that the additional funding must change something because there is a huge sum of money available. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the total amount of money might change, but Albemarle County's proportionate share of that money will not change. Mrs. Humphris said this needs to be made clear. .She explained that Mr. Roosevelt is referring to Albemarle County's proportion of the funds and not the total amount of money. She called attention to the ISTBA booklet (Consent Agenda Item No. 5.4), which involves all of the routes not included in the NHS. She read from the section of the booklet which indicated that the STP is a new block grant type program which may be used by the states and localities for any roads that are not function- ally classified as local or rural. She said this booklet mentions bridges, and it indicates that new STP funds can be applied to new bridges on any type of road. She wondered, since there is a very expensive bridge which has to be constructed for the Meadow Creek Parkway, if it would be possible for some of the new STP funds to be used for construction of that bridge. This is a specific bridge project and these are specific bridge funds. Mr. Roosevelt answered, "yes," and said that the fact that the State is going to use STP funds to fund that bridge is not going to bring any additional funds to Albemarle County over and above what the County would have been eligible for under the State formulas. What determines how much money Albemarle County's Secondary System is eligible for is State law. That law does not refer to the fact that the County will receive a certain percentage of Federal funds, or a certain percentage of State funds, or a certain percentage of other funds. Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Roosevelt for his explanation, but she said that her point to other Board members is that~ regardless, there is a new fund available for the State of Virginia, and that money will be distributed according to the State formula to the locality. She said this has to mean that this locality will receive more overall funds. She asked, since Mr. Roosevelt did not know whether the new STP funds could be applied to the Meadow Creek Parkway, if it wouldn't be a good idea if this Board busied itself with finding out if it can get some of these funds, since additional funds will be flowing to the Culpeper District. She wondered also, since there are particular bridge designations, if it is possible for this Board to find out about additional portions of this funding which could be allocated to the bridge for the Meadow Creek Parkway. She inquired if this Board should not be asking, given its interest in completing Berkmar Drive, if there could be any funds found for Berkmar Drive Extended. She said that, regardless of what Mr. Roosevelt says, the Supervisors have to understand that there is more money, and they should try to get it. Mr. Martin said it seems to him that Mr. Roosevelt is saying there might be more money, but this Board's access to the money is only by way of its priority list. He went on to say that this Board has actually done what it can do by establishing a priority list, and if there is more money, then the priority list basically becomes more important and moves faster. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that' it is different under the ISTEA legisla- tion. She said that one of the major purposes of this legislation is for localities to have more influence in how funds are expended. If this Board could put forth an effort to get some of these projects moving faster, there is no reason why it should not do so. She said the Supervisors should not just sit back and say nothing can be done. She has not seen anything about any more funds flowing to any of these projects. She sees some of the projects actually being held back because of funding instead of being moved forward due to the presence of additional funds. This plan does not make sense to her, and she wondered if the plan makes sense to the other Board members. Mr. Bain said it seems to him that the money is not there. He said it might be 1995 before the money is allocated to this County. Mr. Roosevelt stated that, at the moment, the only information which has been released publicly or internally to his level of management within the March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.43, Pg.198 (Page 8) Highway Department, is that the projects should be continued on the alloca- tions that were made known in March, 1992. Everybody hears that ISTEA funds are going tq create additional money, and that the Clinton administration is going to ma~e available additional'moneY, but how this will happen has not been released yet. He said VDOT officials are gearing up for the public hearings on the Six-Year Primary Plan which will be held at the end of this month and in April. He anticipates that there will be some announcement at that time as to what effect ISTEA and Clinton administration activities will have upon allocations over the next six years. It may be found that the $20.0 million that is anticipated over that period for secondary improvements in Albemarle County will increase dramatically. At such a time, the list will be revised. Mr. Bowerman said the priority list can be revised but it can stay in the order established, which is within the confines of when the engineering ~ork"can b~:done~'~On theprojects~- Mr. Bain said the Supervisors can change Priorities on that list when that time comes. If there is funding for the additional portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway north, and it is sequenced with Meadow Creek Parkway south, the priorities can be changed. This is the Board's decision. Mr. Roosevelt said if he is ever told that there is a major influx of new secondary funds for use in Albemarle County, County officials will hear about it at the same time. The financial plan based on the current priority list will have to be modified at that time, or the Supervisors will be allowed to go through the entire Six-Year planning process to change the priority list as they wish. At this time, the same dollar figures which were available in March, 1992 are being used. He emphasized that there has been no information released to anyone about any new funds being available for secondary road projects. Mrs. Humphris commented that almost all of the CATS (Charlottesville- Albemarle Transportation Study) projects are included in the Six-Year Plan at this timel ThiB Board probably should start on a regular basis accruing funds for the Meadow Creek Parkway. She asked for this Board to consider that. Mrs. Humphris said she understands VDOT officials are considering another route for the Alternative 10 bypass with a change being considered for the northern terminus instead of having the triple decker intersection in the Woodbrook area. She asked who has authority to request consideration of another route after the plan has been through the public hearing process and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) has it. Mr. Roosevelt said the design process is starting on the bypass project. VDOT has either advertised or soon will advertise for a consultant to do the design of this project. If there are major changes which require location approval, these changes will be developed as a part of this process and the public hearing held sometime in 1996. At that time, if changes are so substantial that it requires a new location hearing, there will be a combined location and design public hearing. He thinks agreement to consider a revised alignment on the northern end of the project is based upon comments which came from citizens in the area. Also, individual members of this Board have expressed some concern about the fact that the alignment of the bypass on the current plan runs through the Lowe's Store. Mrs. Humphris said this was known when the alignment was designed. She is not in opposition to what is happening, but she is curious, because every- thing else that is done with VDOT operates with such precise conditions and hearings. All of a sudden this Board hears that VDOT officials are consider- ing a totally different alignment which has different environmental and fiscal implications. She is curious about the situation because given the rigidity with which VDOT operates, it seems strange that all of a sudden someone can suggest that VDOT officials look at another plan and they do so. Mr. Roosevelt answered that VDOT officials have not said they are considering changes, but, have stated that VDOT officials will look at a revised alignment at the northern end of the project as a part of the design phase, which is just beginning. He said that, to his knowledge, there is no active revision of the alignment occurring anywhere along Alignment 10. He stated that VDOT is advertising to hire a consultant, and all of the location information and approvals which have occurred up to this time will be given to that consultant who will be instructed to design the project and take it to a public hearing in 1996. As VDOT gets into this process, VDOT officials have agreed that other alternative alignments which vary slightly from Alignment 10 will be considered. Nothing will be done to affect Alignment 11 or 12; only modifications to Alignment 10 will be considered. If it is determined that those modifications require additional location hearings, then the location hearing will be combined with the design hearing in 1996. Mrs. Humphris wondered when an environmental impact study would have to be done and where it would fit into the process Mr. Roosevelt just described. Mr. Roosevelt replied that if there needs to be a modification to the environ- mental impact study, that would be done prior to the location and design hearing in 1996. He is not saying the environmental impact statement will have to be changed, but is simply saying that if it does have to be changed, it will be done prior to the location and design hearing in 1996. He noted that the environmental impact study which was done for the Route 29 corridor was quite a comprehensive document. He is not in a position to say that if the alignment is changed that document will have to be modified. He added March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) M.B. 43, Pg. 199 that if it does have to be modified, it will be done, and it will be made available for public hearing during the 1996 hearing process. There-was 'hoi'further dlscusszon of this item. Agenda Item No. 7b. Discussion: Langford Farms Subdivision. Mr. Tucker said in response to a petition by the Langford Farms Homeown- ers Association, the Board requested that staff provide additional information on the process to be followed in getting two roads brought into the State Secondary Road System. The two roads are Montgomery Lane and Pippin Lane. At the December 2, 1992, Board meeting staff had originally requested that the Board appropriate $22,000 for the necessary road repairs of which $10,000 was to be provided from the developer's road bond with the remaining $12,000 coming from County funds. The Board agreed to appropriate the $22,000 upon the condition that the homeowners contribute 50 percent of the additional cost, i.e. $6000, and with the understanding that the County Attorney would endeavor to first recover the additional $12,000 from the developer. The County Adorn determined that there was no recourse with the developer, and, thus the County Engineer notified the Homeowners Association of the require- ment for them to provide 50 percent of the additional cost. Mr. Tucker said these roads were constructed approximately 12 years ago and bonded with the bonds being renewed annually. Two of the four roads were not eligible to be brought into the State System, Montgomery Lane (finally eligible in 1989) and Pippin Lane (finally eligible in 1990). The requirement to have three dwellings on the road, which was beyond the control of the developer, was the controlling factor for Montgomery Lane. Pippin Lane was held up pending resolution of responsibility for bonding a central well system that was located in the road right-of-way. Between Fall, 1989 and October, 1991, staff's efforts were directed to having the required work completed by the developer even though the developer was defunct in 1986. Mr. Tucker said the process of negotiation with the developer and the bonding company was reaching fruition until a site visit by VDOT and County staff on November 13, 1991, determined that vegetation had encroached into the road reducing the width of the road bed two feet. The developer was unwilling to complete this rework and the County had to proceed with completing the work with funds received from the bond. The bond had been called and funds were received in October, 1991. Between October, 1991 and the appropriation request in December, 1992, staff was consolidating other small projects in an effort to seek a favorable bid for construction in the Spring of 1992. Costs on Montgomery and Pippin Lanes exceeded the funds from the called bond by $12,000. Mr. Tucker said the County Attorney has reaffirmed his opinion that the County has no recourse with the developer. At issue is the additional $12,000 required. If the Board decides to fully fund this project, the funding is available from an existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project which is nearing completion. Mr. Marshall inquired if the County is assuming full responsibility instead of joint responsibility with the homeowners. Mr. Tucker responded affirmatively. Mr. Bain said this situation is different from what has been done in the past based on information the Supervisors received. He then moved that the Board appropriate $22,000 to bring Montgomery Lane and Pippin Lane, in Langford Farms Subdivision, into the State SecOndary System. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Mr. Perkins referred to the requirement for three dwelling units to be located on a road before the road can be taken into the State Secondary System, which was the controlling factor for Montgomery Lane. He asked if these dwelling units have to be occupied. Mr. Tucker said that is his understanding. Mr. Perkins said he is not going to support the motion. He asked if it would be possible for the County to take the bond, give it to the landowners, and leave those two roads as private roads. Mr. St. John responded that when the subdivision plat was approved and put to record, the roads were dedicated to public use and the County owns the fee in these roads. For these roads to become private roads, the plat would have to be vacated, and if all of the owners did not agree, it would have to be done by ordinance, with an appeal to the Circuit Court by anybody who resisted it. If that happened, then the centerline of the road would become the boundaries of the lots. He explained that the County could return the $10,000 to the Homeowners' Association, and the roads be private roads. It is unlawful for the County to expend money for the construction of private roads, etc. He went on to say, however, that since this bond money is directed to a specific project, it can be done. If the Board should decide to appropriate the additional $12,000, the only justification for that being done is that the County has accepted these two roads as public roads. The County could not, even if it wanted tow make expenditures because of liability caused by negligence of its employees. The County is immune to that type of situation, and it is unlawful to waive that immunity. It is also unlawful to treat this as if construction of these roads March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) ~4.B.437 Pg.200 (Page 10) had been a County guarantee. The County tries to protect the homeowners by the bond mechanism, just as there ..is apolice force to protect people from robberies. He .added thatif .tbe~olide can't prevent a robbery, then the County hasn't guarahteed to reimburse the victims. He reiterated that the only justification for appropriating the additional $12,000 is that this is a public road, and the County owns the fee. Mr. Perkins said the roads could be converted back to private roads, but the process that Mr. St. John described would have to be followed. He said the Board has talked about this type of situation a number of times, and he is sure there will be other projects where the bonds won't cover the costs. It seems to him that this Board is setting a bad precedent, even though differ- ences can be pointed out in most situations. There are a certain number of people who are going to benefit from this action, and he can support fifty percent of the costs being paid by the County, but he cannot support the Board approving the total $12,000. Mr. Marshall said he had felt the same way as Mr. Perkins since he first heard about the situation. He rarely disagrees with Mr. Perkins, but there are 25 years involved with this case. If it had been only 10 or 12 years, he might feel differently, but after this amount of time, he feels the County is responsible for the roads. This bond should have been called a long time ago, and it would behoove County officials to look at the bonds that are currently on the books very carefully so that this same situation does not come about again. Mr. Marshall emphasized that he has no intention of supporting such a request again. He pointed out that there are a lot of other roads in the County which have not had as much time involved as this one, and County officials need to be considering these bonds and calling them while these corporations are still in existence. In this particular case, the corporation does not exist anymore, and the County has no recourse at all for collecting any money. Mr. Perkins asked why Mr. Marshall referred to 25 years. Mr. Marshall answered that it was his understanding when he talked to Mr. Cilimberg that this situation has been in existence for 25 years. Mr. Tucker stated that Langford Farms has not been in existence for 25 years. Mr. Marshall apolo- gized for his mistake but went on to say that he still feels the same way. He talked to the people on these two roads, and they feel as though they have been taken in by this situation. Me mentioned that he was in a similar situation for many years and he had to build a road. Mr. Martin pointed out that the developer brought these roads up to State standard on at least two occasions. When this is considered, it reflects a situation where circumstances just didn't fit, and it is not a situation where somebody didn't take responsibility for something for which he or she was responsible. Mr. Bain recalled Mr. Tucker's comments that the staff is trying to be more strict with matters relating to bonds. He said that Mr. Perkins has also alluded to the fact that there have to be three occupied houses located on a road. Mr. Bain emphasized that he knows this is a VDOT policy. It is not that he necessarily disagrees with that policy, but he would like to consider ways to get around situations where the bond is being held, and there are economic downturns relating to residential development. Me wondered if there is some other way to handle such situations. Mr. St. John stated that the County could have called this bond years ago, but it would not have done any good. He said this situation would still exist even if the County had called the bond, because the County would only have $10,000. He pointed out that there are still not three occupied houses on the road. Mr. Tucker said if a bond is called in a situation such as Mr. St. John described, County officials have no way of getting any additional money. Mr. St. John remarked that once a bond is called the County cannot get another bond when the road continues to deteriorate and there are not three occupied houses located on it. This is not a breakdown in calling the bond. This is a situation that happened twice with the same road where too much time elapsed between completion of the road to the standard of the plans, and when the third house was occupied. This is a perplexing situation, and under State law the County has no mechanism to deal with it. Mr. Marshall commented that the bond was issued to a corporation, and he asked why this bond cannot be issued to a substantial stockholder in that corporation and get a personal endorsement on it. Me asked if this is legal. Mr. St. John replied that it would be legal, but he does not know of any situation where this has been done. Mr. Marshall said banks do this sort of thing. Mr. St. John concurred. He said he does not know what effect it would have on the whole development process. Mr. Bain commented that all of the Supervisors recognize that there are similar situations in the County, although it is not known when they will be brought to this Board's attention, or how significant they will be. He noted that there are bonds continuing on lots of projects. Mr. Marshall remarked that if a personal endorsement could be obtained, and if the corporation went defunct, the County would have recourse to the individual. He does not see any reason why the County cannot do this. He reiterated that the banks do it all the time. Mr. St. John noted that staff is in the process of finalizing a manual which covers all of this in writing. Currently, there are no written instructions for the staff to use in reviewing March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) M.B. 43, Pg. 201 and approving matters relating to these bonds. The manual is based on what a couple of other counties 'are doing. However, that individual endorsement is At this time, Mrs. Humphris stated that she would support the motion. She feels the homeowners should not have to be responsible for the problems that are now known to be in the County's process relating to calling the bond or demanding that it be increased, when there is the opportunity to do so. