1992-10-07October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 227
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on October 7, 1992, 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
~lter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Mr. Michael Czumak, a resident of Route 662 in Earlysville, expressed
concerns about calcium chloride being used on roads to keep down dust.
Mr. Lester Hoel, representing residents of the Georgetown Road area,
presented a petition requesting improvements to Georgetown Road.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve item 5.1, to defer item 5.7 and to
accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Letter of Agreement Zehmer Hall. Request that the Board
authorize the chairman to execute a letter of agreement designating Zehmer
Hall (University of Virginia) as a 3oint emergency operations center in the
event of a large-scale emergency, was approved by the above recorded vote.
The agreement is set out in full below:
THIS AGREEMENT made this 24th day of October, 1992 by and
among the City of CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA ("City"), the COUNTY
of ALBEMARLE VIRGINIA ("County"), and the RECTOR and VISITORS of
THE UNIVERSITY of VIRGINIA ("University"), sometimes collectively
referred to as "Participants"
WITNESSETH:
I. BACKGROUND
The Participants have discussed the problems, costs and
benefits associated with the designation of Zehmer Hall on the
grounds of the University of Virginia as the Emergency Operations
Center for use by the Participants in times of emergency or for
exercises of emergencies.
On January 17th, 1992 representatives of the Participants:
University Chief of Police, Michael Sheffield, Dean of Continuing
Education, Dean Philip Nowlen, and the Emergency Services
Coordinator, Kaye Harden met to discuss the designation of Zehmer
Hall as the Emergency Operations Center. All Parties present
agreed to this designation.
Mr. Harden then presented the concerns of Dean Nowlen to the
Emergency Operations Center Management Board on January 21st,
1992. The Board endorsed the designation of Zehmer Hall as the
Emergency Operations Center and directed the Director of the
Emergency Operations Center (911) to prepare this agreement.
II. Operational Support for Zehmer Hall
Each of the signatories hereto agree that Zehmer Hall will
hereafter be used as the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in
those situations requiring a full activation of the center.
Examples of situations requiring full activation might include:
major chemical spill, a category 3 hurricane, wide spread
flooding, power outages, a nuclear war, or any other disaster
requiring significant resources to combat.
a
Zehmer Hall will also
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 228
(Page 2)
be used during exercises of local procedures designed to mediate
the effects of large scale disasters. The specific conditions
which are determined to be sufficient to activate the operation of
Zehmer Hall as the EOC will be determined cooperatively by
representatives from the University, the City, and the County.
The University of Virginia agrees to allow the use of Zehmer
Hall as an Emergency Operations Center in times of natural or man
made disaster and for exercises of disaster procedures with no
expected reimbursement except as spelled out in this agreement.
Costs will be shared equally among the participants. All
exercises will be scheduled so as not to interfere with on going
programs at Zehmer Hall. Any visit, use, or tour of the facility
should be arranged in advance with representatives of the Division
of Continuing Education (DCE) . Visitors or representatives of the
EOC should check in with the DCE contact upon arrival.
The University of Virginia agrees to pay an equal share of
the cost of exercises conducted in Zehmer Hall. The University
also agrees to the use of their FAX machines, word processors,
television receivers, chalk boards and other briefing aids that
may be available at no cost during exercises. The University
agrees to pay an equal share of the cost of modifications, that it
approves, that would make Zehmer Hall more suitable for use as an
EOC. Any and all alterations or installations' to Zehmer Hall must
be approved by the Dean of the Division of Continuing Educations
or his/her designee and a representative from Facilities
Management when required.
The City of Charlottesville agrees to pay an equal share of
the cost of exercises conducted in Zehmer Hall and for any
modifications or installations that the city approves for Zehmer
Hall.
The County of Albemarle agrees to pay an equal share of the
cost of exercises conducted in Zehmer Hall and for an equal share
of modifications or installations that the county approves for
Zehmer Hall.
III. Fiscal and Administrative Aqent
The County of Albemarle is designated as fiscal manager for
any costs associated with the operation of Zehmer Hall as an
Emergency Operation Center during an emergency or an exercise.
The County shall be responsible for furnishing fiscal management,
purchasing, and legal counsel for the use of Zehmer Hall as an
EOC. By executing this agreement the Participants authorize the
county to enter into contracts as necessary for approved
expenditures needed for the Zehmer Hall EOC operation.
The Participants will pay their respective shares of the
cost of building modifications, equipment purchase, and
installations of telephone system modification as agreed to by the
EOC Management Board. Invoices will be paid within 30 days.
IV. Liability
The Participants acknowledge that the EOC Management Board
will act as agent for each of them in the management of the Zehmer
Hall EOC facility and shall obtain liability insurance adequate to
protect the interests of the Participants. The purchase of such
insurance shall in no way constitute a waiver of any defenses,
including but not limited to the defense of sovereign immunity,
that may be available to the'Management Board, City, County, State
or University with respect to any claim against any or all of
them.
V. Execution: Duration[ Joint Exercise of Powers
The City and County intend this agreement as a joint
exercise of their respective powers as political subdivisions, as
authorized by 15.1-21 of the Code of Virginia and the University
joins by authority vested in title 23 of said code. The governing
body of each Participant has therefore caused the agreement to be
executed in its behalf by the authorized officer indicated below,
as of the respective dates indicated. The agreement will take
effect on the date of the last signature and will continue in
effect until modified or dissolved by mutual agreement of the
Participants. Any Participant may discontinue its participation
at the end of any fiscal year on one year's written notice to the
others. Participant's respective obligations for payment of
operating costs, including costs of any modifications or
installations, are subject to their respective annual
authorization of funds for that purpose. Upon withdrawal of any
Participant(s) from this agreement, the withdrawing participant(s)
shall be entitled to receive payment from the Board for a
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
M.B. 42, Pg. 229
percentage of the value of the depreciated assets of the Zehmer
Hall EOC in a proportion equal to the percentage of total costs of
operating the Zehmer Hall EOC assigned to said Participant(s) as
of the date of notice of intent to discontinue.
Item 5.2. Notification dated September 17, 1992, from Mr. E. C.
Cochran, Jr., State Location and Design Engineer~ Department of
Transportation, that the Commonwealth Transportation Board has approved the
location and major design features of Route 20 (Scottsville Road), Albemarle
County, Project 0020-002-S21, PE-101, C-501, was received as information.
Item 5.3. Copy of 1990 Census Summary of Social, Economic and Housing
Characteristics for the United States for Virginia, was received as
information.
Item 5.4. Letter dated September 21, 1992, from Mr. O. Randolph
Rollins, Secretary of Public Safety and Colonel Carl R. Baker, Superintendent,
Department of State Police, re: State Police Public Safety Meeting Schedule,
was received as information.
Item 5.5. Notification dated September 17, 1992, from Mr. H. Bryan
Mitchell, Deputy Director, Department of Historic Resources, of a request to
conduct a preliminary evaluation of Michie Tavern, Albemarle County (DHR File
No. 02-93) to determine whether it is eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register, was received
as information.
Item 5.6. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for September 1 and
September 15, 1992, was received as information.
Item 5.7. Letter dated September 21, 1992, from The Honorable George
Allen, Member of Congress, re: formation of an eight county Shenandoah
National Park Advisory Committee.
There was a consensus of the Board that this item be deferred and staff
is to provide additional information at the October 14, 1992 Board meeting.
Item 5.8. Letter dated September 16, 1992, from Mr. Harris W. Fawell
and letter dated September 21, 1992, from Mr. Orrin G. Hatch, re: Fair Labor
Standards Act, were received as information.
Item 5.9. Copy of letter dated September 8, 1992, from Dr. Robert W.
Paskel, Division Superintendent, addressed to The Honorable Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, re: closing of bridge on
Route 671 at Millington, was received as follows:
"The purpose of this correspondence is to express my deep concern
about the way in which Albemarle County Schools were notified
about the closing of the bridge on Route 671 over Moorman's River.
On Thursday, September 3, 1992, the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors, David Bowerman, received a facsimile of a
communication from you informing him of the proposed closing of
the bridge due to significant deterioration. While your letter
stated 'no doubt the bridge will have to be closed in the near
future', it also stated that the bridge had been posted at three
tons, making it impossible for a school bus to traverse.
Your letter also stated that 'since there may be some school bus
traffic involved, I felt we should let you know as soon as
possible so school buses are not scheduled for this school year.'
While I am grateful for your concern in notifying the school
division, I am extremely concerned about the timing involved in
your decision and notification. School throughout the
Commonwealth of Virginia began today, September 8, 1992. By
notifying us of the necessity to reroute buses late on September
3, you caused a great deal of confusion and concern. Your action
resulted in over 50 students having to either be rerouted or
changed to other buses. Please be aware of the fact that bus
schedules are established early in the summer and parents were
notified of bus assignments several weeks ago.
My concern is that if the bridge were deteriorating at the rate
you spoke to in your letter, the notification of the posting at
three tons and the potential closing could have been decided upon
much earlier than September 3. I, as Superintendent, have yet to
receive any direct communication from your office. Had the
Chairman of Board of Supervisors been out of town, the
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
M.B. 42, Pg. 230
notification may never have reached the school division in time to
make any changes.
I trust that you will accept this expression of concern as a
request for your department to be more cognizant of the results of
decisions of this magnitude and the importance of early
notification. Should you wish to discuss this matter with me
further, feel free to contact me at (804) 296-5826. Thank you for
your attention to this matter."
Item 5.10. Copy of letter dated September 21, 1992, from The Honorable
Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, addressed
to Dr. Robert W. Paskel, Division Superintendent, re: closing of bridge on
Route 671 at Millington, was received as follows:
"Thank you for your letter of September 8 concerning the three ton
posting of the bridge on Route 671 over Moorman River. I
appreciate your concerns on the matter and regret your
inconvenience with the timing of our decision. The condition of
the Moorman River Bridge has been of concern to us, and we have
been working with Albemarle County's Board of Supervisors on the
replacement structure for some time.
Due to the problems in scheduling the replacement project in the
Albemarle County Six Year Improvement Program, we have been
maintaining a seven ton posting to allow maximum use to the local
community. To ensure the safety of the traveling public, we
reduced the interval of inspection of the bridge from two years to
six months and performed the necessary repairs after each
inspection to retain its seven ton posting. In our latest
inspection, we discovered deterioration that is not feasible to
repair. This inspection was performed on August 11, 1992, and Mr.
Bowerman was notified as soon as possible after the analysis of
our findings and a thorough review of our options. I do not take
lightly any decisions that restrict the public's use of our
roadway system.
Having been in contact with Mr. Bowerman's office in the past, it
was felt that notification of our decision to his office would
ensure that the proper authorities were notified. We informed Mr.
Bowerman by phone of the proposed three ton posting and we faxed
my letter to guarantee that this important information would be
received and acted upon. Originally, we had planned to have our
resident engineer contact your office but Mr. Bowerman indicated
that his office would notify you.
Once again, I appreciate your concerns and regret the poor timing
of our decision. It is my desire to work with the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to schedule replacement of thiS
structure and remove any weight restrictions, not only for your
school bus traffic, but the general community as well."
Item 5.11. Copy of letter dated September 24, 1992, from Ms. Amelia G.
McCulley, Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Steven L. Raynor, re:
Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 63,
Parcels 14, 14H, 14I, 14J, 45B1, 45B2, 45B3 and 45B4 (originally parcel 14);
estate of Charles W. Phillips, was received as information.
Item 5.12. Notice dated September 25, 1992, filed with the State
Corporation Commission by Virginia Electric and Power Company for a revision
of its fuel factor pursuant to Virginia Code § 56-249.6 to recover its fuel
costs and the cost of purchased power, was received as information.
Item 5.13. Copy of letter dated September 28, 1992, from Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, addressed to Ms. Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive
Director, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, re: Disability
Services Board, was received as information.
Item 5.14. Minutes for the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of
Directors for July 27, August 14 and September 16, 1992, were received as
information.
Item 5.15. Board Work Session Summary for September 28, 1992, for the
Albemarle County Public Schools, was received as information.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 231
(page 5)
Item 5.16. Copy of letter dated September 29, 1992, from Mr. J. W.
Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, re:
Southwood/Oak Hill Water System, was received as follows:
"You have relayed to me Forrest Marshall's inquiry concerning this
privately owned and operated public water system. Discussions
have been held between the owner of this water system and the
Service Authority staff to determine if connecting this system to
the Service Authority's water system is an option for them. This
has been reviewed with the Service Authority Board of Directors.
Further study and negotiations with the owner are necessary before
I can make a recommendation to the Board of Directors.
I am available to try to answer any specific questions. I expect
it may be another 30-60 days before I will be able to report to
the Board of Directors."
There was a consensus of the Board that a status report be provided to
'the Board in January, 1993.
Item 5.17. Copy of Minutes of the Planning Commission for September 22,
1992, was received as information.
Item 5.18. Blood Borne Pathogen Plan Implementation. Information on
potential costs of meeting OSHA regulations for training and inoculations
relevant to Hepatitis B virus prevention, was received as information.
Item 5.19. Development Activity Report and Annual Status of the
Comprehensive Plan dated September 29, 1992, were received as information.
Item 5.20. Letter dated September 30, 1992, from Mr. D.S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, re: Current Projects, Construction Schedule, was received
as information.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Discussion - Millington Bridge
(Route 671).
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUND: The Millington Bridge over the Moorman's River is
deteriorating and in need of replacement. This has been discussed
many times and the County's position has been to replace the
bridge in its existing location. VDoT has not supported this as
the approach roads to the current location do not meet design
standards. The culmination of County and VDoT discussion has
resulted in an alternative solution referred to as the 'Green
Line' alignment which calls for a new bridge located upstream from
the current bridge with improved access roads. These positions
are outlined in the Board resolution (on file). Besides the
change in road alignment, the new bridge would have two additional
upgrades: (1) two lanes versus the current one lane, and (2)
increase in maximum load limit.
The current situation is as follows:
Green Line alignment cannot proceed as VDoT cannot obtain
the necessary right-of-way easements which are held by the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF). VDoT has requested VOF
release the easements but their request was denied. VDoT
then requested the County intercede with VOF. The County
has not done so. VDoT has the option to appeal to the
Governor.
Green Line alignment has completed design, public hearings
and has Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approval.
Total cost estimates in 1991 were $1,468,000 ($546,000 for
the road improvements and $922,000 for the new bridge).
The load limit was recently reduced from seven tons to three
tons due to continued deterioration. VDoT inspections will
continue every six months with subsequent minimal repairs
but ultimate closure is probable. VDoT has given no
estimate of how long the bridge can continue to be used.
DISCUSSION: The following options are presented for your
consideration:
Maintain the current bridge as long as possible with
ultimate closure likely.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
M.B. 42, Pg. 232
Build the Green Line alignment if VOF will release their
Open-Space easements by one of two actions:
- Governor intercede with VOF, or
- County intercede with VOF (This is VDoT's preferred
solution.)
VDoT replace the bridge in its current location. (VDoT does
not support this as it makes no improvements in the road
alignments.)
County fund replacement of the bridge zn its current
location. Implications:
Estimate a mmnimum of $135,000 total cost
from County funds. Costs likely to be
larger once planning and engineering
completed.
Takes the bridge out of service for one to
two years.
VDoT permit required. May require CTB
approval through permitting process with
ultimate delays in starting construction.
County would retain maintenance responsi-
bility and liability if the bridge were
not a part of the state secondary road
system. Legal ramifications are outlined
in the memorandum from the County Attorney
(on file).
RECO~4/~ENDATION: None, information provided for discusszon."
Mr. Bowerman asked what the traffic count is on Route 671. Mr.
Roosevelt said the traffic count is less than 500 trips per day.
Mr. Bain asked why it would take one to two years for the bridge to be
out of service. Mr. Tucker said because of the process, as well as
construction. Mr. Bain said unless VDoT closes the bridge, it can continue to
function until construction. He feels any construction that needed to be done
could be finished within six months. Mr. Tucker said there are a lot of
things that VDoT could do if it did not want to accept this and vacate the
property. There would have to be some sort of turn around at each end if VDoT
did not continue maintenance of this bridge. Mr. Bain said that is assuming
that VDoT shuts it down. If it remains open and the County goes ahead and
fixes the bridge with VDoT's concurrence, then it may not be out of operation
for that period of time.
Mr. Bowerman said if the County were to undertake this it would be with
the clear probability that it would be a County owned and County maintained
bridge with end of state maintenance, if the state were to agree to pave the
road.
Mr. Bain said, in terms of Mr. St. John's letter (on file), the County
has the responsibility of maintaining the bridge. He asked what maintaining
would entail and what kind of liability the County would have. Mr. Bain also
asked if the bridge were built, the state road leading to the bridge remained
a state road and someone came around the road too fast and had a wreck on the
bridge could the County and State be sued. Mr. St John said the County, under
present law, would be immune from that kind of liability. There is a quest
under Dillon's Rule of whether a county has the power to take a secondary road
out of the secondary system and maintain it. He does not feel the County
would have monetary liability. It is a governmental function and the County
would not have any liability unless the Virginia Claim's Act was amended.
Mr. Bain asked if VDoT were to say "no" and decides to barricade the
bridge, ms there anything that the County could do even if it were to take
VDoT to court. Mr. St. John said he does not feel VDoT would allow a
situation like that to exist because VDoT is not exempt from liability. If
the Commonwealth Transportation Board or the State Highway Commissioner made a
declaration based on some study that in its opinion this bridge that the
County built is inadequate and equal to no bridge at all, there would be two
segments of state highway leading to a dangerous situation and VDoT would have
the power to barricade it.
Mr. Bain said in terms of cost of County funds there are people within
the County who would contribute money to replace the bridge. He is not one
that loves to go to court but he does feel that the time may have come to go
forward with it. He feels the County should either get VDoT's cooperation or,
if it is not forthcoming, he is willing to have a declaratory judgement action
to make a determination and expend it with County funds in combination with
citizen contributions. The bridge has been there and now it is getting ready
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 233
(Page 7)
to be closed. He does not think there is a sense on this Board that it wants
to do the green line or anything like that. Whether this Board wants to
participate in having the green line done by going to Virginia Outdoors
Foundation or someone else.
Mr. Martin asked if this Board has gone to VDoT and asked what would be
done if the County were to build the bridge itself. He asked if this Board
knew that VDoT would not cooperate or if it had reason to assume that VDoT
would not cooperate. Mr. Bain replied "no."
Mr. Perkins asked what portion of the bridge is sufficient. Mr.
Roosevelt said it is all sufficient. Mr. Perkins said he speaking in terms of
weight limit. Mr. Roosevelt said there are five spans and four of them are
steel beam spans which is what the majority of the bridges in this area are.
One is a truss span and this section is 66 feet long, that is the section that
is found to be difficult to maintain. None of the other spans meet the legal
weight limit. Mr. Perkins asked if the 66 foot span is where steel beams
could be placed. Mr. Roosevelt said the steel beams would have to be very
large to span that 66 foot section but he feels this span could be taken off
and would require modification of the peers, but steel beams could be
fabricated to span this 66 foot distance. He has not done any analysis of
what would be needed there. The beams that are there are probably 10 to 12
inches deep. To make that 66 foot span would probably take 36 inch deep
beams, so the peer caps would have to be modified to take a two foot deeper
beam. If the bridge were removed, 66 foot beams could be put across and would
make a steel beam span like the other spans to raise the weight limit back to
seven tons or at most ten tons. His research shows that the maximum posting
of this bridge was ten tons.
Mr. Perkins asked why the State would rather have the County intercede
with the VOF rather than the Department interceding through the government.
Mr. Roosevelt said he does not know. Mr. Bowerman said he believes that there
is no precedent for the intervention of private government. He feels this is
the basis on which VDoT will not initiate. Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT would use
all other alternatives before it would initiate.
Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Roosevelt could make an estimate of how much it
would cost to lift the span that is currently there out and replace it with
sufficient steel beams. Mr. Roosevelt said it would cost approximately
$135,000 based upon a rough estimate from the bridge office in Culpeper. This
estimate is based upon a square foot basis of $60.00 per square foot to
replace that bridge and the length of the bridge which is 188 feet. If this
was cut back to 66 feet and multiplied by the width (12 to 14 feet) it would
be much less. He thinks if the Board wants to pursue this it needs to have
someone get a detailed estimate and he does not feel this is something the
County should rely on VDoT to do. He feels the County should get an
independent contractor to come up with an estimate.
Mr. Martin said it seems to him that the logical next step would be to.
proceed as if the County may do this and try to find out whether VDoT would
work with the County.
Mr. Perkins asked if it is possible to buy a new bridge that could be
set in this ones place with the type of load bearing system that ms presently
there rather than having to modify the peers. Mr. Roosevelt said to his
knowledge there has been no fabrication of truss spans in his lifetime. They
were something that were good in there time but are no longer fabricated or
installed because of the problems that currently exist, but as they wear out
maintenance cannot be done easily. He thinks the chances of finding one that
is 66 feet long, could be transported to this site and set in place would be
very slim. Whatever could be found would only be of such an age that future
maintenance problems would be put off for a short time. If this is replaced,
whoever replaces it should consider using a steel beam span or some other more
modern design trusses.
At this time, there was a consensus of the Board that staff draft a
letter, for review on October 14, 1992, to Commissioner Pethtel, indicating
the county's desire to replace the Millington Bridge in its current location
and requesting the Department's cooperation in this proposal. The Board also
requested that issues such as maintenance, acceptance into the state secondary
system, etc., be identified.
Mr. Forbes Reback said his understanding from a fairly reliable source
is that the VOF is willing to fund the engineering studies that are needed if
the Board were to elect to go forward with replacing the bridge.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Presentation of Petition from
Georgetown Road Neighborhood Association, re: traffic situation.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt to comment on the presentation made by
Mr. Lester Hoel with Georgetown Neighborhood Association and the Highway
Department's response if any can be made at this time. Mr. Roosevelt said
there is no new information. This has been reviewed in years past and nothing
has changed on Georgetown Road other than VDoT making some reconstructive
improvements and reimproving Barracks Road. The County has made some
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 234
(Page 8)
mmprovements by building a walking path to improve pedestrian safety. He
feels this comes down to driver preference and local financial ability and
enforcements of laws that currently exist. The road is posted for 35 miles
per hour. He did not bring the last speed study with him, but remembers that
far more than 15 percent of traffic using this road is exceeding the speed
limit that currently exists. He also believes that near 100 percent of
traffic using this road is exceeding a 25 mile per hour speed and it is his
opinion, based on his experience with traffic, that reducing the speed to 25
miles per hour will only have the effect of making 100 percent of the traffic
on that road violators of the speed limit rather than the current 30 percent.
Without increased and continuous enforcement he does not think there is any
way drivers can be forced to drive that approximate one mile of road at 25
miles per hour. It is not done in subdivisions and people will not do it on a
road where the vast majority of traffic uses it as a thru road. As far as the
first two suggestions of reducing the speed limit, he is willing to do the
speed studies on this road and report to the Board what they show, but the
Department's engineering recommendation and his personal recommendation ms
that if this speed study shows that the 85 percent of speed is greater than 35
he would not recommend that the speed be reduced below what is currently
posted.
As to the recommendation of eliminating thru truck traffic, there is a
procedure which is very complicated and has been developed by the legislature
that places the initial responsibility for the studies and determination of
alternate routes upon the County. He has sent the County staff copies of this
in the past and would be glad to make it available to the Board if it would
like to pursue elimination of thru trucks on Georgetown Road. As far as
providing crosswalks and sidewalks and trying to stop traffic through the use
of stop signs on Georgetown Road, most traffic engineers will agree that this
is a misuse of the stop sign which normally results in speeding down the road
from the stop smgn and violation of the stop sign as traffic proceeds through
it. Traffic also increases speed as it moves a block or two down the road
trying to make up for the time lost that they do not feel they should have
lost. Without close enforcement, it will result in more violations than
acceptance.
There are some things that are being done around the country that
Albemarle County is geared up to do. One of these, i.e. Pheonix and in the'
West Coast (Washington), a program has been adopted where a sign is attached
to a radar unit that indicates the speed of vehicles as they pass the radar
unit. He does not know whether the Board is aware of this, but Albemarle
County Police Department has one of these signs which fastens to a police car
and as it drives down the road it states the speed the car is traveling as it
goes by radar. He believes this could be mounted on a trailer of some type
and placed along Georgetown Road from time to time and other streets. It
could be left there from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. as a reminder to traffic
traveling this road with a sign indicating the speed they are traveling. This
may have some affect and may be something that would not require a lot of
manpower to run. It could also be used to influence the speeds. If the
County can get to the point where it can influence peoples habits and they
will slow down, he thinks VDoT would be willing to follow that with reduced
speed signs that indicate what the public has decided to run. He does not
feel that the speed limit signing can proceed a change in habits by the
public.
Mrs. Humphris said two years ago, in the Six Year Plan, the Board
decided that the Georgetown Road priority would be dropped to number 57 which
is almost out of view of the list. The whole idea was that the Board did not
want any changes being made to Georgetown Road that would increase the volume
of traffic until the Route 29 improvements were made to see what effect the
improvements would have in relieving the traffic on Georgetown Road. The
answer to the question of what the $1 million was for was unspecified. She
suggested that if anything were to be done there, upgrading of the
intersection of Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads for safety reasons was
something that needed to be done. After hearing from many of the residents of
the Georgetown area it looks like some of this money could be extended for
some type of safety improvements.
There was a consensus of the Board that Mrs. Humphris meet with Mr.
Hoel, representatives of the Georgetown Road Neighborhood Association, County
staff and Mr. Roosevelt to discuss what can be done to improve the traffic
situation and safety on Georgetown Road. Following this meeting, Mrs.
Humphris and Mr. Bowerman indicated they would request a meeting with Mr. Tom
Farley in Culpeper to discuss Georgetown Road. The Board requested that prior
to the meeting in Culpeper, an outline of what will be discussed with Mr.
Farley be provided as information on the consent agenda.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt to comment on the questions raised by
Mr. Czumak concerning maintenance and the use of calcium chloride. Mr.
Roosevelt said it has been VDoT's policy to use calcium chloride on gravel
roads to control dust. This policy, basically, is that calcium chloride is to
be placed on gravel roads in front of houses that are within 200 feet of the
roadway and placed 200 feet each side of the house. VDoT has used plake
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 235
(Page 9)
calcium chloride, the same material used for snow removal and spread this on
the road. Calcium chloride chemically works by drawing moisture either from
the ground or in the air and holds the gravel material in place. The last two
to three years, VDoT has had contracts to apply the calcium chloride as liquid
which ms a water/calcium mix which is sprayed on the road. VDoT has found
that this works a lot better because the calcium no longer has to draw the
moisture. He can check with his superintendent to find out how often the
calcium chloride, either plake or liquid, has been applied to Route 662 this
year. It is normally done twice a year (once in the spring and once in late
summer). Sometimes if people call with dust problems, the superintendent will
have the calcium chloride applied at other times. Basically, it is put only
at points where houses are and is usually only done twice a year. This is
done on most gravel roads where houses are present. What is occurring on
Route 662 is not unique.
Mr. Bowerman said he also heard that the road is scraped during
maintenance to keep it level, but there is never any gravel put back on it.
He asked what was presently taking place. This road erodes rapidly in rain.
Mr. Roosevelt said he will have to look into that.
Mr. Czumak said within the same 200 foot area where the calcium chloride
is put, there is no gravel. In order for it to sustain itself it has to be
put on the dirt, so if gravel is put down, it would interfere with the
application of calcium chloride. His concern is not so much that it is being
used, but the impact it is adding on the environment and the groundwater. He
is also concerned of what long term implications there may be in respect to
Route 662 or anywhere else in the County.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Roosevelt to comment on those environmental
implications. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not feel comfortable doing so at
this time. He does not know if VDoT has studies on this issue or if it has
studied it lately. He will try to find out and report to the Board. He does
not know of problems anywhere that have been brought to his attention that
when chemical was placed on the road it caused problems in ground water or to
adjacent properties. The chemical is usually so deluded by that time that it
is not a problem. Again, he will check to see what studies have been done
either privately or by VDoT concerning the environmental impact of calcium
chloride and the maintenance status of Route 662.
Mr. Perkins asked what about the possibility of an experimental basis
black topping or taring gravel in some of those sections where the calcium
chloride is being used. Mr. Roosevelt said that wouldresult in an entire
gravel road paved without being widened which would violate VDoT's standards
for hard surfacing.
Mr. Perkins thanked Mr. Roosevelt for the new guard rail on Route 240.
Mr. Perkins said several months ago, he asked about the sidewalk on both
sides of the railroad underpass on Route 240 in Crozet. He asked if Mr.
Roosevelt had looked at that. Mr. Roosevelt said he looked at the situation
and over time, as the road was resurfaced, the surface has reached the
elevation of the sidewalk. He thinks the solution is the next time this
section of road is paved, the material be milled out approximately four inches
deep and replace only two inches to get two inches of curve back. The
sidewalk could also be removed and reconstructed. There are no funds
available for reconstructing the sidewalk. He could perhaps put an asphalt
patch on the sidewalk at a relatively small cost. This would raise the
section three or four inches above the roadway and perhaps keep the area from
flooding. Putting an asphalt patch there would raise the sidewalk up and give
a buffer. He will do this if this is what the Board directs. It will not
look nice, but it would be a short-term inexpensive solution to the flooding
problem. Mr. Perkins said he feels this would be helpful.
Mr. Perkins said there is a lot of gravel that accumulates there which
makes walking difficult. He asked if it is VDoT's responsibility to sweep
this out. He feels by raising the sidewalk this situation would also be
solved.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Roosevelt if he has talked with Mr. Wilson Cropp
about spot improvements on Rocky Hollow Road. Mr. Roosevelt said "yes," he
feels spot improvements would cost a lot of money and is not a long-term
solution.
Mr. Bain asked about the status of the Fifth Street Extended project.
Mr. Roosevelt said the project has been advertised and October 28 is the bid
opening date. Assuming bids are received within the estimate, the work should
begin the end of November. Most of the grading is away from the existing
road.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 236
(Page 10)
Mr. Bain asked why the construction date for Route 678 was revised to
February, 1994. Mr. Roosevelt said a public hearing is scheduled for November
17, 1992 based upon the time it will take for VDoT to get through the
preliminary engineering stage.
Mrs. Humphris expressed concern about the staging area for the
contractors trailer for the Barracks Road project. This morning as she was
coming into town, rounding the curve at Mont~ue, a gentleman had backed his
pick-up truck out from there across the road and was stopped before he began
to go into town. This was a very dangerous situation. Mr. Roosevelt said he
will look into this.
Mr. Marshall said Ms. Irene Wheeler, a resident of Avon Street Extended,
expressed a concern about a drainage problem that is causing erosion on her
property. He gave Mr. Roosevelt a copy of Ms. Wheeler's letter and pictures
of the situation and asked Mr. Roosevelt to look into this matter.
Mr. Marshall said the residents of Mill Creek had a homeowner's meeting
and would like to push for the connector road between Avon Street Extended and
Route 20. He asked for a status report on the project. Mr. Cilimberg said
the County Engineer is handling the contract for design of this connector
road. She is still working with it and getting the contract finalized.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on a request to amend the Albemarle
County Service Authority service area boundaries for "sewer service" to The
Ridge Restaurant.
Mr. Bain disqualified himself and left the room at 10:36 a.m. (Mr.
Perkins left the room at 10:36 a.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. It should be
noted that the Health Department letter of December 8, 1991 also raises
questions as to the adequacy of the well. Staff assumes from correspondence
that the restaurant use would continue. (Mr. Perkins returned to the room at
10:38 a.m.)
Staff has determined that for reasonable use of this property as a
restaurant connection to public sewer is the only available or feasible
alternative. Staff is attempting to find out from the Health Departmen~ if
on-site septic would be possible for any other C-1 uses not as intensive as a
restaurant, but as of this writing have not gotten a response from the Health
Department. There ms no need for public water as the restaurant's water
supply is experiencing no quality or quantity problems.
The applicant's representative has indicated verbally to staff that the
applicant is continuing to pursue connection to public sewer. Plans have
apparently been developed, although staff has not seen those plans. The
applicant has contacted the property owners who granted the original easement
to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) that would need to be used.
All have indicated verbally their willingness to allow additional use of the
easement. The RWSA has also indicated its willingness to permit the
additional use of the easement. The applicant has obtained two preliminary
bids for construction of the sewer line. The applicant will be providing this
information in writing for the-Board's consideration. The Health Department
has granted an extension of the variance for temporary pump and haul for an
additional six month period with conditions including termination of the
variance should the Board decide not to extend the service area boundaries.
Mr. Cilimberg said regarding strategies of the Comprehensive Plan,
public health is a concern if commercial use of the property requmres sewage
disposal capacity which cannot be accommodated with an on-site system. A
restaurant will require an off-site solution.
Staff contacted the Health Department this morning and their indication
was that this property could not be used in any form with on-site sewage
disposal. There are several problems, i.e. location of wells and the fact
that there is extensive flood plain, up to 20 feet of fill, and the 100 foot
setback requirement for septic from the stream. If this property is to be
utilized for commercial use, the septic would need to be off-site with some
alternative system. The restaurant owners have identified hooking into the
public sewer system. Staff has not seen definite plans or received
verification of easements and approvals from the ACSA although it is indicated
that this is expected. Staff recommends that the Board not amend the
jurisdiction area for public sewer to this parcel until evidence of approved
access to the public sewer system is provided.
Mr. Bowerman said he concurs with staff's comments.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) ~4.B.Pg.237
(Page 11)
Mr. Porbes Reback, representing the applicant, said there are three
parties involved and he represents the owner of the real estate, Mr. Don
Nelson, who has owned the real estate since 1977. Mr. Keith van yahres is
operating the Ridge Restaurant on the premises and is attempting to purchase
the business from Andre Argo who operated The Galarie Restaurant on the same
site for a number of years, all under lease from his client. If the
commercial use of this property is discontinued because it cannot be served by
public sewer, it would seem that they are looking at a number of problems,
1.e. the van Yahres Corporation would have to go elsewhere, Mr. Argo who is
depending on the income from the sale of this for his livelihood could go
bankrupt and Mr. Nelson would have a worthless piece of real estate and could
also go bankrupt because of the debt. There is a hardship here which
hopefully will call for positive action by this Board in extending the
jurisdictional areas of the ACSA. The parties have done everything, in
preparation for this hearing, that they feel they need or can do under the
circumstances. All four landowners who would be involved with the extension
of the line have been contacted and are able and willing to work with them.
No easement agreement was prepared because it would be a futility if this
Board were not to extend the jurisdictional areas.
He hopes the Board will not spend a lot of time looking into the
financial capabilities of the parties because the Health Department has
already done that and if the three parties do not comply with its requests
this jurisdictional change cannot go forward.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant did not want to proceed with the
cost involved nor the negotiations and details because he needs assurance from
this Board that the jurisdictional designation will be granted to accomodate
this use. Mr. Reback said that is correct, the extension from the Health
Department goes to March 12, 1993 and all work has to be done by then because
the Health Department will not renew the permit.
Mr. William Brent, Executive Director of the ACSA, said Mr. Cilimberg
indicated earlier that the deeds of easement would have to be reviewed by
ACSA. He believes since this would be a private line ACSA would not have to
review it because it would be a private agreement. Mr. Cilimberg said he was
referring to the approval of the connection.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
(Mr. Marshall left the room at 10:45 a.m.)
Mrs. Humphris asked what shape this jurisdictional area would have and
encompass. Mr. Cilimberg said the jurisdictional area would be for the one
parcel, and defined as sewer to the existing structure. Mrs. Humphris asked
what parcel or parcels of land would be made available to the jurisdictional
area by the existence of this line. Mr. Cilimberg said tax map 57 parcel, 3lA
only.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this parcel would be sitting in isolation. Mr.
Cilimberg said "yes." (Mr. Marshall returned to the room at 10:49 p.m.)
Mrs. Humphris asked if this opens up any other land other than this
parcel for potential development. Mr. Cilimberg said only if this Board were
to grant an additional request for a jurisdictional area.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels the uniqueness of this situation differen-
tiates this request from other requests in that this is an existing use on
this parcel, and in the event that the applicants cannot obtain pumping, he
feels other alternative disposal means have to be looked at other than
abandoning the property. He prefers this course of action rather than trying
to continue the use with some other type of disposal on another site. He
feels this is a unique situation and is mindful of the fact that there is an
on-going business there and understands that this Board helped create the use
with no obligation to continue it. He would like to accomodate this use.
Mr. Martin concurred and said it is not only unique, but any other
alternative that this Board may discuss or approve would probably be setting a
.precedent.
Mrs. Humphris said it is important that there be no connections to the
Crczet interceptor because of the necessity of protecting that watershed.
Mrs. Humphris asked how this request could be distinguished from other
requests and also restricted. Mr. Bowerman said the boundary change could be
contingent upon the applicants actually resolving the legalities of the
easement and if they fail to do this, it could revert to its existing status.
This would be a conditional change subject to the applicant's performance. He
feels it is clear that this adjustment must be limited to this parcel. Mrs.
Humphris asked how this could be insured. Mr. St. John said the language is
already there. The best limitation would be this Boards' condition that the
approval is for existing structure only.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M,B, 42, 238
(Page 12)
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Reback if the Able's had been asked if they would
sell their property to put a drain field on it. Mr. Reback said "no," they
have not been directly asked if they would sell their property. Mr. Perkins
said he feels that would be a lot cheaper than doing this. Mr. Reback said
that may be a less expensive solution, but it is not a permanent solution, and
the applicants want something permanent. He would like the Board to act on
this request today.
Mr. Perkins then made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries for "sewer service"
to tax map 57, parcel 3lA, for a two-inch sewer line to existing structure,
existing use and existing capacity only, contingent on the applicant getting
the required easements and doing the necessary work to make the connection by
March 12, 1993.
Mrs. Humphris said she is not happy about doing this because she
perceives it as the "nose of the camel under the door" and hopes the watershed
has been protected enough by the conditions of approval and that everyone
understands them. The greater good of the whole County is to protect this
watershed and not one business. She hopes both missions are being
accomplished.
Mr. St. John asked what was meant by "no modifications" because this is
the first time that wording has been used. Mr. Bowerman said no additional
seating capacity added to the restaurant. Mr. St. John said this Board does
not want to preclude the owner from any kind of material modification that
does not expand the seating capacity. Mr. Perkins said he feels that this is
a restaurant business now and should remain as such. Mr. St. John said he
feels the Board could better word it by saying no enlargement of capacity
rather than no modification.
Mrs. Humphris said she is uncomfortable since there is a possible
alternative for a septic system that has not been investigated. She feels
anxious that the applicants have not investigated what must be a cheaper and
quicker possibility. This concerns her and makes her think the applicants
have a future agenda that this Board is not aware of. She asked why the
applicants are willing to spend so much if they have another alternative that
is cheaper.
Mr. Martin said he feels this is getting entirely too complicated. He
feels the approval has a condition and there is no need to worry of what could
happen 20 to 30 years from now.
Mrs. Humphris said this is important to the future of the County. It is
so important that this motion be correct and all possibilities have been
discussed.
Mr. Bowerman concurred with Mrs. Humphris and said this is a large
issue. He is able to support the motion with these conditions and because the
implications of doing so are very great.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bain.
(Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 11:09 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: ZMA-90-03, Barclay Development
Corporation.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. The Barclay
Development Corporation petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 19.54
acres from R-i, Residential to R-6, Residential (proffered) .
