1992-11-04November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) 54.B. 42, Pg. 305
(page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarie County,
Virginma, was held on November 4, 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
Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Agenda Item No. 4.
Public.
There were none.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve items 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.3a, 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. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Request from Children & Youth Commission to change appoint-
ment terms from calendar to fiscal year and to allow the two current County
appointees (Ms. Ellie Tucker and Ms. Blanche Steppe) to serve for another six
months, was approved by the above recorded vote.
Item 5.2. Approve Letter of Support/Participation for Earth Day '93.
The following letter was approved by the above recorded vote:
EARTH DAY '93
Citizens of Albemarle County;
Albemarle County is a beautiful place with many valuable natural
resources. Protecting our envmronment and the beauty of our
county is an immediate challenge for all of us.
Illegal trash dumpmng, contamination of our air and water, and
landfilling unnecessary material are some of the things that occur
here and throughout the world. We can no longer take for granted
that our county and its environment will be preserved.
Government regulation is not the solution. We are the solution.
A first step is for everyone to become aware of what we can do and
to invoke that spirit in our work and our everyday lives. Only
through an enlightened citizenry can we begin to solve these
problems in our community.
We strongly support and encourage the efforts of radio stations
WCHV and 3WV mn improving the environment. Their publication of
"Save Our Environment" and their other plans for celebrating Earth
Day '93 will be a significant step in helping us all become
informed on these complex issues. We know you will find the
articles in "Save Our Environment" not only informative, but will
see also a challenge. The challenge is how you can help in the
protection of our environment. This is a challenge we encourage
you to undertake with us, WCHV/3WV, and the many others involved
in protecting our environment. Shaping the future of Albemarle
County requires that we all work together.
Item 5.3. Resolution to request that the Commonwealth Drive Connector
Road be taken into the State System of Secondary Highways, and guaranteeing
the road against defective materials and/or workmanship for one year up to a
maximum of $3750. The following resolution was adopted by the above recorded
vote:
R E S 0 L U T I O N
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B, 42, Pg. 306
(page 2)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that pursuant to virginia Code Section 33.1-229,
the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby
requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart-
ment, the following road:
Commonwealth Drive Connector Beginning at Station 9+22, a
point common to the centerline of Peyton Drive and
Commonwealth Drive, thence in a northeasterly direction
774.15 feet to station 16+96.15, being a point common to the
centerline of Greenbrier Drive (State Route 866) and
Commonwealth Drive.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 70 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easements along this requested addition
as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1235, pages 293 to 296 and
pages 298 to 302; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby guarantees, for a period of one year from
the date of acceptance into the Secondary System of Highways,
Commonwealth Drive Connector against defective materials and/or
workmanship up to a maximum of $3750.
Item 5.3a. Resolution to request that Bentivar Drive in Bentivar
Subdivision be taken into the State System of Secondary Highways. The
foll6wing resolution was adopted by the above recorded vote:
RE S 0 LUT I 0N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229,
the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby
requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart-
ment, the following road:
Bentivar Drive
Beginning at Station 0+24, a point common to the southern
edge of pavement of State Route 643 and the centerline of
Bentivar Drive, thence in a southwesterly direction a
distance of 5340 feet along the centerline of Bentivar Drive
to Station 53+64, the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easements along this requested addition
as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 914, page 422; Deed Book
1067, page 524; Deed Book 1015, pages 765 and 766.
Item 5.4. Letter dated October 28, 1992, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, giving monthly update on current projects under
construction, was received for information.
Item 5.5. Letter dated October 14, 1992, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, to Mr. Marion L. Morrison, re: additional speed
limit signing on Owensville Road, was received for information.
Item 5.6. Letter dated October 14, 1992, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ellen S. Harris, re: reduction of speed
limit on Barracks Road, was received for information.
Item 5.7. Letter dated October 7, 1992, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Highway Department, providing notice that Route 1403 (Berkmar
Drive) in Rio Hills has been added to the Secondary System of Highways, was
received for information as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated July 15, 1992, the
following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is
hereby approved, effective September 24, 1992.
ADDITION
LENGTH
RIO HILL
Route 1403 (Berkmar Drive) From Route 1417 to
0.23 mile Southwest Route 1417
0.23 Mi"
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 307
(Page 3)
Item 5.8. Letter dated October 22, 1992, from Mr. Thomas F. Farley,
Culpeper District Engineer, Highway Department, providing notice of public
hearing to consider the proposed location and design of Route 678 (Project
~0678-002-223,C501) from the intersection of Route 250 to 0.26 mile north of
the intersection of Route 250 in Albemarle County, was received for
information.
Item 5.9. Georgetown Road - Update on safety and high traffic volume
concerns, was received for information as follows:
,,BACKGROIIND: Mr. Lester Hoel presented a petition from Georgetown
Road residents outlining various traffic and safety concerns on
Georgetown and requested Board/VDoT assistance in addressing these
issues. As many of these had been previously addressed by the
Resident Engineer, Mr. Roosevelt, and as safety issues would
involve the District Traffic Engineer, a meeting was held on
Monday, October 26th, with representatives of the VDoT District
Office, Resident Engineer Office, Mrs. Humphris, staff, Mr. Hoel
and two other Georgetown residents.
DISCUSSION: The focus of this meeting was to allow for the
residents to fully address their specific concerns to VDoT staff
in order to establish a common understanding of the issues. The
next step in this process will be a field visit with all
interested parties and VDoT representatives to further identify
the specific concerns on site. VDoT will then respond with
recommendations as appropriate."
Item 5.10. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Program Report for the
Month of September, 1992, was received for information.
Item 5.11. Letter dated October 14, 1992, from Mr. Hugh C. Miller,
State Historic Preservation Officer, Department of Historic Resources,
providing notification that Enniscorthy, Albemarle County, DHR File ~02-28,
has been entered in the National Register of Historic Places, was received for
information.
Item 5.12. Letter dated October 22, 1992, from Mr. Hugh C. Miller,
State Historic Preservation Officer, Department of Historic Resources,
providing notification that Bellair, Albemarle County, DHR File ~02-02, has
been entered in the National Register of Historic Places, was received for
information.
Item 5.13. Letter dated October 26, 1992, from Mr. James Christian
Hill, National Register Assistant, Department of Historic Resources, providing
notification that Michie Tavern, Albemarle County, DHR File ~02-93, appears to
meet the criteria for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the
National Register of Historic Places, but the Department will not prepare the
national register nomination due to a full work program, was received for
information.
Item 5.14. Letter dated October 9, 1992, from Mr. Kendrick R. Riggs,
Senior Regulatory Counsel for Virginia Power, transmitting copy of Application
of Virginia Electric and Power Company for a general increase in rates filed
with the State Corporation Commission, was received for information.
Item 5.15. Letter dated October 21, 1992, from Ms. Amelia McCulley,
Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Pete Bradshaw, Keswick Acquisition Corporation,
entitled "Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1; Tax
Map 80, Parcels 8, 60, 61, 62 and 109A", was received for information.
Item 5.16. Letter dated October 22, 1992, from Ms. Amelia McCulley,
Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Bruce W. and Mrs. Bonnie M. Kirtley, entitled
"Official Determination of Number of Parcels Section 10.3.1; Tax Map 55,
Parcel 99", was received for information.
Item 5.17. Copy of Minutes of Planning Commission for October 13, 1992,
was received for information.
Item 5.18. Copy of Minutes of Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of
Directors for September 28, 1992, was received for information.
Item 5.19. Department of Planning and Community Development's 1992
Third Quarter Building Report, was received for information.
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 308
(Page 4)
Item 5.20. Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District
Quarterly Report, was received for information.
Item 5.21. 1991-1992 Report on Elementary, Middle and High Schools,
dated October 26, 1992, prepared by the Oversight Committee for the Albemarle
County Schools Long Range Plan, was received for information.
Item 5.22. Memorandum dated October 30, 1992, from Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: County/City Shared Services - Purchasing
Division, was received for information.
Item 5.23. County's Financial Management Report for September, 1992,
was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: December 11, 1991 and
August 5~ 1992.
Mrs. Humphris read the minutes of December 11, 1991, pages 24-35 (~22)
and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins read the minutes of December 11, 1991, pages 35-end and
passed the typographical errors to the Clerk. He also read the minutes of
August 5, 1992, pages 11-22 (~12) and found them to be in order.
Mr. Marshall read the minutes of August 1, 1992, pages 1-11 and found
them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve the
minutes of December 11, 1991, (pages 24-end), and August 5, 1992, (pages 1-
22). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters. Discussion: Millington Bridge
(Route 671), draft letter to Mr. Ray Pethtel (deferred from October 14, 1992).
Mr. Bowerman said the second paragraph of the draft letter speaks to the
possible expenditure of local funds to replace the bridge. He asked if the
cost is for the entire bridge or the center span of 66 feet. Mr. Tucker said
the amount is for the 66 feet. Mr. Perkins said it was his understanding that
the cost was for the entire span based on square footage because for one span
the cost was approximately $60,000.
Ms. Angela Tucker, Assistant Resident Engineer, commented that $135,000
is the cost for the entire deck replacement. Mr. Bowerman asked if that price
included everything but the piers. Ms. Tucker said, "yes."
