1991-11-1356
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on November 13, 1991, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
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. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge~ of Allegiance.
· Agenda ItemNo~,.3~ Moment 0f Silenae~~
Agenda Item No. 4.
Public.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Mr. Warren Edward Van Dell stated that he lives at 737-C Mountainwood
Road in, the Co~ty. He said that he had to vote at Piedmont,College~during
the.last election, and the parking arrangements therewere really bad. He
described the voting arrangements and indicated that there are two people at
the main table~,two-people',at-four~other tables and one:person at each voting
booth. He stated that there are also numerous people at the poll attempting
to converse with the voters and distributing literature. He urged the Board
to change the parking arrangements from the very small lot to one of the
larger lots. - .~
Mr. Van Dell then talked about the fiscal condition of the County. He
strongly believes .that the best tax rate for State, local and Federal taxes
and thebest income generated is at.the>50 percent'tax level.--~He pointed out
thatthe Federal level is approximately 35 percent, and the maximum Virginia
State level is.approximately six percentl He said that if the State tax level
was doubled, .it would stillbe under the50 percent tax level.'~'.~He' addedthat
~f the' tax level: is'raised, not only would~the.County:h~ethe~funding~'it
needs to improve~its'school, system, but also there would ~be~enough fUnds',.to
improve the hi§hway~..~ He believes that,the Western Bypass from.Covesvilie to
Ruckersvillewasthe~engineers, l,preferred~ roadway,~and~it~ras 'deleted.no~ i.~<~
because it was.~not.~a sound roadway project, but.because~ of.-the-fund%ng .... ~e~
suggested that' this. Board-put.pressure.on thel~gis~ators in Richmond to-raise
the tax rate~ H~.noted that ~he transferning of the responsibility from the
Federal.i government to the State and local governments (Reaganomics) hasn't
died, but is taking a nap during George Bush's administration. He would
appreciate it if this Board could give it a "wake up call."
~." Mr. Lloyd Giles, VicePresident of the-Brookmere-HomeowvaerS~sso'ciati°n,
spoke about the~problems at the Route 29 and~Greenbrier Drive interseetion.-.~.-
He explained that he~hadilived inthat,viCinity for ~pproximately &.year andre
half~,~and hedescribed theproblem, as traffic going foumways,~wlth.~no'~t~rn
signals. ~He-then~men%i'oned a situation that happened'to him-'kwo~weeks~ago~
~e said .that he, pu~led :to the:center of the ~roadwith his--le~t~,'t~r~signai on,
a-nd~ a~car' met-him'and-'~stopped~'~in~'fr°nt of himlwithOut~a signal~ He, explained
that~the person,go~ out of the carl andc~lled him.names, but finatly~back~d
of~f and-let him makethe, turn.~ He stated ~thati~.raffin,~from Hillsdaie is '~"~,~
coming into the~inte~section and is causing~a
realizesthat~in~some cases 'traf.fiC lights, slow.vehicles down, but~he..thinks
this is betterthan speeding .them up. He cal.led:mttention; too, .to_the fact
that the Senior Center generates~a lot of tr'gffic withelderly drivers. He
asked if consideration nouldbe giyen~t? having a left or right turn signal
installed at the Route 29 and Greenbrier' Driveintersection. .He suggested
that a study needs to be done, and the engineers~need,toadvise'~the. Coun~y~s
to-what, is needed.~i ....
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)'
(Page 2)
57
Mrs. Elizabeth Gleason stated that she lives on Yorktown Drive in
Charlottesville. She said that she was at the meeting on behalf of the Senior
Center and is the current Chairman of that Board. She noted that the Senior
Center has from 50 to 100 people in attendance in its new building, and they
come and go at all times of the day. She said that because of this, traffic
has vastly increased in the vicinity of Rio Road and Route 29, and the Route
29/Greenbrier Drive intersection has become a very dangerous situation. She
said that she knows people do not want to slow down, but there needs to be a
left hand signal installed. She noted that people are also coming from
Hydraulic Road to Rio Road, and this causes heavy traffic. She understands
that Mr. Roosevelt is going to do another traffic count, and she hopes that
this survey will indicate that a left turn signal is essential at the Route
29/Greenbrier Drive intersection~ Mr. Bowie stated that he noticed that Mr.
Roosevelt was taking notes, so he assumes that the Board will get a report
concerning this.
~Agenda Item No. 5, Consent Agenda.r Motion was offered by~Mr,'~Bain, ~
second~d~by Mrs. Humphris, to approve 5.1, and to accept the remaining items
on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the motio~ c~artied
by the following-recorded vote: -~
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie,-Mrs. Humphris, Mr. P~erkins-:and Mr.~Way.
NAYS: None. ~
Item 5.1. Memorandum. dated October 28, 1991, fromMr~Patrick K.~
Mullaney,~DirectorofParks &Recreation, entitled "Rivanna Park GatePermit
Revision~"-was received as follows: ' '~
"Last May the Rivanna Park Committee recommended that a nonresident
parking fee be charged on weekends next softball season dueto high
usage, by nonresidents. ~.~
Since~the ~park road is a~state road, we~need to revise our-,permi~
agreement with the Highway Department in order to charge such a fee.
Enclosed please-find,three copies of the revised Spe¢ial'~ Land Use
Permit Agreement. This permit is substantially the same as the
existing agreement with the exception of condition #1, which gives us
the flexibility to charge a facility use fee if we so desire. This
agreement is.identicaltothe Walnut Creek agreement.
treSpectfutly request that the Board of Supervisors authorize the
Chairman to sign this revised agreement. Ail three copies should be
signed and then'~returned to Ms. Angela Tucker's office (VDoT)~for
completion of processing."
By the vote recorded above, ~he Chairman was authorized to sign the
following, gate permit: ~- ~
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/ALBEMARLE COUNTY
SPECIAL LAND USE~PERMIT ~AGREEMENT
~. Permission is hereby granted to the Albemarle County~Board of
Supervisors to construct a gate or other ba=rier across'and to block
and. close Route 1421 in Albemarle County-. Route 1421 is to be blocked
for the purpose of providing .security for Rivanna Park and its facili-
ties in Albemarle~County.
-~The permission-~hereunder granted being .subjectto.thefollowing
terms, conditions andrestrictions:
1. A fee for park facility usage may be collected'at'the park
entrance tocover the cost of park.facility operations. Nofee
shall be assessed for use of roads within thestate secondary
highwaymainten~ance system~ i_ ~
2. The gate, gates, or other barrier gates are tO be erected in
accordance with plans or sketches submitted~to ~andapproved by
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
58
the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transporta-
tion. The gates are to be located as approved by the Resident
Engineer, and the construction is to be under the supervision and
direction of the Resident Engineer. The County of Albemarle
agrees to bear the full cost of all such devices present and
future.