Staff notes that Jarman's Gap Road is non-tolerable and scheduled for
improvements. The adjacent property (Grayrock) was successfully rezoned in
1985 to allow 70 townhouse units on 21 acres and allowing for 37 dwellings on
53 acres. The initial request was for a total of 294 units which was amended
to include only the 70 units north of the lake. The remaining units were
approved by a previous rezoning in 1979. The applicant will dedicate 25 feet
from the centerline of Jarman's Gap Road. Staff opinion is that the applicant
has adequately addressed staff concern and that this request is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and purpose of intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of ZMA-93-03with the acceptance of the
following applicant proffers:
"1. When fully developed we will endeavor to ad_here as closely s
possible to schematic site plan revised March 30, 1990 as
submitted.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
M.B. 42, Pg. 239
2. I do agree not to disturb live vegetation lying within 100
feet of the streambed running along the back of our proposed
development except as necessary to construct wastewater
lines."
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner, compared an analys~s of R-6
Residential verses R-2, Residential, for 19.54 acres on Tax Map 55, Parcels 66
and 66A. The R-6 request would result in 51 lots with a minimum lot size of
8260 square feet. The R-6 development would be anticipated to generate 510
vehicle trips per day and a total of 53 additional students {25 elementary, 16
middle and 12 high school). By comparison, R-2, Residential zoning would
theoretically result in 39 lots with a minimum lot size of 21,780 square feet.
The R-2 development would be anticipated to generate 390 vehicle trips per day
and 41 additional students (20 elementary, 10 middle and 11 high school).
Both proposals, R-6 and R-2, result in densities lower than that recommended
in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as medium
density residential, 4.01 to 10 dwelling units per acre. The R-6 request
results in a density of 2.6 dwelling units per acre and the R-2 zoning results
in a density of two dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Cilimberg said rezoning the property to R-2 would invalidate the
applicants proffers, most significantly proffer two which states: "I do agree
not to disturb live vegetation lying within 100 feet of the streambed running
along the back of our proposed development except as necessary to construct
wastewater lines." (The adjacent stream is not within the Resource Protection
area but is within the Runoff Control area.) This analysis assumes that R-2
development is achieved without utilization of the bonus factors allowed in
the Zoning Ordinance. R-6 development would permit a variety of housing types
while R-2 is more restrictive and would not permit multi-family dwellings. No
proffers exist for the R-6 development that would restrict the development to
single-family, however, the proffered plat effectively limits the use of the
site to single-family dwellings.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 24,
1990, voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request based largely on
the inadequacy of the public road (Jarman's Gap Road).
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. St. John if this Board failed to take action
today, by that action would the property remain with no zoning and be rezoned
as such. Mr. St. John said "yes." Mr. Bowerman said this Board has to make a
decision today on this application.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Eppa Hunton, attorney representing Barclay Development, said he did
not make the original presentation to this Board. After the original
presentation and after the Board action, he was retained to handle the court
case and the appeal. This has been going on for two years. The Judge has
ruled that this zoning application is a reasonable application of the law.
The existing zoning is not reasonable. His client feels the plan he has
proffered is reasonable. It will take at least four to five years to develop
this project. There has been discussion about traffic on Jarman's Gap Road
which cannot be controlled. Jarman's Gap Road is scheduled to be improved
within the time frame of completion of this project. He thinks it is time to
approve the presented plan and let the people know that the Comprehensive Plan
can be relied upon. He would be happy to answer any questions the Board may
have.
Mrs. Humphris said this is one of the situations which has really made
her lose some of her faith in the court system. She sat through every
deliberation on this proposal from the lengthy Planning Commission meetings
through the court proceeding, and felt after everything had been presented
that she knew the outcome would be. She still has every note she made on this
proposal and is clear on why she originally voted the way she did. She knew
that everything surrounding this property was a lower density than was being
requested. She also knew that the designation in the Comprehensive Plan was
in anticipation of upgrading Jarman's Gap Road and that will not be occuring
for a while. She knows that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to serve
as a long-range plan. She was concerned that the development was too dense,
there were no monetary proffers to offset the costs to the County taxpayers,
there was no open space within the development for children to play, etc.,
which gave her a great deal of pause. Now that Judge Berry has made his
decision which she felt was outrageous, given the facts and given what she
perceives is the County's right to determine its own zoning, she will bow to
whatever motion this Board agrees to.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve ZMA-90-03 as
proffered in a letter dated April 12, 1990, from Mr. R. E. Bargamin, Jr.,
President/Owner, Barclay Development Corporation, addressed to Mr. William D.
Fritz, Senior Planner, County of Albemarle and clarified in letter dated April
23~ 1990, from Mr. R. E. Bargamin, Jr., President/Owner, Barclay Development
Corporation, addressed to Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Plann, County of
Albemarle. The proffers are as follows:
1. I do agree not to disturb live vegetation lying within 100
feet of the streambed running along the bank of our proposed
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
M.B, 42, Pg. 240
development except s necessary to construct wastewater
lines.
2.As each of the phases of this project nears completion, we
will provide hard surfaced road with curbs and gutters.
3. When fully developed we will endeavor to adhere as closely
as possible to schematic site plan review March 30, 1990 as
submitted.
Mr. Bain said he hears everything Mrs. Humphris has said. He voted for
the original application because after weighing all of the factors, he felt
that with the requested density, the request was 2.6 units per acre.
Mr. Martin said he has not been on the Board for the history of this
request, but his decision has to do with working for a judge the past 12
years. If the Judge tells you to do something, you either do it or appeal his
decision. The appeals on this case have been exhausted and nothing is left to
do but to approve it.
Mr. Perkins said the property could be rezoned to R-2. He cannot
support the motion because when the public hearing was held all of the people
from the Crozet community spoke and all the people, with the exception of one
person, opposed this request. The Comprehensive Plan document is a twenty-
year document and it is as if this Board is saying that the Plan has no
mistakes in it. It is "hogwash," when Board members can bury their heads in
the sand and ignore comments from so many people from that community and go
ahead and approve a request like this. When the request originally came
before the Board, he suggested that the Board take some time to look at it
closer. He iswilling to support 40 units, but not the 51 units recommended.
He cannot support the request because the people of Crozet do not support it.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with what Mr. Perkins said and also with Mr.
Bain that this body discussed the issue, deadlocked on it and the motion was
killed. Having gotten to the point where this Board is now, he agrees with
Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris. He will support the motion because he does agree
that the Court has spoken on this issue and frankly, this Board has no
recourse except to go forward.
Mr. Perkins said he disagrees. He thinks this Board has other options.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels it is this Board's right to disagree on a
legislative action and therefore take no action but that has been precluded in
this case. Mr. Perkins said the Planning Commission voted to deny this and
this is a process that this Board goes through. It was a seven member Board
that decided not to support the request.
Mr. Marshall said he agrees with what Mrs. Humphris said but also agrees
with Mr. Perkins. He does not understand the Judge's decision. He, too, was
not on the Board when the request first came before the Board. He is a
"people" person and will remain as such. If the people of Crozet are against
the request and the Supervisor representing that district is against it, he
cannot support the motion.
Mrs. Humphris said she will support the motion, but is in total sympathy
with Mr. Perkins. She wants these proffers. She wants the proffer to not
disturb the 100 foot of vegetated buffer, the curbs and sidewalks and adhering
to the schematic plan. She does not want to do any of this but will support
the motion.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Resolution for a Balanced Federal
System.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUND: On September 2, 1992, the Board requested that the
staff review the issues involved in Mr. Ben Tayloe's request to
endorse the proposals contained in HJR 140 of the 1990 session of
the General Assembly. Attached (on file) is Mr. George St. John's
assessment of the request indicating that this proposal is policy
related and has no real legal issues involved.
RECOM~ENDATION: Should the Board choose to support Mr. Tayloe's
request, an amended version of Richmond County's draft is provided
for your consideration. The amended version focuses entirely on
HJR 140 without passing judgement on the issues presented to the
Council of State Governments."
Mr. Perkins made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt a resolution
in support of House Joint Resolution 140.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
M.B. 42, Pg. 241
Mr. Bain said he will not' support the motion because he feels this Board
should not get involved. Mr. Martin said he concurs with Mr. Bain and will
not support the motion. He supports the idea of a balanced budget, but he
feels this Board should not get into this issue.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Perkins, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: Mr. Martin and Mr. Bain.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, a constitutional convention must be convened in
order for the States to propose amendments to the United States
Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the convening of such a constitutional convention
could result in issues being considered other than those for which
the convention was convened; and
WHEREAS, during its' 1990 Session, the Virginia General
Assembly recognized this problem and adopted House Joint
Resolution 140 supporting the Article V proposal of the Council of
State Governments to address this concern;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby endorses the
proposal contained in House Joint Resolution 140.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on the proposed issuance of school
bonds of Albemarle County in the maximum amount of $2,885,000 for the purpose
of financing capital projects for public schools.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUND: As part of the process to participate in the Fall,
1992 VPSA bond sale, the Board of Supervisors must hold a public
hearing to solicit any public comment and then act on the formal
bond resolution. The resolution provides for the issuance of up
to $2,885,000 in VPSA bonds and authorizes the County Executive to
accept the interest rate on behalf of the County once it has been
set. It is anticipated that the interest rate should be below
seven percent.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the bond
resolution following the public hearing."
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. There being no one from the
public to speak the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following bond resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds not to exceed
$2,885,000 for the purpose of financing capital projects for public schools.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED
$2,885,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 1992 SERIES A,
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle
County, Virginia (the "County"), has determined that it is
necessary and expedient to borrow not to exceed $2,885,000 and to
issue its general obligation school bonds for the purpose of
financing certain capital pro3ects for school purposes;
WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed, on
October 7, 1992, on the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below)
in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.1-227.8.A, Code
of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"); and
WHEREAS, by resolution the School Board of Albemarle County,
Virginia (the "School Board"), has requested the Board to
authorize the issuance of the Bonds and has consented to the
issuance of the Bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
M.B. 42, Pg. 242
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board
determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and
sell its general obligation school bonds in an aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $2,885,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of
financing certain capital projects for school purposes. The Board
authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon
the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best
interest of the County to accept the offer of the Virginia Public
School Authority (the "VPSA") to purchase from the County, and to
sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at par upon the terms established
pursuant to this Resolution. The Chairman of the Board, the
County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as
either may designate are authorized and directed to enter into a
Bond Sale Agreement dated October 28, 1992, with the VPSA
providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in substantially
the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is
approved (the "Bond Sale Agreement").
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in
registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples
thereof; shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the
Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, 1992
Series A"; shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof
payable semi-annually on each June 15 and December 15 beginning
June 15, 1993 (each an "Interest payment Date"), at the rates
established in accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution; and
shall mature on December 15 in the years (each a "principal
payment Date") and in the amounts set forth on Schedule 1 to
Appendix A attached hereto (the "principal Installments"), subject
to the provisions of Section 4 of this Resolution.
4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. The County
Executive is authorized and directed to accept the interest rates
on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each interest
rate shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the
annual rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal
payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA
Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to
purchase the Bonds, and provided further, that no interest rate on
the Bonds shall exceed nine percent (9%) per year. The Interest
Payment Dates and the Principal Installments are subject to change
a~ the request of the VPSA. The County Executive is authorized
and directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and
the Principal Installments at the request of the VPSA, provided
that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall not exceed
the amount authorized by this Resolution. The execution and
delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof shall
conclusively evidence such interest rates established by the VPSA
and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments
requested by the VPSA as having been so accepted as authorized by
this Resolution. Following the sale of the Bonds, the County
Executive shall file a certificate with the Clerk of the Board
setting forth the final terms and purchase price of the Bonds.
5. Form of the Bonds. For as long as the VPSA is the
registered owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall be in the form of a
single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit A. On twenty (20) days written notice
from the VPSA, the County shall deliver, at its expense, the Bonds
in marketable form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples
thereof, as requested by the VPSA, in exchange for the temporary
typewritten Bond.
6. Payment; Pa¥inq Aqent and Bond Reqistrar. The following
provisions shall apply to the Bonds:
(a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the
Bonds, all payments of principal of, premium, if any, and interest
on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to the
VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia, time) on the
applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date
fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a
business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of
Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia, time)
on the business day next preceding such Interest Payment Date,
Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
(b) Ail overdue payments of principal or interest, to the
extent permitted by law, shall bear interest at the applicable
interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
(c) Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond
Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 243
(page 17)
7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of
the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before December 15,
2002f and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the
VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before December 15, 2002,
are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated
maturities. The principal installments of the Bonds held by the
VPSA coming due after December 15, 2002, and the definitive Bonds
for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature
after December 15, 2002, are subject to prepayment or redemption
at the County's option prior to their stated maturities in whole
or in part, on any date on or after December 15, 2002, upon
payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as
percentages of principal installments to be prepaid or the
principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus
accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
December 15, 2002 to December 14, 2003, inclusive .... 103%
December 15, 2003 to December 14, 2004, inclusive .... 102
December 15, 2004 to December 14, 2005, inclusive .... 101
December 15, 2005 and thereafter ..................... 100
Provided, however that while the VPSA is the registered
owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment
or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above
without first obtaining the written consent of the VPSA. Notice
of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond
Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than
ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date
fixed for prepayment or redemption.
8. Execution of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be signed by
the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Board, and the Board's seal
shall be affixed thereon and attested by the Clerk of the Board or
by any of its Deputy Clerks.
9. Pledqe of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment
of the principal of, the premium, if any, and the interest on the
Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of
the County are irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of
the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected
in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable
property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in
amount to provide for the payment of the principal of, the
premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal,
premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be
without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all
other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent
other funds of the County are not lawfully available and
appropriated for such purpose.
10. Maintenance of Tax-Exemption. The County covenants
that it shall not take or omit to take any action the taking or
omzssion of which will cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds"
within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the "Code"), or otherwise cause interest on the
Bonds to be includable in the gross income for federal income tax
purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law.
11. Use of Proceeds Certificate. The Chairman of the
Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the
County as either may designate are authorized and directed to
execute a Certificate as to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds
Certificate each setting forth the expected use and investment of
the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be
necessary in order to show compliance with the provzsions of the
Code, and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from
gross income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The
Board covenants on behalf of the County that (a) the proceeds from
the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended
as set forth in such Certificate as to Arbitrage and such Use of
Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall comply with the
other covenants and representations contained therein and (b) that
the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that
interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable
from gross income for Federal income tax purposes. Such Certifi-
cates may also provide for any elections such officers deem
desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the United States for
purposes of complying with the provisions of Code Section 148.
12. Restrictions on Private Use. The County covenants that
it will not permit the gross proceeds of the Bonds to be used in
any manner that would result in (a) 5% or more of such proceeds
being used in a trade or business carried on by any person other
than a governmental unit, as provided in Code Section
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
M.B. 42, Pg. 244
141(b), (b) 5% or more of such proceeds being used with respect to
any "output facility" (other than a facility for the furnishing
of water), within the meaning of Code Section 141(b) (4), or (c) 5%
or more of such proceeds being used directly or indirectly to make
or finance loans to any persons other than a governmental unit, as
provided in Code Section 141(c); provided, however, that if the
County receives an opinion of bond counsel to the County with
respect to the Bonds, and bond counsel to the VPSA with respect to
the VPSA Bonds, that compliance with any such restriction is not
required to prevent interest on the bonds of both issues from
being includable in the gross income for federal income tax
purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law, the
County need not comply with such restriction.
13. State Non-Arbitraqe Proqram; Proceeds Aqreement. The
Board determines that it is in the best interests of the County to
authorize and direct the Director of Finance to participate in the
State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The
Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or
officers of the County as either may designate are authorized and
directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect
to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and
among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA
Bonds, the VPSA, Public Financial Management, Inc., as investment
manager, and Central Fidelity Bank, as depository, substantially
in the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is
approved.
14. ComDrehensive Annual Financial Reports. The County
shall, so long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds,
submit a copy of its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for
each fiscal year of the County to the VPSA as soon as practical,
after the end of each such fiscal year.
15. Filinq of Resolution. The appropriate officers or
agents of the County are authorized and directed to cause a
certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit
Court of the County.
16. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all
officers, employees and agents of the County are authorized to
take such action as they or any one of them may consider necessary
or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds
and any such action previously taken is ratified and confirmed.
17. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect
immediately.
EXHIBIT A
(FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND)
NO. TR-1 $2,885,000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
General Obligation School Bond
1992 Series A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (the "County"), for value
received, acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal amount of TWO
MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,885,000),
in annual installments in the amounts set forth on Schedule I
attached hereto payable on December 15, 1993, and annually on
December 15 thereafter to and including December 15, 2012 (each a
"Principal Payment Date"), together with interest from the date of
this Bond on the unpaid installments, payable semi-annually on
June 15 and December 15 of each year, commencing on June 15, 1993
(each an "Interest Payment Date"; together with any Principal
Payment Date, a "Payment Date"), at the rates per year set forth
on Schedule I attached hereto, subject to prepayment or redemptzon
as hereinafter provided. Both principal of and interest on this
bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America.
For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the
registered owner of this Bond, Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia,
as bond registrar (the "Bond Registrar"), shall make all payments
of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond,
without the presentation or surrender hereof, to the Virginia
Public School Authority, in immediately available funds at or
before 11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia, time) on the applicable
Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. If a
Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption is not a
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
M.B. 42, Pg. 245
business day for banks in the Commonwealth of Virginia or for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment of principal of,
premium, if any, or interest on this Bond shall be made in
immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. (Richmond,
Virginia, time) on the business day next preceding the scheduled
Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. Upon
receipt by the registered owner of this Bond of said payments of
principal, premium, if any, and interest, written acknowledgment
of the receipt thereof shall be given promptly to the Bond
Registrar, and the County shall be fully discharged of its
obligation on this Bond to the extent of the payment so made.
Upon final payment, this Bond shall be surrendered to the Bond
Registrar for cancellation.
The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably
pledged for the payment of principal of, premium, if any, and
interest on this Bond. The resolution adopted by the Board of
Supervisors authorizing the issuance of the Bonds provides, and
Section 15.1-227.25 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended,
requires, that there shall be levied and collected an annual tax
upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation
sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on this Bond as the same shall
become due which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or
amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized to
be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County
are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with
and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, including the Public Finance Act f 1991, Chapter 51,
Title 15.1, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, and resolutions
duly adopted by the County's Board of Supervisors and the School
Board of the County to provide funds for capital pro3ects for
school purposes.
This Bond may be exchanged without cost at the office of the
Bond Registrar for an equal aggregate principal amount of bonds in
definitive form having maturities and bearing interest at rates
corresponding to the maturities of and the interest rates on the
installments of principal of this Bond then unpaid, issuable in
fully registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole
multiples thereof.
This Bond is registered in the name of Virginia Public
School Authority on books of the County kept by the Bond
Registrar, and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the
registered owner of this Bond only upon due execution of an
assignment by such registered owner. Upon receipt of such
assignment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar
shall exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove
provided, such definitive Bonds to be registered on such
registration books in the name of the assignee or assignees named
in such assignment.
The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or
before December 15, 2002, and the definitive Bonds for which this
Bond may be exchanged that mature on or before December 15, 2002,
are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated
maturities. The principal installments of this Bond coming due
after December 15, 2002, and the definitive Bonds for which this
Bond may be exchanged that mature after December 15, 2002, are
subject to prepayment or redemption at the County's option prior
to their stated maturities ~n whole or in part, on any date on or
after December 15, 2002, upon payment of the prepayment or
redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal install-
ments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be
redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set
for prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
December 15, 2002 to December 14, 2003, inclusive .... 103%
December 15, 2003 to December 14, 2004, inclusive .... 102
December 15, 2004 to December 14, 2005, inclusive .... 101
December 15, 2005 and thereafter ..................... 100
Provided, however, that while the Virginia Public School
Authority is the registered owner of this Bond or of the
definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged, the Bonds
shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their
stated maturities as described above, without first obtaining the
written consent of the Virginia Public School Authority. Notice
of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond
Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.42, Pg.246
(page 20)
90 and not less than 60 days before the date fixed for prepayment
or redemption.