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Perkins. (The appropriation, as adopted, is set out below.) APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920058 FUND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: IMPROVEMENTS TO ROADS IN LANGFORD SUBDIVISION EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1900041000950096 LANGFORD ROADS 1900041020950036 BERKMARDRIVE 1100093010930004 GEN'L FUND-TRANSFER TO CIP TOTAL AMOUNT $22,000.00 (12,000.00) 10,000.00 $20,000.00 REVENUE 2900051000512004 2100051000510105 DESCRIPTION CIP-TRANSFER FROM GEN'L FUND GEN'L FUND RESTRICTED FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $10,000.00 10,000.00 $20,000.00 Agenda Item No. 7c. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roosevelt announced that he had brought copies of an announcement to this meeting relating to the public hearing about the Hydraulic Road (Route 743) improvements. He invited Board members to attend this public hearing which is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. at Jack Jouett Middle School on Thursday, March 11, 1993. He said there is a period from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. when the plans can be reviewed with engineers from VDOT. Plans for this project are also available in his office if anyone wants to see them prior to that time. After the public hearing, he will request a recommendation from this Board as to the location and design for this project. Mrs. Humphris commented that unfortunately there is a meeting conflict with the Hydraulic Road public hearing. There is a meeting relating to the southern Charlottesville transportation study and entrance corridor plans at 7:30 p.m. at Jackson Via Elementary School on March 11. This includes both the southern area of Charlottesville and the adjacent southern urban area of Albemarle County. She thinks it is important that members of the Supervisors try to attend both of these meetings. Mr. Tucker publicly thanked Mr. Roosevelt's staff for the fine job that the Highway Department did during this last snow storm. He has heard some positive comments about the work that the VDOT staff did in getting the County's roads cleared very quickly, and he also witnessed it himself. Mr. Bain called attention to the fact that Route 682 continues to have major problems. He said there was a major accident on Route 682 recently, but, fortunately, no one was hurt. There are problems with roads across the County, but this particular accident was due to the condition of the road. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on a request to include property of David Booth/Sandra Andrews and Sherwood Exum (Goco, Inc.) in the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority (Public hearing deferred from February 3, 1993). Mr. Cilimberg said samples from the well on property known as Tax Map 79, Parcel 19 (Booth/Andrews) were taken by Applied Technology and Engineer- ing, P.C. (January 28, 1993, letter from Mr. John W. Walenten). The County Department of Engineering has provided a response (February 24, 1993, memoran- dum from Mr. Jack Kelsey). Engineering staff does not find adequate justifi- cation for amendment of the service area to include this property. As to Tax Map 79, Parcel 18 (Goco), this property was the subject of the August 14, 1989, State Water Control Board letter, and, the "Site, Risk and Remediation Assessment of Groundwater Contamination at the Shadwell 76 Station, Shadwell, Virginia," report. Substantial petroleUm contamination was found in the domestic well supply at this site. A Corrective Action Plan was identified. It has since been found that the line carrying run-off from the March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) M.B. 43, Pg. 202 graveled area near the unloading rack is not the source contaminating the well. According to Mr. Harry Montague, a representative of Goco, it is now believed that contamination of the unloading rack area and contamination of the well are unrelated. The well is believed to be the source of isolated contamination resulting from vandalism. The well is n© longer being used as there is only one employee on the site. Goco has not attempted to establish another domestic well on-site, although monitoring wells established for the assessment indicate the contamination was localized. Mr. Cilimberg said utility service outside of designated growth areas has typically been limited to those cases where properties have experienced quality/quantity problems and are adjacent to existing lines. Booth/Andrews desire a water only designation and have a documented coliform level not acceptable for drinking water. However, the recommended procedure for resolution of this problem has not been undertaken. Mr. Cilimberg said staff does not recommend a service area amendment for Parcel 19 (Booth/Andrews) until the four-step procedure for resolving the coliform problem has been exhausted. Mr. Cilimberg said Goco desires a designation of water only to existing structures and has documented localized petroleum contamination. No new well source has been attempted to be established. The use of the site is restrict- ed by its non-conforming zoning status and on-site activities do not require more than domestic water needs. Staff does not recommend service area amendment for Parcel 18 until evidence is provided that no other on-site water source is available. There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg from Board members, so Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bill Brent if he wanted to offer any comments. Mr. Brent replied negatively. He said that the Albemarle County Service Authority Board has taken no position in this matter. Mr. Bowerman then opened the public hearing. First to speak was Mr. Harry Montague, President of Goco, Inc. Mr. Montague said he just received the staff report on Monday. He then contacted Mr. Jeffrey Sitler of Hydro- systems, Inc. This is the firm that did the initial site assessment which was submitted to the State Water Control Board. He asked Mr. Sitler what the chances were of finding usable water on the site, and to suggest where a well should be drilled. He picked up a letter from Mr. Sitler yesterday afternoon, and he then distributed copies of this letter to the Board members. Mr. Montague read the letter. Because of the severity of the groundwater contami- nation at the site and existing geologic conditions, Mr. Sitler does not recommend the placement of a water supply well on the Goco property. Mr. Montague referred to a site plan, a copy of which was attached to the letter. The checkerboard pattern shows groundwater flow which goes sideways and then flows northwest toward Monitoring Well Number Five. As far as the other monitoring wells are concerned, it is thought that if water is pumped out of one of those wells it will show contamination picked up enroute across the site. He pointed out that Monitoring Well No. 4 is not actually on Goco property, but is on State highway property. He noted that this is the only place on the property where there might be a chance of getting uncontami- nated well water, but he said this spot is not shown in the checkerboard area. Mr. Sitler's opinion is that this area probably will not remain free from contamination once water begins to be drawn from the well. Mr. Montague said his business is small, and, at this time it is facing enormous regulatory costs. He has had to replace several underground tanks, and is faced with upgrading several more. The State Water Control Board has new above-ground tank regulations which are slated to go into effect July 1, 1993, and they will require that a substantial amount of money be spent on this particular site. With the stormwater discharge regulations scheduled to go into effect within the year, all of these regulations, while good for the environment, place an enormous burden on small businesses, and in some cases are forcing them out of business. In light of the consultant's opinion, he does not want to put more money into wells on this site. He understands the Supervisors' reluctance to set a precedent, however, he requested that they review this situation as a hardship case. Mrs. Humphris referred to the fact that the domestic well had isolated contamination due to vandalism. She asked how this well was contaminated. Mr. Montague stated that a farm manager from a nearby farm told him that approximately 15 years ago, which was about the time that this well was contaminated, there were several juveniles contaminating wells along the railroad tracks. These juveniles were caught a few miles up the road at the Fire Department. Mrs° Humphris asked the nature of the contamination. Mr. Montague replied that the well was contaminated with a gasoline product. He added that representatives from Hydrosystems agreed with the explanation by the farm manager because they were perplexed as to how the highest contami- nation around the loading rack got to the on-site well. Mrs. Humphris asked what has been used for drinking water for 15 years. Mr. Montague replied that they have not had drinking water on the site. Mrs. Humphris asked why another water supply is needed now. Mr. Montague said he has worked at this location on occasion when an employee did not show up for work. It is a hardship to bring your own water, plus service the cars. There is no place to wash hands, etc. It is not the best situation, and it is something that his company would like to remedy. He went on to say that his March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) M.B. 43, Pg. 203 company representatives never felt as though there was a chance to remedy the situation before, but with the water line going through the site, he thinks it is only fair that his business should be able to attach to it. Mrs. Humphris inquired as to what will be constructed on the site. Mr. Montague replied that he would be constructing nothing at this time. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Montague's request relates to existing structures only. Mr. Montague answered affirmatively. Ms. Carolyn Michie said that she and her husband own the property adjacent to the Goco property. She has read the report that Hydrosystems pre- pared, and she also studied County staff comments. She said these properties are not in a growth area. They are not designed to attach to the water line. This connection will allow development on 'Route 22, and there have been many accidents in that area. If this area is developed, then that portion of Route 22 will have to"be improved. She pointed out that Mr. Exum's request is based on contamination. The Michie property also has a well located close to the railroad. This well was tested and it also is contaminated. She was told approximately ten years ago that the contamination came from years of the railroad being located there. The report indicates that some of the contami- nation on the Goco property is caused by years of problems with the oil company, such as spills, or other things happening. She mentioned that there are a lot of old tanks and old pipes stored on top of the well area. She feels this should be cleaned up, and it would help that situation. Once public water is provided, she feels there will be a zoning change request, and this business will be converted to a convenience store as has been done at three other locations, two of them in Charlottesville. Ms. Michie then remarked that the report does not address the depth of the wells surrounding this property. Her well is located approximately 400 feet from the well on the Goco property. The report does not take into consideration that her well goes 400 feet into the ground and at present is approximately 300 feet below the actual level of the Goco plant operations. If the water line connection is allowed when new wells could possibly be drilled, then she feels a precedent is being set, which is opening the door to development. Her biggest concern, however, is the danger to the surrounding wells. Once these two properties are allowed to connect to the water line, there will be little interest by these people in protecting the owners of the surrounding wells from the day-to-day operations which are carried on. If the connections are allowed, then the Supervisors will have to consider that the remainder of the people who live close to these two properties will be in the same situation. Mr. Jim Baldheim, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Southwest Mountains Coalition, stated that there has been a long-standing Board policy to coordinate Albemarle County Service Authority service areas with the growth areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan. He read a statement indicating that public water should be reserved for the property owners in growth areas and not extended on speculative proposals. He also reminded the Board members of the commitment which was made to many residents in the Keswick area when the Glenmore project was approved. This commitment was that the water line was to serve the growth area and would not have other connec- tions. He knows the Board members cannot be responsible for actions of past Boards, but the past chairman of the Supervisors stated unequivocally that this water line would not have other connections. There is already this situation, before the water line is even completed, where people are asking to connect to the water line for reasons which are not valid. If someone has not had water for 15 years, and has not felt the necessity to drill a well for water, then he does not see the necessity now. Mro Baldheim then recommended that the Board deny the request. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Booth wished to speak. Mr. Booth replied, "no." At this time, Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing. Mr. Martin said Mrs. Michie and Mr. Baldheim are here in protest to both of these applications, but the Board received information today which indi- cates that this could be a hardship situation. He would like to defer the Goco request and give the people who are concerned a chance to review the document that is before this Board. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Martin would like to defer the Booth/Andrews application also, or just Goco's application. He noted that the Board has no additional information on the Booth site. Mr. Martin responded that he would, at least, like to defer Goco's request. He added that it is fine with him if the other Board members would like to consider the Booth/Andrews application at this time. Mr. Bain said Mr. Baldheim mentioned that Go¢o's situation has been going on for 15 years, and there apparently had not been a necessity for water during that time. He said that even with this new information, he does not see that this is an emergency situation. If the Goco representatives drill another well, and it does not work, then he would support the request. He does not mind deferring Goco's request, but he emphasized that he will not support either request at this point. Mr. Marshall remarked that he also would have trouble supporting the requests. Mr. Martin indicated that he is not saying he will support the applica- tions. He is only stating that this is information which shows that it may March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) M.B. 43, Pg. 204 not be an emergency situation, but it is getting close to a hardship situa- tion. Mrs.~p~i~:"~i~e~a~dl~i~"this letter, there is still an opportu- nity to drill a well. The regulations under which this Board operates will not have been fulfilled unless that is done. Deferral of the application, unless the well is drilled, will not change anything for her. Mr. Perkins wondered if this Board is working under a double standard, since a water line connection has been granted to Stone-Robinson Elementary School. He asked the justification for doing that. Mrs. Humphris responded that fire regulations require the water line connection for the school. Mr. Tucker explained that the sprinkler system was a factor in the school's approval for the water line connection. Mr. Bowerman stated that the water line connection for Stone-Robinson was considered at the beginning. Mr. Marshall commented that the contamination of Mrs. Michie's water supply concerns him. Mr. Bain remarked that this Board knew from the beginning that the school had to connect to the water line. Mr. Cilimberg noted that when changes were made for the Village of Rivanna in the Comprehen- sive Plan, it was determined that there would be water to the school only, outside of that village. Mrs. Humphris said she cannot support either of these requests unless the procedure which staff outlined is followed. At this time, Mrs. Humphris moved denial of the request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service only for David Booth/Sandra Andrews, relating to Tax Map 79, Parcel 19, and for Sherwood Exum's request for water service only to existing structures for Tax Map 79, Parcel 18. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Mr. Martin said he will vote against the motion. He is not necessarily doing this because he supports the first motion. He feels there is at least one person representing two groups plus another person who are concerned about this matter. Even though these people are against these applications, the Supervisors have information which was just given to them, and these people should have the opportunity to review this information. He went on to say that these two people could, then, let this Board know at a public hearing whether or not they would still be against this proposal. He reiterated that he will not support this motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Martin. The Board recessed at 10:44 a.m. and reconvened at 10:55 a.m. (Mr. St. John did not return at this time.) Agenda Item No. 9. Status Report on Crozet Crossing Project. Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, referred to the staff's report: Site Work - consisting of primarily road construction (including stream crossing) and utility installation is approximately 93 per- cent complete. Hard-surfacing and final erosion control measures need to be completed. It is anticipated that the first three units can be occupied in May at which time the County will proceed with getting the road accepted into the State Secondary System. The new road is now being used for access to the site from Cling Lane. 2e Home Construction - There are currently 13 units under construc- tion. As noted above, three units should be ready for occupancy in May. Ail 30 units are scheduled to be completed by the end of November, 1993. Home Sales - At this time there is a waiting list of 185 appli- cants. Twenty-eight applicants have satisfied all requirements to qualify for purchasing a home. Fifteen of those are considered ready to purchase homes. Twenty-seven additional families have been signed up to attend the next homebuyer's seminar (the fifth seminar held to date)~ which is a requirement for ownership in Crozet Crossing. Charlottesville Housing Foundation (CHF) will be closing on the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) construction loan within the next weeks. This construction loan is for $1,375,000. However, only a maximum of $550,000 can be outstanding at any period of time. Because of this requirement, CHF would like to begin selling homes as soon as possible. The CHF Board has agreed to begin sales. Because of its partnership with the County in this project, the CHF Board is requesting the consent of the County Board of Supervisors in proceeding with home sales. Staff recommends Board approval to proceed with home sales. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) M.B. 43, Pg. 205 Recapture Plan Amendment - It has been the intent of CHF and the County to recapture public funds contributed to this project and recycle those funds into other housing efforts in the County. In order to do this with a project using a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), a program income plan was approved by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), the agency responsible for administering the CDBG program. Therefore, the County and CHF have developed a Recapture Plan which outlines the amount of funds to be recaptured, method of recapture, and the intended use of those funds. The existing Recapture Plan, approved by the County and DHCD, anticipates recapturing 100 percent of CDBG, County and CHF funds invested in the project ($813,000). These were to be recaptured based on the homebuyer's ability to pay either as cash at closing of the initial sale or secured through a second deed of trust to be recaptured at the subsequent sale of the home. The Recapture Plan was developed before final construction plans were completed and before bids were received for the work. It was drafted as a "best case" scenario where 100 percent of the funds would be recaptured. Bids for both site development work and house construction came in at higher costs than initially antici- pated. Also, CHF has incurred additional costs over and above those which were previously anticipated to be covered with in-kind contributions of service. In order to offset the additional cost while continuing to provide the maximum assistance/benefit to the purchasers, the Recapture Plan needs to be revised to more accurately indicate the amount of funds anticipated to be recaptured. The minimum amount to be recaptured is $300,000. It is quite possible that additional amounts can be recaptured, depending on the purchaser's ability to pay, or should there be reduced development costs. The County and CHF are attempting to minimize the cost of development to the greatest extent possible. Staff recommends that the Board approve amendment of the Recapture Plan to reflect a minimum recapture of $300,000. If approved by the Board, staff will make the necessary amendments to be signed by the County Executive and forwarded to DHCD for approval. Mr. Bain said before the Board votes on the Recapture Plan, he would like to have a breakdown of the figures causing the increase. Mr. Benish stated that when the application was made, the cost of site construction was anticipated to be between $220,000 and $250,000. After the public hearings were held, and the scope of the project known, the estimate was between $350,000 and $370,000. Final construction costs were actually $472,000. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Benish's figures relate to site preparation, roads and utilities. Mr. Benish replied that he is referring to site develop- ment, and that is the portion of the project for which the block grant is to be used. Mr. Marshall commented that if $300,000 is taken from $813,000, it leaves $513,000. He wondered if he is to assume that the County is underwrit- ing the project in the amount of $513,000. Mr. Perkins explained that there is $300,000 of County money involved, and there is also $300,000 coming from the block grant. He said that the other money will be coming from CHF. Mr. Marshall asked again how much money the County is underwriting. Mr. Perkins answered that the County would be responsible for $300,000. Mr. Martin said that the County would recapture the $300,000. Mr. Bain stated that the County will recapture a portion. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the County might recapture 100 percent of the money. Mr. Cilimberg stated that all of the money recaptured will go into a trust fund. Mr. Marshall asked if anybody is keeping track of the development costs. Mr. Forrest Kerns, with the Charlottesville Housing Foundation, stated that the original estimate for the site work was approximately $300,000. A year or so after these estimates were made, it was found that the site work was going to cost approximately $100,000 more than the estimate. Mr. Bain said the staff's report notes that both the site development work and the construction of the houses came in at higher costs than were initially anticipated. He asked how much cost was associated with the house construction. Mr. Kerns replied that house construction costs are approxi- mately $75,000 to $100,000 over the estimate. Mr. Perkins said as far as site costs are concerned, they increased because this type of project has to go through government regulations and "red tape," compared to private contrac- tors. (Note: Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:04 a.m.) Mr. Bain said he would like to know about the difference between the $800,000 and the $300,000. Mr. Kerns responded that part of the difference is in the appraisal. The houses had been appraised at a much lower price, and they have not been able to sell the houses at the anticipated price. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) M.B. 43, Pg. 206 Mr. Bowerman asked the amount of the subsidy for each house versus the appraisal price, versus the construction cost. Mr. Kerns replied that the subsidy for each house is a little more than $10,000. Mr. Bain stated that, depending on the appraisals, another $500,000 might be recaptured. Mr. Tucker said this is why a minimum amount to be recaptured has been set, but it needs to be recognized that it is anticipated that more could be available. Mr. Marshall said he would like to try for whatever amount of money it is possible to get. He suggested that the recapture amount of money be increased to $500,000. Mr. Cilimberg noted that if a higher sum of money is not achieved, then there is trouble with the grant agency, so it is important to be conservative. Mr. Kerns remarked that any increase in the appraisals will result in an increase to the Recapture Plan. Mr. Marshall said it does not make sense that the appraisals would be less than the actual costs. Mr. Martin said the houses have not been built. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the build-out has not been completed, and the houses have not been sold. Mr. Martin commented that once the houses begin to sell, then the appraisals will be based on the selling price. Mr. Kerns remarked that the price will still be based on appraisals for the market in that area. Mr. Martin concurred. Mr. Marshall asked who is responsible for the appraisals. Mr. Kerns responded that a local appraiser has looked at the Crozet Crossing plans and compared them to comparable houses in Orchard Acres and given an anticipated appraisal amount. He said that when the site work costs are added, plus other construction costs of the houses, the total costs are higher than the ap- praisal amount. He pointed out that it is only possible to get a mortgage for the appraisal amount, and the difference between the construction costs, disregarding some of the site work, is what has been included in the Recapture Plan. Mr. Marshall said he is looking at this from a businessman's point of view. He asked what bank is going to loan money to someone in this type of situation. Mr. Bowerman stated that the project cannot be considered in that light. It is a subsidized project, and County officials want to provide housing at a reasonable cost. He said a block grant was available, the Charlottesville Housing Foundation participated, and the County made a contribution. It was hoped that the County could recapture all of its contribution, but staff is now reporting that in order to keep the houses priced at a level for which they can be sold to the income group for which they were aimed, there is going to be some public subsidy of the project, although it could be less than what the report indicates today. Mr. Marshall responded that he wants to know how much money is involved. Mr. Bowerman answered that the amount of money requested is approximately $10,000 a house. Mr. Bain said that $10,000 a house is a minimum, but it could be more° Mr. Martin said the report indicates that there are 28 applicants who have satisfied all of the requirements to qualify for purchasing a home, but the homes aren't complete at this time. Mr. Tucker answered that there will be three homes completed by May. Mr. Martin wondered if there is any reason why a person could not own the home, even though it is not completed, if that person qualified for a loan. Me said that he owned his home while it was being built. Mr. Perkins stated that the applicants have gone through the process to get on this approval list, but they still don't have a loan. Mr. Tucker informed the Board members that the staff is asking the Board for approval to start selling the homes. Mr. Kerns said the application has to go to the Virginia Housing Development Authority, and approval will take at least two months. He noted that no applications have been submitted yet, and that is what is being requested of this Board today. This Board is being requested to allow the houses to be sold at the prices that have been recom- mended. He added that the difference between the selling costs and the appraisal value will be the recapture amount. He commented that this process requires approval of the Recapture Plan. At this time, Mr. Perkins made a motion to approve the Crozet Crossing home sales request. Mrs. Humphris secon4ed the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None° Next, Mr. Perkins made a motion, seconded by Mr. Martin to amend the Recapture Plan to reflect the minimum recapture amount of at least $300,000. Mr. Bain wondered if the contribution per house is $10,000. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the recapture amount would be $10,000 per house. He said it is a deferred loan, but if the deferred loan can be higher because the sales price increases, or costs decrease, then there would be a chance of recaptur- ing more money. Mr. Bowerman stated that the recapture amount will be determined as each house is closed. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) M.B. 43, Pg. 207 Mr. Bain asked how there can be an increase in the sales price for each house, since the project will be done in a six-month period. Mr. Cilimberg answered that all of the houses will_not go on the market at the same time. Mr. Bain said that the houses will go on the market within six months. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there will be initial sales, but as it is with any development, sale prices a month or two later will be based on the market and appraisals. Mr. Kern stated that construction is anticipated to be completed by November, but there will be subsequent sales. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes Mr. Marshall has already been told by the appraiser that he sees the opportunity, after the initial sales, for an increase in appraisal of approximately five percent over what the houses can be appraised at now. Mr. Kerns said this is true after the first house sells° Mr. Bowerman pointed out that after the first house sells, the other houses will appraise at five percent more. Mr. Bain stated that he would not argue about this now, but he did not see how it could be done. Mr. Perkins wondered how many houses are to be built under the current contract. Mr. Kerns replied that there are currently 30 houses under the contract~ Mr. Perkins mentioned the increase in the price of lumber, and he asked how this affects the builders. Mr. Kerns answered that the builders buy their materials ahead of time. He noted that the builders currently have materials for ten or twelve houses. The builders get their lumber from a local suppli- er, and they store it at the building supply company. He added that the lumber is delivered, as it is needed. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Mr. Perkins stated that he feels the Board needs more frequent informa- tion, such as the cost of the site, the house prices and how exactly this money is being spent. He said this brings up the responsibility of the audit of these funds, and he wondered if this is the County's responsibility or if the responsibility lies outside of the County. Mr. Tucker responded that he believes both the County and the State will require audits because funds from both entities will be used. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board could be given copies of these audits. Mr. Tucker agreed that this can be done. He added that the information which Mr. Kerns has discussed today may be helpful° He said that Mr. Kerns was speaking from information off of a spreadsheet, and the Board can have copies of this information also. Mr. Bain concurred that this would be good information for the Board to have. He said that a monthly report would be helpful as the houses are selling, if this will not place too much of a burden on the people involved. Mr. Bowerman asked the selling price of these homes. Mr. Kerns replied that the homes will sell for approximately $75,000. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing to solicit comments on a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application to be submitted to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) for a county housing rehabilitation project which may include the Esmont, North Gardens Covesville, Batesville, Crozet, Midway, Afton, Schuyler and Keswick areas. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 24, 1993.) Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the County~ in conjunction with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), will use the funds toward the rehabilitation of 32 substandard units in three targeted areas -- Keswick, Schuyler and Esmont. Albemarle County will request $500,000 in CDBG funds for implementation of this project. These funds will be leveraged with funds from the County, the Charlottesville Housing Foundation, Farmers Home Administration, Virginia Housing Partnership Fund, and the Indoor Plumbing Program. Total project cost is $1.161 million. He pointed out that the deadline for the application is March 12, 1993. At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing. Mr. Martin immediately offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution: RE S 0 LUT I 0N WHEREAS, that pursuant to public hearings, the County of Albemarle wishes to apply $500,000 of Virginia Community Develop- ment Block Grant funds for a housing rehabilitation project to address thirty-two (32) dwelling units; and WHEREAS, $201,000 from Albemarle County and $460,000 will be secured in the form of low interest loans on behalf of the client families from the Charlottesville Housing Foundation loan fund, the Virginia Housing Partnership loan fund and Farmers Home Administration; it is projected that eighty (80) persons will March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) M.B. 43, Pg. 208 benefit from the implementation of this project; all of which are low- and moderate-income persons; NOW,-~THEREFORE, BE~IT'~'RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, is hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate documents for submittal for this Virginia Community Development Block Grant application. Mr. Perkins noted Albemarle County's obligation of $201,000 as shown in the resolution, and he asked from what source this money will come. Mr. Tucker stated that this money will be taken from the County's contribution to AHIP. Mr. Perkins next asked the total amount of the project. Mr. Benish replied that the project totals $1.161 million. Mr. Perkins commented that if there are 32 houses involved, then the houses will cost approximately $30,000 each. He asked if these houses have been examined, and if this is the amount of money necessary to bring them up to standard. Mr. Benish replied that this is the estimate for the average cost per house. Mr. Bain pointed out that if these houses are improved, and the improve- ments are picked up by the County's real estate assessors, then this will mean an additional $250 in taxes per year for each individual. He asked if staff has considered how completion of the project will affect the people who are living in these houses. Ms. Tapscott responded that there is an outreach group which provides counseling to families on the tax effects of the improve- ments to their properties whenever there is a rehabilitation program. She also noted that 63 percent of the clients are elderly and these people are eligible for tax relief. Mr. Bain asked if there is any type of follow-up program to see if these services are carried through. Ms. Tapscott answered, "yes.'° She stated that the Outreach Director will sometimes personally take the application and complete it for the clients, and the situation has to be reviewed on an annual basis. Hopefully, the improvements to the property will save the homeowners fuel costs, repair costs and health care costs, etc., and will offset the increase in taxes. Mr. Tucker asked the primary cost per unit. Ms. Tapscott replied that subcontractor costs add up because the program concentrates on units which lack complete indoor plumbing. The most cost is involved when units require a well, septic system and indoor plumbing and upgrading of electrical service. Mr. Bain wondered how improvements to the units are supervised. Ms. Tapscott responded that there is a person on staff who does the preliminary cost estimate, and the program has its own construction crews who actually perform the work. She noted that there are people on the job site who inspect the subcontractors' work. In addition, building permits are purchased through the County for each application, so the work is inspected and approved by County staff. There are also monitors from several funding sources who inspect the work to make sure that the work complies with their standards. Mr. Bowerman asked how many homes have been rebuilt since the inception of the program. Ms. Tapscott replied that approximately 450 homes have been upgraded, and within the past five or six years there has been a more complete rehabilitation of homes. In the 1970s and 1980s, AHIP served in a repair position. Now, AHIP finds itself returning to the earlier type projects. There may be some duplication in the total homes which have been upgraded, but the rehabilitation program now seems to eliminate the necessity to go back later to the same project. Mr. Bowerman asked if the 32 units and 80 persons who are expected to benefit from the implementation of this project are in addition to the 450 upgraded projects. Ms. Tapscott responded that the 32 units are in addition to the 450 homes which have been rehabilitated. Mr. Bain wondered if there are other rehabilitation projects involved during the next year. Ms. Tapscott answered that AHIP staff will make appli- cations to other programs. She went on to say that by the end of March she will submit an application to the Department of Health and Human Services for approximately $200,000 which will help with 12 to 15 rehabilitations. The more grant money that can be put into a project, the lower the income that can be served. The block grant will go to specific areas but the OCS grant will probably be county-wide. In addition to the OCS grant, there are some funds available from the new Federal Homes Program which will enable AHIP to work county-wide. With these funds, however, AHIP's crews do not actually perform the work. AHIP staff does the cost estimates and then bids the job out to private general contractors. AHIP staff also inspects and supervises the work. Mr. Benish pointed out that there is also the Emergency Home Repair Program which addresses emergency needs and prevents homes from becoming further disrepaired until they can be put into a rehabilitation program. Roll was called, and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.43, Pg.209 (Page 19) AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. (No% Docke%ed: Mr. Bowerman said that with the Board's permission, he would like to take a couple of agenda items out of order. There are members of the public and staff present at this time because of these items. He announced that discussion of the Darden Towe Memorial would be next on the agenda, followed by the presentation of the 1991-92 Audit Report. He said that after these two items, the Board would return to its regular agenda. Agenda Item No. 14. Darden Towe Memorial, Discussion of Committee Report. Mr. Tucker said that on February 23, 1993, the Rivanna Park Committee met to'discuss the recommendation of the Darden Towe Memorial Committee to rename Rivanna Park. In attendance were Mr. David Bowerman and Mr. Charles Martin from the County and Mr. David Toscano from the City. The Committee endorsed the concept and after a very short discussion, agreed to recommend the name "Darden Towe Memorial Park" to this Board and City Council. City Council endorsed the renaming of the park at its meeting on February 15. Mr. Tucker said the Rivanna Park Committee briefly discussed two other requests from the Memorial Committee. The Committee members agreed with the idea of naming the future Greenbelt Park as the Rivanna Greenbelt Park. It also requests permission for the Memorial Committee to raise private funds for the purpose of financing a bust of Darden Towe to be placed in the park. Finally, the Rivanna Park Committee would like to review and approve the design and placement of the bust. Mr. Bain immediately moved approval of the renaming of the Rivanna Park as the Darden Towe Memorial Park. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman asked if this Board needs to take action relating to the greenbelt name. Mr. Tucker replied that the Supervisors could include such action in the motion. He reiterated that the committee members have agreed that the greenbelt should be named the Rivanna Greenbelt Park. Mr. Bowerman then asked if this name would also be used for the part of the greenbelt that is located in the County. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. He said that the entire greenbelt area is to be known as the Rivanna Greenbelt Park. Mr. Bowerman stated that the second part of the motion should include the naming of the Greenbelt. Mr. Tucker explained that the third portion of the motion should relate to this Board's approval of private funds for the purpose of financing a bust of Darden Towe to be placed in the park. Mr. Bain indicated that he wished to include these items in his original motion. Mr. Martin, as the seconder, agreed. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Marshall Pryor and the committee members for their work on this project. Mr. Pryor stated that Mrs. Humphris should also be thanked for her contributions to this project. Agenda Item No. 17. Presentation of 1991-92 Audit. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, commented that the Board members have received a copy of the 1991-92 Audit. He stated that Mr. Jack Farmer, representing Robinson Farmer Cox Associates, PC, Certified Public Accountants, is available for comments and questions. Mr. Farmer was present and reviewed a few of the concepts and premises behind an audit. He explained that the Financial Statement was prepared in accordance with generally accepted audit standards, government auditing standards and single audit standards. This means that not only do the auditors look at the financial statements, but the internal control structure is examined, and compliance with Federal laws and regulations is reviewed. Mr. Tucker said there was a question regarding fixed assets, and he asked Mr. Breeden to discuss this item. Mr. Breeden said that over the years it has been felt that the County did not have sufficient staff to inventory all of the County buildings and equipment. He noted that a qualifying statement has always been accepted in the County's audit. Now, however, there has been an indication that this situation could have a minor effect on the interest rate for a bond issue, etc. Mr. Breeden said that Mr. Bain has tried to determine the minimum amount of work needed to accomplish this inventory and comply with all of the requirements. Mr. Breeden said a minimum cut-off value of $2500 for real estate and equipment was considered. In the past, estimates indicated that it would cost between $60,000 and $65,000 to invento- ry everything down to a $500 value. By raising the limit to $2500~ the cost would probably be between $20,000 and $30,000. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) M.B. 43, Pg. 210 Mr. Bain wondered if there could possibly be a $10,000 limit with consideration bging given only tO~improvements to property and not building contents. If thiSlis done, the County would be accomplishing 90 to 95 percent of bonding companies' considerations. This is what he had really hoped to hear about from staff, although it is fine if the answer is not available today. Mr. Breeden said real estate will probably involve 95 percent of the total value, but he thinks it would be questionable to eliminate all equipment because he is unsure if this would meet audit requirements. Mr. Farmer said he did not want the Board to confuse inventory control with the fixed asset process. The ability to set the threshold is an adminis- trative decision, and control over anything below that becomes an item subject to inventory. Whether the cut-off value is $2500 or $10,000, the large items and the true values of the overall fixed asset account group can be con- trolled, and accounting principles can be met. One of the reasons is that this is the only category which gives an option. There are the actual historical costs paid on the date of acquisition, or historical costs can be estimated. There is the flexibility of indicating that a building was put into service in 1980, and today's market value is a certain amount, therefore, a value can be established. He emphasized that as long as this statement is made in the financial statements the requirements have been met. Mr. Bain asked if building improvements were the only thing considered if that would make a substantial difference with the bonding companies in terms of the County's bond rating. Mr. Farmer replied that it might make a difference. From an audit standpoint, he would have a problem with the materiality of what is not reported. Even though the real estate values are known, values of other personal property items would not be reported in the fixed asset account group. (Mr. Bowerman left the room at 11:41 a.m.) Mr. Martin said Mr. Farmer is indicating that there has to be a cut-off point when dealing with real estate. Mr. Bain responded that he understands this, but even though it may be beneficial for the County to do this, the cost result of the action might not make sense. Mr. Farmer said from his experience in dealing with risk management and people who have instituted fixed asset accounting systems, it has saved substantial dollars. Whatever the initial cost was in establishing that account group, it paid for itself. Mr. Bain commented that if inexpensive assets are considered, no matter what the cut-off value, the cost of invento- rying them on an annual basis could get to be more than would be reasonable. Mr. Farmer responded that such a process is really interfaced as part of the accounting system, so it would begin with a purchase order process° It would be known that the County is acquiring a fixed asset, and it would be incorpo- rated in the initial purchase order, invoicing and coding system, so, as far as accounting is concerned, it' would be taken care of when it comes into the system. He added that it is just an extension of an accounts payable func- tion. Mr. Martin asked if such a program would be as complicated in future years, once the original work is done. Mr. Farmer answered that the program would be part of the County's accounting system from that point on. It would complete the set of financial statements, and it would take out the qualifica- tion relative to the fixed asset account group. He and Mr. Breeden have often discussed making application for a Certificate of Achievement, which is recognized financial reporting. He added that until there is an account group of the financial statements, it is impossible to make this application. He then encouraged the Board to set a minimum amount and to capture the assets above the minimum limit. He is not talking about calculators and miscella- neous desks and chairs, etc. Those items can be dealt with separately. He went on to say that school buses, police cars and those types of assets need to be considered. (Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 11:44 a.m.) Mr. Bain said it does not seem that it will make much difference if only buildings are considered, even though they are 95 percent of the fixed assets. Mr. Breeden remarked that there will still be some major assets where the values on them will not be included. He added that this will be far enough away from the true value and true worth of total assets that it will cause materiality problems. Mr. Bain noted that he is not asking for a certain figure, but if a $10,000 figure were used and vehicles, etc. considered, this would eliminate all of the small things. Mr. Breeden commented that he does not know of anything in the guidelines which stipulates that the cut-off value has to be a certain amount. He stated that the point can be reached where the things which are left out of the inventory become significant enough to cause problems for the auditors. Mr. Bain stated that he would like a recommendation as to what the figure should be. He thinks the figure should be somewhat higher than $2500 because this would reduce some of the paperwork on an on-going basis. Mr. Farmer remarked that he would work with Mr. Breeden and look at the issue from a materiality concept in relation to the total value of assets. They can try to document what the minimum amount should be. This Board can then establish a formal policy, and indicate a~certain figure as a minimum, and anything above that figure would be capitalized. Below this minimum figure, there March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) M.B. 43, Pg. 211 would still be concern relating to control over the assets because it would be an expense during the current period. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Audit Committee, after discussing the matter with Mr. Breeden, make a recommendation to this Board on a specific implementation plan. Mr. Bain concurred with Mr. Bowerman, and added that he would also like for the Audit Committee to meet with the Supervisors this month. He added that before this Board gets into finalizing the budget this year, he would like to see what the plan is going to cost. He said this matter is considered every year, and its always felt to involve too much money. However, if a minimum figure could be set and the materiality aspect met, then he would like to at least consider the issue this year. Mr. Bowerman noted that no formal action is required relating to this report. Agenda Item No. 11. Update on review of Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the work program of the Department of Planning and Community Development calls for beginning review of the Comprehensive Plan in the Spring of 1993. However, with amendment studies now underway for the Schuyler area and the Urban Area/Hollymead/Piney Mountain expansion, with the Utilities Plan, review of the Housing Committee Report, and the Fiscal Impact Study still to be completed, it is now anticipated that Comprehensive Plan review will not begin until the Fall of 1993. At such time as this review begins, staff recommends a joint work session(s) of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to review goals, objectives and strategies to determine which need to be reassessed and/or revised. The two bodies also need to agree on the public participation methods they want utilized in this process. From these decisions, staff will be able to recommend work responsibilities and a time frame for completion of the work. He will prepare a basic history for the Board and the Commission of how the Plan has gotten to where it is, some of the major decisions which have been made and the foundation of those decisions. Mr. Bain mentioned the Urban Area, Hollymead, Piney Mountain, etc., and he wondered, since this is such a significant part of the review, if it would be feasible to have a workshop on this section for those who need or want it. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this can be done. Mr. Bain said he does not know how the Commissioners feel, but the Supervisors can speak to this issue if they think it is necessary. Mr. Cilimberg responded that when the staff develops this particular report, a lot of background information will have to be prepared for the Commission and this Board as to what is expected in the growth area concept. This information will include what was hoped to be achieved in terms of the purpose of growth areas, and how much industrial and commercial land is needed, etc. Mrs. Humphris indicated that the workshops would be a good idea to bring everybody up to the same level of understanding. She wondered, however, if the staff has the outline of the structure under which the last review of the Comprehensive Plan was done. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. Mrs. Humphris asked if staff has analyzed this structure to determine its good points and which points could be improved. Mr. Cilimberg responded that staff can give the Board its idea of a plan of action. He added, how- ever, that to a certain extent it is more procedural than it is substantive. The review process, as it worked the last time, particularly with the Commis- sion, was well set out in the beginning, but the time frame became much longer than was originally anticipated. Mr. Bowerman noted that a total revision was done five years ago. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. He added that the review was divided' into working segments with which two committees of the Commission worked, and he thought that this process worked very well. One thing which could be changed this time is the way the public was involved in the process, depending on whether or not the Supervisors and Commissioners thought that the last process was either good or bad. He stated that the Supervisors and Commissioners need to discuss the last process, and they need to decide whether or not they feel comfortable with that process or whether or not there needs to be a greater or lesser level of public participation. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the public was also involved at the early stages of the review and continually throughout the process, because all of the workshops were open to the public. He said that public input was allowed at each work session, so not only the staff's and Commission's thinking was incorporated, but the public's thinking, as well. He said that special interests varied as different areas were studied, and the Supervisors and Commissioners had the opportunity to hear all of this. Mr. Bain said it seems to him that it was the special interest groups and not the public who got involved during those hearings. He thinks that will be the case no matter what the Supervisors or Commissioners do. Mr. Bowerman reiterated that the opportunity for the public to be involved exists, and he thinks that is important. Mr. Bain referred to the last review of the March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) M.B. 43, Pg. 212 Comprehensive Plan, and noted that even after the public hearings of both the Commission and this Board, there was a whole community which didn't know what was being done after 18.months of work. Mr. Marshall voiced a concern about getting the people in his district involved in the Comprehensive Plan review process. He said many people in his district don't have the time or educational background for such involvement. Mr. Bowerman remarked that this review will take a lot of work on Mr. Mar- shall's part. Mr. Marshall stated that it would take lots of meetings to get people's attention. He added that getting people to attend these meetings will be a problem. Mr. Bain commented that all the Supervisors can do is make themselves available to the public. He recalls that the Commission members did just that during the last Comprehensive Plan review. Me said this Board only had four public hearings, but the Commission members had a lot more public meetings than that. He added that he thinks this is how the public should be involved again. Mr. Marshall said he would like to put pressure on this Board to have more public hearings during this review process because in his district there are a lot of people who depend on him to make the decisions. A lot of these people don't even know what is going on, and he does not want it to be that way. He would like for the people from his district to understand the process, and he asked for support toward this end from other Board members. Mr. Bowerman responded that Mr. Marshall will need to incorporate his constituents' contacts, and the Commission representative will have to incorporate his citizen contacts during the work sessions, in the absence of the people who can't attend. He added that Mr. Marshall and the Commissioner from the Scottsville District are the representatives for these people, and this will probably be, in many circumstances, the best representation that these people will have if they can't get to the meetings. Mr. Bowerman remarked that the Crozet community could possibly be interested enough to have a standing committee which would attend the public hearings and participate, whereas last time none of the people participated in the process. Mr. Bain said people from the Crozet community did participate in the Comprehensive Plan review before, and the people from North Garden did not. Mr. Bowerman responded that he remembers that the Crozet community was very vocal, but he was just using that community as an example. Mr. Marshall pointed out that there are some people in his district who live three or four miles apart, and there is no neighborhood association. Mrs. Humphris comment- ed that there are people such as this in all of the Supervisors' districts. Mr. Marshall said that there are more such situations in his district although Mr. Perkins has some of the same problems. Mrs. Humphris responded that the Supervisors have to do the best they can. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks there should be a joint meeting of the Commission and this Board in the early stages of the review. He said that the areas which are going to be the most discussed need to be identified. He is already aware that the Commission has an economic development initiative. There may be other items which the Commission feels differently about than past Commissions, and, perhaps this Board feels differently also. Mr. Bain said that there needs to be specific agenda items relating to the discussions so that it won't be necessary to have a lot of history involved. Mrs. Humphris said the history and basis for the Comprehensive Plan should come first. Mr. Bain went on to explain that if there is an agenda with two or three things included he does not want to bring up the history of what has been done in the past because it would cause a lengthy discussion. He said that some of the Supervisors might know a lot about the matter but he does not want to use the item as an educational device in that meeting without the Commissioners understanding it. Mr. Martin remarked that he understands what the other Supervisors are saying about bringing people up-to-date and the history of what has been done in the past, but he personally would like to avoid most discussions that relate to history. He knows the theory and the history of a Comprehensive Plan in the State of Virginia, and he will make his own decisions based on his rationale, and the rationale of the people who are here now. He emphasized that he does not personally feel the need, although he has only been on this Board for one year, to go to a meeting just to hear the history of the ratio- nale which someone used six years ago to vote one way or another. This is not the kind of information he wants. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Martin thinks there is no continuum from the past to the present. Mr. Martin responded that he thinks there is a continu- um, but he does not have a need to go back to what happened six years ago and hear an individual's rationale as to why that person did what he or she did six years ago. If he has a question, he will ask it. Mr. Bowerman commented that there have been dozens of man years over many boards and commissions, and public input, which have gone into the creation and the evolution of the information that this Board wilt start with this time in the Comprehensive Plan review. He asked if Mr. Martin is saying that it is not necessary, in his opinion, to consider how the Plan got to where it is today. Mr. Martin answered that he thinks this information could March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) M.B. 43, Pg. 213 be given to the Supervisors and the Commissioners in a one- or two-page memo. He does not need to have all of the. small details and a long drawn-out rationale. He added .tha~ he knows~ what a Comprehensive Plan is for, what it is supposed to do, ~h~'~h~t~'Aib~rie CoUnty's Plan does. He said his feeling is about what the Plan should and shouldn't do. The only history he needs is a simple update of the process. There might be important things involved, but he cannot see spending hours in a meeting getting a verbal update of the rationale behind something which was done six years ago. He reiterated that he knows what a Comprehensive Plan is supposed to do, and he knows the laws governing a Comprehensive Plan as historically defined in the State of Virginia, and he also knows how he feels about the County's plan. Mr. Bain referred to Mr. Martin's comments, and indicated that this is not what he is suggesting. He is not saying that any or all Board members or Commissioners need this update if they have read the Plan. He mentioned Route 250 East between the City limits and Interstate Route 64~ and the time that was spent on this one area by this Board and the Commission. He added that if the Board members have read the information and understand it and can address any questions they might have before the Board considers making changes in the Plan, then that is fine with him. He emphasized that he is not talking about the history of the Plan. He wants the Supervisors to be familiar with the Comprehensive Plan and understand it as it reads now, because he does not want to hold a joint meeting with the Commission and this Board to get to that point. Mr. Martin answered that he understands what Mr. Bain is saying, but he does not think that he needs hours of history to get to that point. He added that he also thinks too much time is being wasted with this discussion, and basically all that is being said is that the matter will be postponed until the Fall. Mr. Bowerman commented that if this review gets started in the Fall, then the necessary groundwork should be done prior to that time. What is being suggested is that the Supervisors need to consider whether or not something needs to be done prior to that Fall review. He understands Mr. Martin as saying that he does not want anything to be done. Mr. Martin remarked that he keeps hearing this condescending attitude from the Supervisors who have been on this Board for four years that they want the new Supervisors to update themselves and know all of the other Super- visors' rationales, as far as what they did four years ago, so that they can follow that rationale. He is not sure he needs to know what was done back then in order for him to make a decision as to what needs to be done now. Mrs. Humphris said she is not one of the Supervisors who was here when the last review of the Plan was undertaken, and she feels very much the need to know and understand the background, rationale and thinking which went into the decisions that were made then. She did attend the sessions, even though she was not a part of the Board or Commission, and she remembers how lengthy the process was, and how difficult it was for the Supervisors to work out the solutions and agreements that ended up in the present Comprehensive Plan. She thinks it is extremely important that all of the Supervisors understand it. She does not think the Supervisors will be able to deal with the issues in an intelligent way unless they understand how the Plan got to the place that it is now. She said that everybody needs to start from the same point before going forward. Mr. Martin reiterated that he does not need to go back and get all of the history because the Supervisors already have a product. He said that no matter what went int° making this product, the product has certain goals and objectives. The Supervisors are going to take another look at that product to see if there needs to be changes or modifications based on the goals and objectives already established. Mr. Bain commented that he does not think there is a single person on the Commission who was there when this Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1989. He recalled a comment that was made recently which related to the transporta- tion portion of the Plan. That person had no understanding of the CATS (Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study) plan, or anything else relating to where the County is in this Plan or how it got there. That knowledge of what happened in the past is an essential ingredient, as far as talking intelligently about the Comprehensive Plan review, if there is to be any sense of a continuum. He said he does not want to waste his time at this level, so he is suggesting a background report from staff or a seminar or a work session. Mr. Martin said he sees this being handled as a background report in paragraph form bringing in the major components of what he needs to know in order to embark on this review, and a reference to things which he might want to know about if he hasn't already gained that information. This would allow him to make a decision, and he would know where to go to get the information he needs. He went on to say that he does not want to have to sit through meetings and go through a lot of things that he already knows just because he is being brought up-to-date. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the items discussed, and the Supervisors' involvement with the public, will determine what information each Supervisor needs. He will not trY to presuppose what the Supervisors need or don't need March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) M.B. 43, Pg. 214 to know because he thinks it will become obvious to all of the Supervisors what areas are.the most important to their constituents as well as county- wide. ~ ~'~'~:'?:"~:~ ~'~:,'~'~, Mr. Martin said he could not have said it better because this is really what he had wanted to say. He added that he does not appreciate someone trying to presuppose what he needs to know. He said that if someone has ideas they can be written down, and he can go through them. He added that he will consider what other people feel he should know, and he will pick out the items that he thinks he needs to know. Mr. Bowerman commented that Mr. Martin will be responsible for acquiring the background information that he will need. Mr. Tucker said staff will develop a schedule for the Board, and this might need further discussion relating to getting started with the review. He said the schedule will also allow the Board to get ideas of what can be discussed if there is a joint meeting with the Commission. He noted that the schedule will be very broad and will not have specific dates, but it will give the Supervisors an idea of when they will have to begin working on this Plan. Not Docketed: Mr. Bowerman reminded the Board members that they have a meeting with the School Board at 1:30 p.m. He asked how much time is needed for the executive session. Mr. Tucker called attention to the fact that there are some people present at this meeting for the agenda item regarding the tow- ers. Mr. Bowerman then stated that the Supervisors would discuss the agenda item relating to the regulation of towers in the rural areas before lunch. Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Options to Regulate Towers in the Rural Areas. Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated February 24, 1993, from Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator: "The purpose of this memorandum is to briefly outline five alter- natives for Board discussion regarding (radio) towers in the rural areas. Should the Board choose to pursue one or more alterna- tives, additional study and evaluation would be necessary. What has occurred is that distribution uses (currently cellular telephone but possibly 'wireless' cable in the near future are now employing radio-wave transmitting towers, whereas, historically reqional (transmission) uses such as commercial radio and televi- sion broadcasters were primary users. Due to changes in communi- cation technology it no longer appears valid to distinguish based on function (for this reason, I see no point in amendment to any definitions). Ail five alternatives assume that towers are to be distinguished only as to structural features (i.e., height, lighting, etc.) and/or location (i.e., tower farms). Allow all towers up to a heiqht of 100 feet by-riqht. Re- quire special use permit fOr towers exceedinq 100 feet in heiqht. In residential districts, towers and certain other structures may be erected to a height of 100 feet by right. (Additional setbacks are required. See § 4.10.3.1.) Pre- sumably, if a 100-foot height is acceptable in residential districts, a by-right 100-foot height would be acceptable in rural locations. This would be the simplest and probably most equitable of the alternatives to implement. Modify (1) above in accordance with comments from Centel Cellular. I understand that Centel Cellular may propose a greater tower height by-right together with supplementary regulations possibly including restrictions as to tower color, lighting, and effective broadcast power. This may result in language tailored to Centel's needs as opposed to a general amendment. It may be more appropriate for Centel to file a zoning text amendment. Allow towers by-riqht in clusters or 'tower farms' Require special use permit elsewhere. Whether pursued separately or in combination with (1) above, this alternative would take some time to fully develop. Specific sites would need to be identified and special limits defined. Likely, this alter- native would carry special regulations normally addressed through special use permit (i.e., no lights; red beacon only; no strobe light). Also additional thought should be given to the most appropriate mechanism for implementation (i.e., supplementary regualtions; overlay district; 'whole- sale' special use permit). This alternative can have sever- al optional provisions and approaches. 4e No chanqe. This would not address the issue of disparity of review based on function or status as opposed to the physi- cal aspects of the proposal. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) M.B. 43, Pg. 215 5. Allow radio-wave transmittinq towers (includinq 'distribu~ tion' towers) only by special use permit. This alternative would~, be. ~ pa~icularly~. ~.-~ . , , burdensome for small innocuous towers. In closing, the simplest and most equitable alternative (in terms of physical considerations) would be alternative (1). No supple- mentary regulations nor definition changes would be required. Finally, I have not sought to include many of the details we discussed so as not to be confusing nor to impress that alterna- tives have been completely analyzed. Under any circumstance, I think that we agreed the reference to 'multi-legged towers' should be removed." Mr. Keeler said Option i was recommended because it is a simple solution and may prove, at this time, to be a safer solution. Staff is reluctant to endorse any type of change to the regulations that would serve a particular transmitter mode because a broader demand in the future is envisioned. Simply stated, this ~irst option addresses the'height of the~o~er an~ d0e~'~not address the function of the broadcaster. In the past distribution uses were by-right and transmission uses were by special use permit. There does not seem to be a rational basis to distinguish towers based on their function. Regardless of the option the Board chooses, staff believes the reference to multi-legged towers by-right should be removed. Mrs. Humphris asked for some background data. She was surprised to find that in residential districts towers may be erected to a height of 100 feet by-right. She had no idea anyone could have a 100-foot tower in their yard. Mr. Keeler said that may not necessarily be correct; the tower is subject to zoning provisions in that district. Depending on the district regulations, the tower may require a special use permit. Mr. Bain asked what is now permitted in a R-1 district. Mr. Keeler said in a R-1 district a distribution tower can be established by-right at a height limitation of 100 feet. A transmission tower would require a special use permit. Mr. Bain again asked what is permitted by-right that relates to a tower. Ms. McCulley said an accessory use such as a ham radio operator's tower or anything under the communication facilities that are owned and operated by a public utility is currently allowed. Mr. Bain asked if a television can have a lO0-foot antenna. Ms. McCulley said she believes so. Mr. Keeler said most of the changes the County will see in the future in communication technologies will be line-of-sight uses which will seek the higher elevations. There will be more towers located on mountains. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was anyone from the public who would like to speak about this issue. Mr. Dick Gibson, representing Centel Cellular Co., said Centel is a public utility and provides cellular service to Albemarle County. Centel has a large customer base in Albemarle and that base continues to grow. Centel is essentially seeking a less restrictive way in which to expand its service to its customers and, obviously, the more restrictive Centel's ability to expand its service, the more costly it will be, and those costs will be passed onto the customers. Centel is also heavily involved in provisions of emergency services communications in this County and in other localities. Cellular phones have become a vital part of communication in today's society. Centel seeks to continue to provide this service, while at the same time recognizing the need of the County to not have towers all over the place. Mr. Gibson said he has reviewed the options presented and Centel does not feel the need to tailor a zoning text amendment to fit its needs. As far as the development of the market is concerned, Centel is looking at tower heights not to exceed 150 feet in this area. Centel would endorse Option 1 except that it encourages that the height allowed by-right be raised to 150 feet as opposed to 100 feet. Centel considers 200 feet by-right to be too high. Engineers at Centel believe that 150 feet would meet their future needs. They do not believe that 100 feet will do a lot of good. In addition, there will not be any lighting for towers under 200 feet. In the case of monopoles, they are painted a color to blend in with the environment, they are screened, minimally visible and constitute a minimal intrusion into the visual aspects of the County. Mr. Gibson said another issue the Board should be aware of is that unlike the television stations which broadcast five million watts of poWer, these towers are limited under FCC regulations to 100 watts per antenna. It is a tremendously lower wattage and more narrow band of coverage. Towers are essential for the continued development of Centel. If it is the Board's desire to make a change, on behalf of Centel, he urges the Board to set the height limitation at 150 feet. He would prefer that there be no change at all and that the language remain as it currently is. Mr. Marshall asked if Centel shares any equipment with Cellular One. Mr. Gibson said they try not to. There are problems because of competition March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) M.B. 43, Pg. 216 and also they use the same frequency. There has only been one occasion in the United States where Centel has shared a tower with a competitor. At this time, the Board agreed to continue this discussion during the afternoon. Agenda Item No. 20. Executive Session: Personnel & Legal Matters. At 12:30 p.m., Mr. Bain offered a motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, for the Board to go into executive session to discuss personnel, relating to the normal performance review of the County Executive, and legal matters as they pertain to police case issues. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 21. Certify ExecUtive Session. At 1:43 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session in Room 5/6. Mr. Bain made motion to adopt the following certification of executive session. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. (Mr. St. John did not return to the meeting.) CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma- tive recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 and 2.1-344.A.7 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformi- ty with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 22. Joint Meeting with School Board. Present at this time were members of the School Board: Messrs. William Finley, Cliff Haury, George Landrith, III, Mike Marshall, Mrs. Patricia Moore, Mrs. Karen Powell and Mrs. Sharon Wood. Also present was Dr. Robert Paskel, Superintendent. Item No. 22a. Discussion: FY 1993-94 School Budget. Mrs. Patricia Moore, Chairman of the School Board, reconvened the Al- bemarle County School Board from its recess. Mrs. Moore next introduced Ms. Susanna Brent, the new School Board Clerk, to the Board of Supervisors. She said that there had been a few prior joint meetings where Ms. Brent had been present, and she apologized for not introducing Ms. Brent before today. Next, Mrs. Moore noted that the Supervisors already have the School System's budget, and that Dr. Paskel would briefly discuss it. She said this budget process had been very difficult, and she pointed out that a memo has been included with the budget which discusses an increase in proposed revenues of $188,475. She added that the School Board met today from 12:00 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. At this meeting, a motion was made which passed on a 5/2 vote to allocate $48,000 immediately from those proposed revenues to CA-TEC as a funded item in the 1993-94 budget. She also requested that the Board of Supervisors allow the School Board to carry over $150,000 for administrative cost centers to the 1993-94 budget. She said the Supervisors will receive the necessary paperwork through Dr. Paskel and Mr. Tucker at a later time for approval of this request. Mr. Bowerman asked if the $150,000 requested is unallocated. Mrs. Moore answered that this is correct. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) M.B. 43, Pg. 217 Mrs. Moore said the School Board also wants to discuss salaries and the compression factor withthe Supervisors, since this involves the COmmonality issue with General County Government employees. Dr. Paskel said he would only briefly discuss the budget since a formal presentation is already set for March 17, 1993. He said there are two pages of unfunded items in this budget. The School Board grappled with the problem of which items to put on the funded list and which ones to put on the unfunded list. Everything in the budget which is unfunded is not listed, only those items most worthy of being on an unfunded list. Dr. Paskel said there is also a full accounting of growth items which are funded and ones which are unfund- ed. Dr. Paskel next informed the Supervisors that Ms. Tracy Holt's husband has accepted employment in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, effective July 1, 1993. He said that the work that Ms. Holt has done with the County staff on budgets, etc., will be missed. He stated that Ms. Holt has given good notice so that a successor can be found to carry on her work. Dr. Paskel then stated that the salary compression issue is the top concern of the School System's classified and administrative personnel. Employees have communicated this to him individually and also as they have worked on the budget. He noted that he and Mr. Tucker have worked for the last couple of years to try to find ways to address it, but have not found a way to do so yet. Me said the compression issue favors those employees who have worked in the County and the School System for a long time and addresses some of the morale issues which come about when people come into the County government or School System at a salary which is very close to that of some long-term people. The compression issue doesn't just focus on administrative personnel, because it affects the custodians, bus drivers, secretaries, maintenance personnel, assistant principals, principals and those few adminis- trative personnel who remain working at the Central Office. Dr. Paskel asked if the Supervisors would like to hear Ms. Holt's presentation on the compres- sion issue. Mr. Bowerman responded that he would like a quick review of what compression is and what need the County is trying to meet by dealing with the compression issue. He said that the pay system is complicated as it relates to the General Government and the School System, and unless someone works with it every day, it is difficult to keep it all organized. Ms. Holt said she is more familiar with how compression affects the School System versus the local government, but the idea is the same. She said the School System salary ranges go from Step A to Step 0, and, as far as the compression issue is concerned, the first five steps are being considered. For the past couple of years, the School System has tried to hire new employ- ees at the A or B step. The compression problem relates to persons who have been employed in the County for five or more years, but are still at, or near the beginning level of the pay ranges for their job classification. Because of reclassifications and scale adjustments, the mature, advanced employee has been moved toward the beginning of the salary scale rather than toward the midpoint or the end of the particular range for his/her job classification. Ms. Holt said, at this time in the School System, there are 73 percent of the classified and administrative employees in the first five steps of their salary ranges, Steps A through E. To address the compression problem, it would be helpful to move these employees closer to the midpoint. She noted that one of the options which is proposed is to move employees who have four years of experience to at least Step E on a particular range. If only this one part was done, it would cost the School System approximately $305,000 because of the large number of people who are at the beginning level of their salary scale. Another option was considered which would bring employees with four plus years of experience to Step H, and this would bring them even closer to the midpoint. This option is more expensive and would cost approximately $379,000 for the School Division. This is a significant problem, and it occurred because of the adjustments which were made that caused the senior, more experienced employees to be very close to the entry level at which new employees are hired. This does not allow the differentiation in pay that is desirable to compensate the more experienced personnel. (Mr. Martin left the meeting at 1:58 p.m.) Mr. Tucker said the same thing has happened in local government. He said that when the pay plan was amended, the same thing occurred. Those employees whose pay range changed were moved to the beginning step of their new range. As new people are hired, they are hired at the beginning step of the range, therefore, making the same pay as people who have been in the County for five or more years. He said the compression issue is simply a way to move those more experienced people toward the midpoint of their salary scale. Then, the employee performance plan will move the employee through the salary ranges. He stated that the performance plan will show the proficiency of an employee in performing his/her specific job. (Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 1:59 p.m.) Mr. Bowerman said he a member of the Personnel Committee a few years ago. The Committee discussed comparable pay for certain levels of proficiency within each job. They felt that if an employee was below the proficiency March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.43, PG. 218 (Page 28) level, then that employee shouldn't receive comparable pay, but if the employee was above the proficiency level, that employee should receive more than comparable pay. He went on to say that if staff is talking about compression and advancing people who have experience, there are two factors to consider, not only the length of time with the County should be considered, but the degree to which a person is able to do the job, and how well he/she is doing it. Mr. Perkins asked how much such a pr°gram would cost for General Government employees. Ms. White said it would cost approximately $230,000. Mr. Martin said if employees are moved forward from Step E they would be compressed with employees currently at that level. He asked if this would not upset the people who had been with the County longer than those employees who were being moved forward. Ms. Holt responded that this could happen. She stated that such a plan could solve the problem with new employees coming into the. system, but it could create problems further up the scale. Mr. Bain said Dr. Hastings mentioned at some point that some areas of the salary scale are not as competitive as other areas on the scale. This is another reason to address Steps A through E. Mrs. Wood mentioned that on Page A-9 of the School Board budget, the costs are shown for the School Division relating to the compression issue, Step E to Step H. She explained that these were the two recommendations which came out of the Long-Range Salary and Benefits Plan. Ms. Moore asked if Ms. Holt knows the percentage of employees involved if the plan to Step H is used. Ms. Holt replied that she is unsure of the exact percentage, but she thinks that more people would be involved. Dr. Paskel explained that Ms. Holt is not talking about moving the whole group of employees from Step A to Step E. He said an employee would probably be moved from Step A to Step B, and Step B to Step D, based on years of experience. Mr. Bowerman said he does not want to move someone forward with four years of experience who isn't doing the job he or she should be doing after four years. Mr. Tucker concurred that this is a fair statement. He said the only way this could have been corrected when the pay plan was adopted would have been to move employees from their existing step in one range to the same step in the new range. He emphasized that this is a very expensive proposi- tion, and that is the reason it has never been done. Mr. Marshall asked the beginning salary for teachers. Dr. Paskel replied that the proposed beginning salary for 1993-94 is $23,900 for someone with a Bachelor's Degree. Mr. Haury commented that the School Board actually considered a varia- tion, a full vest of bonuses, for Step A through Step E and Step A through Step H. This would allow the most proficient people to be moved forward further than one or two steps. This plan would take into account the merit factor rather than just years of experience. It would have to be recognized that certain people would then be eligible for a higher percentage raise. He explained that if the scale was moved forward and a person had access to a four percent bonus and that same person had vested the previous year, there could be an increase as high as eight or nine percent for certain people, if full vesting was allowed. He noted that Ms. Holt had arrived at a figure for full vesting which was less than the figure for the two alternatives described earlier. He said the School Board did not decide on a favorite plan because the School Board members wanted to know what the Supervisors were thinking about the issue. He added that a full vesting program would take care of the problem to some extent by