The gates are to be locked when closed, and keys are to be
furnished to the Resident Engineer. Albemarle County Board will
be responsible for other interested parties having access when
the gates are closed. (Law enforcement, fire and life saving
personnel.)
The gates are to include reflectors and/or reflectorized signs to
indicate the road is blocked, as well as a sign indicating hours
the Pa=k, will ,be/open to the PUbtic.~ Th, County agrees~to.bear
the full,cost for all such devices present, and future, ·
Operation of the gate,,or gates,~.and the closing andopening of
gates, is to ~be enti=ely:by personnel~f Albemarle Connty.
6. The Virginia Department of Transportation Board shall not be
responsible-for any damage or-~iabi,lity arising from oN out of
the exercise 0f~the~privileges ~erein~granted or from any *operar
tions :~m~connection ~i~th the ga~es.~r,~Pa~k~ .... : ~:~?
7. The-County shall at all times give strict attention to the safety
and rights of the traveling public, his employees and himself.
Failure .toemployprope= traf~c-con~l~and:construCtlon stan-
dards=manda~edby, permit~shall be,cause-for ~he Resident~Engi~eer
~o or~er.t~he~P~rmittee:off~th~zights Off-way,and/or h~ cau~se'for
revocation.of Permit~ ~,~ - -
10.
The~County agrees~tocarry insuranceagainst liability.for .
personalinjury andprOperty damage :that may ar, is, from the work
performed under permit and/or from the operation of the permitted
activity -~'upto on, million doll.ars ($1,,000,000), each occur-
rence"~oprot:ect the,Board Membersand :Depa~tment'sagen~s~or~
employees;?seventy.-fiv~thousanddollars..($75,000) each~occu~r-~
fence to protect~the~Board, Depa~.tment.,,~o=-the-Commonwealth,'in
the event of suit. ~ -
This Permit. is not.t=anSferab.le, and,shall ,be,revocable by~he
Virgi~ia~Pepar. tment~o,fTranspOrtationBoarR,.upem~3~:days~ natiee..~
This.Pe~mit.~.shall~.ibe"revocable wi:thout prior no,ice-upon~:b~acb,
by the~Pe-rmittee~ofany of the 'terms thereof.
11. This: Penni't · sha~l not be const~ued-:'as ~a,: gr.ant of: permanent
interest or-easement, ~or .,as an abandonment ~of ~use-~ :of t,i~tte~-:to~ the
said~ =oad, :or-:any~ part thereof, anything ~ herein :contained t'o~::the
contrary no~withstanding.. ~ ~ -:~
12. I~edi~ately upon the revocation,~ cancellation ~r~expir~ion- o,f
this Permit, the Pemi, ttee~ sh~all remave from:-the premises ,of the
Vi'rginim. Departmant of Transportation ail structures, facilities
and other appurtenances installed or erected by it or used by
Under the ~te=ms of this Permit, ~d shall ~restore the ~pr~ises to
a condition sati. s,f,actory '~o the~Virginia ~Departmen~,~of ~rams.poz~
ration '-Board.
13. ~is Permit may,be canceled at the-requ~t Of the Permittee upon
60 days notice subject to the terms of paragraph 10 above.
Item 5.2. ~Count~,Execut~ve.'s ~:Financial Management Report for., Sep~tember,
1991, received ?.as '~in, fomat~ion as ~.follows:
"Attached~i,s the September,~l,991 Financi.al~ Report. There are.no items
which ~ show :.any ~ant~icip~ed ~ variances.
§@
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Perhaps the most significant number on the report is the balance of
revenues over expanses. Year to date expenses for the General Fund
and School Fund exceeded revenues by $7,817,897 (General $7,585,919;
School $231,978). This is a normal occurrence during the first
quarter of the fiscal year; however, this does emphasize the
importance of an adequate fund balance at year end.
This report has been slightly modified from the August report. The
projected column has been revised to reflect the reserve reduction on
a more realistic basis. In the General Fund the five percent reduc-
tion is being applied to departmental budgets, not fixed amounts such
as the transfer to the School Fund and the City/County Revenue Shar-
.~': ing. This~'fivepercent~is,~still being applied to General Fund sala-
.... rios which is probably not realistic across the board. In the School
Fund the 15 percent reduction is only being applied to the discretion-
ary, accounts,~'not Salaries or,fixed expenses~ Hopefully thiswill
more~accuratelyshow~our financial position.? ~
Mr.,Bowie said this report has a new format, and'herhad some trouble
understanding it~.' He asked Mr. Tucker to give the Board a quick review of the
format~,~
Mr.' ~Tucker explained that the staff tried to.separate'the School Fund and
the General Fund ~So that this ~Board could distinguish between the, two~:-, He
pointed,~·out that the ~projected amount for' the ·School ~Fund-~for FY~199t
depictS, the reduced' amOunt of 15 percent~that the ,,schools are considering~in
terms of .reduction,of~ its budget for fixed ~coSts onlY~ '~ ~He noted that~the
schools~, budget implies~a i5· percent reduction, but this reduction only~deals
With operating,costs and'~not a '15~ percent reduction on?salaries, etc, He
statedthat the General~ Government has studied an overall budgetary~redUction
of five percent~ and .that is why the General ~Government! s- pro~ected'~ redUct{on
is considerably, greater than the~,schools' .reduction. He added that it will be
difficult ~to reduce salaries and fixed costs by five percent, but it is a goal
that is being considered. He went ,on to say,that debt service, revenue
sharing, etc.', cannot be :reduced by five ~percent, so these types of, things
have.-been pulled out. He said that he cannot guarantee the amount of revenue
that will be attained. He noted that the revenues are considerably less than
the expenditures, ~but he explained that this is common at this time ~of~the ·
year. He said that December 5, is when taxes,,are due, and~that .~s the ,time
that the Fund,,Balance- will increase ,again. He thinks ~ that ~thisl is~ ~another
reason ~to~emphasime the need'for a Fund'~Balance~of over $8,~000,000 because it
is needed ~ for operations ~during. the year ~, ~' The' Fund Balance~ is -low 'now ~ ~but
hopefully 'the County can get by until December without '~borrowing ,money,~ ,,'Re
stated that the, January report will show~ increased-revenues, but they w~ill
graduallY reduce 'every~month~thereafter~ ~ .'. ~,,'~ ~ ~L~, ~-.~ ......