All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution
and laws of the commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be
performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have
happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and
manner as so required, and this Bond, together with all other
indebtedness of the County, is within every debt and other limit
prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
ASSIGNMENT
transfers
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and
unto
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE,
OF ASSIGNEE)
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE:
the within Bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints
attorney to exchange
said Bond for definitive bonds in lieu of which this Bond is
issued and to register the transfer of such definitive bonds on
the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of
substitution in the premises.
Date:
Signature Guaranteed:
(NOTICE: Signature(s) must be
guaranteed by a member firm of
the New York Stock Exchange or
a commercial bank or trust com-
pany.)
Registered Owner
(NOTICE: The signature above
must correspond with the
name of the Registered Owner
as it appears on the front
of this Bond in every
particular, without alteration
or change.)
SCHEDULE 1
ALBEMARLE COLINTY, VIRGINIA
$2,885,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BOND, 1992 SERIES A
Year Amount Year Amount
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2001
2002
$185,000
185 000
185 000
175 000
90 000
85 000
155 000
145 000
165 000
2003 $160,000
2004 155,000
2005 155,000
2006 150,000
2007 145,000
2008 140,000
2009 130,000
2Gll 115,000
2012 90,000
Agenda Item No. 12. CPA-90-03. Wendell Wood (deferred from September
16, 1992).
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"The Board deferred action on this request to permit the staff,
applicant, and a Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) representa-
tive to meet and discuss recommendations in the proposed amend-
ments to the Hollymead Growth Area.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
M.B. 42, Pg. 247
On file (in the Clerk's office) are revised amendments to Holly-
mead reflecting the recommendations of PEC which are acceptable to
the applicant.
There are several new changes to the Land Use Map. The area
between the new Regional Service area and High Density Residential
is now recommended for an Office Service designation. In staff's
opinion this provides for more appropriate uses adjacent to the
new residential area than the existing Industrial Service designa-
tion while still providing a land use designation which accommo-
dates employment-generating uses. Also, the residential area is
now located further north of the original area. This moves the
residential area away from the end of the runway where noise and
air pollution impacts would be the greatest. It also provides a
better opportunity for access to Route 606 and the topography is
generally better suited for mobile home development. The new land
use designations represent approximately 50 acres of High Density
Residential, 50 acres of Regional Service and 40 acres of Office
Service. All of these changes are acceptable to the applicant."
Mrs. Humphris said she believes all of the points made by PEC were
addressed by this report. One suggestion from PEC was that this area provide
affordable housing for Albemarle County's low and moderate income persons.
She asked how it could be insured that these people would be Albemarle County
residents. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know how it could be limited to
Albemarle County residents. Mr. Bowerman said he does not feel it can legally
be limited.
Mrs. Humphris asked if whoever manages the park could have a process to
do this. Mr. Martin said they could not because it would be discrimination.
Mrs. Humphris said this was done at Crozet Crossing. Mr. Tucker said anyone
can participate. Staff could provide these managers with the same list of
individuals who are in need of housing, but you cannot discriminate against
other fair housing regulations. Mr. Bowerman said a need has clearly been
identified and people will be applying to utilize these mobile home sites.
Mrs. Humphris said concerns about having at least 100 units for at least
15 years, and having a vegetative buffer and office service as an additional
buffer have been addressed. She asked about cooperating with and utilizing
the assistance of area human service agencies in this. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr.
Wood has not indicated any desire to have actual management by any area
organization, but he is willing to work with area organizations to accommodate
some of the needs County staff would identify.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would like to note one element of the original
proposal that is not now included. Staff did not feel a connecting road
between Route 606 and Route 29 should be shown on a land use map. This is
something the Board can address at a later time but it is not a part of this
comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Bowerman asked if this connection is
consistent with any concept for a western leg of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Cilimberg said he believes it can be. Staff has seen preliminary align-
ments of the Parkway and alignments of the western leg would be more or less
in the middle of the Parkway. Mr. Bowerman asked if it would have adequate
buffering. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes." Obviously this is something the Board
would want to implement in the Comprehensive Plan. Then, when Mr. Wood
applies for a rezoning, it can be dealt with.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there would be enough land available after
dedication is made for that roadway to accomplish this land use plan. Mr.
Cilimberg said he believes this plan can be met. This will be the first
request seen.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg to address the issue of other Compre-
hensive Plan amendments, such as Towers Land Trust, which are pending for this
same area. Mr. Cilimberg said the plan has a standard which is to accommodate
two times the projected need for commercial land. With the commercial
designation in Mr. Wood's request, the Board will essentially be within that
accommodation. It will bring into question how much commercial land it wants
to designate on this Plan because it will exceed the two times provision.
When the next comprehensive plan amendment comes to the Board, it is something
that will have to be addressed.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks another request for a change will be viewed
on its own merit independently of this one. Mr. Bain said one factor is that
this property is in an area that is already designated as part of the overall
Hollymead growth area. Some of the other requests are not and request an
expansion of several growth areas. This property is within an area that was
designated five years ago as part of the Hollymead community. This Board
knows the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and two years from now a different
Board could feel differently about the Hollymead area. The Board at that time
can do whatever it wants. This is something that concerns him.
Mrs. Humphris said she agrees that the prospect of a mobile home park is
a major project.
Mr. Marshall said he feels the times dictate what should be done. Those
home sites are needed. He will not try to visualize what will happen 20 years
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) 54.B. Pg. 148
(Page 22)
from now. He hopes Albemarle County will have an intelligent Board that will
do what is right at such time. He feels this Board is doing what is right
today in approving this request because it is needed.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Wood if he had any comments before action on this
request is taken. Mr. Wood did not have any comments.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Lindstrom if he had any comments on behalf of the
Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC). Mr. Lindstrom said he appreciates the
work staff did because he knows they had some reservations about this ap-
proach, but he feels the conditions that were agreed upon were more than
satisfactory for both PEC's concerns and the Board's concerns. This change
gives a foundation for the Board's zoning actions in the future. PEC's
concern was that without that foundation there was no guidance to future
Boards or any memoranda as to what the intent was for this Comprehensive Plan
change. He knows the Board does not normally have this type of detail in a
Comprehensive Plan change, but it seemed to PEC to be a significantly differ-
ent type of proposal. The incentive of having substantial public subsidy
should be clarified.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels it needs to be understood that as desirable
as a mobile home park for affordable housing is to the County, it will be at a
considerable cost to taxpayers because the amount of taxes paid on mobile
homes will not cover expenses like education. She understands this will be
done with the full knowledge that it will be an expensive proposition for the
County.
Mr. Martin then made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt a
Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Hollymead Growth Area as set out in full
below and outlined in the revised document dated October 1, 1992 (on file),
with accompanying changes to the Land Use Map.
Mr. Bain said he will support the motion with the caveat that he is not
sure this Board will approve the mobile home park in the future. However, he
does not want to stop something like this in terms of County involvement and
the need for this type of housing. Temporary housing is better than nothing
in terms of the mobile home situation, but he is more in favor of a permanent
solution where this Board works with private.people as well as foundations to
come up with a way for these people to own their lots. He would like to see
lot ownership versus lot rental. He will push this in the next capital
improvements plan. He thinks this is a step in the right direction and is a
benefit overall, assuming it goes forward the way it now is in this Plan
amendment.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowerman said he sees this as a positive attribute to the community.
The development community is evidenced by Mr. Wood, the public interest side
is evidenced by the PEC, and both were able to come together and recognize
that there were benefits and negatives to this plan and they worked out a
solution that was good for the community. He feels this is a positive sign.
(Note: The amendment as adopted is set out in full below:)
HOLLYMEAD
LOCATION
The eastern boundary of the Community is the natural stream
boundary of Powell Creek and its tributaries, extending from Route
643 on the south to Route 649 (Proffit Road). The northern
boundary follows Route 649, Route 29 North, and a stream swale
leading to Route 606. The western boundary of the community
follows the alignment of Route 606 to the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport where it goes west and south around the airport
to Route 743, following Route 743 to Route 643 and then heading
east to Route 29 North.
EXISTING LAND USE
Residential Hollymead contains an estimated (1985) 826 dwelling
units and approximately 2250 persons. Over 60 percent of the
total dwelling units in Hollymead are single-family detached
units. The Hollymead Community also includes two large mobile
home parks, totally approximately 230 units. An estimated seven
percent~of the total housing stock was constructed during the
preceding five years.
Commercial and Office - There exist a variety of commercial retail
uses in Hollymead totalling in excess of 780,000 square feet of
floor area. Most of these uses are highway oriented rather than
for neighborhood shopping. Commercial office uses total abut
19,000 square feet of building area.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
M.Bo 42, Pg. 249
Industrial
Hollymead.
floor area.
There exist approximately twelve industrial uses in
Together, they include over 111,000 square feet of
Other Land Uses - The Hollymead Community contains two churches,
an elementary school, a large cemetery, and the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
The area is divided into two major watersheds by a ridgeline
running along Route 649. Land to the south of the ridge line
drains into the Powell Creek system which leads eventually to the
South Fork of the Rivanna. Land to the north of the ridge line
drains northward into the North Fork of the Rivanna.
The entire area consists of soils in the Elioak-Hazel-Glenelg
Association. This association is limited for development because
of moderately permeable subsoil, the clayey subsoil, and the
shallow depth to bedrock. Most of the area is forested with the
exception of developed areas near the intersection of Route 29
North and Route 649, the Hollymead property, and some open farm-
land in the northwest section.
PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER
Sewer service is available through the Powell Creek interceptor to
the south and the Camelot Treatment system to the north based on
natural drainable. Water service is available south of Route 649
from the South Rivanna system and north of Route 649 from the
North Rivanna system. There is an interconnect of the two systems
which has not been opened.
ROADS
Route 29 is congested and development along Route 29 access has
been limited for North development purposes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
No commercial uses are to be established on either side of
Route 29 up to the entrance of the existing Hollymead Subdi-
vision.
The area between the southern boundary of Route 643 and the
South Fork of the Rivanna River is to remain in an open
state as a buffer between the Urban Area and the Community
of Hollymead. This boundary is critical as it preserves the
distinct identity of the Community from the Urban Area and
prevents continuous development from the City of Charlottes-
ville along Route 29 North to the North Fork of the Rivanna.
This area is included in the Rivanna River Greenway corridor
and provides an opportunity for passive recreational uses.
Preserve the stream valleys and their tributary drainage-
way, plus adjacent areas of steeply sloping terrain, as an
open space network. This network is designated to tie into
future residential development areas in Hollymead.
Provide new landscaping with development along Route 29
North.
The area west of Route 29 North is intended for industrial
and office uses as a large employment area. It is expected
that these uses will be of a large scale and have a signifi-
cant airport orientation. The Office Service area consists
of approximately 25 acres along Airport Road and 40 acres
west of the Regional Service area on the west side of Route
29 North. The balance of the employment generating area is
Industrial Service.
Establish a regional service area on Route 29 North at Route
649. This area is intended to serve commercial service
needs for the Hollymead Community, the airport, and the
Route 29 North traffic. This location is expected to accom-
modate multiple uses for future commercial development
convenient to a variety of users.
Establish a regional service area of approximately 50 acres
on the west side of Route 29 North to accommodate multiple
uses for future commercial development convenient to a
variety of users. Access to this area should be limited to
three locations on Route 29. Development of the entire
commercial area shall be pursuant to an overall plan of
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
M.B. 42, Pg. 250
development. Zoning action and development of this area
consistent with this Comprehensive Plan shall occur after
the development of the high density residential area (to a
minimum of 100 mobile home sites as noted in the recommenda-
tion for the development of this residential area).
Establish a community service area south of Route 649 on the
east side of Route 29 North to provide general retail needs
in the community and the northern part of the County.
Establish a community service area centered around the
entrance to the Hollymead Subdivision. This recognizes the
approved commercial area in the Hollymead PUD. While too
large to be a neighborhood service area, the scale of com-
mercial development is to be in keeping with the residential
nature of the Hollymead subdivision and oriented to the
subdivision rather than highway uses. The area is intended
to meet local convenience shopping and professional service
needs and is to be screened and buffered from adjacent
residential areas. Access to high density residential areas
to the north and south is to be reserved.
Establish a neighborhood service area on Route 649 in the
northern portion of the Community intended to meet local
convenience shopping and professional service needs, includ-
ing medical and financial services.
Areas of medium and high density residential are to be
located internally east of Route 29 North. They are located
so as to access the internal road system and should not have
direct access to Route 29 North. The medium density area
adjacent to the Ridgewood Mobile ~ome Park is envisioned as
a possible expansion area for the park.
Establish a high density residential area of approximately
50 acres west of Route 29 for the location of a mobile home
park accommodating a minimum of 100 mobile home sites. This
area is intended to provide affordable housing for Albemarle
County low and moderate income persons. Consideration
should be given to cooperating with and utilizing the assis-
tance of area human service agencies in providing support
services to these residents. This area is intended to be
exclusively for the location of a mobile home park for a
period of not less than 15 years from start of development.
Because of its proximity to areas designated for commercial
and industrial use, development shall provide an effective
vegetative buffer around this area.
Public facility sites include:
A large area northeast of Route 29 North/Route 643
intersection. This is intended to be retained for
passive recreational and greenspace and recognizes a
site identified by the state as having possible his-
torical and archeological significance. Should the
county not acquire this property, the existing zoning
(R-i) shall apply, with higher density not to exceed
four dwelling units per acre possible with preserva-
tion of the historic site, maintenance of greenspace
and screening from Route 29.
The Hollymead School area to provide for expanded
active recreational uses and future school expansion.
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, which includes
the existing facilities, the southern runway approach
zone, and areas east of Route 606 owned by the airport
for future expansion and location of airport related
services.
Development plans along Route 29 North are to be sensitive
to its status as an entry corridor to the Community and the
Urban Area.
· Transportation improvements include:
Limitation of access points on Route 29 North to joint
entrances, frontage roads, and side streets.
Development of the Meadow Creek Parkway and associated
collector roads to provide more direct access to the
Urban Area and downtown Charlottesville. With final
alignment determination, right-of-way should be re-
served for these roads.
Alignment improvements and widening of Airport Road
from its intersection with Route 29 North to the
airport. Access to this road should be accomplished
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
M.B. 42, Pg. 251
through joint entrances, frontage roads, and side
streets.
The following crossovers (see Map 20 for number and
location) are to be closed to maintain the desirable
function and safety on Route 29 North.
Crossover 1. This crossover serves as a U-turn device
for Route 643.
Crossover 2. This crossover serves only U-turns and
has inadequate sight distance on southbound lanes.
Crossover 3. (Hollymead southern entrance) This
crossover has inadequate sight distance on the south-
bound lanes.
Crossover 4. This crossover serves U-turns and has
inadequate sight distance.
Crossover 5. This crossover serves U-turns and has
inadequate sight distance.
Crossover 6. This crossover is too close to the Route
649 intersection. It serves U-turns and has poor
sight distance on the southbound lanes.
Crossover 7. This crossover serves U-turns and has
inadequate sight distance.
Crossover 8. This crossover presently serves a com-
mercial enterprise, but should be closed to provide
desirable spacing and sight distance.
· Water and sewer improvements include:
Extension of the Powell Creek Sewer Interceptor and
development of necessary collection lines to accommo-
date development in the Route 29 North/Airport Road
area, the airport, and northern residential areas of
Hollymead along Route 649.
Long range interconnections of the Camelot sewer
system with the Powell Creek Interceptor. While
expansion of the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant to
300,000 gallons per day capacity will meet short-term
needs, in the long term this interconnection will be
necessary to meet ultimate development requirements.
This can be accomplished with a pumping station at
Camelot and a force main back to the Powell Creek
interceptor. Timing and details for this interconnec-
tion should be addressed in the utilities master plan.
Analyze the long-term water supply capabilities of the
North Rivanna system and evaluate the interconnections
of this system to the South Rivanna system in the
utilities master plan.
Developable Dwelling
Acreage Units
Residential Low 587 587-2348
Residential - Medium 230 922-2300
Residential - High 190 1900-3800
RESIDENTIAL SUBTOTAL 1007 3409-8448
Neighborhood'Service 10
Community Service 75
Regional Service 83
Industrial Service 480
Office Service 65
Public 72
NON-RESIDENTIAL SUBTOTAL 785
UNDEVELOPED TOTAL 1792
Agenda Item No. 13. Our Lady of Peace, Request for Tax Exempt Status.
Mr. Tucker said on September 14, 1992, the County received a request
from the Board of Directors of Our Lady of Peace to reconsider an earlier
request to support tax exempt status for their assisted care facility. Our
Lady of Peace has agreed to make available 20 percent of its assisted living
beds to Albemarle residents who do not exceed 130 percent of the income
eligibility guidelines for the State Auxiliary Grant Program. This would
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 427
(Page 26)
allow a maximum monthly income not to exceed $866.00 per month, thereby
meeting a need for the truly indigent. These guidelines also provide for a
net worth not to exceed $2,G00.
In discussion with Mr. Scott Hillis, Director of Fiscal Services for
Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, Mr. Hillis indicates that his
facility does not participate in the Virginia Auxiliary Grant Program. Any
scholarships which are offered are distributed on a case-by-case basis and do
not have firm income guidelines. In some cases, scholarships are used to
partially offset their "entrance fees" but more likely are used to help with
monthly expenses. This precludes them from serving the indigent population
that Our Lady of Peace is attempting to serve.
Mr. Tucker said Our Lady of Peace also offered to pay a 20 percent
"service fee" in lieu of taxes to cover essential services. This is the
maximum allowed under state statute for this category of exempt entities and
is in line with Roanoke County's approval for a ~imilar facility.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board decides to hold a public hearing to
consider the tax exempt request, it will be asked to pass a resolution of
support which would then be forwarded to the General Assembly. Should the
Board choose to enter into an agreement for a 20 percent service fee, it could
be incorporated into the resolution approving the request or done as a
separate memorandum of agreement. Roanoke City has incorporated their service
fee into the approving resolution, Roanoke County has executed a separate
memorandum of agreement, and the City of Virginia Beach does not participate
in a service fee arrangement at all.
In order to address the Board's desire for the staff to develop recom-
mended criteria for this type of request, the following is offered for
consideration. Any facility offering licensed home for adult beds to the
community, in order to receive tax exempt status, must:
(a) provide at all times a minimum of 20 percent of available beds to
the indigent of Albemarle County. Indigent shall be defined as
not exceeding 130 percent of the income eligibility guidelines for
the Virginia Auxiliary Grant Program. Such provision of available
bed space shall be at no cost to the Albemarle resident partici-
pating in the program;
(b) agree to a service fee, to be paid in the same fashion as real
estate taxes are paid, in the amount of 20 percent of the real
estate tax liability owed on the exempted property to cover the
costs of basic governmental services provided; and
(c) appropriately address the questions articulated in Section
30-19.04 of the Code of Virginia which the Board of Supervisors is
required to consider.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board chooses, staff would recommend a public
hearing date of November 11, 1992, to consider the tax exemption request of
Our Lady of Peace.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to set a public hearing on
November 11, 1992, to consider the tax exemption request of Our Lady of Peace.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. FY '93-94 Budget Priorities (deferred from Septem-
ber 2).
Mr. Tucker said staff has distributed sheets listing five categories of
initiatives: Housing, Recycling, Solid Waste, Public Safety, Human Services,
and Miscellaneous. These are not listed in any priority. Staff is asking
that the Board address the following questions: Are there any proposed
initiatives that the Board would not support? Are there any initiatives that
have not been included on the list that the Board would like to include? A~e
there any limits or restrictions the Board may want to place on these initia-
tives? The Board's input in addition to comments from the public at the
preliminary public hearing, which staff is suggesting be held on November
1992, will be used to guide staff in developing new initiatives the FY 1993-
1994 budget proposal.