Mr. Tucker asked if the span was more than 66 feet. Ms. Tucker said her
notes indicate that the cost was based on a 12 foot wide, 188 foot long deck
construction so she feels that is the entire span. Mr. Bowerman asked if the
span would be iron, steel beams and concrete decking. Ms. Tucker said "yes."
Mr. Marshall said he is opposed to using County funds for this bridge if
there is any other way the work can be done. He asked if all other efforts
have been exhausted. Mr. Tucker replied "yes," that is his understanding.
Mr. Bain said two organizations and several individuals have expressed a
willingness to contribute funds toward the repair of this bridge, if VDoT will
consider using private funds. The private funds will not be available until
VDoT agrees to the proposal.
Mrs. Humphris said she has several changes to the proposed letter and
passed her draft to staff. Mr. Perkins said in the second paragraph, eighth
sentence he thought it should be changed to read: "Your resident engineer,
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, provided a ball-park estimate of $135,000 to replace the
whole bridge in its current location." Ms. Tucker commented that it is not
"the whole bridge replacement," and she suggested the words "deck
replacement".
Mr. Bowerman asked if VDoT has determined that the piers are
satisfactory. Ms. Tucker said she cannot comment on that because she does not
know the status of the piers, but that information is in a bridge report and
can be forwarded to the Board. The cost to replace the entire bridge is
$839~000. She does not think this estimate includes right-of-way or
realignment.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the letter
as amended (set out below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. ~umphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
(The letter is set out in full below:)
"November 4, 1992
M.B. 42, Pg. 309
Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner
Department of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Pethtel:
Albemarle County wants to pursue the possibility of replacing the
Millington Bridge on Route 671 in its current location. This has
long been the County's preference. In view of the current impasse
in obtaining the necessary right-of-way easements from the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation and the continued deterioration of
the current bridge, it is necessary to look at other alternatives.
Knowing the State will not support the expenditure of state funds
unless the bridge and its accesses can be brought up to state
standards, the County is considering the possible expenditure of
local funds to replace the bridge in its current location. This
action is considered prudent in light of not only the current
impasse but also in terms of possible smgnificant cost
differentials. The Virginia Department of Transportation's
current estimate to complete the Green Line alignment is
$1,468,000. Your Resident Engineer, Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
provided a ballpark estimate to replace the bridge deck in its
current location of $135,000. Although this may be low, the
possibility of significant cost savings demands this alternative
be investigated.
The Board of Supervisors requests your support in determining the
feasibility of this proposal and in the spirit of mutual
cooperation seeks your assistance. The Virgmnia Department of
Transportation's position and advice will be critical to the
Board's discussion of this proposal. Though not all-encompassing,
the Board has identified the following initial issues:
Would the bridge have to be taken out of the secondary
road system for such construction, or reconstruction,
to take place? If so, can this be done?
If the bridge were replaced in its current location,
and designed to state and federal safety standards,
what additional requirements would have to be met for
the bridge to be accepted into the secondary road
system?
What procedures and policy decisions would have to
occur for such a proposal to reach fruition if it were
determined to be feasible?
What steps, and associated time line, would be
required for any state reviews and/or approvals? This
is critical in determining when local funds would need
to be allocated and when they would need to be
expended.
What impact would this have on our six-year secondary
road plan recently approved by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board?
What is VDoT's forecast of the useful life of the
current Millington Bridge?
If VDoT would not accept a replacement bridge into the
state system, would the state perform inspection and
maintenance from secondary road funds? If not, what
inspection and maintenance would be required by the
state?
While these may not be all the critical questions, it is a
starting point in determining if it is a feasible alternative. I
would ask that you address any other critical issues that are
germane to this proposal.
In summary, replacing the current bridge is not at issue.
Replacing the bridge at a reasonable cost that meets the needs of
the citizens of Albemarle County is our objective. This proposal
offers another alternative. I look forward to your response and
if a meeting of County and VDoT staff ms necessary to further
explore this alternative, we will be happy to participate.
Sincerely,
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
M.B. 42, Pg. 310
David P. Bowerman,
Chairman"
Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Perkins thanked VDoT for laying asphalt under the railroad bridge on
Route 240 in Crozet.
Mr. Bain commented on the work at the Bellair intersection and said the
committee is progressing nicely.
Mr. Bowerman said he recently spoke to the North Charlottesville
Business Association, an organization consisting of merchants, retailers and
developers from Route 29 North. They want to make sure that Route 29 North
remains accessible to their businesses. He knows VDoT is involved with
planning for the reconstruction to Route 29 in terms of service to the
existing merchants and the public. He thinks there needs to be a meeting to
discuss the methodology that will be used for the reconstruction of Route 29
and how VDoT plans to serve the public and the merchants.
Mrs. Humphris said there is already a formal committee in existence for
that purpose. She is not sure of the name of the committee, but it is chaired
by Ms. Judith Seay, Ride-Share Chairperson for JAUNT and has representatives
from VDoT, the business people and residents. The committee has held two
meetings. Mr. Bowerman asked since this area is located in the
Charlottesville District why he was not included. Mr. Tucker said he was not
aware of this committee. Mr. Robert Brandenburger, Assistant County
Executive, said the committee was initiated by Ms. Seay and he thinks it was a
result of the traffic reduction strategies effort. Mr. Bowerman asked if any
merchants are involved in this committee. Mrs. Humphris replied "yes," Mr.
Wineshank attended the meetings. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to be
notified of these meetings in the future. Mr. Martin said he would also like
to be included. Mrs. Humphris said the next meeting is Monday, November 9,
1992.
Mrs. Humphris commented on item 5.6 from the consent agenda. She met
Ms. Harris and was provided with some additional information. Ms. Harris
stated that the accident reports that VDoT uses do not always match what the
residents know has happened. Ms. Tucker said VDoT obtains information from
law enforcement agencies and if the accident is not reported then it does not
become a statistic. Mrs. Humphris said that presents a problem, in that, the
data that is used is incomplete. Mr. Martin said it would seem reasonable if
VDoT would include a factor in its data for a certain percentage of accidents
that are not reported and some type of formula that could be used.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker his thoughts because this is a concern on
Garth Road. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the police need to make their presence
known.
Mr. Perkins said this issue has been "tossed around" and Mr. Roosevelt
has explained why he does what he does. He still does not accept this and
thinks it comes down to a matter of public safety. There have apparently been
a number of people who have been injured and the excuse is that police do not
enforce the speed limit. He thinks this is a safety issue and it ms just a
matter of finding enough evidence to justify 45 miles per hour.
Mr. Marshall said there is a problem with the intersection of Routes 53
and 20 South. Ever since the light was installed at Piedmont Virginia
Community College (PVCC) and the turning lane into Blue Ridge was altered,
traffic has been backing up. He thinks that another light at Routes 53 and 20
needs to be installed, in conjunction with the light at PVCC, or that light
needs to be removed. Traffic was moving better through that area before the
light was installed. Mr. Bain said he thinks that intersection was a lot more
dangerous. He feels the mssue is the timing of the signal because he travels
that road in the mornings. The only time traffic backs up is between 7:45
a.m. and 8:15 a.m. when people from Blue Ridge Hospital are making the turn at
the light. Mr. Marshall said he feels another lane is needed on the road
going south. Ms. Tucker said she believes VDoT is aware of the need in that
area, but it is a cost versus feasibility issue. The need does not outweigh
the cost. Mr. Marshall said his concern is what will happen next year with
the celebrations at Monticello of the anniversary of Thomas Jefferson's
birthday. There will be additional traffic and he asked how the County can
prepare for this. Mr. Marshall said he would like to have someone look at the
area. Mr. Bain said he does not think a s~gnal study is needed, but feels
VDoT should find other alternatives. He asked if a dual left turn can be
installed temporarily with the lighting. Ms. Tucker said she will check into
this and report back to the Board.
Ms. Tucker said VDoT will be requesting a resolution from the Board to
approve plans for Route 678 at the December meeting.
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
M.B. 42, Pg. 311
Agenda Item No. 8. Request for Resolution' of Intent to rezone Tax Map
76, Parcel 17A (Department of Forestry property) from R-1 to CO.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. This parcel
is designated for Office Service use in the Comprehensive Plan and is under
development by the Virginia Department of Forestry for its headquarters with
access from Fontaine Avenue. zoning on this property has not been changed
since this property belongs to the state and is not subject to local zoning.
The R-1 has been a "holding" zone for the property in case it might ever be
sold to private interests. The R-1 zoning, however, poses potential problems
for the adjacent University Real Estate Foundation property, Parcel 76-17B,
which is zoned CO with a development plan and proffers. Building setback from
R-1 for CO is 50 feet with a 20 foot undisturbed buffer. There is no setback
adjacent to commercial zoning for CO except that building separation necessary
to meet building code fire ratings. To remove the residential setback
requirements from a property that is not developed residentially and to make
the Forestry Department property zoning match the type of development
occurring (which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan), staff recommends
the Board of Supervisors pass a Resolution of Intent to rezone Parcel 76-17A
from R-1 to CO.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt a Resolution
of Intent (set out below) to rezone Tax Map 76, Parcel 17A (Department of
Forestry property) from R-1 to CO. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to rezone property
known as Tax Map 76, Parcel 17A, owned by the Department of
Forestry, located east of the U.S. Route 29 Bypass, south of
Fontaine Avenue and west of the University Real Estate Foundation
from R-1 to COl and
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
hold public hearing on said intent to rezone property, and does
request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to
this Board at the earliest possible date.