~Mr. Bowie~wondered, considering,the State's funding shortages, if these'.~-
projected savings,are~ all that the 'County will have next year. Mr~ ~-Tucker~
answered that this is correct ......
Mr. Bowie~said it is imperative~ that~the Fund Balances be retained~until
next year's situation is~known. Mr. Tucker~replied that theFund Balancewitl
be ~retained until it' is. studied'~in January ,when?another ,review is~made
rev,enue~proje¢,tions fore,this year and next~year~
· Item ~5.·3. MemorandUm ~of~'Agreement ~between~the Virginia ~Department
TranSpOrtation, andr the Virginia Division-of,Natural- Resources, ~eceived as-~
information as fo~tows:. ~ ...... ~.~ ~ ·
"The purpose of this. memorandum is to advise you on. ho~ the 'July 30,
1991, Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) adopted ~by ~the~Departments of
Transportation and :Natural ~Resources will affect Albemarle County~..~
BackKround: The MOA is intended to achieve early~coordination on road
projects '.between Commonwealth departments to, specifically, identify:~i·
Environmental impacts;
Adverse ~environmental effects ·that cannot be.avoided; . ·
Measures to minimize the, impac~ on the project;
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
6O
Alternatives to the proposed road construction; and
Any irreversible environmental changes.
The following process is used only between state agencies:
VDoT promulgate six year plans annually;
VDoT notify all agencies when a project is initiated;
Agencies provide environmental inventories on project;
VDoT provide preliminary consolidated environmental inventory;
Agencies determine if project is a major or nonmajor impact;
Monthly meetings on major projects until all issues resolved; or
Unresolved issues settled by Commissioners or Secretariats.
This process is restricted to only state funded roads that are consid-
ered major projects as determined by the coordinating agencies during
their earlier meetings.
The ultimate goal is to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, between
state agencies, on all issues prior to a location decision or final
commitment for advertisement.
Discussion: The coordination should ,have a-positive, effect on resolv-
ing environmental and historical impacts resulting f~romptanned road
projects except a missing linkthroughout this process is ~the-~lack of
participation ,by the locality'.-Thislackof participation is two-
fold:
No notification when the process starts nor request for us to
comment on the project; and
No statusor information is provided to us on the issues and
resolutions as,the project proceeds through the process.
The result is~that there may be mutual agreementbetween state ~agen-
cies but serious disagreement by the locality. Whether this absence
of local participation was intentional or an oversight is undetermined
but some participation needs to take place,~
Discussion with Dan RooseVelt, ResidentEn§ineer,~and Edgar,RObb,
VDoT',s primary aon~tact in Richmond, has indicated~a willingness to
keep the County informed on relevant projects and issues. Staff will
work with VDoT on road projects undergoing this review process and
provide periodic information to you on any projector, concern."
Mrs. Humphris questioned the Memorandum of Agreement between the Virginia
Department~of Transportation and the,Virginia Division of Natural Resources.
She said that she had read this agreementbefore she and Mr. Bowerman went to
the VACO meeting. She noted that Secretary of Natural Resources, Ms.
Haskell, 'was one,of the presenters~,~nd opened her,session with questions-from
the floor.~ Mrs. Humphrisstated ~that this was a very well~ done Memorandum
which pointed out, whatthe agreement wassupposed to-do and also thequestions
that people had?.~~ She said, to-o~ that there ,was a missing link in the lack of
participation by the ,localities because there was no,notification to the
localities~of ~he~theprocess~began~ there was~no~request for~ comments from
the localities and nostatus'~or information provided~on the issues or how,
where~or, when they were~ resolved. She asked_the question atthe VAC0 meeting
if the,absence of local participation was intentional or if it was. an over-
sight._~She stated thatshe found out that it was intentiona~because the
information was intended for interdepartmental use. However, Mr. Burton of
the State Water Control Boa~rd, volunteered to keep-the Co~,nty,updated in
regard to the localquestions about~ the scoping,process. She is sure that,-he
is aware of the-County's'concerns about,its watershed and reservoirs. She
said that at least the questions' that were asked in the.memo have been an-
swerved, -
Item 5.4. Memo dated November t, 1.991-, from Robert W. Tucker,
County. E~ecutive, stating that Youth in Government Day isbeing set for-'
December~ll, ~99t, was received as information..
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
61
Item 5.5. Notice dated October 24, 1991, from the State Corporation
Commission entitled "In the matter of the Assessment for 1991 of Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation," received as information.
Item 5.6. Letter dated November 5, 1991, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident
Engineer, entitled "Current Projects Construction Schedule," received as
information.
Item 5.7. Copy of letter dated November 4, 1991, addressed to Ms. Kobby
Hoffman, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, from Mr. H. Bryan
Mitchell, State~Historic..Preservation Officer, entitled "Phase II Evaluations,
Crozet. Crossing Project," received as follows:
,'Ms.. Kobby Hoffman
i.~ · ThomasJefferson.'Planning District Commission
413 East MarketStreet,.Suite~102
Charlottesville, VA 22901-5213
~ ~ RE: Phase, IIEvaluations,~Crozet~Crossing project~,
- AlbemarleCounty; VDHR File-~No~ 5335-AB~
Dear Ms. Hoffman:
We have receivedand reviewed the above-referenced evaluation (Phase
II) report. ~The document was prepared in October 1991 by the Depart-
-,ment of Anthropo!ogy~ University Of Virginia and~was written by'Lynn~
Marie Pietak and Nina V. Weissberg. We received our review copy on
October 25. Our review of project documentation also includes consid-
eration of theinitial identification survey(Phase I)report-received
earlier this year. We apologize for not providing written comments~on~
thatpreviousreport, despite consistent timely submission of cultural
resource documentation by the University of Virginia. We are sensi-
tive to the issues raised by Francis H. Fife in his letter of October
30 and have attempted to expedite our, review-~of the University's
evaluation report in order to aVoidadditional delay.
The identification and evaluation reports provide a description of
project goals, methods, fieldwork, results and recommendations. The
level of effort and the resulting reports ~are consistent with The
Secretary of Interior's Standards for Archeology and Historic Preser-
vation (48 FR 44716.- 44742). The YDHR Archaeological Evaluation~-
Committee reviewed the,findings on October 30, 1991-and concurred-with
the consultant's recommendation that sites 44AB319, 44AB392, and
44AB393 be considered ineligible, for listing in the National Register
of Historic-Places due to their compromised, integrity and low research
potential. ~No further archaeological investigation is warranted' for
the project.