Mr. Tucker said the initiatives have been categorized by items. Under
Housing, including issues the Planning Commission is currently reviewing,
initiatives are taken from the Housing Advisory Committee Report. These
include the Housing Coordinator, increasing the Emergency Repair Fund for
AI{IP, Educational Programs for Homeowners, and a Revolving Loan Fund which
could be used to help individuals who meet the criteria with closing costs,
etc. Staff is not proposing that this revolving fund be used for construction
of new homes at this time. Staff anticipates a cost of approximately
$200,000.
Mr. Tucker said many of the recycling and solid waste initiatives will
be discussed later today. A public safety initiative is to continue to fund
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) ~4.B. Pg. 253 ~-
(Page 27)
the' goal of getting 1.5 officers per thousand population. This requires 25
additional officers. Approximately $50,000 per officer is needed to equip
that person, provide funding for salaries, etc.
Human Services has a job training initiative. Discussions began last
spring with the County's Social Services Department about what could be done
to help get people off of the social service rolls. He does not think the
State has taken any initiative at this time to reform the welfare system as
other states have done and without this there is not a lot the County can do,
but it seems there are some things at the local level that could help this
situation. Staff will be proposing a ]ob training initiative to educate
people and have them trained on specific jobs as well as provide day care for
their children. A request for a teen center will be brought forward at a
later date. There are other miscellaneous initiatives also.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks this review should be based upon an assump-
tion that the level of service included in the budget will be the same level
of service as that in the current fiscal year. Mr. Tucker said staff will
make that assumptIon.
Mrs. Humphris said she is concerned about the level of funding for
inspectors in the Zoning and Inspections Departments and asked if this is an
initiative. Mr. Tucker said he feels funding for the Inspections Department
is sufficient, but staff may need to review the Zoning Department's funding.
Another Soil Erosion Inspector was added in this budget year but this person
has not been hired.
Mrs. Humphris asked when the Board will be able to begin dealing with
the idea of volunteerism. Mr. Tucker said that report will be presented to
the Board in November. It could be added as an initiative after that time.
Mr. Tucker said staff plans to maintain the same level of service as
that of this year, but is also attempting to fund as many initiatives as
possible, and any others the Board may wish to add within the operating budget
allocations.
Mr. Perkins said he feels this item should be discussed concurrently
with the next agenda item. He assumes the Revenue Projections were calculated
using the same tax rate that the County currently has to get the five million
dollar revenue increase projection. One of the initiatives which he feels
should be added is a tax rate reduction because of the "anemic" economy. It
will We determined that there is a lot of hardship in the community and people
canno~ afford the taxes they have to pay on personal property and real estate
at th~ current tax rate. There have been a number of jobs cut and he feels
this is something that needs to be looked into instead of increasing the
contribution to the CIP due to the massive school building program. This
Board ~ust approved borrowing more money and the debt service continues to
increase.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels it is more important that legislative
proposals be pushed because of the heavy load being put on people's property
taxes.
There was a consensus that this item be discussed concurrently with
Agenda Item No. 19.
Agenda Item No. 19. Revenue Project~ons and Reassessment Status Report.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROI/ND: Distributed to the Board for its information was a
preliminary estimate of the projected new revenues for the 1993-94
fiscal year (on file) based on approximately 68 percent of the
reassessment data. The sheet shows that property tax revenues are
projected to increase by approximately $5.2 million, with other
local revenues, and state and federal revenues each increasing by
approximately $360,000. The negative fund balance of $888,315
reflects the use of $500,000 in carry-over funds to balance the FY
92-93 operating budget and $388,315 to fund revenue sharing road
projects in the FY 92-93 Capital Improvement Program.
The most significant increase under committed expenditures for FY
93-94 will be the City/County Revenue Sharing transfer, which
jumps to almost $900,000 based on the 1991 reassessment values.
The $400,000 increase in Debt Service for the projected FY 93-94
CIP reflects the first half-year interest payment on several major
school projects, including the new Middle School. The additional
$100,000 allocated to the CIP Fund, which was almost $1.4 in FY
92-93, will bring the FY 93-94 transfer up to the Board's goal of
$1.5 million.
After meeting these committed expenditures, the net available
revenues are projected to be approximately $3.6 million, which, if
divided 40/60 percent would realize a $2.1 million increase for
the School Division and a $1.4 million increase for General
Government. With other anticipated expenditures in FY 93-94 in
vested compensation and health insurance increases, the net
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
M.B. 42, Pg. 254
available revenue should be approximately $1.6 million for the
School Division and $1.17 for General Government.
Considering the fairly flat economy, these early revenue projec-
tions look very positive. However, these numbers are based on
incomplete assessment data at this point and are, therefore,
subject to change in either direction."
Mr. Tucker said he met with Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance,
yesterday and arrived at a new total of net available revenue due to concerns
with the land use data staff is now receiving. He suggested that a reserve of
$300,000 be set aside to provide the Board, if the projected funds become
available, with the ability to deal with a rate reduction. Staff also
suggests that the remaining revenue be distributed 60 percent to Schools
dropping from $2.1 million to $1.98 million, and to General Government
approximately $1.32 million which was originally projected at $1.4 million.
This is the best estimate to date.
Mr. Bowerman asked the actual dollar amount for the Revenue Sharing
Agreement. Mr. Tucker said it is $4.2 million. Mr. Martin asked if there is
a dollar cap. Mr. Tucker said "no," it is 10 percent of the real estate tax
and can never go higher than that. Mr. Breeden said there is a formula for
computing the revenue sharing amount. Basically, it is 37¢ on each individual
tax rate which goes into a pool, then, based on the population, there is a
distribution of funds. Albemarle County has reached its cap.
Mr. Bain asked when all of the data on the reassessment will be avail-
able. Mr. Breeden said approximately 80 to 85 percent of the data has been
completed on the parcels. About 70 percent of this has been entered into the
computer and can be accessed to make projections. It is anticipated that the
remaining percentage will be collected by the end of November. Mr. Bain said
he thought the field work was usually finished by the end of August. This
seems to be getting further behind and this is a question he has about
manpower. Mr. Breeden said from a manpower standpoint, it is being pushed to
a later date each year especially when looking at it from a tax billing
standpoint. The tax bills are usually mailed out in early October as was done
last week. For the last two reassessments it has taken into October and is
anticipated to be finished sometime before the end of November. He is
concerned because most of what is still to be finished is in the urban ring,
i.e., commercial and multi-family units. These have significant co-efficient
results. What is now completed shows: Single-family/urban area approximately
66 percent complete and it shows an approximate six percent increase over two
years; single-family/suburban shows an approximate 12 percent increase; multi-
family shows an approximate six percent increase; commercial shows an approxi-
mate 10 percent increase; and, agricultural shows an approximate 19 percent
increase.
Mr. Bain asked if this is due to real estate sales. Mr. Breeden said
sales had some effect. Lower to medium valued homes are increasing in price,
and with interest rates being down, this allows people to buy better homes
than they could have afforded before. Higher priced homes being built are
holding their value. The biggest increase has been in lot sales. Once in the
rural areas, i.e. open land, farms, estates, there is still a 30 to 40 percent
increase. The other issue is land use. The Finance Department just received
the land use values for 1993 and they are showing significant decreases
(within the 20 percent range). In many cases, a good portion of these
agricultural rural areas contain properties that are not in land use except to
the extent that the building value may go up. In many cases, a decrease will
be seen in land use tax bills. The taxable value of these properties will be
going down, but the fair market value will be increasing. The deferment will
have a significant increase.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board plays any role in the determination of
the agricultural value. Mr. Breeden said "no," not at this time. Ever since
the County has had land use it has had that option, but it is a complicated
process and procedure that would go through state employees that serve on the
staff at Virginia Tech, who do surveys and studies to set land use values.
Those values are given a lot of weight. There are other options, but he is
not sure what the Board could support or defend if those values were taken to
court.
Mr. Marshall asked how to justify the large increases on estates, as
opposed to rezoning them for development. Mr. Breeden said it is based on
sales. The real estate office can show anyone the figures. Mr. Marshall
asked who appraises the properties. Mr. Breeden said County staff. Mr.
Bowerman asked if the appraisals are based on actual sales. Mr. Breeden said
"yes." Mr. Marshall asked if the sales are in that particular area. Mr.
Breeden said "yes" it is narrowed down to the general area, but county-wide
sales are also considered.
Mr. Bain said in some of the rural areas one thing that drives the
market is that a piece of property may have sold for its assessed value a
couple of years ago, but because of property sales in other areas, the reas-
sessment value doubled, so was not based on the fair market value established
for that property. Mr. St. John said this is what the Board of Equalization
is for.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 255
(Page 29)
Mr. Marshall said he is having some problems in his district with
wealthy people purchasing property at any price while the people who live near
this property are getting hit hard by the reassessment. He asked how this
could be adjusted to make it fair to residents who are not wealthy. Mr.
Breeden said with those types of sales, a certain amount of weight has to be
given. The price the property is sold for is not going to be the total
determining factor. The problem in the Scottsville area is that it is not
just one person doing this, but there seems to have been a significant number
of transactions like this. If that is what the property is being sold for
then he is not sure how the County Assessor can justify not using those
figures as realistic fair market values. County assessments have to be looked
at from a mass appraisal standpoint. County appraisals are not done at the
detailed level of private appraisals. There will be variations on all
properties just as the opinions of two people will differ on the worth of any
property.
Mrs. Humphris asked if a transaction took place under unusual circum-
stances, would those circumstances be considered. Mr. Breeden said "yes,"
when staff is aware of those circumstances, they are taken into consideration.
Enough of these situations are not seen in one general area to affect overall
values. Mrs. Humphris said one piece of information that could be given to
the public in a County newsletter is how this process takes place. It would
help people a lot if they understood all of the different ingredients that go
into this and that it simply is not the County wanting to get tax dollars.
The assessment is as fair as it possibly can be and everyone is treated the
same way. If a resident does not feel they have been treated fairly, they can
appeal the assessment to the Equalization Board.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Breeden's staff has to have a basis for each
decision it makes and also has to defend that decision not only to the
citizens, but also to the Equalization Board if an assessment is appealed.
Mrs. Humphris said she served on the Equalization Board and knows the
lengths to which staff goes in order to substantiate what is done. Most
appeals showed that people had lived on their property for a long time and the
value of that property had increased because of growth in the County. These
people can no longer afford to pay the property taxes of the County. This is
a sad problem and one reason the Board needs to try and get a change in its
taxing powers.
Mr. Marshall disagreed. He does not feel growth affects his district.
He is concerned that when he was young, Albemarle County was a County made up
of small family farms. He hears from the Piedmont Environmental Council and a
lot of other groups that they want to do things to help the small farms
survive. With the big money coming into the County, these small farms do not
have a chance of surviving because the land is worth too much to the wealthy
people.
Mr. Bain asked if staff could furnish a report on going to an annual
reassessment. Mr. Tucker said this could be an initiative for staff, but
there are costs involved. Mr. Bain said he would like to have a report in a
written form.
Mr. Breeden said a meeting has been set for next week to obtain the
details and a system to do this. One concern from talking with localities
around the state who are using annual reassessments is that they are trying to
stop using the annual reassessments because of the cost and the results
obtained are not what was originally thought. Mr. Bain said it is a fairness
issue. He feels if it could be done without a large cost. It should be
reviewed.
Mr. Marshall said he is concerned that poor people are being forced out
of Albemarle County. He feels this needs to be looked at and, hopefully, some
method can be devised to help a person stay in his native area. Mr. Breeden
said this is another issue from the standpoint of the duty of the assessment
office.
Mr. Bowerman emphasized that the figures before the Board are not
surpluses or deficits because what is before the Board is not a budget. He
would hate to see these figures used as anything other than a planning
document. Mr. Tucker said staff intends to take the initiatives stated,
unless the Board has some today that it wants to add, and hear from the public
to get ideas of what they feel should be added and deleted.
Mr. Bowerman said the process has been changed this year by having a
public meeting at the begznning of the process. Mr. Tucker said the budget is
much more difficult to change after it has been presented. Mr. Bowerman said
both tax reduction and new initiatives will come to the Board before the
budget process begins.
Agenda Item No. 21. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 12:25 p.m., Mr. Bain made motion, that the Board go into Executive
Session under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.1 to discuss two personnel
matters. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motzon
carried by the following recorded vote:
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.
256
(Page 30)
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
At 1:34 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and motion was
offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following
certificate of executive session:
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.A.1 of the Code of Virginia re-
quires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervi-
sors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with
Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each
member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements by virginia law were
discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs.
Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. 1993 Legislative Requests, Discussion.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUND: The proposed Legislative Packet listing Albemarle
County's positions and proposals for the 1993 Legislative Session
has been distributed to the Board (on file). Many of the propos-
als have been carried over from the 1992 Session; the new 1993
proposals have been highlighted in bold italics. Legislation
being requested specifically for Albemarle County is shown with an
asterisk.
To provide background on some of the new legislative proposals,
information has been provided on the Freedom of Information Act
computer bill, the retirees health benefits bill, and copies of
the current enabling legislation for fingerprinting and for
criminal prosecution for trash dumps (on file). Material has also
been provided on some of the legislative activities that have been
going on over the summer, as well as the draft legislative propos-
als from VACo (on file). Many of the commissions are currently
preparing legislation for the 1993 session, which you may want to
add to Albemarle's packet, once they have submitted specific
legislative recommendations, particularly those from the Growth
Commission and the Dillon Rule ~ommission. You may also want to
add some of VACO's proposals after reviewing their material.
RECOMMENDATION: If approved, these legislative positions and
proposals, with any November additions, will be presented to our
legislators at the December 2nd Board meeting and will serve as a
plan of action for the legislative liaison during the 1993 legis-
lation session."
Mrs. Humphris asked Why the Share-the-Ride legislation is being opposed.
Mr. Tucker said Share-the-Ride is legislation to require that public school
systems also provide transportation to private schools. Ms. Roxanne White
said the County would be allowed to charge a fee for this service but VACo
also opposed. There would be additional costs that would not be compensated
and localities would have to pick up those additional costs. Mr. Bain asked
who is pushing the Share-the-Ride legislation. Mr. Tucker said he does not
know who the sponsor is.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to push for Albemarle County to have
enabling legislation to eliminate land use value taxation in designated growth
areas. Unless and until this Board meets with members of the Farm Bureau and
fully explains what this Board wants and until the Farm Bureau withdraws its
opposition, there is no hope it will get through the Legislature. Mr. Tucker
said a meeting with people from the local Farm Bureau can be arranged, but it
is really the State Farm Bureau that will be opposing this legislation.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 257
(Page 31)
Mr. Perkins mentioned the request for a local meals tax. He said there
should be some cap on the amount. Mr. Tucker said if the Board would like to
have a cap on it, it can be added. This is the way it was presented last
year.
Mr. Marshall said he does not support a local meals tax because the
meals tax has been on the ballot twice and County residents have opposed it
both times. Mr. Perkins said he understands what Mr. Marshall is saying and
does not see why this Board is pursuing it if the residents have already voted
twice in opposition.
Mr. Bain said all the Board is looking for and what it has tried to do
is to find some way to relieve the real and personal property tax burdens.
Residents do not seem to understand that. He knows that it is an educational
matter. This Board is hoping the Legislators will provide some way to relieve
the tax burden on the people.
Mrs. Humphris said this will do exactly what Mr. Marshall is complaining
about by taking the burden off of the real property tax and putting it in
another place. This-is one way it could be paid for by a majority of people
who do not live in Albemarle County. The referendum passed in her district
because she went out and delivered information to every house in her district.
Mr. Marshall said Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris ran for election two years
before him. He also supported this tax a year ago. Mr. Bain asked if he went
door-to-door and pushed it. Mr. Marshall said "no," but he advocated it and
supported it.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with Mr. Marshall and feels that because the
people have turned it down twice this Board should approach it as a way of
getting equal taxing power with the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Tucker said
this is the real issue. Mr. Martin said if it is going to be broken up
between a number of taxes, then the meals tax should be left out.
Mrs. Humphris said if a bill comes up in the Legislature about the meals
tax, the County's legislative liaison has to know whether to support it or
not. Mr. Bain said if it gets to that point, there would have to be Board
consensus. Ms. White said that was the reason the local option income tax and
the admissions tax were added this year. It is not necessarily because
Albemarle County wants them, but it is part of the whole packet that VACo is
supporting andbelieves all counties should have the ability to have these
revenue powers at their discretion.
Mr. Martin said if the Meals Tax were voted on today he would have to
oppose it unless it were being proposed simply for equal taxing powers with
the City. Otherwise., he feels this Board should listen to what the residents
have said. Mr. Marshall concurred. Mr. Tucker said staff can repeat that the
request is for the same equal taxing and borrowing powers as the City of
Charlottesville. Mr. Bowerman said even though the vote was a lot closer this
time in the Charlottesville District, the meals tax was still defeated. He
feels this was a failure on his part, but until he is able to convince his
constituents that they should support it, he would be hesitant to support it
without having the opportunity to convince them again. His constituents have
told him what they want. He could support having equal taxing powers with the
City. Mr. Bain said he does not have a problem with deleting the specifics
right now. Mr. Bowerman said if the Board votes on and passed this now, it
will become an issue in the press. This subverts the position the Board is
trying for in the way of equal taxation. Mr. Bain concurred.
Mr. Martin said he thinks this Board should ask the state Legislators
for some welfare reform legislation. He does not know how much power the
state has over what can and cannot be done, so it is hard for him to recommend
what type of reform should be made. Most of it comes from Federal legislation
over which state legislators may have no power. Staff has identified the job
training initiative. This Board needs to get to the root of the situation
which is a welfare system that encourages things which are contrary to the
goals. Mr. Tucker said this could be a broad goal. It can be added into some
broad category for the State to consider under the health and human services
section. Mr. Martin said it could be more specific by stating reform that
directs the welfare system towards its original goals. The way it is current-
ly set up it encourages people to do exactly what they should not do. Mr.
Tucker said staff will work on the language.
Mr. Bain asked who is pushing to increase the local share of funding for
constitutional officers. Ms. White said there is some activity at the state
level. They are looking at all of their funding distributions. Mr. Bain said
if this begins, the locality should support eliminating some constitutional
officers. If they are not going to fund them then some of them should be
eliminated. Ms. White said it is part of reviewing the whole distribution
formulas. Mr. Bain said everything is being turned over to the localities in
terms of cost but localities are not receiving any type of discretion for
funding.
Mr. Tucker said staff will make the amendments that have been discussed
and bring them back to the Board for review.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B, 42, Pgo 258
(page 32)
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointment Policy for Boards and Commissions
(deferred from September 2).
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUND: The revised policy for board and commission appoint-
ments has been distributed to the Board (on file), based upon its
comments at the September 9 meeting.
DISCUSSION: The major revisions to the 1984 policy reflect the
Board's decision to make the process for magisterial appointments
more in line with the current process for appointing at-large
candidates. Both will now require that all vacancies be adver-
tised. It will remain at the discretion of the individual Super-
visor whether to interview for a magisterial appointment, just as
it will remain the full Board's decision whether interviews are
needed for specific at-large vacancies.
Section A.5 was added to the policy to allow the Board flexibility
in determining appointments to a committee that will exist for a
short time period to perform a specific task or function. Even if
this committee has the power to impact the health, safety and
welfare of the community, it will be left to the Board's discre-
tion whether the members should be magisterial or at-large ap-
pointments.
The revision to Section B.3 provides that the description of the
duties and functions of the board or commission, length of term,
qualifications, etc., be sent out to those who request informa-
tion, not printed in a newspaper advertisement. Not only would
such a lengthy display ad be prohibitively expensive, but more
complete and useful information can be provided to the citizen in
a written format. Staff has already begun the process of develop-
ing information sheets on each board and commission to be sent out
with the application form.
Also distributed for review is a flow-chart showing the revised
appointment process and a sample letter that will accompany each
application to explain the appointment process.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the revised
appointment policy for boards and commissions."