Agenda Item No. 9. Request to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority service area boundaries for "water only" to Tax Map 79, Parcels 18 &
19 for David W. Booth/Sandra Andrews and Sherwood Exum (Goco, Inc.). (Mr.
Bowerman left the room at 9:49 a.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The
applicants, David W. Booth/Sandra Andrews and Sherwood Exum (Goco, Inc.),
request designation for water only. Mr. Booth, owner of Tax Map 79, Parcel
19, which is zoned C-1 and developed with one dwelling unit, stated a need for
a new water source for possible commercial use because of Shadwell Store
underground fuel tanks. Exum (Goco, Inc.), owner of Tax Map 79, Parcel 18,
which is zoned Rural Areas and developed with the Goco station, stated a need
for a new water source due to potential and actual groundwater contamination
from fuel oil. Documentation has been provided by the applicants to verify
these problems (on file). (Mr. Bowerman returned to the room at 9:50 a.m.)
As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacities
should be reserved to support development of designated growth areas. Past
actions by the Board have typically been to limit utility service outside the
designated growth areas. However, where properties have experienced
quality/quantity problems and are adjacent to existing lines, the Board has
granted service area designation for water only to existing structures. As
Tax Map 79, Parcel 19, is underdeveloped, reasonable use of the property as C-
1 will likely involve new structures. Therefore, water only to existing
structures would not be sufficient for C-1 use. Staff would recommend
proceeding to public hearing for water only designation for Tax Map 79, Parcel
19, and water only to existing structures for Tax Map 79, Parcel 18, based on
documented and potential water quality problems. Planning staff will have the
Engineering Department review technical documentation for any comment
regarding its content before the public hearing.
Mr. Bain asked if staff has verified any of the information from the
State. If the Goco property owners are responsible for all of this and
adjoining properties, as he understands it, they will be responsible for
limiting the problems both for their property and other properties as well.
He asked if staff had any information on that. Mr. Cilimberg said Goco's
report stated, and the State Water Control Board apparently accepted, that the
problem was localized to the Goco site.
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 312
(Page 8)
Mrs. Humphris asked if this goes to public hearing, that the Board get
the correspondence from the State Water Control Board to see exactly what was
said. Mr. Cilimberg said he will try to get that letter. Mrs. Humphris said
she could not reach the same conclusion as staff based on the hydrosystems
report. The report stated that all that needed to be done was to drill a
replacement well in the vicinity of monitoring well #4 to provide water supply
for the station. What Mr. Booth's letter said about the Goco site does not
agree with the hydrosystems report. Mr. Cilimberg said staff based its
recommendation on the information provided.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to set a public
hearing for December 16, 1992, on a request to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority service area boundaries for "water only" to Tax Map 79,
Parcels 18 and 19 for David W. Booth/Sandra Andrews and Sherwood Exum (Goco,
Inc.) and requested that staff gather more information.
Mr. Bain said he will agree to go to public hearing on this request, but
is not convinced of the need. He thinks this request is an attempt to take
advantage of the Glenmore line.
Mr. Bowerman said he will support the motion, but has the same problem.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Fast Track Building Permit Issuing
Process.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"DISCUSSION: Reviewing and improving the permit review and
issuing process was identified as a work plan objective last July
and a Process Improvement Team was established with the specific
objectives. As this process involves three County departments and
two other agencies, a Total Quality Management (TQM) approach is
being applied. The Team has had two meetings and will review Mr.
Bain's proposal in their identification of improvements to our
current process. The Team is still identifying problems and
issues with our current process ~n extensive detail and will soon
be discussing improvements.
The Team has also identified a need for more efficient processing
and the specifics of Mr. Bain's proposal is one possible way to
achieve a Fast Track. The Team has identified other possible ways
to achieve this objective, but has not yet defined all the
possible alternatives.
A Fast Track process is only one area for improvement and will be
evaluated as a part of the entire permitting process. The Team is
scheduled to meet four times in the next two months and should
have a preliminary improvement plan developed for implementation
early next year.
RECO~ENDATION: None, provided for information."
Mr. Bain said when there is a full-group meeting to work on this he
would like to be included.
Mr. Marshall said he thinks it is an excellent way to cut costs.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Recreational Facilities Authority, Request
to Adopt Resolution of Intent to delete all references to development lots in
standard easement form.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The
Recreational Facilities Authority, at its meeting on August 27, 1993, adopted
a resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors to delete the reference, in
paragraph number six, to development lots and any other reference to
development lots that might occur in the standard easement form.
Mr. David Bass, Chairman of the Authority, said, when the Authority was
created by the Board of Supervisors, it drafted a standard easement form which
was made available to developers so that they would know, in advance, what
would be looked at when dedicating easements on a rural preservation tract.
The language was submitted to the Board, as an alternative, and the Board left
that language in the form. Mr. Lindstrom, who was on the Board at that time,
did not have a recommendation from the Authority, but felt it was an option
that seemed to limit the number to one dwelling unit on the development lots
as opposed to the preservation tract which is what the Authority's easements
deal with. The Authority deals only with cc-holding easements with the
County, not development lots. In drafting easements, when the forms are
signed, the attorney's working with the Authority have trouble in drafting
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 313
(Page 9)
this because on the page that deals with the legal description, if it is
controlling anything having to do with a development lot, as paragraph number
six indicates, all of the development lots have to be included in the legal
description. In the deeds for those development lots, all of the restrictions
that are in the easement also have to be included. The original intent was to
restrict just the easement property as opposed to the development lots.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is no requirement in the Zoning Ordinance that
the easement cover the development lots as well as the rural preservation
tract.
Mr. Bain said the Authority is asking that paragraph number six be
deleted to get rid of the lot and refer the language to the easement. Mr.
Bass said if this is granted, then the form will just deal with the rural
preservation tract itself. Otherwise this form will have to be redrafted and
the Authority's feeling is that it changes the intent of the whole act. He
feels this ms restricting things that were not the intent of the Board. The
Authority will never approve any easements that the Board of Supervisors has
not previously approved in standard form.
Mr. Cilimberg said the easement still applies to the tract and has to
remain, but allows this Board to have flexibility in dealing with the
remainder of the property.
Mr. Cilimberg said when staff does its analysis on a rural preservation
development proposal, it has three areas that are supposed to be reviewed as
to what public purpose the rural preservation development is going to serve.
Those three areas are agricultural/forestal protection, water/resource
protection and scenic/historic natural resource protection. Even though there
are no ordinances that cover historic structures, if there were a rural
preservation development proposal that included a historic site that was
recognized by the state or national register, and the County noted that this
was important and wanted to put it on the tract, the easement would need to
include language to cover the historic site and this would be part of the
Board's approval.
Mr. Bain then made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the
request from the Public Recreational Facilities Authority to delete the
reference in paragraph #6 to development lots and any other references to
development lots that occur in the standard easement form. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Establishment of Agriculture/Forestry
Industry Support Committee.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Plan identified a strategy to
support and promote the agriculture and forestal industries in the
County by creating a local advisory committee to analyze marketing
needs and develop and recommend programs supporting the industry.
Staff proposes establishing this committee in the near future and
has identified a committee 'work outline' for your consideration
(on file).
DISCUSSION: Staff envisions six to nine months for the committee
to develop a report for Board consideration. Staff also proposes
a committee of seven to ten members from various agriculture/
forestry/horticulture industry groups in addition to possible
participation by the Board or Planning Commission. Selection of
committee members from the industries can be through the public
notice process or staff can identify potential representatives for
Board consideration. If the Board supports the establishment of
the committee, and its work outline, a decision on the selection
process is required before staff can proceed.
RECOM/4ENDATION: Establish an Agriculture/Forestry Industry
Support Committee either through the public notice process or
through staff recommendation of potential representatives."
Mr. Martin said he feels people who are interested should serve on this
committee. Mr. Bain concurred. He does not feel this Board needs to
interview the people.
Mr. Perkins suggested under number seven where it states "Forestry
(government and consulting foresters)," it state "Forestry (government,
industrial and consulting foresters)."
Mr. Tucker said he would like a consensus of how the Board wants to form
this committee. The two options would be for staff to recommend people to
serve on this committee or put public notice in the newspaper and this Board
interview those people. Mr. Bain said he does not mind the public notice but
does not want to interview.
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 314
(Page 10)
Mr. Martin said if a public notice is done, unless there is a lot of
explanation with it, most people will not understand what is being advertised.
If the committee is formed of people who are interested, then there is
something to go to public notice and other citizens could join, but there
needs to be a foundation.
Mrs. Humphris said she likes the idea of a public notice because a lot
of people have asked her when this will be done and those people may not be in
"the loop" when staff talks to people that they know about serving on the
committee. She is in favor of giving public notice that this is being done
and feels the people who are interested will know exactly what the committee
is about. Mr. Marshall said he feels the people chosen to serve on this
committee should be producers. Mrs. Humphris said this is why she feels there
should be a public notice and this Board should choose.
Mr. Bain said he is not interested in choosing the people. Receiving
applications from interested persons to serve on the committee through the
normal process is fine, but this Board should not have to interview the
applicants. Mrs. Humphris asked if public notice were done would staff choose
who served on the committee. Mr. Tucker said if public notice is given, staff
is not in a position to hold interviews. If staff has to make a recommenda-
tion, it will go to the Cooperative Extension Service and other organizations
to get advise on who they think might be good members from the list of people.