Additional. documentation provided by David Benish on November 1 has
satisfactorily addressed the issues of vegetative screening and access
to the property which were raised in our letter to you of November 27,
i990, .'Based upon this information and the results~of the archaeo-
logical evaluations discussed, above, the proposed development of the
Crozet Crossing project will have no effect on. historic properties.
If you have any questions regarding our comments,~please contact
Antony F. Opperman or EliZabeth Hoge of our~.staff. Thank you for your
c ooperat ion. ~ - .
Sincerely, ......
H. Bryan Mitchell
Deputy State/Historic Preservation Officer"
Item 5.8. Copy of letter-dated~November 7, 1991, from Amelia Patterson,
Zoning Administrator,~ to' Roger W. Ray, entitled '!Official Determination of
8
Number: of Parcels~ Section 10.3.1, .Tax Map- 89, Parcel .tJ,~ received as
information.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
62
(Mr. Bowie asked the County Executive to give the Board a cumulative
report of the effect of the Zoning Administrator's decisions in the near
future.)
Item 5.9. Letter dated November 6, 1991~ from Charles L. Clouse, Region-
al Supervisors, Division of Occupational Health, re: Notice of complaints
from employees regarding health hazards at the Charlottesville Emergency
Operators' Center, received as information.
Mr. Tucker said the letter was received because the County is the fiscal
agent for the Emergency Operations Center. He noted that the actual Center is
located in-the:basement of City Hall ..... He said that he has spoken with the
City, Manager and the Director of the Center. The Center's staff is currently
working on this issue and will respond directly to the State concerning these
complaints~ , '~. ~' ' - ' "-
Item 5.10. Letter dated October 30, 1991, from Adelphia Cable Communica-
tions, announcing changes in its services, received as information.
Item. 5.11. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for November7~ t991,
receivedas information.
Agenda ItemNo. 6. Approval of. Minutes: ~May 8 and July 17, 1991.. No
minutes had been~read., ·
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Disposition of PeytonDrive.
Mr. Tucker briefed the following memorandum dated November 7, 1991:
"With your approval of extending Commonwealth Drive through to Green-
brier Drive~ the staff has-examined the status of,Peyton Drive. .-
Peyton Drivefrom Commonwealth Driveto Greenbrier Drivel was 'dedicated
to public use~in.-1968. The enclosure identifies six parcels adjoining
_this. segment of Peyton Drive of which only parcel numbers 7, 16 and 18
are currently developed. Parcels 4, .5 and .6 are undeveloped. Ail of
the developed parcels have, access to either--Greenbrier~ Drive or
~Commonwealth, Drive and thus do not require access to Peyton Drive but
access to. parcel number 5 must be maintained through Peyton Drive. In
addition, Comdial uses PeytonDrivefor employee vehicle access
through a~side entrance. ~'A meeting with Comdial representatives
indicates this access is used by their employees in the mornings and
afternoons and~is a significant factor in reducing congestion and
traffic flow on Greenbrier Drive. Comdial prefers all of Peyton
remain op~n_.but at.a minimum wants access, to~CommonwealthDrive or ,-~
Greenbrier Drive viaPeytonDrive. ~
As parcel 5 is almost,,directly across frOm. :the. C'omdial entrance,
either a northern or~ southern access is. possible.: Staff.'s analysis, of
the ~raffic fl0~s and road condition supports' access be~maintainedi: to
Commonwealth Drive and not to Greenbrier Dr'ive;. Staff recommends' the
following: ....
Set a public hearing for~December 11, 1991, to vacate the, Peyton.
Drive public right'of-way from Commonwealth Drive. to Greenbrier
Drive;
Prevent. access on Peyton Drive by a barricade at both Greenbrier
Drive-and the-southern portion of parcel-5;
Remove the~ road ,bed between these barricades; and
Resurfacethe remaining' portionofPeyton .Drive.between the
Comdiat entrance and .Commonwealth Drive.~
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
The above referenced work is intended to be done in conjunction with
the construction of Commonwealth Drive and funding is available in the
Commonwealth Drive project."
Mr. Way asked who will maintain the portion of Peyton Drive that will be
resurfaced. Mr. Tucker answered that the maintenance of Peyton Drive will
remain with the property owners so the County will probably work with the
property owners ~o develop a maintenance agreement between Comdial and Parcel
Five. He noted that Comdial recognizes, and he believes that the owners of
Parcel Five also recognize, that the maintenance of that portion of Peyton
Drive will ultimately be their responsibility. He added that this portion of
PeytonDrive will besimila= ~to ~aprivate driveway,
Mr. Bowerman wondered how the property will revert to private ownership
when the public,~rightr~of-way 'is' given up. Mr.~- Tucker explained that normally
the property lines-are extended,to the ~center off,the right-of,way ~so the
owners,wilt gain property. He said that there will have to be some type of
public or private easement provided for Comdial and Parcel Five for that
portion of the road that ties back into Commonwealth Drive.
Mr. Bowerman stated' that this is a goodsolution for PeytonDrive. He
then, offered motion for the Board to go topublic hearing on December it-,
1991, for'vacation of the Peyton Drive public right-of-way from Commonwealth
Drive to Greenbrier Drive. -~ ~
Mrs, Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and ,the motions,
carried.,by~the~following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, ,Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr.~ Way.
NAYS: ~None. -~
Mr. Bowie .stated that since there is more involved than just closing
Peyton Drive, such. as shifting rights-of-way and maintenance, the public needs
to know fully what will be considered at the public hearing. Mr. Bain re-
markedthat the ParcelFiveownersneed to be--awareof what'is happening,
also.. Mr~Tuckerreptied that the staff 'has been working with,the owners of
Parcel Five as well as~with Comdial representatives.
Agenda Item No. 7b. StatementonVDOT Proposals ,for-Funding,- re: 1)
Memorandum dated. October 1,7,~1991, from John G. Milliken, Secretary of Trans-
portation, outlining several proposals to improve the delivery of transporta-
tion serv}ces in the _Commonwealth; and 2) Copy of "Legislative-Atert~ fr0m~
the Virginia Association of Counties re: Secretary Milliken's transportation
proposals~ ~..~
Mr. Tucker presented the ~following draft~of ,the County's position on
Secretary Milliken's~ proposed changes toimprove transport'ation services
Virginia.~ He sa~d the Commonwealth Transportation Board-~has requested that
written comments on~theproposals be submitted:byDecembe~ 1'5, i99~,~o~
comments can be-made at variouspublic meetings, theclosestof~which,is: in
R~chmond on November,~26~
DRAFT-
A lbema=le~County B~ard of Supervi.sors
Remarks on, Secretary Milliken's Proposed
Improvements to Transportation Services
November 26 ~ -1~991
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, I appreciate
the opportunity to address Secretary Milliken's proposal for improve-
ments to transportation services in the commonwealth. Atbemar~le~
County continues to,maintain ,funding of ~transportation improvements as
:a top priority and looks forward to ,any initiatives to increase our~
flexibility in-managing our,transportation needs..