Mrs. Humphris felt some of the language was confusing. In Section B.i.,
the fourth line states that only qualified applicants as determined by the
Board will be interviewed. She does not want this to be misconstrued that
every qualified person will automatically be interviewed. This is not
necessarily what will happen. She wants a distinction to be made and she does
not feel this makes that distinction. The same thing is also implied in B.8.
and B.6.
Mr. Perkins asked if the word qualified could be deleted. Mr. Tucker
said staff will work on the language and bring it to the Board on October 14,
1992~
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Information Options (deferred from
September 9).
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
,,BACKGROUND: As requested at the September 9 Board meeting, the
attached sheets (on file) outline the various options available to
the Board to provide a more effective public information program.
DISCUSSION: The attached spreadsheet is broken down into two
major sections, those options that have no direct costs and those
that would require an actual commitment of funds. Although the
first section options do not require an additional expenditure of
funds, it is implicit in the list of staff hours that there are
indirect costs in redirecting staff time from other projects.
The spreadsheet also attempts to list the options in some order of
time commitment or cost. However, prioritizing the options in this
way is an extremely difficult and imprecise exercise, due to the
diversity of the projects, i.e. publishing an agenda or a two
paragraph public service announcement may only take four staff
hours, while researching, writing and publishing an article on a
land use issue may consume eight to 20 hours. Equally diverse is
direct mail or newsletters, whose costs and time are dependent on
the subject matter, graphic and design requirements, paper quali-
ty, distribution methods, etc.
RECOMMENDATION: Ail of the options presented reflect positive
ways to increase public awareness of County policies and activi-
ties. The decision to be made is which option will be the most
effective and which option will be within the time constraints of
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) ~{,B, 259
(page 33)
current staff as well as the fiscal constraints of the current
budget. With this in mind, staff recommends pursuing the follow-
lng options:
Dial-In to get the Agenda/Board Actions. This can be imple-
mented With limited staff time and at no cost. It will
reach those citizens who are interested.
Agenda/Board Actions in publications, such as Real Estate
Weekly, and The Charlottesville Business Journal. This
would require limited staff time and no direct cost.
%6. Notices/articles with tax bills and in the Police Depart-
ment's Community Alert Newsletter. Begin to supplement with
short articles and notices depending on staff time. No
direct costs.
%7. Press Releases/Public Service Announcements (PSA's). Begin
to increase number of press releases by providing training
and assistance to departments in the preparation and distri-
bution of relevant media information.
%9. Call-in Radio Show. The Board could consider implementing
this option before the budget public hearing in March to
determine public interest and participation in this type of
program.
#10. Channel 10 Community Bulletin Board. Announcing important
dates and events can be done through this medium with little
staff time and at no cost. Limited audience.
%11. Publish Agendas. Expand the mailing list to include neigh-
borhood associations. This requires minimal additional
staff time; costs are a minimum of $1260/year.
Publish a display ad in the Daily Progress for the Board's
day meeting agenda. Requires minimum staff time at a cost
of $2160/year.
%13. Albemarle Guide. Send copies of the Albemarle Guide to new
County residents, newly registered voters and new business-
es. Minimum staff time at a cost of $700/year.
By taking these steps, the County will at least move forward in a
variety of media directions to provide public information to its
citizens. At the end of a specified time period, perhaps a year,
some form of a citizen survey should be utilized to determine if
and where public access to County information is a problem. Any
identified problems or gaps may then need to be addressed by some
of the other information options."
Mrs. Humphris said the report looks very good.
Mr. Bowerman said it would be nice to have the dial-in agenda/board
actions included and asked how the dial-in would be advertised. Mr. Tucker
said staff will use a variety of ways to get information out. The Board can
pick and choose from the options. Staff focused on the ones that had limited
or no costs associated with them. Mr. Bowerman asked if the County has the
staff to do them all. Mr. Tucker said "no," not all of them.
Mrs. Humphris asked for further information on how the call-in radio
show would work. She also asked how much participation could be expected.
She felt staff should move ahead with all except the call-in radio show and
make a progress report within one year.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Tucker if he feels existing staff is able to do
this. Mr. Tucker said that is unknown. A lot will depend on how much
information staff decides to put into a newsletter. The County Executive's
staff is already distributing a flyer each month called FYI. Some of these
items could be put into "Community Alert," the Police Department's newsletter.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes the expertise and attention necessary by
whomever is designated to do some of these things will quickly move to the
point where they can be done within limited resources without having to add
staff. Mr. Tucker said his staff will coordinate and train department heads
to do a lot of these things. The final document will be reviewed by his staff
before it is sent out, but a lot of this is expected to be done within
existing departments of the County.
Mr. Bain said he understands one year is needed on some of these things,
but there are going to be costs involved. He feels a limit needs to be set.
Mr. Tucker said an accounting system will have to be set up, as some of these
suggestions have dollar figures. There are a lot of indirect costs that will
have to be accounted for. Mr. Bain suggested that the Board get a quarterly
report of the costs and what the initial response is.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M,B. 42, Pg. 260
(Page 34)
There was a consensus of the Board to accept staff's recommendations,
easing into operations gradually with a summary report to be presented to the
Board in January, 1993.
Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Feasibility Report on Adding Another
At-Large Member to the School Board.
Mr. St. John summarized his letter which is on file in the Clerk's
office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. Mr. St. John
feels the specific proviszons set out in Virginia Code Section 15.1-609, take
precedent over and supersede the provisions applicable to counties under the
conventional form of government as set out in Virginia Code Section 22.1-36.
Section 15.1-609 plainly limits the number of School Board members to no more
than seven, and therefore, in his opinion, an eighth member cannot lawfully be
appointed.
Mr. Martin said Section 15.1-609 which is for Albemarle County's form of
government states "not less than three nor more than seven members." Under
Section 22.1-53, the second law allows for "no fewer than six nor more than
nine members." He would like, if there is a consensus, to have someone look
at what it means to be a school board in other school divisions.
Mr. St. John said Section 22.1-53 as stated in the Code speaks to the
conventional county .system. It then goes through a list of the special forms
of government including the County Executive form, Albemarle County's form.
When it gets to that form it says "no less than three nor more than seven
members." Article VI goes back from the County Executive form of government
to the school type; these are two totally different books in the Code.
Section 22.1-52 is entitled "School Boards and Other School Divisions," this
means divisions which were not included in the other forms of government which
the Code discussed through this section. It states "The provisions of this
article shall be applicable to each school division which is composed of less
than one county or city or part of or all of more than one county or city."
This means a school division which is a fragment of a locality but not the
whole locality. This is the only situation where "other school divisions"
would apply. Albemarle County's school division corresponds to the County
itself. He does not feel there is anyway this article of the Code can be
utilized to change the status and, in his opinion, the only way an eighth
person can become a member of the School Board is by the following options:
(1) hold a referendum to no longer be under the Executive form of government;
(2) have the Executive form legislation amended to allow an eighth member, or
however many members are wanted. It could be amended to include all counties
under the Executive form of government or only to this County. Mr. Martin
said if this is the case he would like for this Board to pursue with its
Legislators the idea of making an amendment so that all counties with the
executive forms of government would have the option to do so.
Mr. Bain said he feels legislation ~o allow elected School Board members
will be on the ballot next fall and will probably pass in Albemarle County.
This will happen in several jurisdictions this Fall even though it cannot be
implemented until 19.94.
Mrs. Humphris said adding an eighth member is not something she is in
favor of. She thinks if members are added, no matter how good the purpose,
the School Board is being made much more unwieldy. She is in favor of leaving
the status quo with the recognition that this Board is sensitive to the
deszres to have minorities on the board at every opportunity. Mrs. Humphris
said Mr. Martin had his opportunity to have a minority on the School Board and
chose not to exercise that option. She does not think that changing the law
to increase the number and establishing something that is artificial is going
to be the best thing this Board can do.
Mr. Martin said he resented the comment Mrs. Humphris made. He would
like to see this Board at least pursue it in the form of legislation. He
particularly resents Mrs. Humphris saying that he had his opportunity. In
January, this Board decided that since there was one black person on the
Board, the at-large position did not have to be used for a minority member.
Mrs. Humphris strongly felt that way, and he resents her implying that he had
his chance and did not make use of it. Mrs. Humphris said she voted, in
January, to pick the person she felt was the best qualified to fill the
position on the School Board.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not feel this Board wants to get into this
particular issue. When the selections were made in January, there was not
sufficient support available and with the four votes needed a selection was
made. Mr. Martin said this Board, as a whole, took action and now it is in a
situation where it can be corrected.
Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission has been changed from nine
members to seven. He knows that the more members on the Planning Commission,
the more difficult it is to arrive at a decision. Beyond the issue of
representation, he thinks there are arguments that would limit the absolute
number of people to deal with. Mr. Martin said he agrees that having eight
members could present the problem of a split vote. This Board has the same
difficulty with six members. He thinks the situation this Board is in
warrants trying to pursue further the possibility of having an eighth School
Board member. It is clearly his opinion that this needs to be pursued
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.42, Pg.261
(Page 35)
further. Mr. Martin then made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to request a
change in Virginia Code Section 15.1-609, to grant Albemarle County an
exception enabling it to have ezght School Board members.
Mr. Marshall said he feels a segment of society is not being represented
and a minority is needed on the School Board. If there is no minority on the
School Board until four years from now, he feels Mr. Martin's proposal is the
only solution. He appointed a minority because he felt she was the best
person available to represent his district. Unfortunately, in January, he
supported the person selected for the at-large member and now feels he should
have supported a minority for that position. He realizes that he made a
mistake because, at the time, he did not know that the person he had appointed
to represent his district would resign and this Board would be in the situa-
tion it now faces. He feels this is a way to rectify the situation and this
Board owes it to the minority segment of the community.
Mr. Bowerman said he hates to be put into the position of having to vote
on this item. His v. ote does not necessarily reflect the way he feels about
the representation on the School Board or the decisions of how this Board got
to where it is. He thinks minorities should be represented on the School
Board but he does not know if adding an eighth member is the way to do that.
He concurs with Mr. Bain in that it will probably be taken out of the hands of
this Board anyway and rectified through the election process. He does not
know if that mechanism will allow for at-large or district representation. It
could also preclude minorities.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion failed
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 17. Road Name Change Policy.
Mr. Robert B. Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive, gave the
following staff report: (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 2:30 p.m.)
"BACKGROUND: The Board adopted its current policy on changes to
road names in September, 1991 in conjunction with the approval of
the new road names to support the Enhanced 911 System. Subsequent
to this, the staff and Board approved changes per this policy but
recent meetings with many agencies znvolved with the E-911 process
have identified issues that warrant a review of the policy.
DISCUSSION: The staff report outlines the complex process of
changing road names and the costs associated with these steps.
For the reasons stated in the report, staff recommends two changes
for consideration: ~
(1)
Establish a deadline of March 31, 1993, for road name change
petitzons after which no further changes would be permitted,
and
(2)
Property owner(s) incur the costs only for the fabrication
and installation for new signs. Other staff costs would be
absorbed within the County budget. If the Board continues
to allow changes after March 31, 1993, the full costs for
changes should be paid by the property owner(s).
RECO~4~ENDATION: Approval of the recommendations as proposed."
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall to approve the
changes to the Road Name Change Policy. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The changes to the Road Name Change Policy are as fol-
lows:)
Establish a deadline of March 31, 1993, for road name change
petitions after which no further changes would be permitted;
and
Property owner(s) incur the costs only for the fabrication
and installation for new signs. Other staff costs would be
absorbed within the County budget. If the Board continues
to allow changes after March 31, 1993, the full costs to be
paid by the property owner(s).
Agenda Item No. 20. Invitation from Charley Goodman, Unit Director,
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, inviting the Board to a luncheon
meeting on December 2, 1992, to discuss VCES's mission and programs.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
M.B. 42, Pg. 262
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Charley Goodman, Unit Director, Virginia Cooperative
Extension Service, has invited the Board to a luncheon at the Extension
Service office. He is also inviting local legislators to participate and this
will work out nicely because the Board will be inviting them to discuss the
legislative package on that same date. If the Board is agreeable, he will set
this up.
The Board concurred and accepted the invitation.
Agenda Item NO. 22. Work Session: Recycling Recommendations and
Priorities.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report.
"BACKGROUND: In the past eight months, the Board was presented
information on solid waste/recycling issues culminating in a
recent report on Albemarle County's Recycling Program. This
report makes specific recommendations on recycling that are
reflected in the attached implementation plan (on file). In
addition to recycling issues, the Board was presented a report on
the status of the Keene Transfer Station on April 1st at which no
action was taken pending further review. The Board also requested
that staff look at alternatives to funding the landfill tip fee in
light of projected increases. Specifically, whether a subsidy of
the tip fee is feasible and warranted.
DISCUSSION:
Recyclinq The attached implementation plan proposes a phased
approach to implementing the recommendations from the Recycling
Program Review report. There are specific details and further
study required for each recommendation, but the initial effort
will be the hiring of a temporary staff person to take the lead on
implementation. The plan addresses budget estimates for FY 92-93
totalling approximately $88,750 for specific elements which can be
funded from the solid waste contingency fund. While the final
report on the Materials Recovery System is not completed, the
draft report indicates there are no conflicts or budget implica-
tions with the proposed recycling implementation plan for the near
term.
Keene Transfer Station - Staff review of this project recommends
that the Board consider canceling this project as it does not
provide a cost-effective alternative to the services provided by
private waste haulers. Subsequent to the closing of the Keene
Landfill, private waste haulers are providing services to this
area of the County at rates comparable to other areas of the
County. Compared to a weekly trip to the transfer station at
$4.00 per trip, a resident would realize no savings compared to a
private hauler's services but would incur the additional time and
expense of a trip to the station. Unless the costs of the Trans-
fer station were subsidized, there are few significant benefits.
Additionally, as pointed out in a memo from the County Engineer,
it may be in conflict with our efforts to improve our recycling
program through the services of the private haulers.
TiD Fee Subsidy - The Board addressed this last Spring in conjunc-
tion with the impact of tip fee increases proposed by the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority. Subsidizing the tip fee increase was
considered but no action was taken at that time for two reasons:
(1) The tip fee increase was less than initially considered, and
(2) implementing a subsidy program would be very complex and would
not be available July 1st when the new fees went into effect.
After three months of operations under the higher fee, staff is
unaware of any significant concerns on the part of citizens or the
haulers and would recommend the issue of subsidizing be deferred
to FY 93-94. In light of the Recycling Report's recommendations
to consider subsidy of private hauler start-up costs and looking
at incentives to increase recycling participation, staff proposes
a more comprehensive review of subsidizing solid waste costs to
include recycling. This review will be available early next
Spring.
RECOMMENDATION: In summary, staff recommends:
(2)
(3)
adoption of the attached recycling implementation plan and
funding levels;
cancel the Keene Transfer Station in the Capital Improve-
ments Program;
implement no tip fee subsidy for FY 92-93."
Mr. Bowerman said yesterday there was the second of two meetings Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) staff had with the five
counties in the district and the City of Charlottesville on recycling and
solid waste disposal. The consensus was that the counties and the City
continue to discuss the benefits which might be derived from a regional
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 263
(page 37)
approach. TJPDC staff is to develop a concept for implementing some regional
type of solid waste effort. The idea is to develop a plan that would either
be adopted or rejected by each governing body. The problem is that Greene and
Nelson counties are both under a mandate and have to close their landfills.
This has to be implemented by the latter part of next year. Nelson is working
with Buckingham and Appomattox to come up with a regional system to deal with
a site in one of those three counties. Nelson is approaching it from a
standpoint of having to enter into a contract with a private contractor which
is going to result in the composting of a large part of its landfill. The
rest will be recycled and go wherever the contractor takes recyclables.
Nelson County's problem is that they can only account for 20 percent of the
tonnage needed in order to make an acceptable proposition, therefore, it will
have to look elsewhere for help in getting to 100 percent so it will be
viable. In either of those two cases, it was felt that unless something is
done regionally the opportunity will be lost and, once lost, another region
could siphon off the people around Albemarle County, and economically, because
of the scale of economy, it may never be in a position to do this again. If
Nelson, Buckingham and Appomattox do something, it is still possible they
could enter into an agreement with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA).
If Greene and Page or another county enter into an agreement, they could still
participate here. Part of a total plan may be transfer stations. Compost-
ables would go one way and disposable landfill items would go the other way.
Recyclables could go in one direction with something else coming back in
another direction so that markets can be created for recyclables, and compost-
able materials can go to one area for composting. There also may be two or
three burial sights depending upon the location. Although staff is recom-
mending that the Keene Landfill is not an acceptable alternative at this time,
it is very likely that the total plan would incorporate things that make more
sense for different areas of Albemarle County as well as surrounding communi-
ties in terms of refuge, solid waste collection and recycling.
Mr. Marshall asked what type of time frame is being considered. Mr.
Bowerman said Greene and Nelson have a one-year mandate. Mr. Marshall said he
heard this is not even being negotiated. Mr. Bowerman said "no," that is why
the Planning District Commission is trying to help the counties decide whether
they have common goals that can be accomplished. Hopefully, they will know
whether there are any common interests within three months.
Mr. Marshall said there was an agreement two years ago that a transfer
station would be located at Keene. Then, a year ago, when he was running for
his seat on the Board, he learned there would be a year waiting period because
the Board had voted to wait, but $300,000 had been put aside. That money is
still set aside for this project. He was also told that during this two-year
period the Board was going to see if private carriers could be obtained to
take care of the trash in his district and if this did not materialize, and it
has not, then the County would proceed to build the Transfer station. His
district is more rural than most districts. There is a lot of distance
between houses and he does not thing it is economically feasible for private
carriers to travel these great distances. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Marshall if
his district was more rural than White Hall, Samuel Miller or Rivanna. Mr.
Marshall said he did not know but this is the reason private carriers have not
been able to succeed in his area. The perception is that the Transfer station
was promised. Mr. Bain disagreed.
Mr. Marshall said, in representing the people of his district, he is
asking that this Board move forward with the Keene Transfer s~ation and if
that is not the Board's desire he requested something be done about the
tipping fees so that the dumping of trash along the roads will stop. He
thinks that even if the tip fees were subsidized, the people would be willing
to drive to the Ivy Landfill. The residents in his district are driving the
greatest distances of any in the county plus paying a tip fee. A lot of
people are not doing this. Instead, trash is being dumped on the first road
they come to. Mr. Tucker said for the reasons Mr. Marshall has indicated,
staff wanted to give the haulers a chance to provide the service to each area
before going forward with the Keene Transfer Station. Mr. Tucker said the
County Engineer did check into this and he asked her to give a report on the
results.
Ms. Jo Higgins said the justification presented when the Keene Transfer
Station was considered was a location for people to bring trash after the
Keene Landfill was closed. For a period of time, staff tried to see whether
there were other services available. The services that are available in that
area range from $13 to $19 per month which is comparable to what private
haulers charge for their services in other rural parts of the County. Staff
knows of only one road in the County, Route 633, that is not offered trash
hauling services. In all other locations there have been no calls or evidence
that services are not available. Subsequent to this, installation of a
Transfer Station at Keene was put on hold while studying what would happen
with spurious dumping in the area. A contract was established to have illegal
dumping at the entrance to the Keene Landfill picked up and this was then
expanded to roads leading up to the entrance. Over the past 18 months, the
number of pick-ups has decreased to approximately one a month. There are
other illegal dumping problems that are possibly related to the tip fee at the
landfill or just people dumping from their cars. There is no evidence that it
is in the vicinity of Keene because of a lack of service. It has declined
since education was undertaken. There have not been any calls from residents
regarding a hauler not coming to their house.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.42, Pg.264
(Page 38)
Ms. Higgins said the Keene Landfill was operated with no tip fee and she
believes there was a misconception that the Keene Transfer Station, once
created, would also be free. Actually there would be a fee and that fee would
be greater than if the refuge were carried directly to the landfill. The
estimate was $4.00 per private vehicle. If there are citizens who are not now
offered services, they can contact the Engineering Department.