Mr. Bain said he is not in favor of a public notice. He thinks a
committee can be formed and everyone can be informed through publication of
the committee, when it meets and it should be sent to the local organizations
and citizen groups to make them aware that this is a functional committee.
Mr. Perkins said people from the Extension Services and other agencies
that add input to the committee are needed to serve as well.
There was a consensus of the Board that an Agriculture/Forestry/Industry
Support Committee be established through staff recommendation of potential
representatives and the list of recommendations come back to the Board for
revzew and appointment.
Agenda Item No. 13a. Appropriation: FY 1991-92 School Fund Carry-Over
Balance (deferred from October 14, 1992).
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"At its meeting on October 12, 1992, the School Board finalized
its discussions relating to the FY 1991-92 carryover balance of
$775,057. The School Board agreed to allow the individual school
which ended the fiscal year with a positive balance to carry
forward their ending balance to the 1992-93 fiscal year. In
addition, the School Board approved the disbursement of a $425
bonus to all teachers and an additional $425 bonus to those
teachers at the top of the teacher salary scale. The specifics
related to the distribution of the bonus will be addressed by the
School Board at a later date. Finally, the School Board
recommended that the remaining $73,500 be kept in a School Board
reserve.
In summary, it is requested that the Board of Supervisors approve
the reappropriation of the FY 1991-92 school fund balance as
follows:
$557,100
124,457
73,500
$775,057"
Teachers' Bonus
School Cost Center Balances
School Board Reserve
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following Resolution of Appropriation.
Mr. Bain said he had questions relating to the monzes. He asked what
the $124,457 going back the schools would be used for and how would it meet
the school's individual allocation where they buy two-tenths of a music or art
teacher. Dr. Robert Paskel, Division Superintendent, said the $124,457 that
is proposed by the School Board to remain in the school cost centers would be
used for non-compensation or non-personnel type items, i.e. to buy equipment,
supplies, materials, library books, etc. Staff did not, in the recommendation
to the School Board, nor did the School Board in its recommendation to this
Board, put any restriction on the monies. The money could be used to purchase
a part-time teacher's aide if there were sufficient funds to do so, because
the school sites have the latitude to do this. The school would have the same
flexibility that staff proposes it have with normal allocations.
Mr. Bain said he has a philosophical problem with schools buying certain
individuals in terms of people who are teaching music and art, and it has its
own allocation. Dr. Paskel answered the question in terms of "yes," it could
be used for that if an individual school felt the need. Dr. Paskel said that
would be the same as if the allocations made to the school in 1992-93 were
supplies, materials and equipment. Mr. Bain said Dr. Paskel is saying it
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M,B. 42, Pg. 315
(page 11)
could be used for either. Those individual schools have that flexibility and
he does not support that.
Mr. Bowerman said he heard Dr. Paskel say that it was for non-
instructional costs. Dr. Paskel said generally non-compensational, but there
is a possibility that a school could put some of these dollars toward
additional support staff or even a teacher if it saw fit to do that.
Mr. Bain said his problem with the school having control of the funds is
that the School Board, with the Superintendent, should be making sure that the
staff needs to provide instructional education would not have to come out of
the school cost center. Mr. Bowerman commented that it is philosophical in
nature.
Mr. Marshall said he is going to support the request because he feels
the School Board knows what it is doing. He asked Dr. Paskel to refresh his
memory on how disbursement of the bonuses will be handled and also asked if
everyone will get the same bonus. Dr. Paskel said, as proposed, all teachers
currently employed in the school system would receive a $425 bonus. The
second step would be that those who are at the top step of the salary scale,
which represents about 54 percent of the teaching staff, would receive an
additional $425 or a total of $850. This reflects the objective that staff
had in this year's budget.
Mr. Perkins said he will not support this because he feels there should
be money set aside either for emergencies, such as hard winters, fuel costs
and consumption, or the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Teachers have
signed a contract to work for what they are getting paid and he does not think
it is a good idea to do this, particularly with a bonus. Another thing that
bothers him in the salary discussion is that the career ladder is never
included in these salary studies and there are a lot of people who receive
extra money, yet the salaries are being compared with peer counties and it is
as if the career ladder does not exist. There are people receiving as much as
$6000 more than what the official top teacher is getting paid in the County
due to the career ladder. This has not been factored into the salarzes when
compared to other counties. When that part is not added, it makes Albemarle
County's salaries seem low.
Dr. Paskel introduced Miss Allison Holly and Miss Natasha Surf, from
Albemarle High School. They are present for Youth-In-Government-Day. Mr.
Bowerman welcomed these students.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: Mr. Perkins.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
1992/93
920019
School
Funding of Teacher Bonus and Reallocation of FY
91/92 Balances
EXPENDITLTRE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1210061101112100
1220161101601300
1220261101601300
1220361101601300
1220461101601300
1220561101601300
1220661101601300
1220761101601300
1220961101601300
1221061101601300
1221161101601300
1221261101601300
1221361101601300
1221461101601300
1221561101601300
1225161101601300
1225261101601300
1225361101601300
1225461101601300
1230161101601300
1230261101601300
1230361101601300
1241061101580000
TEACHER BONUS
BROADUS WOOD
BROWNSVILLE
CROZET
GREER
HOLLYMEAD
MERIWEATHER LEWIS
RED HILL
SCOTTSVILLE
STONE ROBINSON
STONY POINT
WOODBROOK
YANCEY
CALE
MURRAY ELEMENTARY
BURLEY
HENLEY
JOUETT
WALTON
ALBEMARLE
WESTERN
MURRAY HIGH
SCHOOL BO~RD RESERVE
TOTAL
$577,100.00
1,439.00
3,423.00
1,497.00
16,699.00
758.00
7,398.00
13,301.00
998 00
7,147 00
3,091 00
3,932 00
1,250 00
3,028 00
1,942.00
7,959.00
17,608.00
10,145.00
565.00
(1,535.00)
24,117.00
(305.00)
73,500.00
$775,057.00
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
2200051000510100 SCHOOL FLTN-D B~_LANCE $775,057.00
TOTAL $775,057.00
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 13b. Appropriation:
for Brownsville Elementary School.
M.B. 42, Pg. 316
Early Childhood Development Grant
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"A $142,150 grant for Early Childhood Development for Brownsville
Elementary School has been received from the State Department of
Education. This grant provides for the development and
implementation of both a fully articulated K-3 instructional
program and three support components which appear vital for
effective early childhood education. Brownsville has been
actively engaged in building a developmentally appropriate program
for young children for more than five years. This project will
extend, expand and enrich the school's practice."
Mr. Bain asked if this is a one year grant and how long the program will
last. Dr. Paskel said this is a one year planning grant. Staff is hopeful
there will be some follow-up activities. This program is one of a dozen
similar programs across the state. Mr. Bain asked if Albemarle would get to
keep the machinery and equipment which will cost $16,000. Dr. Paskel said
that is staff's understanding. A lot of citizens have been to see what is
being done with this program. Albemarle has been in the developmental
education business for sometime and Brownsville has been the leader in this
area. Brownsville is excited about trying to bring some structure to the
program beyond the K-1 level and this provides some money to do this.
Mrs. Humphris asked how this planning grant works. Are one or more
teachers being taken out of the classroom? Dr. Paskel said one teacher, Mr.
David Burchfield, is a strong advocate to this approach in education, and
essentially ms in charge of this project. He has been reassigned this school
year to oversee the project at the school rather than to teach students.
Another full-time teacher has been hired to take over his classroom this year.
Mr. Burchfield will utilize, as necessary, substitutes for other teachers who
may need to be brought together for planning purposes, discussions, or any
staff development that comes out of the project. Efforts are not narrowed to
just the staff at Brownsville. This grant provides a year to plan, as well as
do testing or piloting of concepts under the fund mechanism from the state.
Mrs. Humphris asked if this disrupts the regular classrooms because of
the teachers being pulled. Dr. Paskel said it may present some disruption.
Staff tries, when this occurs to place mn the classroom someone who is already
working mn that building, such as a teacher's assistant. Staff tries to
minimize such disruption, but at the same time feels that it worthwhile for
the future education of the children to try and make this a productive
experience. The best minds available in the school system are needed to work
on this project.
Mr. Perkins asked what kind of machinery or equipment is being bought,
leased or rented and if the costs are accurate. Dr. Paskel said the figures
are as accurate as any budget is for a first year effort. He ms not sure what
type of machinery or equipment is to be purchased, but will get that
information. Mr. Perkins said this looks like a lot of money for machinery,
equipment, instructional supplies and consultants. He is glad this grant was
obtained, but it seems to be great cost. Mr. Bain said he also agrees that
this seems like a lot of money.
Mr. Martin said the budget has been scrutinized by the person writing
the grant, by the state and by the School Board. Since the State has approved
the grant and the School Board has approved the grant, it is a matter of this
Board letting the money go through the school system.