With this. perspective in mind, I would like to comment on the pro-
posals. These remarks must be taken with some caution as we have not
been informed of the details of the individual proposals and thus
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
cannot fully assess their impact at the county level. In general, any
proposal that purports to increase county flexibility and responsi-
bility but lacks legislative authority for resources is considered to
be counterproductive. Shifting the burden of funding is not a viable
solution. The County stands ready to assume greater responsibility
when the resources and authority are also provided from the Common-
wealth.
In response to the specific proposals:
Establishing a separate state aRency for rail and public trans-
portation is not supported. Creating another agency adds to the
regulatory ~nd bureauCratic, processes with little improvement in
services. The focus should continue to be on streamlining government
services, not proliferating more agencies. Without further justifi-
cation, it~ isdiffAcult, to see the benefit to this proposal,.
Assuming ,more responsibility for certain-secondary highway.
functions is a double edged~sword. Having more.control over meeting
our secondary,highway needs is supported, but doing~ so*wi'll require~
additionatcounty resources unless innreased ,state ~funding roi,lows.
This is readily apparent if the County were to assume responsibility
for design, maintenance and installation of traffic control devices as
suggestedbySecretary Milliken. Albemarle County does not have
qualified staff to perform this function and thus may have to forego
the oppo~tunity~to assume-more responsibility in thesecondary highway
system.
Improving revenue sharing dollars and raising' the ceiling is
supported as an' opportunity for the County to increase our construc-
tion.of secondaryroads~ This should not-come,~however, at the
expense of reduced state funding of the Commonwealth's-secondary road
program. If this were~done, it~would further shift the fiscal burden
to the loca-lity,~and is one ~moreexamPle of the County's paying the
pricefor services .primarily provided by the Commonwealth,-
Establishing~incentivem for rural transportation planning cannot
rbe evaluated without further information., Although it may, not direct-
ly improve ,transportation services within Albemarle~ County, as trans-
portation planning is currently done at the local level, there may, be
indirect bene£itsthrough improvements in-transportation, services on
the part of all ouradjacent rural counties. If established, rural
transportation planning should utilize Planning District Commission's
expertise._ .
Lastly, requiring'Albmmarle County to-fund a greater' cost of new
secondary road constructionis not supported~ While such a proposal
will ,stretch the Commonweatth'.s limited dollars, ~theabi!ityto
actuallysee,an increase in construction 'of new secondary roadsis
unlikely. ~The reason is simple. Albemarle Countycannot continue to
absorb more state mandates on the one hand while the State reduces
funding Of these mandateson the other hand.' Thisis happening across
a~broad spect~r~ of state'~programsand having a cumulative, unfair and
adverse impact on?county taxpayers. Without broader and morediverse
revenue generating authority, the burden will ~continue to be~borne by
taxpayets owning real,and' personal property. ,This.is ,not ,,an unlimited
source of local funding,. The unfortunate outcome, of this proposal
will'be a ~reduction in the rate of transportation an~ other local,
funding needs, such as education.
Insummary,, transportation improvements are -needed bu~ not ,at the sole
expense of the-local taxpayer. AlbemarteCountyis~ awillingpartini-
pant-in ~s-eeking~ improvements~but our further reviewand~assessment of
~these proposals requires more information. We~look forwards-to'an
opportunity-to work, further with the'~'Transportation Board and Depart-
merits'in seeking solutions~
Mr~ Tucker~explained that the staff has prepared a~suggestedCounty-
position ~on the changes in. the transportation ~systemthatSecretary Milliken
is proposing. -He notedthat,while proposals~can be. submitted~hy December~15
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
65
to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, the staff has prepared this state-
ment in the event that this Board would like for one of its members or a
member of the staff to make a presentation to the Transportation Board direct-
ly. He said that public hearings would be held on the suggestions throughout
the State, but the closest one to Albemarle County will be held in Richmond on
November 26. He said the staff tried to address each one of the proposals in
the statement, and that the statement was being presented to the Board for
information and for any changes that this Board would like to make.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she and Mr. Bowerman were very fortunate when
they went to the VACO meeting to be able to sit in on the meeting of the
Transportation Committee of the Virginia Association of Counties. At that
meeting, Secretary Milliken'made a presentation on his proposed improvements
to transportation services, and everybody was able to question him about these
changes. She noted that Secretary Milliken has already gotten a lot of
'feedback since the proposal-was made. Rural counties, in particulars, wanthim
to separate out bridge projects from the .funding proposal because this is a
particular problem in the rural areas. Some localities.requested that the
proposed 20 percent portion of funding~ to be paid bY the locali~ties, ifit~
becomes a reality, ~be~phased in at two percent, five percent and ten.percent~
over a period of time. She said that some'~peoplewant it to be purely volun-
tary whether or not .they participate in the 80 percent/20 percent~funding.
Mrs. Humphris said that some counties want all localities to be treated
the same, and some people felt that theremust be lottery funRs made available
for this purpose. Rural~ counties pointed out that some of them are sending
fromtheir localities' as much in lottery monies .to Richmond, every week as is
being~reCeived in taxes, She notedthat Mr. Flip Hicks, General Counsel to
theVirginia Association of Counties, and probably the mostexperienced
lobbyist in the Stateof Virginia, made a very firmstatement to the Secretary
of TransportatiOn that~there was no way out of this situation except for the,~
State to impose an overall two percent gas taxbecause the~lo.catities had no
money, and if this proposal~ is to ~be implemented, education would suffer~ She
said' that the localities made. it clear that~ if there had to be-a choice, and
if there was not a gas tax or some similar tax, localities would choose~
educationand not transportation. She added that she hadlots of other~
information available that she would share with anybody who wants it. The
message being sent loudly and clearly by the counties is that this proposal is
not Well ~eceiv~d. ~She said that people want to discussit, but there simply
is not any money.~ ~ -
Mr-. Bowie commented that this issue.began approximately half way through
the~Baliles' administration, and Mt. Bowie .reported,.to, the.Boardafter~the
~HighwayConference,a few years ago-thattheSecretaryof. Transportation, at
that time, said that. the counties must start assuming more of the ~cost'of~
building roads',~ He said. that the reactionat that conference, was about~the~
sameas Mrs. Humphris described.' ,He said, the matter, is now a-proposal, but he
is concerned that it soon may be the law..He-does not, know-how to~'stop it
from going forward. ~ '~
Mrs. Humphris stated~that the message at the VACO meeting was overwhelm-
ing' that something had~to happen.and that-there wasn't money in~.most of the
localities. She no'ted that there are some very urban areas that, want to be'
able to move ahead, and they have some monies .to do it. But, eventhese
localities are a little reluctant. She added that the message was that the
State will have to give more help in education if it expects the localities to
assume more fiscal~respOnsibility in transportation. She, commented ~that 'these
are two, huge responsibilities~and 'property ~taxes are not going to be-able~,to
handle 'the burden. '~If'the State gives more help or'flexibility, maybe it'
could be. worked .out. Shesaid that everybody wanted to talk about'it, but
therewas a lot of reluctance, and there was less than enthusiasmatthe.VACO
meeting.