Mr. Marshall said a resident in his district probably did not know that
he was supposed to contact the Engineering Department and instead contacted
him. He will forward a list of names and pictures showing the illegal dumps
in his district to Ms. Higgins. The Chestnut Grove area, Sand Road and
Woodridge have no service. The distance between houses is so great that
haulers do not serve them. Ms. Eiggins said in addition to activity for
keeping the vicinity of the Keene Landfill as clean as possible, the Zoning
Department has set money aside, and the County Attorney has been working with
the Zoning Administrator and zoning enforcement officers, to go out and cite
landowners for illegal dumps. There has been success so far working with
property owners to clean up the dump sites. As the tip fee at Ivy increases,
she feels the illegal dumping will increase. The Transfer Station was not
supposed to take construction materials and other large items. It was only to
take domestic trash from individuals in their regular vehicles.
Mr. Bowerman said this will have to be discussed further this afternoon
after the School Board session. He would like to give the haulers an opportu-
nity to make comments.
Mr. Randy Layman said before the tip fees were implemented at the Ivy
Landfill, the Keene Transfer Station was to be totally free. There are 255
homeowners in Scottsville that use the Keene Landfill on a regular basis.
This survey was done through the Engineering Department and the private sector
to find out if there were enough homes to justify hauling. 207 to 255 people
used the Landfill on a regular basis when it was totally free. There are five
full-time haulers who offer service on the south side of the County. Two or
three haulers offer service in that area on a part-time basis and even offer
services on Saturday afternoon. The survey that was done showed that there is
no road in Albemarle County, with the exception of Route 633, that does not
receive service. He thinks the illegal dumping can be directly attributed to
the tip fees at the Landfill. All areas in the County are experiencing this
problem. His association has cleaned up a number of these illegal dump sites.
The dump sites reoccur as fast as they are cleaned up. It is not that
residents are not offered service, it is the fact that they do not wish to pay
for the service. This is an education problem. He feels the fees for the
services are reasonable and he invited the Board to ride with him on Tuesday
morning to see the rural area he works in the Samuel Miller District. He
would like to Board to get first-hand knowledge of what services people
receive for the price they pay.
Mr. Layman also addressed the issue of subsidizing the tip fees. He
said the current cost is $40.00 per ton. Any increase at the Ivy Landfill
will also increase the hauler's rates. The haulers are having to do a lot of
different things to continue operating. There is currently less proffit for
the haulers than ever and this is because of the tip fees. He is trying to
expand his business so that he will be able to continue operating while
maintaining a rate homeowners can afford. These are recessionary times and
the haulers are feeling this in their businesses.
Mr. Perkins said there were illegal dumps all over the County before the
tip fee was implemented.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Layman if he thought recycling newspapers would be
feasible for the haulers. Mr. Layman said the newspapers are already coming
to the McIntire Recycling Center. When the hauler begins offering this new
program, the newspapers will create extra volume, therefore the rates will be
increased. The biggest purchaser of glass is no longer buying glass from
local dealers because they are going to a middle-man process and glass will
have to go through another system to be decontaminated and made ready before
this particular purchaser will buy it. What the hauler was accustomed to five
years ago was a $75 cash flow per ton. Presently, the hauler has a negative
cash flow of $15 to $20 per ton and six months from now it will probably cost
the hauler $45 to $50 per ton just to get rid of the glass and recycle it.
The only way this can be avoided is to get the federal level to create markets
and an incentive for industries to produce a recycled product market. Steel
and aluminum are the only two markets that have a stable outlook. The haulers
can collect anything the customers want them to collect, but there has to be a
market for it. He does not like charging his homeowners to collect a product,
bring it to the landfill, have it processed and then moved to a landfill in
another state. In other states, $75 to $100 per ton is paid and it costs our
localities $25 to $30 to get rid of it. This means other states are making
$60 to $75 in a lot of cases on processing and disposing.
At 3:01 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 3:05 p.m in Room 5/6.
Mr. Martin was absent at this time.
Agenda Item No. 23. Joint Meeting with School Board.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
M.B. 42, Pg. 265
Present were: Messrs. William W. Finley, Clifford W. Haury, George C.
Landrith, III (arrived at 3:30 p.m.), Michael J. Marshall, Mrs. Patricia L.
Moore and Mrs. Karen L. Powell.
Absent: Mrs. Sharon Wood.
Agenda Item No. 23a. Update on Enrollment Estimates.
Dr. Carole Hastings, Assistant Superintendent/Director of Human Resourc-
es, distributed information on enrollment and staffing (on file). She said
the difference in the information distributed and the memo dated September 25,
1992, (on file) and what is on the back of the sheet entitled Important
Discussion Point is that the September 30th enrollment is included so that the
Boards have the most current information available. A new staffing formula
was used for this year. One thing that was done with the additional 14.7
teaching positions for 1992-1993 was to lower the actual ratio at the elemen-
tary level from 16:1 to 15:1. This is not the student to teacher ratio but is
the adult to student ratio which includes all instructional staff. The middle
and high school ratios were not impacted in terms of the additional positions.
In the high schools the number of additional positions was only for
replacement of those lost in the 1991-92 school year due to a reduction in
force. These were not meant to lower the ratio, therefore, there was no
actual reduction in ratios in the high schools or mzddle schools. The
additional teaching positions were added in April. By giving the additional
teaching positions to the schools last April, although they did impact the
ratio at the elementary level, the classroom/teacher ratio or number of
students in a regular classroom did not reflect much of a change. The reason
for this is that the school had more decision-making ability under the new
formula. If a decision were made to reduce some of the auxiliary staff, in
order to have a lower ratio in a regular classroom, it would be very difficult
to do in April because contracts had already been committed.
She referred the Board to the sheet which says "Regular Instructional
Program, Albemarle County Schools Student/Teacher Ratios Regular Instructional
Program," and reviewed how the regular ratios reflect teachers who are
teaching regular instructional programs. As an example, Agnor-Hurt on
September 30 had 480 students and 23 classroom teachers which gave them a
ratio of 20.8:1. When all other instructional staff is added, including
guidance counselors, music, art, and physical education teachers, the count is
actually 29.5 instructional staff. The difference between the 23 and 29.5 is
what is called auxil-iary staff. They are instructional staff, but do not
actually teach in the classroom. If this ratio is examined, it would drop
from 20.8 students per teacher to 16.3 students per teacher. A much lower
ratio is seen by including all instructional staff.
The next column shows the number of teacher assistants, i.e., Agnor-Hurt
has six. The ratio being used is three teacher assistants equals one teacher.
Agnor-Hurt had two and a half teaching positions but chose to use teacher
assistants. When those positions are added into the full number of instruc-
tional staff the ratio, including teacher assistants decreases to 15 students
per teacher. This is what is being called the adult/student ratio versus the
regular classroom/teacher ratio.
Mr. Bain asked who made the decision on the teacher assistants at the
individual elementary schools. Dr. Hastings said the principals are encour-
aged to involve staff members and the community as much as possible in making
those decisions. Where, the Board staffing ratios say one teacher assistant
at the kindergarten level, one-half teacher assistant at the first grade
level, etc., by combining all of these into one ratio, the decision-making
task was given to the school.
Mr. Bain asked if the schools themselves had the authority to combine
two grade levels if they choose to do so. He also asked if this was the
schools or administrators decision because of a lack of teaching positions.
Dr. Hastings asked if he was speaking of the teacher and teacher assistant
combination. Mr. Bain said "yes." Dr. Hastings said during 1991-92 there
were 25 combination classrooms in Albemarle County elementary schools. In
order to eliminate all combination classes it would require 25 teachers. On
the sheet that says "1992-93 Staffing Guidelines," the Boards can see what
actually happened at a particular school to increase the school ratio of full-
time teacher assistants, i.e., Agnor Hurt will receive 32 teachers, then the
school itself will decide, based on the number of students in that school, how
to use the 32 full-time equivalent teacher slots. (Note: Mr. Martin returned
to the meeting at 3:14 p.m.) Dr. Hastings said the school also has the
authority to decide how much art, music, guidance, regular teachers, and
teacher assistants it wants. Combinations come about because the distribution
of students is not always a standard number per grade. In some of the smaller
schools, this is a problem. There can be 14 students in a particular grade
level but there may not be a teacher available, therefore, students can be
combined with another grade (a higher level or lower level), and a combination
is made of this with one teacher teaching a combined grade, i.e., all of
Stone-Robinson's primary K-1 classes were chosen as a pilot a program last
year to not grade students in kindergarten and the first grade. This has been
very successful in the community because parents feel it is better to teach
the students than have them graded. This occurred throughout all of the
school division last spring and the decisions were made at the school.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
M.B. 42, Pg. 266
Dr. Hastings said before this method was implemented, the principals
would have met with both Boards and called for additional teachers. Virtually
none of this occurred at the central level this summer because the decision-
making for use of staff was made at the building level. With the number of
students Albemarle County had as of September 30, all but three of the
teaching positions in the budget had been allocated to the schools based on
the guidelines of 15:1 at the elementary level and 16:1 at the middle and high
school levels. Those three positions relate to the 78 students that were
below staffing projections and those three positions are still available. The
teacher assistants are only required to have high school diplomas although
many of them have degrees. They do not teach but are to be under the direc-
tion of a certified teacher.
Ms. Moore said Red Hill School has a 16:1 ratio and asked if the ratio
has been lowered to 15:1. She also asked what is done when a number appears
to be out of kilter. Dr. Hastings said this is being reviewed. Red Hill is
one of the smaller schools that stayed within its allotment, but the other
four small schools, Brownsville, Woodbrook, Scottsville and Yancey, did not.
One position had to be absorbed for them and the Red Hill situation is still
being looked at.
Mr. Bowerman said he has the same question about Burley. Dr. Hastings
said this is a situation where the school has more auxiliary staff in the
vocational areas. Its overall ratio is about the same, but in terms of making
decisions as to how many will be chore teachers teaching math, science,
english, etc. versus the number of vocational teachers, Burley actually has
more of those exploratory type teachers than any of the middle schools. Mr.
Bowerman asked if the figure the Boards should focus on is the last ratio in
terms of the actual education being delivered to the students. Dr. Hastings
said the principals say that stating there is a 15:1 ratio is misleading.
They do not want the public to think there are only 15 students in a class-
room. What is being clarified is that other kinds of people are needed, i.e.,
music, art and physical education teachers. Since all teachers are part of
the funding, looking at the adult to student ratio versus classroom to teacher
ratio makes it a meaningful ratio and that is what is being used. Dr.
Hastings said the principals were told that State staffing guidelines still
had to be followed. The State has much more stringent guidelines than
Albemarle in terms of how many students can fit in a classroom. All of the
middle and high schools still need to abide by State standards and particular
types of subjects have to be offered.
Mr. Bain said a concern was expressed to him about mainstreaming, i.e.,
there is a teacher and teacher assistant, but the assistant rotates between
classes which adversely affects what happens in that classroom for the
duration of the day. In the feedback he is receiving, he feels some corners
are being cut. He focuses on the elementary classroom in terms of dollars and
not teachers. He hears that this is a building choice, but he did not know
the parameters. The guidelines, he assumes, are from the School Board. Dr.
Hastings said the School Board decided that for the first year the school had
to stay within State guidelines. This is being reexamined now to see if more
stringent guidelines are needed. Staff is bringing a report to the School
Board and will be happy to report to the Board of Supervisors on any recommen-
dations for change.
Dr. Robert Paskel, Division Superintendent, said Mr. Tom Nash, Director
of Instructional Services for Special Education, is present. He is looking
closely at the impact of including students that have not normally been
included in the regular classroom. He is looking at the extent to which this
can be done, if the teacher can manage this with or without additional assis-
tants, and what impact it would have on other students, not only for the time
they are there, but for the whole period of time. This is a major issue on
Mr. Nash's agenda because teachers and parents are also concerned.
Mr. Michael Marshall asked how many combination classes there are this
year. Dr. Hastings said the exact number of combinations has not been figured
at this time. Dr. Paskel said some combinations are by design rather than
building parameters. Dr. Hastings said some decisions were made in terms of
small schools. Yancey has an enrollment of 157 students this year. It is
almost a necessity to have some combinations when there is a school that
small.
Mr. Bain asked how many special education teachers there are. Dr.
Hastings said she did not include special education teachers in her numbers.
She thinks there are over 100. There are also special education teacher
assistants.
Dr. Paskel introduced Mr. Frank Morgan, Director of Curriculum Research,
and said he has been on staff for approximately two months. Mr. Morgan held
his first parent forum last night to get input from parents. Dr. Paskel also
introduced Mr. Tom Nash, Director of Instructional Services, and said he was
the former Assistant Principal at Western Albemarle High School. The third
Director, Dr. Lori McCullough, Director of Federal Programs is at a Leadership
Charlottesville Forum. She will be introduced to the Board of Supervisors at
another time.
Agenda Item No. 23b. Discussion: 1991-92 School Fund Carryover Balance.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
M.B. 42, Pg. 267
Dr. Paskel said staff has provided Mr. Tucker information on this
subject which he will recommend to the School Board next Monday night.
School Board has not had an opportunity to discuss the Superintendents'
recommendations. (Mr. Landrith arrived at the meeting at 3:30 p.m.)
The
Dr. Paskel said he has outlined the ending unaudited School Fund
Balance. It is anticipated that the schools will have at least $205,000 to
carry forward. The Board of Supervisors authorized the School Board to
utilize this in balancing the 1992-93 budget. In addition, the School Board
made a commitment and is requesting $48,000 for CA-Tech which both the City
and County representatives feel are 3ustified in terms of their needs for the
1992-93 fiscal year.
Dr. Paskel mentioned his memorandum which contains recommendations for
the use of the balance of $775,056. He is recommending to the School Board
three initiatives:
(i)
allow the schools (20 of the 22 that had a balance) to carry that
amount forward and to utilize those funds in 1992-93 without any
restrictions;
(2)
select $73,500 worth of what are classified as departmental
expenditures ($68,000 of which were actually school-based expendi-
tures and which are enumerated in his memorandum), to finish the
computer network at Greer, relocate the trailers at Stony-Point,
do renovations at Woodbrook, establish a reserve (which staff does
not feel it will need as long as the After-School Program stays in
the black) two computers and one desk for the Finance/Personnel
Office; and
(3)
the balance of $577,100 be placed in the teacher salary schedule
for a mid-year, across-the-board increase of $425.00 with an
additional $425.00 at the tope of the scale for a total of
$850.00. This would carry forward the strategy from the original
FY 1992-93 budget of trying to address the worst case cell at the
top of the schedule in the County's cluster group. The County
Schools are 15 out of 15 at the top of the scale and 12 out of 15
school divisions at the beginning. When looking at other cells,
the ranking will be different. The impact this will have on next
year's budget has also been considered. Annualizing that cost,
the amount will be close to $1.1 million.
Mr. Marshall asked if it would be better to do a salary increase in the
form of a bonus rather than as regular salary to avoid impact on the budget in
the upcoming year. Dr. Paskel said he does not know if he would use the term
better, but it is an option. As teacher's salaries for next year are looked
at, $2000 to $2500 per teacher is needed if there is going to be any signifi-
cant move toward the mid-point of the cluster group. This has been done with
other employee classifications in the County and School Division. He feels,
in light of what was done for other employees, which was approximately a four
percent increase through the vesting and bonus, the teacher salary increases
were 1.8 percent to approximately three percent7 if this were done mid-year,
even though it would not have the kind of impact being projected for next
year, it would show a commitment to the teachers that at least this much will
be there on an annualized basis. He is willing to work with both BOards in
finding ways to pay for this next year, providing there is help from the Board
of Supervisors to give more than was done this year.
Mr. Bowerman said it is a decision of the School Board as to the use of
the $775,057. These are just recommendations from the Superintendent. The
question the Board of Supervisors needs to address is whether it will allow
these funds to stay in the School Fund to be used in 1992-93 or if they should
be carried over to be used in 1993-94.
Mr. Bain said he hopes that during the School Board's deliberation it
looks at the ratios, actual teachers and number of combination classrooms.
These issues are something he is concerned about and has had a lot of calls
about this Fall. He does not have, at this point, a serious concern about the
reappropriation. Mr. Bowerman said he concurs and feels the money was saved
by the schools and should be used for any education purpose the School Board
deems appropriate.
Mr. Finley asked about the $48,000 for CA-Tech. It is not a part of the
$775,057. Mr. Tucker suggested the School Board make a decision on this and
send it forward to the Board of Supervisors and it can be acted on next week.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this $48,000 is to come out of the School Board's
surplus. Dr. Paskel said "yes."
Mr. Perkins said if there is a severe winter and prices go up because of
another oil embargo, money may be needed for this purpose. He feels some of
this money should be held in a contingency fund or allocated to the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) . It was luck that there was a mild winter, low
prices on oil and other fuel costs, but that could change. If this came
about, he feels the School Board would come to the Board of Supervisors with a
request for more money because the money it spent was more than it had in the
budget. The Board of Supervisors would then be in a position where it had to
"bail" them out. He does not know where the money would come from. He feels
it has to be a give and take situation. In the past, the carryover funds went
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 427 Pg. 268
(Page 42)
to the CIP, but this was done away with several years ago. Albemarle Coumty
has massive building programs and he feels every dollar that is saved should
be put into the CIP.
Ms. Moore said this is exactly why the School Board did not want to make
a decision before getting the Board of Supervisor's input.
Agenda Item No. 23c. Discussion: Plans for New Middle School.
Mr. L. A. Reaser, Director of Building Services, said there is a 93,000
square foot middle school design which is one-story with a slope metal roof,
ice storage for cooling and is basically in three pods, so that each of the
grade levels are separated with combined classes between enrichment or
technology. Staff has a similar situation at Agnor-Hurt in the design of the
gymnasium and cafeteria. Staff also wanted a gathering place which is large
enough to seat 250 students and is also on one level. Walton has this design
and it has had extensive use.
Mr. Forrest Marshall said there are a lot of outside walls and he asked
what happened to the two-story scenario. He also asked if this design is more
economical than a two-story building. Mr. Reaser said a one-story building
will cost about $71,000 less than a two-story in construction costs. Mr.
Marshall asked about heating and cooling. Mr. Reaser said over 20 years it
would be virtually the same, but there was a small dollar difference. The
primary cost savings between a one-story and a two-story is the roof. There
is approximately one-third less roof.
Mr. Perkins said some benefit is gained by not having a larger footprint
and having a better more usable piece of land. He understands the architects
wanted $20,000 more to use their two-story plan. The School Board decided by
a vote of four to three to use this one.
Mr. Martin said the people who worked with the architects, including the
parents of the students who will be attending this school, and staff, for a
lot of reasons, went with the one-story building and the School Board voted
four to three to stand behind that group's original decision. Mr. Reaser said
it was a usability issue so the teachers and administrators felt a one-story
building was much more functional than a two-story building.
Ms. Moore said one of the things that came together in the decision-
making process was that the community had certain things it wanted. The plans
for the two-story building show that it would have fit the site fine, but the
community had certain needs that it wanted met. Some of those needs were
additional parking spaces so a comparison of Henley to Brownsville was used.
Staff was able to show where additional requests could be granted and the
community could be assured that there would be plenty of parking spaces.
There is a long list of comparisons between Henley and Brownsville that were
done.
Mr. Reaser said after the last meeting, staff was able to add 14 spaces
and put a vehicle turnaround at Hollymead Elementary School based on input
from the residents.
Mr. Bain asked if there are to be any additional fields other than what
are presently on the site. Mr. Reaser said "yes," there is an additional
baseball field overlaymng a soccer field.
Mr. Perkins asked if the gymnasium could be separated from the rest of
the building so that the community could use it for recreation. Mr. Reaser
said "yes." Mr. Perkins asked if there would be a need for parking around
that. Mr. Reaser said there are seven spaces for entry at the new middle
school but most of the parking would be in front of the school. Dr. Paskel
said access to the gymnasium would be through the front and would be adjacent
to the parking area. Mr. Reaser said the restrooms can also be separated.