Mr. Bain said this Board has never just "rubber stamped" an
appropriation request. He will support it but thinks the questions that were
asked by the Board members are legitimate.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks it is important for this Board to review and
question these requests, but hopes the Board considers the message it may send
if it ever denied a request like this. In this case there is a teacher who
has put together the grant to submit and get funds for Albemarle County's
school system. This Board could send the wrong message to the people who may
be interested in doing this type of thing in the future if it were too
critical.
Mrs. Humphris said she is sure Dr. Paskel understands that her questions
are purely for informatmon and not in any way meant to cast doubt on the value
of the program. She feels this Board is responsible to the taxpayers, and
these are tax dollars even though they originated at the state level and only
come through this Board for its approval.
Dr. Paskel said he understands and since he has not done a great deal of
these requests with this Board, the questions help him to identify the things
that he needs to come prepared to answer. He always wants this Board to feel
comfortable in asking any questions it feels need to be asked and then hold
him accountable for giving answers.
Dr. Paskel said there are four objectives that the Board does not have
in front of it on this program. One is to develop a comprehensive and
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 317
(page 13)
exemplorary developmentally appropriate instructional program for four grade
levels, Kindergarten through third grade. The second objective is to develop
a comprehensive program which links families, school and community into a
partnership to support the child's education. This is an outreach initiative
of the program. The third objective is to develop a program for four year
olds who will attend Brownsville. The fourth objective is to develop a
demonstration model which employs technology to enrich and expand instruction
in areas of mathematics, science, student assessment, staff development and
dissemination. He would be happy to provide the Board a detailed breakdown of
any of those areas.
Mr. Marshall said he feels differently than most Board members. He does
not feel that he is "rubber stamping" anything. This is one reason he was
careful in choosing a member to represent his district on the School Board and
he fully trusts his representative's decision-making ability.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1992/93
NUMBER: 920020
FUND: School
PURPOSE: Early Childhood Grant
EXPENDITI3-RE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1311260202112100
1311260202114100
1311260202135000
1311260202152100
1311260202160300
1311260202210000
1311260202221000
1311260202231000
1311260202232000
1311260202241000
1311260202312700
1311260202350000
1311260202520301
1311260202540100
1311260202550100
1311260202580500
1311260202600100
1311260202601300
1311260202800100
SALARIES-TEACHERS
SALARIES-TEACHER ASSISTAI~T
P/T WAGES-CLERICAL
SUB/WAGES-TEACHER
STIPENDS-STAFF CURRICULUM DEV
FICA
RETIREMENT
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
LIFE INSURANCE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES/CONSULT
PRINTING/BINDING
TELEPHONE
LEASE/RENT-EQUIPMENT
TRAVEL
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
TOTAL
$ 29,000.00
8,000.00
1 500.00
7 200.00
9 500.00
4 300.00
4 500.00
1 210.00
60.00
230.00
15,000.00
300.00
2,000 00
10,000 00
7,000 00
12,850 00
1,000 00
12,500 00
16,000 00
$142,150.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2311224000240502
EARLY CHILDHOOD GRANT
TOTAL
$142,150.0u
$142,150.00
Agenda Item No. 13c. Appropriation: Regional Adult Education
Specialist Grant.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"A $28,260 grant was received from the State Department of
Education to support the Regional Adult Education Specialist
position. This person will plan and carry out regional staff
development activities that include pre-service and in-service
training to instructors and administrators, plan strategies for a
Regional Recruitment Plan and provide instructional technical
assistance for the Adult Literacy and Basic Education instructors
in the Planning District."
Dr. Paskel said this is a state initiative and Albemarle County was
approached to see if there were common elements in the adult education program
across school divisions, mainly Albemarle, Charlottesville, Nelson, Greene,
Fluvanna and Louisa. This is a one-year grant and staff is convinced that
there is no hope for a second year grant.
Mr. Perkins made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
1992/93
920021
School
Regional Adult Education Specialist Grant
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
M.B. 42, Pg. 318
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1211361107111400
1211361107210000
1211361107221000
1211361107231000
1211361107232000
1211361107241000
DESCRIPTION
AMOU~IT
SALARIES-OT~R MANAGEMENT
FICA
RETIREMENT
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
LIFE INSUR3LNCE
TOTAL
$22,960.00
1,756.00
2,577.00
666.00
33.00
268.00
$28,260.00
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200024000240252
REGIONAL ADULT EDUC SPECIALIST $28,260.0u
TOTAL $28,260.00
The Board recessed at 10:43 a.m. and reconvened at 10:55 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appoint Representative to Vote at VACo Annual
Business Meeting (deferred from October 14, 1992).
There was a consensus of the Board members that Mrs. Humphris be the
Voting Delegate at the VACo Annual Business Meeting and Mr. Bowerman be the
Alternate Delegate.
Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Amendments to VACo By-Laws (deferred
from October 14, 1992).
Mr. Bain said he will not be at the VACo Annual Business meeting but
hopes other Board members will be able to go to the committee meetings which
will be held on Sunday. Even though people on this Board do not serve on
those committees, input from people is allowed and can be included in a motion
if it is thought to be worthwhile. The committee meetings he has attended are
open to suggestions from various jurisdictions.
Mr. Martin said he is on the Education Steering Committee which meets at
2:45 p.m. on Sunday-so he will be present during a lot of the committee
meetings.
Mrs. Humphris concurred with Mr. Bain and said the committee meetings
can be lively, productive, and a lot can be learned. These committee meetings
are important.
Mrs. Humphris said regarding the nomination of a representative on the
VACo Board of Directors, Mr. John Purcell is from Louisa County and was
previously the Chairman of its Board of Supervisors. It seems logical to her
that Mr. Purcell be reappointed as a VACo Board member. This appointment
would be good for Albemarle because the communications would be better since
Mr. Purcell is located in Louisa.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. John Purcell is also on the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Purcell has requested, by letter and telephone,
that Albemarle County support him for this position. When he spoke to Mr.
Purcell he told him that he would discuss this with the Board and it would
make a formal decision. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Purcell indicated that there
are term limitations and this is the last year he is eligible. Mr. Bain said
he would like to see Albemarle County get a quid proquo and have someone from
this Board begin serving next year. Mr. Bowerman said that this should be
mentioned to Mr. Purcell.
There was a consensus of the Board that it support the nomination of Mr.
John Purcell as the Region 4 representative on the VACo Board of Directors.
Mr. Bain commented that someone should be present for the Dillon Rule
Commission discussion.
Agenda Item No. 16. 1993 Legislative Update.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUND: On file are three legislative documents. The first
is an update on legislative issues that will be coming before the
General Assembly in January. Andrea Trank, our legislative
liaison will provide a brief summary of these issues and will be
available for questions or requests.
The second is a revised copy of Albemarle's 1993 legislative
package based on your input and suggestions at the October
meeting. The first section under finances now reflects previously
specified revenue powers, such as the cigarette tax, the local
option income tax, under the major proposal 'to provide equal
taxing power to localities.'
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 319
(Page 15)
The only other change is the addition of a proposal under the
section, Health and Human Services, to support the efforts of the
Commission to Stimulate Personal Initiative to Overcome Poverty
led by Lieutenant Governor Beyer to address the manifestations of
poverty and the disincentives inherent in our current income
assistance programs.
If approved, the proposals in our package will be presented to the
legislators at the December 2nd Board meeting and will serve as
the action plan for our legislative liaison at the General
Assembly.
The third document is the first draft of VACo's 1992 legislative
program which will be reviewed and finalized at the VACo
conference on November 8th. This is the same information you
received in October, but is their cleaned-up, finalized version."
Ms. Andrea Trank was present and provided the Board with some of her
thoughts and ideas to be included in the legislative packet. She stated that
a lot of interest has been generated about the Dillon Rule and she needs input
from the Board on the issue of relaxing the Dillon Rule in internal
governmental matters.
Another proposal getting support from other localities is allowing
state-approved standardized site plans and specifications to be made available
for new high construction.
Mr. Marshall said his only objection to the list of items provided by
Ms. Trank is the meals tax and asked if that would be dealt with on an
individual basis. Mr. Bain said "yes."
Ms. Trank continued with her summary which included waste management and
the possibility of forming a pool for sharing the financial assurance
requirements, transportation, "takings", the Growth Management Commission, day
care, financial issues, crime and housing.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Trank to 3oin the Board in a meeting with the
Farm Bureau on November 5, 1992. Ms. Trank accepted the offer and said she
will also be attending the Planning District Commission meeting tomorrow to
discuss legislative proposals. Mr. Tucker said the Board will be meeting with
Albemarle County's legislators on December 2, 1992, at 1:30 p.m. Ms. Trank
asked if she could come before the Board on that day to give the Board her
final legislation package to get approval. Mr. Bowerman said that should be
discussed before the Board meets with the legislators.
Ms. Roxanne White, Executive Assistant, said she would like to point out
something on land-use in VACo's package that is important, but has not been
included in Albemarle County's packet. VACo is supporting a change in
calculating the composite index for basic school aid to recognIze counties
that use the land use value assessment program. She thinks it is important to
emphasize at VACo because it will impact Albemarle County. This will have a
significant impact on the way the distribution formula is calculated.
Mr. Bain asked if it is too early to talk about shared van pools. This
has been going on in Montgomery County, Maryland, and some D.C. suburbs for a
long time. There are incentives from local governments involved. Mr.