Mr. Bo~erman remarked that the proposals are based on Secretary
Milliken's letter, and the revenue side was not examined, He said it was felt
that it~was notthe.Transportation Board~,sresponsibility to.suggestthe
proposals'to the Legislature. He added that if it werefelt that enabling
legislation were needed Statewide for a two percent ~funding, it would 'ha~eto
relate to every county in the State. If this is the case, theTransportation
Board would need support by the counties during .the process-to
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
additional sources of revenue in the event that this matter was to proceed.
He went on to say that the Transportation Board recognizes that there are
serious shortfalls, but feels that this is the localities' responsibility.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that Secretary Milliken had presented a set of
ideas, and he wants constructive responses. She noted that Secretary Milliken
also made a speech to this same effect and received a lukewarm response.
Mr. Bowie suggested that the Board members decide how to get the message
back to the Transportation Board. He told Mr. Tucker that the second para-
graph of the statement needs to indicate that funding can't be done because
there is no money.
Mr. Bain stated that he thinks someone from Albemarle County should be at
the Transportation meeting in person. Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Agenda Item No~ 2c,~ Letter dated November 4, 1991, from 'John G.
Milliken, Secretary of Transportation, re: sequence of construction for the
Route 29 North improvements. The following letter was received:
'!November 4, 1991 ~
The Honorable F.~R. Bowie ~ ~ ....
Chairman, Albemarle County Board of SUpervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Chairman Bowie:
This letteris intended to reply in more detail to your letter of
August 1. TheCommonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)is con~nitted to
~the sequence, of construction assetforth in.the~ CTB's November 15,
1990, resolution. - ~-~
The CATS Plan is an,approved Plan for the Charlottesville-Albemarle
County area and it is~the intent'of theDepartment and the CTBto
carry out that Plan as funding on the primary system becomes avail-
able. Tokeep the Plan on schedule, however, it will be necessary for
theCity of Charlottesville to keep its projects at a highpriority-
and for Albemarle County to schedule the secondaryprojects inthe
CATS .Plan'~~'
It was never theintent of the CTB or the Department that the CATS
Plan not be carried-out as currently proposed, provided funding was
available.- Howe~er, the Department and the'CTB believe that-a Route
29~Bypass is an integral and important part of the regional~transpor~
tation plan and will be-neede~ in the future, even~with ~,theimplemen-
ration of the CATS Plan~
With those general, comments in mind, I would like to review the~'status
of,the three phases, includedin the CTB's November 15, 1990, resolu-
tion which were also ~addressed in yourletter of~August
~hase I..~ShOrt.-range-Recommendations: The widening of exi~sting
Route ~2.9:..to six lanes with continuous right-turn .lanes frem~the
Route 250 Bypass to the South Fork of the Rivanna River will be
accomplished by two projects as shown on Page 38 (Items 3 and 4)
of the.1991-92 Six-Year Improvement Program.. The first Project
from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is scheduled for construc-
tion in-July 1993 and the second,project, from Rio Road to the
.river, isscheduted for advertisement in July 1994~ all subject
-' to ~available funding.-. The design work is currently ~underway~-
As additional funding becomes available and scheduling permits, a
design will-be prepared for three interchanges to ~be added to the Base
Case. Thedesign~of these~interchanges is, o~ course, subject to
public :hearings and CTB. approval. The preservation and acquisition of
right-of-way for each element of the Plan-was part of Phase I. If
this~ Plan ip~/~O-'sugceed ;,the. County ~and ..:~he City mus~ do' everything
November 13, 1991 (R~e~ular Day Meeting)
(Page 12) .C.v
67
possible to preserve the right-of-way required for the construction of
the Base Case, the three interchanges and the Line 10 Corridor ap-
proved by the CTB.
The refinement of Alternative 10 is currently underway, and a prelimi-
nary plan (functional plan) will be provided to Albemarle County and
the City of Charlottesville to assist in the preservation of right-
of-way along that corridor.
After the design has been approved and right-of-way plans are pre-
pared, and subject to available funding, YDOT will consider acquiring
property which meets the Department's requirements for advanced
fright-of-way a~q~isition along Alternative 10.
In order to work with the County in the protection of the watershed,
access points~ onAlternative 10 will be limited to-those approved-by
the CTB when the corridor was designated, unlessadditional~access is
requested by the local government.
Phase II. Medium-range Reco~nendations: Three grade-separated
_ interchanges~along Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive-and Hydraulic -Road
will be built when traffic conditions dictate and funding is
available. The construction of each interchange is subject to
approval of the design after public hearings are held during
Phase ~ so that right-of-way for the interchangescan bepre-
served. '~
Phase III-._<:.~Long-rangeRecommendations: It is the intent of the
CTB and the Department to construct Alternative 10 when traffic
on Route 29 becomes unacceptable and funding permits.
You asked.us to consider how this .commitment to the GATSPlan and~ the
phasing of projects might be solidified. The following sequence of
activity spells out that commitment and I would be pleased to seek CTB
ratification of thisspecific,sequencin§ if 'theBoard of Supervisors
requests I do. so, Of,..course, the commitment of theBoard and theCity
Council to each do its part is necessary as well. - - '
The widening of Route. Z9to 'six lanes,-with continuousright
lanes from the Route 250'Bypass to the south.fork of the
Rivanna River. This is currently being designed.
2. ~ The.r~emainderof~Phase t contained in the CTB'~s resolution-
of November 15, 1990. ..... '~
3. Thecomptetion of the Meadowcreek Parkway from the Route 250
~Bypass~o Route 29 north as urban and secondary road~funding
becomes,available for the facility's right-of-way acquisi-
tion and construction cost.