Mr. Bain asked if the architects who designed Cale Elementary and Agnor-
Hurt Elementary bid on this project. Mr. Reaser said "yes," they were one of
the finalists. Mr. Bain asked if there was any particular reason why they
were not used again since they proved successful when used on two other
buildings. Mr. Reaser said the primary reason was that the architectural firm
chosen had extensive middle school experience.
Mr. Bowerman said the difference in cost of construction was $71,000.
The operating and maintenance costs over a period of 20 years were fairly
close. This is what. Mr. Marshall is questioning. Mr. Reaser said he brought
all of this information to the School Board.
Mr. Bain asked the capacity of this school now. Mr. Reaser said 750.
Mr. Bain asked where trailers would go if they had to be used. Mr. Reaser
said they would be along the front and off the end of the back of the build-
lng. Mr. Bain asked if there would be room for these after retaining a
buffer. Mr. Reaser said they are hoping to have enough room.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the operating economies of the two structures
using a cost effective environmental system were discussed. He knows Agnor-
Hurt has an ice system that is used for cooling. He asked if this system has
all of the up-to-date environmental savings in terms of energy usage and does
October 7, 1992 (ReGular Day MeetinG) M.B. 42, Pg. 269
(PaGe 43)
this have some litiGatinG effect on the operating costs of a one- and two-
story buildinG. Ms. Moore said all of this information was addressed. Mr.
Reaser said there are a variety of issues which were brought to the School
Board, everything from the cost of an elevator and stairwell maintenance to
having one-third less roof maintenance. Because ice storage is being done for
the first time, this was one of the biGGest issues. Another consideration is
that there has to be 15 cubic feet per minute (CFM) per occupant, per room.
This will conservatively increase the air conditioning and heating costs by 15
to 17 percent. The heating cost was one of the biGGest issues. He discussed
this with three enGineerinG firms. Logic tells you that the smaller the
envelope the less the cost. None of the engineers would say a two-story
building would be less expensive to operate than a one-story buildinG.
Ms. Moore said she feels that "no stones were left unturned" in the
questions asked by the School Board. This was not an easy decision. For her,
personally, the things Mr. Marshall said concerned her too, but when she
looked at the classroom space, instruction and what the administrators say
they need for a middle school, the one-story building suits the academics and
instructional needs better. The difference outweiGhinG the two-story building
is a large financial savings. All of the information the School Board
received did not show this. For herself, it was a tough decision. It was a
four to three vote of the School Board members and a hard decision to make.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Marshall has a list of about 10 items from
insurance, mechanical systems, maintenance, floor finishings and energy
comparing the one-story and two-story buildings. There are advantages and
disadvantages to both. The cost difference is approximately $700 over a
period of 20 years with some items not included. According to that analysis,
the significance of the items listed is minimized in terms of the small dollar
difference and operating costs over a 20 year period. It was not a white or
black issue. When the School Board factored in the instructional needs and
the differences between a one- and a two-story building the decision came down
to the one-story structure by a four to three vote. If this had not been
looked at and the School Board had just said it would build a one-story
school, it would be an entirely different question. All of these issues were
looked at.
Mr. Forrest Marshall questioned some of the issues. On the positive
side, looking at the plans, the sixth Grade is a Good distance away from the
eighth grade kids. There is a tremendous difference between the size of
children in the sixth and eighth Grades as far as thinking and actions. This
is an advantage of the plan, but he feels it will cost more.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels, based on what he has heard regarding the
process by which the School Board made its determination, there were people on
the School Board who had serious reservations about both designs. This issue
Got an ample hearing. The School Board analyzed the differences and made a
conscious, intelligent decision on what it felt should be done. He is
satisfied with the decision. There was an information meetinG held in the
community and there were a number of issues raised which are really site plan
issues and which deal with access, traffic, parking and sidewalks. He asked
how the County Planning Department intends to work with the concerns of the
public, parents and the students in terms of dealinG with the concerns the
community has.
Mr. Martin said Planning has all of those concerns under consideration
and has solved all of the problems except one which is traffic cominG in on
Hollymead Drive. He does not know what can be done about this. There are
some alternatives that will be looked at and some, he feels, will be met with
outrage and indignation. This will have to be worked out. All of the small
things like sidewalks and additional parking are taken care of. Access is the
only issue that is going to be hard to resolve. Mr. Bowerman said the site
plan will be developed and approved by the Planning Commission without the
questions of access, which will be handled at the site plan level. Mr. Martin
said everyone will not be happy but he feels the majority of concerns will be
addressed.
Ms. Powell said she lived in Hollymead for 10 years and the reduced
speed limit sign for approaching a school with a yellow or red flashinG light
still has not been installed. Hollymead residents have been complaininG about
this for years; a request was made ten years ago. She is surprised that five
years later this issue is still not resolved. Some people are blaminG this on
the schools not havinG the funds allocated. She asked if someone on the Board
of Supervisors could tell her why this has not yet been done. Mr. Bain said
it should have been done and he does not know why it has not. Mr. Martin said
he feels this is something that can be solved easily. Mr. Reaser said they
are in the process, with this year's CIP, of installing the lights.
Ms. Moore asked about crossing Guards and where they come from for
schools. She asked if this is a transportation matter for the Board of
Supervisors or if the schools are in charge of this. With all of the traffic,
Hollymead now has teacher aids acting as crossing Guards, but it wants true
crossinG Guards. She wanted to pass this information to the Board of Supervi-
sors. Mr. Tucker said this will be looked at and he will talk with Police
Chief Miller to see if there is something he can do to help at Hollymead,
otherwise he will talk with Dr. Paskel and something may have to be budgeted.
Mr. Bain said this is done at Western Albemarle High School. Mr. Tucker said
this is done only for automobile traffic, not pedestrian traffic.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
M.B. 42, Pg. 270
Mr. Landrith said he was one of the people who favored the two-story
plan. He gave his personal rational and said his may differ with other
members who voted the same. One issue for him was the cost savings. He
believed that while the fuel costs could not be quantified, it was not going
to be measured in pennies and would be a lot more than that. His desire was
to make the field a little larger on the south side and leave a larger buffer
zone between the school and its neighbors. Those were the pluses that he saw
in the two-story concept. The concern for the educational issue was still the
same basic configuration except that pods were stacked. The sixth, seventh
and eighth graders would still have had their own separate pods. He did not
feel this was a big issue. He never heard what he thought would be compelling
reasons why this was educationally better, but heard the allegation that it
was. He felt the reasons for this were not strong ones. This is why he made
the decision he did. He does not want to reopen the issue, but there are a
lot of questions as to what was discussed and why.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Landrith if this was a black and white decision
in his opinion. Mr. Landrith said he felt it was arguable in both cases.
Mr. Finley said he would like to answer Mr. Bowerman's question about
why this architect was chosen over the architect used for Agnor-Hurt. He was
on the committee and favored the architect from Agnor-Hurt until this firm
came in and presented its overlay with the two-story building. Topography at
Hollymead has about a 25 foot differential and the two-story building fit like
a glove and gave a little more room for trailers in the future, more buffer
area and perhaps more room for a playing field. This plan came back to the
School Board when time was of the essence. A two-story would have been a
larger design cost, although less than the $71,000, but would have required
more time. Even then, he voted for the two-story structure because it seemed
to be preferable.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the basis for selecting this architect was because
of their two-story design. Mr. Finley said that was one reason. The archi-
tect chosen has a very fine reputation and whatever is built he expects to be
first class. He feels the time element was a factor because the two-story
building was less money, it fit well, gave more buffer zone, parking space and
trailer space. The committee, having already gone that far, felt time was the
problem.
Agenda Item No. 23d. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Moore asked for an update in a joint meeting on the new instruction-
al technology initiatives to see what the advisory committee is doing or even,
if it has been established. Dr. Paskel said this can be brought to the two
Boards in December.
(Note: At 4:15 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 4:25 p.m., in
Meeting Room 7. (Mr. Bain and Mr. Martin did not return at this time.)
The Board continued its discussion on Agenda Item No. 22. Work Session:
Recycling Recommendations and Priorities.
Mr. Marshall said he attended a meeting recently where a resident in the
Chestnut Grove area said he could not get anyone to haul his trash. This
gentleman said he called different haulers and was told that he needed to get
all of his neighbors together before a hauler would take the trash because it
was not economically feasible to come for one load. Mr. Marshall said Mr.
Layman told him the residents want the collection to be free, but he knows
there are people who want trash collection and are not able to receive it
because other residents will not cooperate. He wants to know what he can do
to correct these problems and address citizen concerns.
Mr. Tucker said the Board could subsidize the Keene Transfer Station.
Mr. Layman said he saw a report which showed a minimum $4.00 charge if a
homeowner brought trash to the station on a weekly basis and did not bring it
by the pick-up load. Mr. Tucker said this figure does not count time to get
to the transfer station. Mr. Layman said on a four-week month with a $4.00
transfer station fee and a $4.00 hauling fee the cost would be $32 a month for
the average homeowner. He thinks that when the cost of carrying it to the
transfer station are included the citizen would be willing to pay for the
hauler's services which are less than 50 percent of what it would cost them
per month. Mr. Tucker said, basically, this was staff's opinion. People do
not know this; this is an educational problem.
Mr. Marshall said if the tip fee were eliminated and collected in the
form of a tax, he feels the County would be better off than it is currently.
Mrs. Humphris said this is a matter of opinion. If the tip fee is subsidized,
this Board is not going in the direction of getting people to reduce the waste
stream. This is the main point of recycling. (Mr. Bain and Mr. Martin
returned to the meeting at 4:39 p.m.)
Mr. Layman said citizens and consumers in the local marketplace have
little choice in what they buy at the time of purchase. Recycling, across the
nation, is the "hot" item. He will not say it is not what should be done, but
it does have a cost to it and some day the number of times an item can be
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
M.B. 42, Pg. 271
recycled before it is no good will be realized. There have to be other
methods of receiving products.
Mr. Bowerman said to recycle has to be better than not recycling. He
feels paper and cardboard should be composted. Mr. Layman asked what will be
done with the compost. Mr. Bowerman said the compost is an organic compound.
Mr. Layman asked what will be done with it. This has been studied and
researched in other counties and cities. In 1988 and 1989 when the task force
first began, it looked at composting. In St. Paul, Minnesota, a major com-
posting facility was installed to compost all of the garbage; that same area
was going to make refuge derived fuel from the waste; both companies spent
millions of dollars and are now out of business. South Dade County, Florida,
did the same thing and it, too, is out of business, but now has a waste-to-
energy plant.
Mr. Perkins asked if this concept is being considered in Buckingham
County. Mr. Layman said "yes." He feels that someday this will be a viable
alternative for everyone. The product, once recycled, and when the fibers
have gotten to the point where they cannot be put through the waste stream
again, would be the time to put it in the waste-to-energy plant. Recycle what
is recyclable at a cost the citizens can afford. When $200 to $300 per ton is
paid for recycling versus $30 to $50 per ton to put trash in a landfill, it
does not make economical sense. He feels there has to be honesty with the
homeowners, taxpayers and customers about what these programs actually cost.
Mr. Bowerman said he knows these problems will not be solved today, but
this is an evolving technology which cannot be ignored, it has to be dealt
with. He knows Mr. Layman is not suggesting that nothing be done, but he has
mentioned some problems that may occur in the future. Waste-to-energy is
obviously a viable program. Mr. Bowerman said Dr. Tony Iachetta said that
major plants which meet all of the environmental controls and really work cost
$300 million. Clearly, if this is going to be done, in all of Virginia there
will only be a couple of locations because of the large cost.
Mr. Bain said the Materials-to-Energy Recovery Facility (MERF) study is
not included in all of this, but once it is completed he assumes the Board
will receive this information so it can be discussed.
Mr. Perkins said he feels the Board is looking at a moving target. What
is there today may not be there tomorrow. He went to the Environmental
Excellence Awards Dinner last week. Greene County won an award for composting
school waste at the elementary schools. He thinks this is something the
County government and schools have got to be in the forefront of. Everything
that can possibly be recycled should be recycled. Prince William County won
an award for "The Too Good To Waste Place," which was established so people
could bring items in that other people can use. He has an issue of "Paper
Aids" a recycling paper and there is some good information in it. It talks
about the South being a net importer of waste paper and it having the paper
making capacity. The South will have to import waste paper to meet the
demands. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Tucker to have staff look through "Paper Aids"
for ideas and information. Apparently, the paper markets are expanding
drastically, because the customers are demanding it. People can recycle paper
and he believes the same thing will happen with glass. If the consumer will
ask for it, then the supplier will supply it.
Mr. Layman said the glass market is different depending on its charac-
teristics. Certain 'items can contaminate a ton of glass to the point where a
product cannot be made of it. When a mandate is handed down, room needs to be
left for flexibility. On the collection end, the private haulers will collect
anything that the customer asks them to collect. The problem is whether it
can be marketed. As an individual, haulers cannot market products nor can the
County be the sole marketer for products either. He asked if the County were
to drop this project what position the individual haulers would be left in.
Mr. Bain asked, regarding licensing, if a realistic target date is the
beginning of February. Mr. Tucker said this is the goal staff is working
toward.
Mr. Bowerman said there are basically three recommendations for the
Board to deal with: 1) the schedule; 2) cancellation of the Keene Transfer
Station in the CIP; and, 3) implementing a subsidy for 1992-93 of no tip fee.
Mr. Bain asked if staff plans to rebid the Ivy drop-off. Ms. Higgins
said currently there is one container at Ivy where the haulers can place
commingled recyclables. What staff has heard from the community of Crozet and
people who carry their individual domestic trash to Ivy is that there is no
place for them to drop their recyclables off as they make a trip to take their
regular trash. This has been brought up numerous times. This would not be in
competition with the haulers because they are not currently using hauling
sources. One of the recommendations is to expand the drop-point for the
haulers and open it to citizens. It could be a commingled drop-off or source-
separated like the McIntire Road facility. Part of this has to be weighed
with the education that will happen in the County. If the haulers are
supported with educational materials to hand-out to their clients, and the
staff works with them to come up with incentives to get their customers to
participate, education could be effective. The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
(RSWA) has a proposal underway which will review handling recyclables as far
as separation, purchasing and leasing containers and hauling services. This
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 272
(page 46)
study is scheduled to take 12 to 24 months. It will have a whole agenda so it
can be picked through like a menu to see what would be most cost-effective at
Ivy. A station like the one on McIntire Road, which is not a manned center
because it is nearly impossible to have a source-separated station that does
not have someone to help people and explain how items are to be placed in the
containers, and make sure it does not "pile up."
Mr. Bain asked what Rivanna's experience has been in the last few months
since the facility has been manned. He occasionally goes there with items
that his hauler does not pick up, like cardboard and so forth. Mr. Tucker
said it is almost more than one person can handle. Mr. Bain said the times he
has been there he does not see how one person is doing it because sometimes
there are ten vehicles at one time. Ms. Higgins said they have asked for
volunteers. Ail of the containers have not yet arrived there and this is part
of the request for proposals to go out and expand on the recyclables that will
be taken at McIntire.
Mr. Tucker said part of it is because there are hours of operation and
everyone has been focused into certain time periods that recyclables can be
dropped off. Ms. Higgins said the contamination should go down. Lost loads
due to contamination in the past have cost the County.
Mr. Bain said the recommendation says "adoption and funding levels" and
he does not see any funding level for an educational staff person. Mr. Tucker
said the amount stated is the total that staff is estimating'for all of those
items. The figure is approximately $88,000.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Keene Transfer Station is being canceled or if
it is possible that this will be put in with others around the County. Mr.
Tucker said if it begins in one area, to be fair to everyone, stations would
need to be strategically located throughout the County. Perhaps it should be
looked at as a county-wide issue or plan. This conflicts with the Board's
intent to try and encourage the waste haulers to provide service rather than
the County getting into this business. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bowerman commented
that it might be considered from a regional perspective. A different type of
transfer station could be large enough that haulers would actually unload
there, and then it could be transferred to a landfill in another location or
recycled. He feels, at this point, the numbers do not justify building it
unless it is subsidized. It will not be economically feasible for residents
to do this. He understands the concerns of people who are still not being
served. He feels this is where the County needs to ask the haulers to offer
services. He agrees with Mr. Layman in that most people do not want to pay
for services. If residents are not willing to pay the hauler, they will still
have to pay to take their trash to the transfer station.
Mr. Marshall said even though it has been said that the service is
available a group of customers is needed before a hauler can justify the
travelling distance. Ms. Higgins said there are homeowners organizations,
i.e., Hollymead, Peacock Hill, and there are communities of houses located
closely together that go to a hauler jointly. This may mean that there is a
community dumpster with recycling, or it could mean trash pick-up at the curb,
but jointly these people have more bargaining power in the open market with a
hauler than as individuals. No matter where the location is, a hauler will
provide services if residents are willing to pay for it. To tell someone to
go talk to their neighbors so that the price will be more realistic is an
effect of the open market.
Mr. Tucker said he does not know if the haulers would be willing to take
the initiative to get neighbors zn rural areas organized to justify the
servlce~ if a resident is not willing to do it. Mr. Bain said this is part of
the educational process. The County staff person will have to hold community
meetings and go door-to-door to talk to the people who do not attend the
community meetings.
Mr. Martin said two different things are being discussed. Mr. Bain is
talking about reducing the przce in the neighborhood, and Mr. Marshall is
talking about residents not receiving service. The resident who contacted Mr.
Marshall probably had service offered but has not contacted the hauler who
serves that particular area. Mr. Layman said if Mr. Marshall could give him
the information he will find out who is servicmng that particular road. He
knows that two haulers have solicited every home in Albemarle County by mail
to offer their services. He expects this particular case is on a road
approximately 10 miles long and may have only 15 to 20 houses scattered out.
He has given a list to the Engineermng Department of all the haulers who offer
service.
Mr. Marshall said the residents who contacted him said they were
promised the transfer station two years ago. They have continually asked him
why it is not there yet. Mr. Perkins said the first public meeting on the
transfer station showed opposition of ten to one. Personally, he was afraid
that residents would want them built throughout the County. If a ten mile
circle could be put around the Ivy Landfill it is more in the Scottsville
~District than Rivanna. Most of the Rivanna District is further out than the
Scottsville District. He disagrees with the residents who said the transfer
station was promised. It was talked about and money was committed, but it was
not promised.
October 7, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) ~4,B. Pg. 273
(Page 47)
At this point, Mr. -Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
accept staff's recommendations. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall.
(Note: The recommendations as accepted are as follows:)
1. Adoption of the recycling implementation plan and funding
levels (on file);
2. Cancel the Keene Transfer Station item in the CIP; and
3. Do not implement a tip fee subsidy for FY '92-93.
Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker said he and the Chairman received a letter from VACo with
changes to their by-laws. There is also a letter from the Chairman of the
Nominations Committee, Mr. John Purcell, that gives the procedures for
nominating the directors and officers at VACo. He will send this out in the
packet for next week's agenda.
Mr. Perkins said the preliminary notification published in the Daily
Progress for the last few days concerning the Crozet Crossings project is
foolish. The ad is from the Department of Agricultural and the Farmer's Home
Administration and asks for input on the implications of building Crozet
Crossings on 15 acres of farmland. This project was approved a year and a
half ago and he would like to know why they are bogged down with this. He
does not know why the ad is there, but it is absolutely foolish that something
like this occurred. It is money thrown away.
Mr. Perkins said he attended the Governor's Environmental Excellence
Award Dinner with Mr. Peyton Robertson and he has given the award with a
Resolution to Mr. Tucker. He also gave Mr. Tucker some programs from the
dinner and hopes staff will find some ideas that can be implemented from other
counties.
Mr. Martin said he is sure the Board received a letter regarding public
bus service expansion to the Pantops area and he asked if this could be looked
at in terms of cost during the next budget cycle.
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn to October 9, 1992, Room 5/6, at 12 noon.
At 4:56 p.m., Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjourn
to October 9, 1992, Room 5/6, at 12 noon for a joint meeting with City
Council. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
..... Chairman