Bowerman asked if there is some copy of legislation that can be obtained from
these other jurisdictions to review and see whether this Board would like to
support some type of proposal. Mrs. Humphris said the traffic reduction
strategies group already has sample legislation from Alexandria and a couple
of other localities. Mr. Bowerman asked if this topic can be discussed on
November 18, 1992, and if the Board decides to introduce it, it can be
included in the packet to be adopted.
At this time, it was a consensus of the Board that the final legislative
packet be presented on December 2, 1992.
Agenda Item No. 17. Status Report on Keene Landfill Closure.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUND: Staff is proceeding with the closure of the Keene
Landfill in accordance with current Virginia Department of Waste
Management (VDWM) regulations. A revised closure plan will be
submitted to VDWM by mid-November with approval/disapproval within
90 days. If approved, it would be bid in March, 1993 with work
commencing around May, 1993 to be completed by October, 1993.
The Keene Landfill encompasses approximately 25 acres, all but
four of which were inactive prior to the state regulations adopted
on December 21, 1988. In the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) a
cost is projected to cap the entire landfill to these state
requirements. A key issue is the extent of the area to receive a
final cap. This has tentatively been resolved pending the
provision of documentation by the County to identify those areas
of the site which have already been satisfactorily capped from a
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 320
(Page 16)
regulatory viewpoint. Based on these inquires, the final closure
plan being submitted to VDWM will address the capping of only the
four-acre cell that was active until the landfill stopped
receiving refuse in August, 1990.
DISCUSSION: There have been significant developments in federal
and state solid waste regulations in recent months that provide
incentives for closure of inactive landfills as soon as possible.
First, more stringent federal regulations will go into effect in
October, 1993 and second, state legislation in the form of House
Bill 1073 postponed more stringent state provisions regarding
final cap requirements until October, 1993.
Capping only the four acres, in con]unction with less stringent
capping requirements and assuming the favorable bidding climate
continues through March, 1993, the estimated closure costs should
be approximately $500,000. This could be higher if the bidding
climate is impacted by work associated with the state bond
referendum, if it is approved on November 3rd.
If the closure plan is approved in January as submitted,
recommended changes to the FY 93-94 CIP will be provided to the
Board prior to adopting the CIP budget.
RECOMMENDATION: None, provided for information."
Mr. Bowerman asked what the figure is in the CIP. Mr. Tucker said
$500,000 has been set aside for the last several years and has built-up to be
in excess of $2.0 million. Staff thought it would have to close the entire 25
acres, but an answer will not be known until January. The Board will receive
an update at that time.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the $500,000 in the CIP for 1993-94 is the last
installment on the $2.0 million. Mr. Tucker said "yes."
Mr. Tucker said staff is hopeful that it will be successful with the
plan being submitted so significant closure costs will not be incurred.
There was no further discussion on this item.
Agenda Item No. 18. Discussion: Volunteer Program. (Mr. Bowerman left
the room at 11:49 a.m.)
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"Background: This report is presented at the request of the Board
of Supervisors and contains information on volunteer efforts
within County programs and outside volunteer efforts directly
benefitting the County. The purpose of this report is to examine
the ways in which volunteers are currently used, areas mn which
volunteers may be needed, and ways in which volunteer programs may
benefit the County.
Discussion Current Use of Volunteers:
The County has five ma]or areas which utilize volunteers
extensively.
1) Volunteer Fire and Rescue There are 204 volunteer firemen
who average over 40 hours per month of volunteer effort. There
are also 185 rescue squad volunteers who average over 50 hours per
month of service. These volunteer efforts have been self
sustaining, but the County has recognized the need for a more
centralized recruitment, retention, and training effort, and
therefore, has hired Fire/Rescue staff to oversee these necessary
functions.
2) Parks and Recreation - All of the youth athletic programs are
organized and run by volunteers. More than 1000 people are
involved in youth athletics. The County does not oversee any of
these organizations as they are self-sustaining and operate well
without County involvement.
3) Police Department - The Police Department has over 80
community watch organizations, a Senior Citizen Advisory Board,
and a Police Foundation Board. It also operates an intern program
where unpaid interns, who are interested in police work, are able
to participate and contribute to projects within the Police
Department. The Police Department currently has a "volunteer
coordinator" in the form of the Community Resource Coordinator.
4) Schools The schools have a decentralized system of volunteer
recruitment efforts. Each school runs its own volunteer
recruitment program with varying degrees of success. Generally,
schools closer to the urban ring have significantly greater
volunteer participation than rural schools. Staff believes that
this is due to a combination of higher population densities,
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 321
(Page 17)
better transportation options, and superior proximity to work
locations. Approximately 25,000 hours of service are volunteered
at the schools each year.
At least two outside agencies contribute volunteers to the
schools. The Senior Center operates the Foster Grandparents
program in the elementary schools and the Senior Partners program
for middle and high schools. These programs, which allow senior
citizens to share their experiences and participate in the
classroom, have approximately 20 participants. Participation can
range from being a foster grandparent for an elementary class for
a year or more to giving speeches and leading discussions in high
school. The Retired Seniors Volunteer Program (RSVP), a "clearing
house" for seniors who wish to volunteer their time, provides
approximately 22 volunteers for the schools. Each school provides
supervision of the seniors in the classroom.
5) Outside Agencies Through outside agencies, volunteers
contribute over 355,000 hours of community services. Both the
United Way and RSVP operate extensive volunteer recruitment and
referral services for the community. The United Way referred over
400 interested volunteers to local agencies and RSVP referred over
300 interested seniors.
(Mr. Bowerman returned to the room at 11:51 a.m.)
There are over 110 agencies that represent a variety of interest
groups. If someone is interested in volunteering time to a
particular cause, ranging from sexual assault to recycling, there
are agencies that specialize in these areas and serve as a focal
point of community effort. These agencies provide direct services
such as parent education, job training, daycare, medical services,
legal services, housing assistance, educational assistance, and
many others. Many local agencies operate with funding from
Albemarle County and are contracted to provide services on behalf
of the County. The services provided by the agencies requires no
County supervision.
Discussion - Needs of the County: County departments were
surveyed to determine if they needed volunteers within their
departments. Most departments responded enthusiastically to the
idea of volunteers, but the identified need was clerical in nature
in all but two departments. According to both RSVP and the United
Way, two agencies that recruit and utilize volunteers extensively,
good clerical volunteers are extremely difficult to obtain and
extremely difficult to motivate. It is also becoming increasingly
difficult to get volunteers to work during the regular working day
when the County operates. However, two departments did have
legitimate, non-clerical needs which could be filled by interested
and committed volunteers.
General Government
1) The Inspections Department and the Fire/Rescue Staff expressed
some interest in getting volunteers to help with fire safety
education and fire safety inspections. It appears that the
Fire/Rescue Staff would be the most likely recruiter and trainer
of such volunteers.
2) Social Services was interested in placing volunteers with some
of its families as Parent Aides and also as Big Brothers and
Little Sisters. Both the Parent Aide and the Big Brother and
Little Sister program require long term commitments from trained,
supervised volunteers in order to be effective.
From its previous experience with volunteers, Social Services
believes that to effectively train and retain these long term
volunteers would require extensive and specialized one-on-one
supervision that is not currently available at existing staff
levels. Even if Social Services were provided with volunteers, it
would not have the resources to devote to training and especially
to supervising volunteers who would be operating ~n delicate and
difficult social situations.
Schools
Due to the decentralized nature of the school's volunteer
recruitment programs, specific and extensive information on school
needs is difficult to obtain. The school system believes that it
can absorb and use virtually as many volunteers as they can get,
but additional volunteers at rural schools would be a high
priority. Currently, recruitment is handled at the individual
school level and there seems to be little coordination with local
recruitment agencies, such as the United Way, that may be able to
provide willing volunteers.
Conclusion
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
M.B. 42, Pg. 322
Albemarle County is extremely fortunate that outside volunteer
organizations accomplish much of what other localities must hire
volunteer coordinators to do. Many locality coordinators act as a
'clearing house' and refer volunteers to agencies or departments
operating in the volunteer's area of interest. Both the United
Way, RSVP, and the Senior Center operate as volunteer 'clearing
houses' and provide local agencies with substantial numbers of
interested volunteers.
Most local agencies also conduct their own volunteer recruitment
as well as provide direct services to county residents. Again, it
is important to stress that volunteers tend to work in areas of
interest in which they feel useful and needed. With over 110
agencies in the community, there are volunteer organizations that
specialize in virtually every community service interest area.
Also, many functions which larger localities operate are still
effectively run by independent volunteer and non-profit
organizations. Examples of independent organizations are the
youth recreation league which coordinates over 100 teams in a
variety of sports, the Senior Center and Jefferson Area Board for
Aging which focus on aging issues, the Charlottesville Area
Recycling Together group that works on improving local recycling
efforts, and many other independent groups that provide needed
local support services.
Recommendations: Due to the low level of need identified, the
extensive volunteer recruitment resources available, and the
significant numbe~ of volunteer agencies that provide services,
staff does not recommend a centralized, volunteer coordinator at
this time. The areas which have the greatest needs, fire/rescue
and police, already have their own volunteer coordinators. In the
area of needed clerical volunteers, it may be possible to
coordinate with local colleges to get interns on a regular basis
to aid in addressing the clerical work backlog.