4. The .construction of the interchanges on Route~'29north'at~
Rio. Road, Rydraulic Road,and Greenbrier Drive as~traffic
demands and funding permits.
5. Thepreservation',andacquisition of right-'o'f~Way forAlter-
native 10~, This will be accomplished as funding is avail-
able for this established corridor's right-of-way acquisi-
'ti0n and construction,
In closing, I trust that this letter assures the County of the Depart-
ment's and the Commonwealth Transportation~Board~'s commitment~'tothe
constructionof the CATS Plan andthat the County will assist.t~he
Department~in preserving right-of-way for'the approved'co~ridor~for
the Route29 Bypass..
If the contents of this letter meet, with'your~ approval andi~ the
County wishes to move forward with the preservation of necessary
right-of-way, I would be pleased to.,bring the attached draft resolu-
tion before the CTB for its concurrence. ·
Sincerely~ ~ ~
(Signed) John~ G. Milliken" ~ ~'
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
68
DRAFT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, in accordance with the statutes of the Commonwealth of
Virginia and policies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, the
Commonwealth Transportation Board by resolution dated November 15,
1990, approved the location of Project 6029-002-122, PE-100 in three
phases; and
WHEREAS, the three phases provided for short range, medium range,
and long range recommendations for the construction of the project in
conjunction with other projects in the city of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated August 1, 1991, the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors has requested that this Board take positive steps
to commit to the priorities which were set..forth in the Board's
resolution of November 15, 1990; and
~WHEREAS, the Board believes that the Orderly development and
funding of the various projects in acaordanne with the three phases as
set forth in the Board's resolution of NOvember~15, 1990, is in the~
public interest; and
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that ~stateand local transportation
priorities should.be harmonized where possible; and
WHEREAS, it is the sense of this Board that the Department of
Transportation adhereto the schedule of improvements as set forth in
the November 15, 1990, resolution; and ~ ~ - ~
WHEREAS, the Board-strongly believes that 'the Route 29 Bypass
(Alternative 10) should be constructed in concert with the construc-
tion-of the CATS Plan; now therefore
'BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commonwealth Transportation Board direct
the Department of Transportation to take all ~steps and'~make all effort
to-complete~-the projects approved in its resolution of November 15,
1990, as more fully set out in a letter to F. R. Bowie dated Novem-
ber 4~ 1~991, from John G...Mitliken, ~which is attachedheretoand~made~
a part of this resolution.
Mr. Bowie~ said this letter reaffirms the three phases of construction,
and the'.commonwealth Tr.anSportation Boardwill pass a resolution'which says
that grade-separated interchanges, improvements to Route 29, etc..will all
come before any~construction ~of Option 10. '.He'asked Mr. Bowerman if he wanted
to comment on the Joint Transportation meeting that was mentioned inMr~
Bowie's .letter of :response,
Mr. Bowerman stated that Mrs Bowie made 'reference to the Joint Transpor-
tation me,ting that was held with~the County, City ~and the University~He'
said the~questions ~aised about the interchangesare a result of that commit-
tee and not of the offiDial bodies, but~ this should bea primary recommenda-
tion. He mentioned that also included in his letter ~are comments-about, the
North. Grounds University entrance as well asthe Meadow Creek Parkway~ He
added that it was the feeling of the Transportation Committee that it could
recommend to its relevantbodies this basic proposal in the'hope that a joint
document could be sent to the Transportation Boardsuppor.ting a schedule.of
funding and the specific:items upon which all three bodies.~have agreed. ~e
said that this is basically,the outline of the letter~
~Mr~ Bowie remarked that staf>f- is working ona draft~resotution. ~'Mr.
Tucker..~agreed that Mr. Bowie was correct-.
'Mr. ~Bowie' askedif there would be ~one.resolution for all three gover~ning
bodies to sign.~ Mr.--Tucker~ answered that~he is preparing~it~insucha way
that it eould be~a~opted by-~all three entitieswith all signatures on one ~.'~
resolution ....
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Bowerman asked if its official status would be from the Joint Trans-
portation Committee. Mr. Tucker replied, "no." He said the resolution would
represent each jurisdiction. He added that the resolution was suggested by
the Joint Transportation Committee, but it would then go to each jurisdiction
for approval.
Mr. Bain suggested that the Metropolitan Planning Organization be in-
volved. Mr. Bowie agreed. He said he was unsure if there would be any
problem working in the formality of the M.P.0. He went on to say that the
State should again be reminded that a bypass is not needed and if the CATS
Plan is completed, the State will also see that it is not needed. He added
that it is not known when the CATS P~n will be completed, and the whole
purpose of this position is~to ensure that the CATS construction is sequenced
in,before any further consideration is done of Option 10. He said that he
tried to do this in the statement.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she has been out of town, and the draft letter
was,-notdelivered to her..until yesterday. BecauseQf this, she-has,not had a
chance .to consider the~draft fully.- She suggeSted~ since there is not a time
problem involved, that the matter be considered at a later time.
Mrs~ Humphris then mentioned the entrance to the University North
Grounds. She said this issue keeps her uncomfortablebecause it is ~something
that .all of the entities have been in favor of, and yet nobody~has ever~
developed~a plan as~to where such an entrance would be and what'~the impacts of
it would be. She mentioned that when this proposal was going to the Common-
~wealth Transportation Board in Natural Bridge, she Sent a letter byFederal
.Express to President~Casteen, SecretaryMilliken and every member of the
Commonwealth Transportation Board and asked thatthis issue'be discussed and
that the details be dealt with before everybody was asked to go on record
approving-it. She mentioned that she never received .a reply from .anybody, and
the matter has been totally ignored. She does notthink that it makes sense
for a body-such as~the County to give approval on anything when~he details
are not known. -Some of the questions that concern her are whether the en-,
trance to the University North Grounds will'impact the Canterbury Hills
neighborhood, will there be a stoplight on the bypass, is there a fly-over and
where does all of this occur. ' ~
Mr. Bowie asked if anybodyelse had comments on-.the Countyt.s response to
Secretary Mill~ken's letter. Mr. Bain replied that~he-had only looked at the
statement~this~morning. ~He said that he would like to consider it at next-
week!s meeting.