recognizing performance. Mr. Bowerman commented that the pay for performance plan is already institutionalized within the system. If the compression situation was based on the pay for performance plan, there would be a basis for compression rather than just length of service. Mr. Haury recalled that when the compression plan was first considered, Dr. Hastings said it would take a number of years to spread the employees out with a full vesting program rather than the mechanical five years if the Step A through Step E plan was approved. He added that the School Board had some concern over the composite of effect for certain people, because of the higher percentage of pay increase. Mrs. Wood stated that consideration needs to be given to those who have been employed by the County for a long time. If only years of experience was considered, everybody would move forward and there would be no discrimination as far as who would be helped by the program. Mr. Bowerman said whatever plan the School Board selects, he hopes his concerns will be addressed. He also hopes the remainder of the Board members share his concerns. Mr. Martin suggested that a plan be developed where a certain amount of money is put aside, and half of it used to move everybody forward and the other half used for merit for particular employees. Mr. Bowerman said whatever plan is selected should be developed in such a way that it does not create this problem again. He feels it is important when employees are re-evaluated and new job descriptions developed, that the improvements in salaries made now are incorporated for the future, and everybody is not just shoved to the beginning of their salary range if jobs are reclassified. Meeting) March 3, 1993 (Regular Day M.B.437 (Page 29) Mr. Bowerman commented that the School Board will have to understand that the Supervisors have done nothing with the budget, so they don't yet know the total plct~e.' ThelSuper~sors have not been presented wlth the entlre local governmen~'bu~d~eti~and~haVe just received the School Board budget. Dr. Paskel remarked that he and the School Board appreciate the fact that the Supervisors allowed them to come to this meeting and discuss the compression issue which is a major concern for the School System's long-term employees. Referring to the discussion at this meeting, Mr. Martin asked if the Supervisors are to assume that the compression issue would be the SchOol Board's first priority if additional funding was made available Mr. Haury responded that the~ School Board has not voted on this matter, b~t that line of reasoning is correct. The School Board did talk about ways to address compression as one of its top Priorities but agreed not to vote on each priority because there are several small, excellent programs to consider if they can be fUnded. Ms. Moore said the School Board members all agreed that the compression issue needs to be addressed, but that is as far as the School Board can go with that statement. It depends on how much money is available. Mr. Haury said the School System and General Government employees should be addressed with the same mechanism and that is why the School Board brought this matter to the Supervisors. He went on to say that the School Board has brought a budget before the Supervisors which gives as reasonable a raise as can be achieved, and goes a long way toward funding growth, but lays aside all of the initiatives that all of the members of the School Board agree are needed for the instructional programs. He said the School Board members feel they have done a good job in meeting their responsibilities. Ms. Moore asked if there were other questions or comments. There was no response. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Supervisors appreciated the opportunity to meet with the School Board. (Note: The Board of Supervisors recessed at 2:12 p.m. and reconvened at 2:20 p.m. in Room 7.) Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board discuss Agenda Item No. 12 relating to the establishment of a Section 8 Housing Advisory Committee until Mr. Keeler and Ms. McCulley return to the meeting. Agenda Item No. 12. Proposal to establish Section 8 Housing Advisory Committee. Mr. Tucker said this committee would be established to provide specific recommendations for actions to improve the utilization of the section 8 program, particularly to make the Section 8 Certificate Program more attrac- tive to area landlords. The committee should consist of up to five members to address long-term scenarios and costs: Section 8 Landlord (property owners); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) Section 8 representative; Section 8 Housing Advisory Board representa- tives; representative from financial, insurance or development fields. Additional input and expertise can be obtained by the committee as deemed necessary through guest speakers, public forums, etc. Mr. Tucker said the committee would perform it's charge in approximately six months, from March, 1993 to September, 1993. Primary staff assistance will be provided by the County Housing Office/Social Services as facilitator. The Department of Planning and Community Development and/or the County Housing Resource Planner at the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission will provide any additional administrative support. Mr. Tucker said the following is a guideline for the committee's work: 1. Appointment of Committee March 2. Committee informed on Section 8 Process/ HUD Regulations March 3. Issues and Problems Identified April 4. Options and Alternatives Generated May 5. Evaluating Alternatives May 6. Draft Recommendations and Priorities June 7. Public Forum on Draft Report July 8. Finalize Report of Specific Recommendations July 9. Meet with Planning Commission in Work Session August At this time, Mrs. Humphris moved approval of the establishment of a section 8 Housing Advisory Committee as outlined in Attachment C of the staff report dated March 3, 1993. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Mr. Marshall stated that he is not sure he should vote on this matter because he has some people involved with the Section 8 program who rent from him. Mr. Tucker explained that this motion is simply to set up a Section 8 Housing Advisory Committee. He does not think this Committee will have March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) M.B. 43, Pg. 220 anything to do with existing Section 8 recipients or applicants. He said this committee willbe considering how to improve the whole program. He does not think Mr. Marshall has a conflict of interest in this matter because Mr. Marshall will only, by his vote, be agreeing as to how the representatiOn of the Committee should be. Staff will bring names back for appointment at a later time. Mr. Marshall remarked that the people in the Section 8 program with whom he deals are in the City. He said that he has no involvement with this program,in the County. Mr. Martin referred to Page C-1 relating to establishing an educational program to provide household financial counseling. He said there is at least one local bank already doing this exact thing. Mr. Bain said if the County had a Housing Coordinator that would be a good part of his or her job. He said this position could possibly work in conjunction with someone from the business community. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Mr. Bain asked if this is the only thing the Supervisors need to do relative to this item. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." The committee will probably give this Board more definitive answers to issues that will be considered from a funding standpoint. Mr. Bain asked when these issues will be discussed. Mr. Tucker replied that the Section 8 discussion will take place during the budget cycle when the Planning and Housing Departments are scheduled for review. (Note: At this time, the Board returned to Agenda Item No. 13. Dis- cussion of Options to Regulate Towers in the Rural Areas.) Mr. Bain asked staff's opinion about towers being located near the interstate highway. Mr. Keeler said Virginia Power, located on Fifth Street, has a monopole directly adjacent to the interstate. It is visible. Staff has not discussed in any detail the issue of aesthetics. Mr. Bowerman asked the height of the tower on Rio Road at Centel. Mr. Keeler said he believes the tower is approximately 250 feet in height Mrs. Humphris said she has trouble with the current language in the Zoning Ordinance. It seems to her that a tower in a residential district should require a special use permit so people have the opportunity to speak on the issue. She feels there should be a minimum and then perhaps allow towers by-right in other districts, clustering them where possible. Given the technology that Centel Cellular is using now, given the fact that the tower has to be in line of sight, and given the topography, if left as a by-right use, she can foresee towers "popping up" everywhere. Mr. Marshall said he is inclined to agree. Mr. Perkins said if companies are looking at high elevations, a lot of these elevations are not accessible. He assumes there has to be accessibility to these tower sites so roads will be built and he feels this will make people want to build houses there. Mrs° Humphris said she thinks a height of 100 feet is enough and she thinks it should be allowed only by special use permit in residential dis- tricts. She asked what more direction staff wanted from the Board. Mr. Bowerman asked Mrs. Humphris if she felt towers should be allowed by-right in Highway Commercial districts. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the Board needs to think about that, but she does not think the County can afford to have towers all over the place. Mr. Tucker said one of the options mentioned has not been discussed, but it would control the number and the concerns about having towers on every knoll, or having every high elevation be a "tower farm." Staff has planned to study developed areas to ascertain where the County might encourage the private sector to direct towers. Brown's Mountain is a tower farm to some extent. It is an option that will take some time to develop. Mr. Bain said he feels the Board needs direction from staff and he thinks the issue of monopoles should be brought back to the Board as quickly as possible. He thinks it may make sense to set certain elevation categories. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks there should be some trade-off between aesthetics and cost that would be acceptable to a company and to the communi- ty. Mrs. Humphris suggested the Board address a specific option, such as Option 3, allowing towers by-right if they are in clusters or tower farms but requiring special use permits elsewhere. She feels this addresses more closely the problem the Board is trying to address which is to keep towers out of residential areas, and if they are in an area other than in a place designed for them, that a special use permit be required. Mr. Marshall said he agrees. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) M.B. 43, Pg. 221 Mr. Martin said he feels the Board should go with Option 3 which brings this issue back to the Board with more information and more "food for thought... '.. ~ , Mr. Bain said he would like to go with Option 1, but not necessarily by- right. He would like for the Board, at this time, to review requests for monopoles until some language is adopted. He does not want to wait another six months to get a recommendation. He would like to see the Board at least amend the Zoning Ordinance to put monopoles in with the multi-legged towers which means this Board gets to review them. Then the Board could go with Option 1 and/or 3. Mr. Bowerman said he would like for staff to encourage applicants to clearly articulate locational criteria and the optimum standards they use, and the trade-offs for siting the towers so this Board can have full information to evaluate the proposal. Mrs. Humphris said there is no reason for the'Board to try'and operate in a vacuum. It cannot make good decisions that way. Mr. Bain asked, if.the Board could get back information on the monopole~ and a minor Zoning Ordinance amendment in 45 days. Mr. Keeler responded "yes". Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the proper Zoning Ordinance sections. He asked if Mr. Bain's approach is to include this in every district where multi-legged is now mentioned. Mr. Bain said "yes". Mr. Bain then made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of intent: Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION OF INTENT BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend all applicable sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to require a special use permit for all towers, whether multi-legged or monopole; and FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommenda- tion to this Board within 45 days. Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Grass/Weed Cutting Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said he has received a request asking the Board to consider adopting a Grass/Weed Cutting Ordinance. Based on the small number of complaints, staff does not feel such an ordinance is justified at this time. However, staff does not know how many calls the individual Supervisors may be getting. If the Supervisors feel it is important to move forward with such an ordinance, staff has developed a couple of options for consideration. First, he said that any ordinance that is adopted relative to any commercially or industrially zoned property can only be for property in an entrance corridor, as well as all of the R-1 through R-15 residential districts. It will not apply to the rural areas. Secondly, Mr. Tucker remarked that in the case of residential subdivi- sions, staff suggests that the same procedure be used as that for the leaf burning and the dog leash laws. If the neighbors feel it is important to have this type of ordinance, then they have to specifically request it, and 50 percent or more of the residents in the subdivision have to sign a petition requesting that type of ordinance. If the Board agrees with this sort of approach and feels it is important to move forward with an ordinance staff will develop a draft ordinance. Mr. Bowerman indicated that he was not getting a lot of requests for such an ordinance. Mr. Martin and Mr. Bain indicated that they were not interested in developing such an ordinance at this time. Mr. Bowerman then asked if it was the consensus of the Board members not to adopt a Grass/Weed Cutting Ordinance. None of the Board members indicated a desire to go forward with such an ordinance. Agenda Item No. 16. Fiscal & Management Options, Discussion. Mr. Tucker said revenues for FY 1993-94 will not reach staff's earlier projection. Coupled with a reassessment year where some landowners will see fairly significant increases in their land reassessment, this will be a fairly difficult budget balancing year. Also looming in FY 1994-95 is a Debt Service increase approaching $1.0 million caused by building of the new middle school. Because of these factors, staff has reviewed other options which could provide alr~ woul serv tric owne March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) M.B. 43, Pg. 222 additional revenues or provide the Board with a different approach to justify- ing current program expenditures to the citizens. Mr. Tucker then listed the following options for consideration. He said that a couple of these options were identified in the Fiscal Resources Commit- tee report three years ago. SERVICE DISTRICTS: The Code of Virginia enables localities to designate areas of the county to receive specific services not provided in other parts of the county. The service district population can be taxed for the service received at a rate dif- ferent from that of the remaining population. Several potential districts include: (1) Transportation Districts - More and more requests are being received for bus service in the urban area primarily along major corridors. Establishment of a district would encom- pass the subdivisions and commercial areas that receive bus service now, particularly in the Route 29 North Corridor where there are bus stops located, and in the major commer- cial areas such as Fashion Square, Albemarle Square, Rio Hill and Wal-Mart/Sam's. The Route 250 East corridor would include the Pantops Mountain commercial and residential areas. (2) Solid Waste - This is a service whose costs are increasing substantially. Some have suggested a tip fee subsidy which could be provided through a service district. This district would encompass basically the entire County applying any tip fee increase or recycling cost accordingly as a service district levy for solid waste. (3) Stormwater Service District - This service district approach has been discussed before and would have the same effect basically as a transportation district, i.e., stormwater drainage improvements and maintenance would be provided primarily in the growth area drainage basin. Those citizens receiving the benefits from those improvements would be paying a differential rate. (4) Fire and Rescue District - This is similar to a solid waste district since the entire County receives fire and rescue service from volunteer companies and/or the City of Char- lottesville. The associated cost of fire and rescue service could be applied through a differential rate charge. (5) Gypsy Moth District - Currently the County funds the staff- ing and a portion of the gypsy moth spraying program from the General Fund. Since this operation encompasses the northwest corner of the County, a service district approach in that area may be appropriate. However, at the current annual contribution of $21,500, the savings to other taxpay- ers would be insignificant. Mr. Tucker said in some cases, such as fire and rescue, where the service is ~dy provided, one might question what difference the service district approach ! make. Basically, it is one that identifies for the citizens exactly what .ce they are receiving and the cost of that service. For any of these dis- :s, however, the logistics of setting up the billing process for the property :s living in the district would be time-consuming. Mr. Tucker said other items suggested are: Franchise Cable Television. The approximate additional revenue that could be anticipated is $135,000. In the past, the Board decided not to go forward with a cable franchise tax because of the additional issues and problems associated with the franchise issue. "Riqht-sizinq" of county government would be a review of existing staff positions/organization and prioritizing existing programs for possible reduction or elimination of programs or staff. This could also include privatization of certain county functions. A hirinq freeze is not necessarily a revenue enhancement but like "right-sizing" it is more of an expenditure reduction to provide the County with additional revenue. In the past, during a fiscal year revenue shortfall, those departments who lost staff in the normal course of staff turnover would not be allowed to fill that position. This could impact smaller departments more than others. Agencies or departments that may be exempt, such as the Police Department where public safety is involved, would have to be reviewed. Mr. Tucker said there is legislation under consideration in the General Assembly which would allow localities to fund the total operating costs, including personnel, from a surcharge such as the one for the Enhanced 911 March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (page 33) M.B. 43, Pg. 223 System. If this legislation is approved, it could shift an expenditure of between $400,000 and $500,000 from the General Fund to the surcharge. The E-911 service would then be provSded through the telephone surcharge as a user fee. A1so, the Re6~rda~n Tax previously withheld will be returned to the County in the amount of $250,000. The land use deferral legislation the County sought for growth areas has passed and could provide between $90,000 and $100,000 in new revenue for FY '95. Mr. Tucker said many people believe that their taxes are too high. However, for a growing county of Albemarle's size, the tax rate is actually fairly low. While most would look at the rate of $0.72/$100, the County is actually operating on a $0.62/$100 rate since $0.10 is automatically used to cover the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City. In addition, when the effective tax rate is considered (measured by the assessment ratio in sales versus the actual assessment), the County drops down to about a $0.51/$100 tax rate. Mr. Tucker noted that the Board members had been provided with a table of tax rate comparisons with other jurisdictions (none of these jurisdictions share ten cents of their tax rate with an adjoining locality, nor do as many localities defer as much of their taxable real property to a land use pro- gram). Staff also provided the Board with the latest Comparative Report of Expenditures by Function taken from the State's data base. Albemarle County ranks below the average of these selected localities and Virginia counties in every function except two, Community Development and Miscellaneous (City Revenue Sharing Agreement costs). Mr. Bowerman asked about the idea of shifting expenditure to the E-911 surcharge if legislation is approved to allow this. He asked how much this fee would be per telephone. Mr. Tucker replied that for operations it would be a little over a dollar per phone. Maintenance costs on the equipment and road signs has not been determined at this time. He said it would be good to get more definitive figures before the Board discusses this item. Mr. Bowerman asked when capital costs will be determined. Mr. Tucker said they should be ready by May of 1994. Mr. Tucker mentioned that the recordation tax previously withheld will be returned to the County in the amount of $250,000. Mr. Bain inquired if this recordation tax amount had been reduced. Mr. Tucker replied, "no." He.said he had failed to mention legisla- tion pertaining to the County's enforcement of motor vehicle decal purchase. He said County police officers will be able to enforce this without going through a moving violation procedure, and this will mean some additional revenue. Mr. Bowerman stated that there are some limitations on the legislation pertaining to decal enforcement. Mr. Tucker said there are limitations only to the extent that it has to be a uniformed officer enforcing this regulation. He said there has to be an expired sticker from another locality in order for the vehicle to be ticketed. Mr. Tucker finished his report by telling the Board members that this information provides something for them to think about, as well as provide an opportunity to discuss these issues further during budget work sessions. Mr. Bain said to study the Transportation District option would require a lot of staff work. Mr. Tucker replied that it could take a lot of the staff's time, but if the Board chose this option, the plan could probably be in place by January. Mr. Bain said the main areas relative to the Service District option are in the east and north sections of the County. Mr. Tucker concurred that the main areas would be the Route 29 North and Route 250 East corridors. He said there would be new service in the Route 250 east area, and an expansion of the Route 29 North service. Mr. Bowerman said as far as implementing service districts, he had always contemplated going to the public and asking what the people within that service district wanted in the way of services rather than the Board initiat- ing the services. Mr. Bain said he has no problem with that idea. Mr. Martin inquired if the areas which are already getting bus service would be included in the program. Mr. Bain answered affirmatively. He said if this option is examined, he would probably be in favor of including the Hollymead and Forest Lakes area. Such a plan might reduce some of the traffic on Route 29 North. Mr. Tucker agreed that if this plan were implemented it would include even those areas which are currently receiving service. Mr. Perkins asked if there is a way to tell what percentage of a policemen's time is taken on Route 29 North. He said the rural people probably think that they never see a policeman, and they will wonder what they are getting for their tax dollar. Mr. Bain responded that the State does not allow service districts for firemen and policemen. Mr. Perkins said he mentioned this so Board members could get a feel for what the citizens might be saying. If some people don't get a benefit from what is implemented, it could cause problems. Mr. Tucker pointed out that people who did not benefit from a service would not be paying for those services. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) M.B. 43, Pg. 224 Mr. Martin noted that even though a Person might not use a service at home, he/she might very well use the service when he/she comes into town. He mentioned that people want to feel safe when they are at Fashion Square or Albemarle Square, and they will be getting that particular police service at these locations. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he thinks the Board will hear a lot of these issues at the preliminary budget hearing next week. He noted that this information is mainly for this Board and its discussion during the budget process. Agenda Item No. 18. Discussion: Tax Relief for the Elderly and Totally and Permanently Disabled. Mr. Tucker said the staff's report of May 1, 1991, has been updated and reexamined based on final 1990 Census data. He will present new information on current State guidelines, the County's existing relief program and several possible alternatives to provide increased tax relief to the elderly and permanently and totally disabled. He said the State defines the elderly as persons 65 years of age or older. Permanently and totally disabled persons are those unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any certified medical impair- ment. Current State law enables localities to have either a real property tax exemption program, a tax deferral program, or a combination thereof based on certain maximum income and asset guidelines. The current State guidelines for assets is for no more than $75,000, excluding the home and up to one acre of land, with a household income level of no more than $30,000. Localities may choose to exclude from taxation up to $7500 of income for disabled persons and $6500 per relative, other than a spouse, living with the homeowner. The maximum guidelines are significantly higher for more populous localities and certain other localities named in the Code of Virginia. Mr. Tucker said the State allows localities to defer taxes for those who meet State eligibility guidelines. Deferred taxes are recovered upon the sale of the dwelling or from the estate of the decreased homeowner. State Code allows localities to charge eight percent yearly interest on the accumulated deferral, with the total of deferred taxes and accrued interest constituting a lien on the property. Since 1991, State Code has also permitted localities to levy a different tax rate on the personal property of elderly and disabled persons. The income and asset guidelines are similar to those required for real property exemption. Personal property tax exemptions are relatively rare in Virginia. Mr. Tucker said Albemarle County has elected to have only a tax exemp- tion program for the elderly and disabled. In December, 1990 the County increased the asset guidelines from $55,000 to a maximum of $65,000, excluding the home and up to one acre of land. The income guidelines were also in- creased from $12,000 to $15,000, based on a sliding scale of tax exemption. The County's tax relief for FY 1992-93 exempts 324 parcels for a total exemption of $88,640. The average value of real property exempted was $42,700. According to the 1990 Census data, there were approximately 1378 households which met the County's income guidelines, 954 of which met the guidelines for 100 percent tax relief. The number of property owners meeting the County's guidelines is not available. FY 1993-94 projections estimate that from 360 to 380 parcels will qualify for the tax relief program at a cost between $105,700 and $111,550. Increased program costs may be attributed to JABA's outreach efforts and to increased land values in the biannual reassess- ment. Mr. Tucker listed the following options for Board review: Option One - Increase the maximum income level of $18,000 which is just above the "Very Low Income Level" as established by HUD. Also, increase the asset level to $75,000. Under this option, the number of applicants could rise from 1378 to 1685. This would expand the base of the program by 20 to 30 percent and allow these elderly and disabled households to stay in their homes without excessive hardship. The number of appli- cants who could qualify for 100 percent relief would climb from 954 to 1209. The additional lost revenue could be between $42,450 and $56,300. Option Two - If the income level were raised to $22,000, or 25 percent above the Very Low Income Level, and the asset level raised to $75,000, the number of participating households could rise to 1994; the number which might qualify for 100 percent relief would be 1530. This option would have the effect of increasing participation by 45 to 55 percent with a revenue cost between $102,450 and $147,800. Option Three - Raising the income level to the maximum allowable of $30,000 and raising the asset level to $75,000, the number of households that could qualify for an exemption would rise to 2383 with the number qualifying for 100 percent relief increasing to 2149. This option could have the effect of doubling the number of participants at an additional cost between $199,450 and $313,300. Mr. Tucker said that of the three options, staff recommends Option One. Raising the income level to that of $18,000 will aid those in greatest March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) M.B. 43, Pg. 225 financial need. Increasing the asset level to $75,000 would not have a significant impact on revenues, but might reduce the effect of the reassess- ment for thOSe who previously would have qualified for tax relief. Increasing the income leve~ ~ more than-S18,000 raises serious equity issues for other segments of the population and dramatically increases the cost of the program. Staff does not recommend a personal property tax relief program at this time since such a program would not only be costly in terms of revenues and administration, but it would be highly inequitable to other needy residents of the County. Mr. Bowerman said he would feel better about the issue if a significant benefit was given to elderly and disabled people on moderate incomes. He is thinking in terms of Option Two or something higher, because the total cost is not that great compared to the population in the County. He also mentioned that there is no ability to give a graduated deferment based on income. He has checked and no current locality has such a program. He said this is something the County could not do itself, and he would like for this item to be included in the County's legislative package. In the future it will be necessary to distinguish lower income people.on-something other than-the basis of age and disability. Most of the complaints are from people who have marginal ability to pay because the system is so aggressive. That would allow the County to take a regressive tax and make it more progressive in terms of who it helps. Mr. Martin said he thinks the only way such a program can be effective is if personal property taxes are involved, as opposed to real property taxes. He said that if the program is based on graduated income, and personal property taxes are involved, then the people affected would appreciate the tax break and could use it the most. Mr. Bowerman concurred that people, other than real property owners, would benefit from the type of situation Mr. Martin described. He has no problem with Mr. Martin's suggestion, but, at this time, the Board cannot approve such a program. A lot of comments that will be heard throughout the budget process will relate to relief that this Board does not have the ability to grant. Mr. Martin mentioned that he thinks regulations should include the length of stay of the elderly or disabled residents in the County. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board could ask the staff to develop a series of recommendations for different options for the Supervisors to present to their legislative representatives. Mr. Marshall wondered if the Supervisors were more inclined to use real property taxes or personal property taxes for tax relief to the elderly and handicapped. Mr. Martin said if incomes are considered, he believes the best benefit to the majority of people would come from reducing personal property taxes instead of real property taxes. Another thing to consider would be people who have been living in the County their whole lives, and have retired, and they could lose their homes because they can't pay their taxes. He emphasized that some kind of discrimination based on length of stay in this area could be considered. He added, however, that such a regulation might be illegal. Mr. Bain agreed that such a regulation would be unlawful. Mr. Perkins mentioned a "homestead" exemption. Mr. Bowerman said such an exemption would not deal with the situation as directly as a more direct move by this Board. He mentioned that perhaps the policy could'be modified to income and assets to deal with both personal property, automobile and real property. He said if this were done, it could involve two or three cents On the tax rate. This would be something this Board would have to deal with in terms of implementation of the program. Mr. Martin stated that he would be in favor of such a policy. Mr. Bowerman commented that he is unsure of the success of other localities with the Legislature in initiating something of this nature. He is sure there are objections to such a program, but he is unsure what they are at this point. He added that the County would be giving tax relief to the people in the County who need it, when there is no other ability to do it. Mr. Bain remarked that he would rather consider Option Two in terms of what this Board can do now. Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin con- curred. Mr. Marshall stated that he agrees with Mr. Bain's suggestion, only because the Board cannot do what Mr. Martin outlined. Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wants to go to public hearing with Option Two, or wait until after the budget hearings. Mr. Bowerman inquired if this program would go into the budget if the Board elects to do it now. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." At this time, Mr Bain made a motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set a public hearing for April 7, 1993, on an ordinance to amend and reenact Sections 8-26 and 8-27 of the County Code to raise the income and asset levels on tax relief for the elderly and permanently and totally disabled based on Option Two as set forth in the staff's report. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) M.B. 43, Pg. 226 Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 19a. Appropriation: Community Attention. Mr. Tucker said this a request for $12,000 to partially reimburse Community Attention for a 1991-92 deficit of $22,442 for residential services provided to Albemarle County youth during the past fiscal year. For FY 1991- 92, the County appropriated $50,200 to be used in Community Attention's programs, although by the end of the fiscal year, Albemarle youth had received approximately $73,620 of services, incurring a deficit of approximately $22,500. This shortfall occurred because Community Attention accepted a large number of Albemarle youths fairly late in the year. When referrals are accepted and the child is taken into residential care, Community Attention cannot always anticipate the level of services needed or how long that particular child will need to stay. In FY 1991-92, the length of stays were longer than usual, and Community Attention does not discharge a child before they are ready to return to their homes simply for a shortage of funds. Inherent in this policy of not refusing Albemarle County youths (Social Services attests to their willingness to accept even the most difficult Albemarle County youths, and not being willing to terminate a child's stay), is the difficulty of predicting actual service needs for the next fiscal year. Mr. Tucker said approximately $11,284 has been appropriated to Community Attention over the past five years, but not collected. It is this amount that staff recommends reappropriating to Community Attention to at least partially offset the 1991-92 deficit of $22,500. The remainder of the deficit may be able to be absorbed in the current year, although with the increasing number of Albemarle youth in need of residential service, this may not be a realistic expectation. Mr. Bain moved approval of Appropriation Resolution #920059 of $12,000 to COmmunity Attention to partially offset a 1991-92 funding deficit incurred by Albemarle County youth. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920059 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY ATTENTION TO OFFSET FY 1991-92 DEFICIT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100039000563500 COMMUNITY ATTENTION 1100095000999990 CONTINGENCY-BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL .AMOUNT $12,000.00 (12,000.00) $0.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $0.00 Agenda Item No. 19b. Appropriation: FY 1991-92 Year-End Adjustments. In a memorandum dated January 13, 1993, Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said that based on the final audit adjustments, the following seven appropriations are needed for FY 1991-92. For the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Grant, it was noted that expenditures totaled $27,787.10 and were funded from non-local sources. Mrs. Humphris offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the following Resolution of Appropriation #910069 for expenditures relating to the MPO grant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES. Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) M.B. 43, Pg. 227 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92 NUMBER: 910069 FUND: MPO GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 1991-92 EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1120881201110000 1120881201601700 1120881208350000 1120881209110000 1120881209130000 1120881303310000 1120881306110000 1120881306130000 DESCRIPTION ADM-SALARIES ADM-COPY SUPPLIES MARKETING-PRINTING COMP INFO-SALARIES COMP INFO-P/T WAGES LONG RANGE-PROF SERVICES TSM PLAN-SALARIES TSM PLAN-P/T WAGES TOTAL AMOUNT $1,532.10 18.42 7,500.00 6,780.80 5,899.18 645.27 5,125.58 285.75 $27,787.10 REVENUE 2120816000169900 2120824000240500 2120833000330001 DESCRIPTION MPO GRANT-OTHER CHARGES MPO GRANT-STATE MPO GRANT-FEDERAL TOTAL AMOUNT $15,74'2.25 976.61 11,068.24 $27,787.10 For the Chapter I Program, it was noted that activities exceeded the prior appropriation by $89,770.32. These expenditures were funded by addi- tional Federal revenues totaling $88,407.98 and the remaining $1,362.34 from prior year carry-over funds. Mrs. Humphris moved adoption of the following Resolution of Appropria- tion #910066 relative to activities of the Chapter I program. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92 NUMBER: 910066 FUND: CHAPTER I PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 1991-92 EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1310161101112100 SALARIES-TEACHER 1310161101601300 EDUC & REC SUPPLIES 1310161311111400 SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $48,000.00 18,770.32 23,000.00 $89,770.32 REVENUE 2310133000330101 2310151000510100 DESCRIPTION FEDERAL REVENUES FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $88,407.98 1,362.34 $89,770.32 For the Migrant Program, it was noted that activities exceeded prior appropriations by $3,195.60; funded from $3,063.74 in additional Federal revenues and $131.86 from the prior year's carry-over. Mr. Bain made a motion for adoption of Resolution of Appropriation #910067 relative to Migrant activities. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Roll AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92 NUMBER: 910067 FUND: MIGRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 1991-92 EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1310361101112100 SALARIES-TEACHER TOTAL AMOUNT $3,195.60 $3,195.60 REVENUE 2310333000330102 2310351000510100 DESCRIPTION FEDERAL REVENUES FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $3,063.74 131.86 $3,195.60 March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) M.B. 43, Pg. 228 For the Pal Grant, it was noted that expenditures exceeded grant revenues by $796.89. This appropriation authorizes the transfer of this amount from the School Fund to cover the revenue shortfall. Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, for adoption of the following Resolution of Appropriation #910064, pertaining to PAL Grant expenditures. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92 NUMBER: 910064 FUND: SCHOOL/PROCESS APPROACH (PAL) PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 1991-92 EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1320361311580000 PROCESS APPROACH GRANT-MISC 1200060000930200 TRANSFER TO GRANT (PAL) TOTAL AMOUNT $796.89 796.89 $1,593.78 REVENUE 2320351000512001 2200051000510102 DESCRIPTION TRANSFER FROM SCHOOL FUND SCHOOL FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $796.89 796.89 $1,593.78 For the Community Education Program, it was noted that expenditures exceeded the prior appropriation by $27,860.30 to be funded from program revenues which exceeded estimates by $70,158.91. Mr. Martin moved adoption of Resolution of Appropriation #910068 pertaining to expenditures in the community Education Program. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92 NUMBER: 910068 FUND:COMMUNITY EDUCATION PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 1991-92 EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1330063300132100 SALARIES-TEACHER TOTAL AMOUNT $27,860.30 $27,860.30 REVENUE 2330060000161201 DESCRIPTION TUITION-PRIVATE SOURCES TOTAL AMOUNT $27,860,30 $27,860.30 For Moderate Rehab assistance payments, it was noted that assistance payments totaled $904,962.65 and were totally funded from the Federal Grant. Mr. Martin made a motion to adopt Resolution of Appropriation #910062. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) M.B. 43, Pg. 229 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92 NUMBER: 910062 FUND: MODERATE REHAB GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 1991-92 EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1122781920579001 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 1122781920579002 VACANCY LOSS PAYMENTS 1122781920579003 DAMAGE/UNPAID RENT 1122781920579004 UTILITY REIMBURSEMENTS 1122781910312800 AUDIT TOTAL AMOUNT $882,432.94 3,244.20 1,886.51 16,999.00 400.00 $904,962.65 REVENUE 2122733000330001 2122751000510100 DESCRIPTION MODERATE REHAB GRANT-FEDERAL FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $888,935.39 16,027.26 $904,962.65 For operation of the Albemarle High School Cafeteria, it was noted that there was a change in the method of operation of the cafeteria and a new fund was established to track operations. Expenditures totaled $270,099.25 with revenues of $274,732.83. Mr. Martin offered a motion for adoption of Resolution of Appropriation #910065. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92 NUMBER: 910065 FUND: ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL (AHS) CAFETERIA PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 1991-92 EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1300160301119300 1300160301160900 1300160301210000 1300160301221000 1300160301231000 1300160301232000 1300160301241000 1300160301242000 1300160301271000 1300160301520301 1300160301520302 1300160301550400 1300160301600000 1300160301600100 1300160301600200 1300160301600700 1300160301601100 1300160301800100 DESCRIPTION SALARIES-FOOD SERVICE SALARY RESERVE-BONUS FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE LIFE INSURANCE GROUP LIFE/PART-TIME SELF INSURED TELEPHONE-LOCAL TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE TRAVEL-EDUCATION MATERIALS & SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES FOOD SUPPLIES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE UNIFORMS & APPAREL MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $75,024.24 2,019.80 5,524.35 4,654.67 1,945.10 154.00 309.76 99.18 1,549.21 1.42 1.54 441.18 4,623.15 266.56 148,864.01 260.46 147.00 24,213.62 $270,099.25 REVENUE 2300160301161204 DESCRIPTION CAFETERIA SALES TOTAL AMOUNT $270,099.25 $270,099.25 Agenda Item No. 19c. Appropriation: Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). Mr. Tucker said during the FY 1992-93 budget process, AHIP was unsure about the availability of other funds to increase their part-time Emergency Repair Carpenter to a full-time position. Due to this uncertainty, $14,385 was placed in an AHIP contingency account in the Board's budget until other funding sources were secured. In August, AHIP requested that $7195 of the funds be appropriated for the position since the only probable funding source at that time was United Way, and, even if granted, the funds would not be available until January, 1993. Since that time, United Way has not met their expanded fund-raising goal and AHIP will not receive any new funding for the carpenter position. For this reason, AHIP has requested that the County release the remaining $7190 to fund the fourth quarter expenses of the Emergency Repair Carpenter. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the following Resolution of Appropriation #920046. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) M.B. 43, Pg. 230 AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920046 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR AHIP EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100089000563100 AHIP 1100011010999999 BD OF SUPV-CONTINGENCY TOTAL AMOUNT $7,190.00 (7,190.00) $0.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $0.00 Agenda Item No. 19d. Appropriation: Keene Landfill Monitoring. Mr. Tucker said the Keene Landfill is under Phase II water quality monitoring that will be completed in June, 1993. This requires quarterly testing that is mandated by the Virginia Department of Waste Management. Phase II testing and monitoring costs are estimated at $100,000 per quarter. An additional $150,000 is required in the operating budget to cover these costs through this fiscal year. Funding for this Phase II monitoring is available from the Keene Transfer Station Capital Improvement Program project that was canceled by this Board last October. Mr. Marshall moved to adopt Resolution of Appropriation #920038 relating to the Keene Landfill water quality monitoring. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. He asked how much this monitoring will cost next year. Mr. Tucker explained that there is a change in legislation which indicates that the cost will decrease. He stated that he believes an additional $80,000 will be needed for next year. He emphasized that this is a part of the County budget, and he noted that it is an expensive item. Mr. Bain asked if bids are taken each year for this monitoring program. Mr. Tucker replied, "no." He said the program is carried forward each year because data has to be maintained for the State. Mr. Bain stated that he would like some information on this monitoring program although he is not saying that it doesn't need to be done. Mr. Tucker indicated that he could get Mr. Bain the information on the monitoring program, but he pointed out that it has to be done. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920038 FUND: CAPITAL/GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) KEENE PROJECT TO ENGINEERING FOR KEENE WATER QUALITY MONITORING EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100042040390001 GEN'L-KEENE WATER MONITORING 1900041000950037 CIP-KEENE TRANSFER STATION 110009301093004 GEN'L-TRANSFER TO CIP TOTAL AMOUNT 8150,000.00 (150,000.00) (150,000.00) ($150,000.00) REVENUE 2900051000512004 DESCRIPTION CIP-TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND TOTAL AMOUNT ($150,000.00) ($150,000.00) Agenda Item No. 19e. Appropriation: Elis Ollson Memorial Foundation Grant. Mr. Tucker said a $3000 grant from the Elis Ollson Memorial Foundation was received for "Project Success". This project was started at Albemarle High School several years ago for ninth grade students who were identified by the middle schools as being students who were more than likely to be unsuc- cessful at the high school and potential drop-outs. Students who successfully completed the ninth grade year in "Project Success" are now in classes that do not provide the same amount of personalized support. Teachers will be paid from this grant to monitor and support these students as needed. This "after- care" helps to keep identified students more successful in the tenth, elev- enth, and twelfth grade years. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.43, Pg.231 (Page 41) Mr. Martin made a motion to adopt the following Resolution of Appropria- tion ~920044. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920044 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ELIS OLLSON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION GRANT FOR PROJECT SUCCESS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1230161101112100 SALARIES-TEACHER 1230161101210000 FICA TOTAL AMOUNT $2,770.00 230.00 $3,00O.OO REVENUE 2200018100186030 DESCRIPTION DONATIONS & GIFTS TOTAL AMOUNT $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Agenda Item No. 19f. Appropriation: Family Literacy Grant. Mr. Tucker said the School Board approved the grant application for the Family Literacy Project on March 23, 1991. The application was subsequently approved by the State Department of Education and Albemarle County Schools were awarded $21,230 for the 1992-93 school year. Matching funds of $2659 from the County are represented by use of office space, telephone and copying services as well as donations from civic, business and church organizations. The funds are for the Literacy Education for Chapter I and Migrant families. Instructors will visit the homes of these families to help them improve their language, reading and parenting skills. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, for adoption of the following Resolution of Appropriation #920045. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920045 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FAMILY LITERACY GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1211361117112100 SALARIES-TEACHER 1211361117210000 FICA 1211361117550100 TRAVEL 1211361117601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $18,312.00 1,392.00 1,685.00 2,500.00 $23,889.00 REVENUE 22000240002402737 2200018100181125 DESCRIPTION ADULT ED-FAMILY LITERACY DONATIONS & GIFTS TOTAL AMOUNT $21,230.00 2,659.00 $23,889.00 Agenda Item No. 19g. Appropriation: Teacher Incentive Grants from the Virginia Commission for the Arts for Stony Point Elementary School. Mr. Tucker said the Teacher Incentive Grant Program has been established to help strengthen the quality of arts education in the schools and to encourage innovative programs which integrate the arts into the basic curricu- lum of the classroom. Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, for adoption of the following Resolution of Appropriation #920047, relating to Virginia Commission for the Arts, Teacher Incentive Grants. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 42) M.B. 43, Pg. 232 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920047 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VIRGINIA COMMISSION FOR THE ARTS - TEACHER INCENTIVE GRANTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1221161101312500 PROF SERVICES-INSTRUCTIONAL TOTAL AMOUNT $700.00 $700.00 REVENUE 2200024000240426 2200024000240427 2200024000240428 DESCRIPTION TEACHER GRANT #93-0802 TEACHER GRANT #93-0801 TEACHER GRANT #93-0985 TOTAL AMOUNT $300.00 300.00 100.00 $700.00 Agenda Item No. 19h. Appropriation: Albemarle High School Food Service. Mr. Tucker said this is the reappropriation of the remaining fund balance for Albemarle High School Food Services. It has a fund balance of $1969.67 at the end of FY 1991-92. The funds will be used to purchase a new cash register and a coffee machine. Mr. Martin move4 to adopt the following Resolution of Appropriation #920048. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920048 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: NEW EQUIPMENT FOR ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1300160301800100 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT-NEW TOTAL AMOUNT $1,969.67 $1,969.67 REVENUE 2300151000510100 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUND BALANCE $1,969.67 TOTAL $1,969.67 Agenda Item No. 19i. Appropriation: ADA Compliance - Parks and Recreation. Mr. Tucker said the ADA Transition Plan approved by the Board in December, 1992 included several Parks & Recreation capital projects which need to be completed by January 26, 1995. The projects are scheduled to be funded by using some current funds that have already been appropriated for accessi- bility projects, along with new appropriations scheduled for 1993-94 and 1994- 95 in the Capital Improvements Program. He said that Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Director of Parks & Recreation, requests that the existing accessibility project funds all be transferred to a single code labeled "ADA Compliance - Parks and Recreation." It is preferable to have these funds in a single code. Priorities have been reordered based on staff's understanding of the ADA legislation and the Rivanna and Beaver Creek projects are not a part of the transition plan. Also, doing work at nine different locations on the same type of work will probably require that these projects be bid together. Also, it will be easier to show the County's commitment to ADA and its good faith intention of complying with the legisla- tion if the County is ever challenged with an ADA complaint. Mr. Marshall made a motion for adoption of the following Resolution of Appropriation #920050 pertaining to ADA compliance for the Parks and Recre- ation Department. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 43) M.B. 43, Pg. 233 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920050 FUND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR ADA (AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES) COMPLIANCE EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1900071000580411 1900071000950004 1900071000950047 1900071000950075 REVENUE DESCRIPTION ADA COMPLIANCE MINT SPRINGS VALLEY PARK BEAVER CREEK PARK RIVANNA-FIVE SENSES TRAIL TOTAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT $79,995.46 (44,571.66) (25,000.00) (10,423.80) $0.00 AMOUNT $0.00 Agenda Item No. 19j. Appropriation: Sheriff's Bailiff. Mr. Tucker said this request is to fund $27,570 for an additional bailiff for the Juvenile and Domestics Relations Court. During FY 1992-93 budget work sessions, $14,000 (the County's projected share) was placed in a Board contingency account until staff could determine, in conjunction with the City, if an additional bailiff was needed. Since that time, discussions between the City, the County, Judge Shannon, and both the City and County Sheriff's departments have determined that a third bailiff is needed to provide additional security in the Courtroom, as well as provide transporta- tion for the juveniles back and forth to the Juvenile Detention Home. Mr. Tucker said the total appropriation of $27,570 will fund six months salary and fringe benefit costs, plus operating costs and a vehicle. The County's share of the position will be $13,785, which will be transferred from the Board's contingency account to the Sheriff's budget. The additional $13,785 will be shown as a revenue from the City into the General Fund. Mr. Marshall offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, for adoption of the following Resolution of Appropriation #920051. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Perkins and Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Bain. ABSTAINING: Mr. Martin. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93 NUMBER: 920051 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR BAILIFF IN SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100031020110000 1100031020210000 1100031020221000 1100031020231000 1100031020241000 1100031020232000 1100031020312500 1100031020370000 1100031020530900 1100031020580100 1100031020600900 1100031020601000 1100031020601100 1100031020800300 1100031020800500 1100011010999905 DESCRIPTION SALARIES FICA VRS HEALTH INS LIFE INS DENTAL INS PROFESSIONAL INSTRUCTION LAUNDRY VEHICLE INSURANCE DUE S/MEMBERSHI PS VEHICLE EQUIP POLICE SUPPLIES UNIFORMS/APPAREL COMMUNICATION EQUIP VEHICLE BD OF SUPV-CONTINGENCY TOTAL AMOUNT $9,426.00 740.00 870.00 634.00 80.00 30.00 70.00 50.00 230.00 20.00 370.00 250.00 600.00 1,200.00 13,000.00 (13,785.00) $13,785.00 REVENUE 2100019000190202 DESCRIPTION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE TOTAL AMOUNT $13,785.00 $13,785.00 Agenda Item No. 23. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Perkins stated that several people have inquired about the road signs and when new addresses will be received by the public. Mr. Branden- burger responded that a schedule should be confirmed within the next two weeks. Mr. Tucker said he would soon give the Board a status report on this project. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 234 (Page 44) Mr. Martin commented that he was told this morning by Mr. Mike Jackson that his (Mr. Jackson's) mother lives in another state and needs to be in a nursing home. He said that Mr. Jackson's argument is that he is paying taxes in the County, and he should be able to take advantage of the bed space that is at Our Lady of Peace. Mr. Martin stated that he explained to Mr. Jackson that there would be strong opinion on this Board that those spaces would be for County residents only. He said that Mr. Jackson responded that he could establish residency in the County for a week or two and accomplish the same thing. Mr. Martin commented to Mr. Jackson that he felt that this was a loophole that needed to be closed, and that it would go against the intent of this Board. He asked if he was right in making the statement that those bed spaces would preferably be for County residents only. Mr. Bowerman answered that this was the understanding. He explained, however, that bed spaces could not be guaranteed to County residents under law, but this Board would certainly try to accomplish that. He stated that all of the current residents of Our Lady of Peace, who were on the waiting list, met that requirement. Mrs. Humphris stated that it would seem to her that there would be a waiting list for other people besides County residents. Mr. Martin remarked that according to Mr. Jackson, he thought he had his mother's name on such a list, but someone at Our Lady of Peace informed him that this could not be done. Mr. Marshall mentioned that there is a similar problem with Section 8 people. He said that people come to the County and live with family members for a week or so and establish residence. He added that this means that some of the County's housing is being provided to residents from surrounding counties. Me stated that this Board is going to have to put a stop to this problem. Mr. Martin said he is supposed to talk to Mr. Jackson again tonight, and he wanted to make sure that the other Board members were in agreement with his statement to Mr. Jason. Mrs. Humphris remarked that it was the clear intent of this Board that this facility be for Albemarle County residents, insofar as it was legally possible. Mr. Bain remarked that he would like an update on the situation with Blue Cross, as far as categorizing smokers and others in terms of health insurance. He said that he would like to know what the County is paying, etc. Mr. Bain noted that the Supervisors now have copies of two sets of minutes relating to a 1989 Board discussion concerning the Stone-Robinson Elementary School water line. He said most of the discussion seemed to revolve around the main line, but the other line is simply an offshoot to serve Stone-Robinson Elementary School, only. He added that, as far as upsizing the line is concerned, he had considered leaving the size of the line at eight inches, instead of 12 inches, but since it is just the offshoot line, he does not think it is that significant. Mr. Bowerman asked if the size of the line was incorporated in the approval of the water line for Stone-Robinson School. Mr. Bain replied, "no." He said that a motion would need to be made relative to this water line. (Mr. Martin left the room at 3:30 p.m.) Mr. Bain mentioned the Route 29 road improvement issue. He said that he and Mr. Martin, as members of the MPO, had a two-hour public hearing last week. He stated that people from the City, County an the University were present for this hearing. He added that he would like to see one or two of the Supervisors, as well as some staff people, attempt to look at the whole issue and, particularly, Meadow Creek Parkway and the overpasses as major funding issues. He said that these projects together almost total as much as the Western Bypass in terms of construction and rights-of-way acquisition. He went on to say that consideration has been given to contacting the County's representatives in Washington with the idea of this Board being part of the solution, and not as a roadblock, which may be the way VDOT views the County. He would like to see what the feasibility and/or possibilities are by includ- ing funding for these two aspects in line with the other funding. He does not believe the County will get funding in time to do anything from a regular State allotment, whether it is STP or some other funding source. He discussed private and public funding, as well as a toll road, last year, and he thinks indications were that this would not work. He went on to say that to really address the situation and bring it together, everybody needs to work toward a direct allocation to fund these two aspects of the project. He said that the other parts of the plan will be there, and the State will have the funds available for the Bypass, when that time comes. He added that State officials really don't care about the funds for Meadow Creek Parkway or the overpasses. He commented that he looks at this as a positive way to approach the issue, and to point out that the area's transportation needs should be addressed, and this is the way that this Board would like to go about it. March 3, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 45) M.B. 43, Pg. 235 (Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 3:31 p.m.) Mrs. Humphris stated that sh~ thinks this is a good idea, and she agrees with Mr. Bain, unless, there is some creative attempt to address the problem of funding for local needs. She said this County will most likely be left without the funding, and she thinks this Board should do whatever is necessary to present a plan to the Washington representatives. Mr. Bowerman concurred. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Tucker if the staff could start working on this plan after the budget cycle. Mr. Tucker indicated that this could be done. Mr. Bowerman suggested that Mr. Bliley and Mr. Payne would be the people to contact, but Mr. Payne would be the primary person. He went on to say that he was unsure about contacting the senators. Mr. Bain said that he did not know if senators should be contacted, although he certainly does not intend to exclude them. He noted that Route 29 is the only identified thoroughfare in the ISTEA legislation in the State. He stated that clearly the representatives through this area would be interested, and one of the senators or some of their staff people may also want to be involved. Mr. Bowerman announced that WINA has invited Mr. Tucker and Mr. Bowerman to speak during Chris Callaghan's call-in talk show on Monday. He said he believes Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Humphris have been contacted by Mr. Callaghan for the same thing on Tuesday. He said this is in reference to the public information initiative whereby this Board is trying to get more involvement with the public, such as informing the public and answering the public's questions. He thinks this activity is good, and he thanked WINA for giving this Board the opportunity to take part in such a program° He noted that these programs will take place right before the public meeting on the budget. He hopes this program will be very timely and will get some questions an- swered, as well as some discussion prior to the public hearing. Mrs. Humphris stated that she has discussed this program with Mr. Callaghan, and she noted that she had not really planned to spend from now until Tuesday doing nothing but study the budget. She added that the emphasis will have to come from the public's input as to how they want the Supervisors to address the issues. She went on to say that she probably will not have the answers by Tuesday. Mr. Tucker responded that the Supervisors will have to deal with issues and not specifics. Mr. Bowerman stated that Ms. Roxanne White can also be present during Mr. Callaghan's show. At this time, Mr. Bain made a motion to include Item 5.2 in his previous motion for approval of the Consent Agenda. Mrs. Humphris seconded this motion. She added that she would like to refer to her earlier comment that this is not to be construed as any endorsement of expansion of this water line. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35 P..M.