Staff's recommendation to address the three specific areas of
identified need are as follows:
1) The need for a fire safety education volunteer can be
addressed by the Fire/Rescue Administration. The Fire/Rescue
staff are uniquely qualified to recruit and train volunteers in
the field of fire safety. It is suggested that volunteers be
coordinated with the Inspections Department to ensure that its
concerns and needs are addressed.
2) Social Services has an identified need for volunteers, but
Social Services is unable to utilize volunteers without additional
personnel to both intensively train and intensively supervise
volunteers in these socially, sensitive programs. Staff believes
that Social Services has more pressing needs related to its
current workload, and therefore does not recommend a volunteer
coordinator for Social Services at this time.
3) The schools currently utilize significant numbers of
volunteers, but existing local recruitment resources could be
better utilized. Staff suggests that the schools establish closer
ties with RSVP, the United Way, and the Senior Center and utilize
these agencies' extensive experience to recruit additional
volunteers. Further improvements may result from a more intensive
study of the schools recruitment processes."
Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Tucker and Ms. White for the information and
said the report was very thorough. She asked why the Library system was not
mentioned. Ms. White said a lot of the different agencies, although supported
by the County, have their own intense, volunteer recruitment and training
program. She thinks the Library was put in the same category as a lot of the
agencies which already have volunteer programs in place.
Mrs. Humphris said this is an excellent report which seems to have
answered all of the questions that she had. She agrees with the fact that the
County schools could possibly utilize community volunteers to a much greater
extent and would add the University of Virginia (I/Va) to the list of
resources, particularly in the field of science.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the teachers at the high schools should be
working more closely with the professors at UVa. Some of the programs and
videos that UVa offers are not above the high school students, and the City of
Charlottesville is currently utilizing these. Mrs. Humphris said these are
"real world" subjects that the students should have the opportunity to view.
There was a consensus of the Board to accept staff's recommendations.
Agenda Item No. 19. Discussion: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Transition Plan.
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 323
(Page 19)
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
,,BACKGROUND: The newly enacted Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) is a comprehensive federal statute that attempts to change
stereotypes and assumptions about disabilities and to ensure equal
opportunity and economic self-sufficiency for disabled people.
The Act extends the 1973 Section 504 regulations, which applied
only to agencies receiving federal funds, to all public entities.
Ail state and local governments are now required to provide equal
access to all programs, services, agencies, and facilities as well
as equal employment opportunities to all disabled persons.
To comply with the regulations, all non-structural changes needed
to provide access to programs and services were to have begun
January, 1992; all required structural changes must be in place by
January, 1995. To document current accessibility to County
programs and services to the disabled and to identify those areas
that need to be changed, the County is required to prepare a
transition plan.
To develop this plan, a County Advisory Committee was established
in April, 1992 to evaluate County programs and facilities for ADA
accessibility and to make recommendations for ADA compliance. The
Advisory Committee consisted of staff from County departments that
provide services to the public, as well as those that have an
interest in the regulations of the ADA.
The draft Transition Plan (on file) is the result of the
Committee's work over the past slx months and is submitted to you
at this time for your approval. Following your approval, the
Transition Plan will be presented at a public hearing in December
in order to solicit input from the community, particularly those
members of the community with a disability. The plan has been
reviewed and approved by the Deputy County Attorney and
recommended structural changes have been incorporated into the FY
93/94-97/98 CIP for completion by 1995.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the ADA
Transition Plan and set a date for a public hearing for community
input."
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set public hearing for
December 9, 1992, and approve the Transition Plan at that time. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Discussion: Debt Service.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUND: The sheets (on file) provide information prior to
Wednesday's CIP work session on current and projected debt
service, which will hopefully assist you in making critical
funding decisions for future capital projects and provide you with
a basis for the decisions of County Executive staff in reviewing
and recommending FY 93-94 projects.
As shown on the first sheet (on file), debt service as a
percentage of General Fund revenues has risen sharply in the past
four years from approximately 4.3% in 1989 to a little over 8% in
1993. The annual dollar outlay for debt service has risen from
approximately $2.0 million to the current FY 92-93 debt service of
$5.2 million. With projected VPSA bonds of approximately $11.0
million in FY 93-94, $2.0 million in FY 94-95 and $7.0 million in
FY 95-96, annual debt service will reach almost $7.0 million by
1995. Although the graph shows debt service holding fairly
steadily from FY '95 to FY '98, the projection for the out-years
does not include the proposed new high school nor do they
accurately reflect the additional projects that will in all
likelihood be added as the funding year approaches.
The second sheet (on file) shows the increasing proportion of new
revenues committed to debt service since 1990 and its impact on
the remaining discretionary revenues for inflationary increases
and ongoing projects.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is not recommending that you take any
action on this information at this time. This information is
provided simply to make you aware of the County's current and
projected debt service level as you consider the proposed CIP
budget. We are continuing to analyze this issue further and will
be presenting a possible fiscal debt service policy for your
consideration in the near future."
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 324
(Page 20)
Mr. Marshall said in looking at the information provided, eight percent
of all the revenues the County .collects go toward debt service and asked if
this is correct. Mr. Tucker said "yes." Mr. Marshall asked if 8.1 percent of
the money that is received in 1993 will go toward debt service. Mr. Tucker
said "yes." Mr. Bain said it goes up in 1995 to 9.5 percent. Mr. Tucker said
there is a dip in 1996. It gets complicated because staff has to manage when
these programs or new capital projects come on-line. Staff is trying to
manage it so it impacts the county the least because when making debt service
payments, a payment on interest is being made, followed by an interest and
principal payment. Staff is trying to manage this when it comes on-line with
the reassessment year because this is when the balloon payment comes due.
Every two years there is more revenue to deal with. All of these things are
taken into account when trying to manage a program and deciding when the best
time to come forward with various projects in the CIP.
Mr. Bain said the bond climate has something to do with this too and
asked what percentage rate the County obtained in October. Mr. Tucker said he
has not heard yet, but thinks it is still around six percent.
Mr. Marshall said a lot of people do not understand that when money is
borrowed on bond issues, taxes are actually being increased. Mr. Tucker said
taxes are not increased by the bond issue, but are increasing normally because
of growth in the County. Mr. Marshall said when it gets to where ten percent
of the revenue is going toward payment of debt service, taxes will be
increased. Mr. Tucker said there are two options, increasing taxes to bring
in revenue to cover debt service payments or reducing the amount of
expenditures in the operating budget.
Mr. Perkins said this is the reason he voted against spending the money
for teacher bonuses. He feels this money should go toward paying that debt.
He does not know what impact this has on it, but any money that can be paid
today will keep from having to pay interest in the future. Mr. Bain said this
is one of the reasons the Board tried for meals tax; to pay debt service.
Mr. Bowerman said the bonds were used to construct facilities that were
needed, primarily schools. If the money had not been borrowed, the County
would have had to get the funds from general revenues. Mr. Bain said as far
as schools are concerned, he has not heard any comments on his recommendation
that the County look at doing something with the City as far as a high school
is concerned. The longer construction of a new high school is put off, if
something can be worked out with another jurisdiction that has 400 seats
available, the better.
Mr. Perkins said he feels a factor is that the County is getting to the
point that the public should have a say in how much money it borrows. Mr.
Tucker commented that these bonds will not be sold until November 18, 1992.
Agenda Item No. 23. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 12:15 p.m., Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to go into
Executive Session under Section 2.1-344.A.1 for discussion of Personnel. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 24. Certify Executive Session.
MOTION: Mr. Bain
SECOND: Mrs. Humphris
MEETING DATE: November 4, 1992
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of
The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that
such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia
law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each
member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
M B. 42, Pg. 325
VOTE:
AYES:
Mr. Martins, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman,
Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
ABSTAIN DURING VOTE: None.
Agenda Item No. 21. Work Session': 1993/94-1997/98 Capital Improvements
Program (CIP).
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
"BACKGROUND: The information submitted (on file) is for your
review prior to the CIP work session on Wednesday. The material
includes the following:
· a list of the FY 93-94 funded projects based on priorities
set by the Planning Commission;
· a funding summary for general government and school
projects;
· a revenue sheet including a proposed VPSA bond schedule for
school projects;
· a project spreadsheet with County Executive recommendations
superimposed over Planning Commission recommendations.
The recommended FY 93-94 CIP totals $13,275,920, $2,048,114 for
general government projects and $11,227,806 for school projects,
which includes $8,079,000 for the new middle school. As you can
see on the sheets (on file), $11,151,400 is proposed for funding
through VPSA bonds, leaving $2,124,520 to be financed from other
sources.
Because of the increasing debt service burden on the County,
several of the recommended FY 93-94 school projects, although
eligible, are not funded through VPSA bond revenues. Many
projects, both school and general government, were deferred for
funding until 1993-94."
Mr. Marshall said under "Highways and Transportation," the Avon
Street/Route 20 Connector is listed under 1994-95, but Item 133 indicates a
Route 20/64 Interchange study. He feels if this is done the connector road
would not have to be built. He thought this study had been basically "written
off'~ and was not going to happen. Mr. Tucker said he does not think this will
take the place of the Route 20/Avon Street Connector. VDoT is not being
receptive to putting an interchange at Avon Street going in beside Parham
Construction. VDoT's intention is that a potential interchange at Avon and
the existing Route 20 interchange is too close to meet its standards for
interstate standards even putting a tight diamond interchange at Avon Street.
Staff has worked with the City to push this idea, but the state has not been
receptive and has denied the request twice.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the interchange
study was a proposal to study both interchanges and use the $50,000 to study
improvements to the Route 20 interchange, and also use the opportunity to have
that person evaluate the true feasibility and possibility of getting an
interchange into Avon Street from a cost standpoint. The scope of the study
in the CIP includes a study of both interchanges, but as Mr. Tucker said,
staff,s understanding from the state is that it is highly unlikely that VDoT
would be willing to permit that interchange.
Mr. Bain said the Board's understanding was that it was the federal
government who opposed it and VDoT did not want to "bite the bullet" and said
the County should make the request. The County then sent correspondence, but
did not get anywhere.
Mr. Marshall asked if the connector road is going to be built from Route
20 to Avon Street Extended. Mr. Tucker said it is mn the plan and the Board
may have to make that decision when it gets closer to deciding. The Board is
going to have the same decision to make on Berkmar Drive and other roads like
that.
Mr. Benish said the concept of that road, as development occurs in the
areal would still be a road to improve the east/west network. It may not be a
road that staff would recommend as a CIP project, but in the development
review this sort of connection would probably be looked at. Staff sees merit
in the road whether the interchange is there or not.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the plan went somewhat awry when the forestry
department changed their minds about building in the area. Mr. Bain said
"yes." Mr. Tucker said another way of looking at this is to wait until
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 326
(page 22)
development starts occurring on those parcels that this road alignment is
planned on and try to get some of it done at that time.
Mr. Bain said this Board was told years ago that it is not a local road,
there are enough local connections and another one is not going to be approved
to be built for that purpose. Mr. Bain asked if there would be funds in the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), to do something with
this interchange. Mr. Benish said he can check and find out, but he does not
know if there is a necessarily a new pot of money for that type of project
under ISTEA. There are, theoretically, new monies available for different
types of project, but he does not know if interchanges are included.
Mr. Tucker said a request has been received regarding the Brownsville
Recreational Equipment. Members of the PTO are asking that the Board fund the
recreational equipment prior to the improvements that will be made to the
rebricking and expansion of Brownsville. This is not in the list as a high
priority, but will be one that the Board will be contacted about. The Board
will also be contacted about the track at Albemarle High School. One of the
items that Mrs. Humphris spoke to earlier, is the question of the Jcint
Security Complexes request. The request was submitted somewhat late, but the
Commission did receive it. The request is for the next phase to the intake
center of the Joint Security Complex. Staff is leery of funding, upfront,
these projects when the state is not giving any commitment as to whether or
not it will fund the other 50 percent of CIP projects. The City has the same
concerns. The County did go forward and do the latest expansion, but staff
feels it is important that this be pushed through the General Assembly so
something is done about the funding for the jail systems. This is not funded
as a high priority on the list, but could change if a firm commitment from the
state were received.
Mrs. Humphris said this Board has never found any way to get a
commitment of any kind upfront for the Joint Security Complex. This is the
problem in getting funding. The localities are always willing to do it if a
commitment can be received, but the commitment is never there. Mr. Tucker
said the Joint Security Complex was not funded in hopes that a commitment
would be received, it was not received and then the County realized the need
was so great it had to go forward with the project, and it was funded for this
current year.
Mr. Bain asked if the priority ranking of school projects is the way
they came from the schools. Mr. Tucker said what the Board has are the
recommended priorities from the Planning Commission. The priorities did move
somewhat, but very little. Mr. Bain asked staff to pick out the school items
which were not funded and which are under $100,000 each, add those together
for possible inclusion in the bond issue which is contemplated for Spring,
1993, and report at the December 2 meeting as to the effect the inclusion of
these projects would have on the overall costs of the bond issue. Mr.
Bowerman said he feels this is a good way to deal with items related to the
existing schools.
Mr. Tucker drew the Board's attention to bond revenue projects for
playgrounds. Most are shown under General Government because most of those
are handled through the Parks and Recreation Department. That may change next
year so all of them are listed under schools. General Government tries to
share in those costs when they refer to or deal with playgrounds. Mr.
Bowerman asked if the bleachers for Albemarle High School are included in that
amount. Mr. Bain said "yes."
Mr. Bowerman asked which of the $100,000 in renovations is being
recommended. Mr. Tucker said it was a cut-back on what was to be done. Part
of what will be brought back to the Board is the idea of providing a central
processing center for development activities and obtaining of permits. Staff
is looking at some renovations to make this idea work.
Mr. Marshall said he just wanted to remind the Board of the discussion
earlier. This will be financed for 20 years and in 1995 it will be over nine
percent of revenue to fund these projects.
Mr. Bain said he would like all of this information back before this
Board takes action on it December 16. Mr. Tucker said staff plans to
recommend that this not be voted on until January and have the public hearing
on December 16, 1992.
Mr. Bain asked what happened to Item ~12 for Information Services-
computer upgrade. This is a huge cutback. Ms. White said this was reduced
because there were a lot of costs that staff felt were on-going costs and the
operating budget was a more appropriate place for these.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set the public hearing
for the 1993/94-1997/98 Capital Improvements Program for December 16, 1992.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 327
(page 23)
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board could change its action taken on the
American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan public hearing from
December 9, 1992, to December 16, 1992, because the agenda for December 9,
1992, is long.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to change the public
hearing for the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan to
December 16, 1992. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Tucker distributed an item regarding appointments. He said this
information was not listed on the agenda, but was brought to his attention
late yesterday. He has highlighted the boards and commissions where
individuals are eligible for reappointment and who have notified staff that
they would like to seek reappointment.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to make the following
appointments (set out below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
(The following appointments were made:)
Architectural Review Board: Ms. Diane Edgerton Miller, Mr.
Rudolph A. Beverly and Mr. Harry W. Porter, for terms to expire on
November 14, 1996. Mr. Porter was reappointed with the
understanding that he wishes to serve only until the ARB
Guidelines are completed, so the Board will look favorably upon
his resignation at any time that it is rendered.
BOCA Code Board of Appeals: Mr. Burton M. Webb was reappointed to
a term which will expire on August 21, 1997.
C~m,,~%ty Corrections Resources Board: Mr. James L. Camblos, III,
was reappointed to a full term which will expire on December 31,
1996.
Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals: Mr. William C. Thacker was
reappointed to a term which will expire on November 21, 1996. Mr.
Tom Trevillian was reappointed to a term which will expire on
November 21, 1997.
Jefferson Area Board on Aqinq: Mr. Mark Reisler was reappointed
to a term which will expire on October 20, 1995.
Riviera Solid Waste Citiz~n~ Advisory Committee: William M.
Colony and W. Joseph Hoeller, Jr. were reappointed to terms which
will expire on December 31, 1994.
Equalization Board: Hiawatha Green, James E. Clark, Jr. and Betty
Starke were reappointed for the calendar year 1993; terms will
expire December 31, 1993.
Mr. Tucker said 1994 will mark the 250th Anniversary of the creation of
Albemarle County. He thought it may be appropriate, depending on the feelings
of the Board, to put together a staff committee with at least one member of
the Board, in exploring some things that the County can do to commemorate that
Anniversary. Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins agreed to serve on
the committee.
Mr. Perkins said he and Mr. David Benish attended the meetings of the
Blue Ridge Committee for the Shenandoah National Park Related Land Study. The
next meeting is set for the first Thursday of in January, 1993, in Elkton. He
reported that the bill which the Honorable George Allen introduced in Congress
concerning the swapping of land between the Park Service and VDoT, did not
pass. There are now four members of Congress from counties which physically
touch the Shenandoah National Park. He talked with Mr. Robert Brandenburger,
Assistant County Executive, about discussing in January, an attempt to get
these representatives to join with Albemarle County to get Mr. Allen's
legislation passed.
Mr. Perkins said that he received a phone call from a fireman and was
told that the road from Earlysville to Crozet and around to Yancey Mill has
had its name changed. The section he is referring to is from Route 250, which
everyone in Crozet knows as the Half-Mile Branch Road, is proposed to be named
"Slab Town Road." He asked what the process will be in determining the name
of a road. Mr. BrandeD_burger said Planning staff, as a result of some
concerns, is discussing renaming a section of that road.
November 4, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 328
(page 24)
Mr. Perkins said one of his constituents received a letter from Mr. Dan
Roosevelt that the Highway Department will no long help people on gravel roads
to acquire right-of-ways. He asked that staff confirm this with Mr.
Roosevelt, and to consider assigning a County staff member to this task.
Mr. Perkins said he has been contacted by a couple of landowners
regarding deer season which will begin December 16, 1992 and he has talked
with Chief John Miller about having extra police available in helping the game
warden to respond to any complaints during the upcoming hunting season.
Mr. Martin inquired as to the date a report from the Fiscal Impact
Committee can be expected. Mrs. Humphris said it is scheduled to have a
completed update in December from the Fiscal Impact Committee.
Mr. Marshall said he received a phone call concerning the name of the
road from Milton to Route 53 and on to Saddlewood and said this is supposedly
to have been named ,,Buck Island Road." Residents in that vicinity are
presently in the process of getting a petition. There are currently no signs
installed with a road name. He wanted staff to know that there is a petition
coming forward with a suggested name for that road.
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 3:29 p.m.
~' - ' ~hair~an