Mr. Bowie suggested thatthe matter be put on next week's agenda. He
said thatif Board members had any comments, they should contact either him or
Mr. Tucker by Friday. ~' ~ ~ ~
Mr. Bain then called attention to Number Three under the sequence Of
activities in SecretaryMilliken's letter which states:~."Thecomptetion'~of
~he Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass~to Route'29 north as urban
and secondary road funding becomes available for-the facility'~s right-of,way
acquisition and 'construction cost." He said the County had asked that the
funding be handled with primary funds, and he does not think that an answer
has been-received~ ~ ·
Mr~ Bowiereplied that this Board~hasdiscussedthe.matter, but he does
not think that a formal request has been sent to the State. At a meeting he
attended a few years ago, the opinion was that a secondary road had never been
changed to a primaryroad before it was built and that-some po=tionof the
~road needed to be built first.~ Mr. Tucker statedthat theHighway~epartment
~had commented at a past meeting that primary funds might be less of a priority
in terms of using them for something of this nature than. secondary funds.
Mr.~ Bain reminded the group'that recently there was an-announcement .that
there would be.a release of billions of dollars tar§etedmai~ly for primar~
road repairs, impro~ementsand additions.' He said that the State of~£rgimia
was supposed to geta .lot of that money,-.and he thought that~there should be
~more funding.from primary road funds. ~
Mr~ Bowerman stated that the~ press did not attend the Joint Transporta-
tion Committee Meeting and only he~ Mr~ Bowie and,Mr~.T~ucker~werethere'~ ~Me
added that Mr. Cole Hendrix, at that meeting, ind~cated~it was hisfee~ng~
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
7O
that if the three entities agreed on a joint phasing plan for all of this,
that funds would become available more readily for Meadow Creek Parkway. He
thinks that this is a key element that most people did not know about.
Mr. Bowie said this matter would be discussed again at next week's meet-
ing. He added that if the suggestion for primary funds could be included in
the draft, it is fine with him. He thinks that the main thing is to get a
joint position and get something started.
Mr. Bain was concerned that the County might send something to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board that conflicted with the three entities. He
said the Joint Transportation Committee will be meeting again soon, and he
~does~otlWant to delay thisresponse~to the CTB, but he does not want to take
a~position that may change after the Committee meeting. He would like to
coordinate the response if it is possible. Mr. Tucker suggested a response
~thatwould includealt threeentities ratherthan-justAlbemarle County.
Mr..Bowerman,,stated that he still thinks thatthe responsecould be
completed before the first of the year, even if all three governing bodies are
involved. · ~
Mrs. Humphris commented that it would be better not to rush something to
the CTB and then run into a problem later. She thinks it would make more
sense to have a coordinated reply whether it is the same document or separate
ones. She suggested that Mr,~Tucker consider the matter.
.~ Mr. Bowie wondered-if there is a schedule involved. Mr. Tucker replied
that--the responses will. be on an "as-called" basis. --He thinks that~the reply
~witl be requested soon, so he will try to have the information completed by
the end of this month.
Mr. Bowie remarked that it would be better to have the joint resolution
ready so-that a copyof the~County's letter.-coUld be sent~with.the.reSolution
at the~same time. ....
Mrs. Humphris felt it is important to have all of the basic ideas and
thoughts together. ~'~ ~
Mr. Bain felt itmight be difficult to define separate ideas, but'the'
three entities~could work on specifying those ideas through the Joint Trans-
portation Committee, etc.
Mrs~ Humphris commented that she cannotimagine~that~the entrance to. the
University North Groundscould be proposed~-without having some very-,basic
p~etiminary concept about where it is, what it is expected to dO, and ~the
impactsof it. She also mentioned to Mr. Tucker that more notification needs
.to be given to.the public when the Transportation Committee and PACCmeets.
She would like to'sit in on these~meetings, and she did not.know-about the~
last~Transportation Committee meeting.
-Mrs. Humphris remarked that a great deal.of important thingshappened at
the Transportation meeting, but the public was not informed. She.saidthat
this was most unfortunate.
Mr.-Bowie stated ~that comments regarding~the. Route 29 North improvements
~shouldbe given to Mr~ Tucker by Friday, and the matter would tentatively be
put on next week's agenda. He said that the Board will need a report back as
to when the Transportation~Commit~ee will meet again.~and whenthe .resolution
willbe.completed~'
Agenda ItemNo. 7d. Letter dated October 8, 199i~ from-Mr~ J~ A.~Echols,
Assistant Resident Engineer, enclosing ~acopy ofthe Fiscal Summaryof-the
Albemarle County 1990-91 Secondary Budget (from November 6 consent agenda),
received as follows:
"Attached you willfind the summary ofexpenditures of improvement
funds on the'secondary system in fiscal year 1990-91. I request that
this information be transmitted~to the Board .ofSupervisors in accor-
dance~with the Code of Virginia.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
71
This report is divided into two sections. The first section involves
incidental improvements. These are projects which can be financed and
completed usually within a single fiscal year. They cover the county-
wide items such as new entrance pipe and new signs as well as plant
mix surfacing when it is done as an improvement. There is a balance
of $346,806.47. This is due primarily to funds allocated for rural
additions which has a balance of $188,731.17. The balances will be
carried forward for these items.
The second section lists improvements classed as numbered projects.
These are projects financed over a long period of time and usually
take a long period of time to develop and construct. We finished the
fiscal year with a balancer~of approximately $3,635,000. Several
projects have large balances and the approximate figures follow:
Meadow Creek Parkway $660,000; Fifth Street Extended $1.5 million;
Route 743 and Route 606 intersection at the airport $540~000; and~
RoUte 678 at Ivy $435,000.' Until some of the larger projects (such as
Fifth Street.Extended) are under construction, I anticipate 'there~ill
bean appreciable balance remaining in thesecondary improvement fund.
If there are any questions, concerning this matter,_ I witl~be available
to answer them at a future Board meeting."
Mr. Bowie said this item was deferred from last week so that questions
and comments could be heard.. Mr. Tucker stated'thathe hopedMr.~Roosevelt
couldanswer any questions that this Boardmight have. Mr. Roosevett agreed
to respond to questions. There wereno questions.
Agenda Item'NO.~7e. Other MighwayMatters. ·
Mr.~Tucker told the Board that-he had received plans for a newalignment
for the. Route 29 North .Bypass, Alternative 10, and~a'copy of it~is in*the
County's Planning Department. He said that he had received a letter from Mr.
Tom Farley, along with the alignment, whichindicated that~comments from the
County were desiredby early December. He added that Mr. Farley hadindicated
that theHighway Department would be happy to meet with County officials, if
they so wished.
Mr.-Bowerman commentedthathe hasaskedMr. P'Roose~elt~to~respond~t°
_whether~or not there is a traffic-count or survey scheduled for Greenbrier
Drive and Route 29 and what plans the Highway Department has for this inter-
section. Mr:. Roosevelt responded that the last time anything was written
concerning this intersection-was in the Spring. He said he appreciated the
fact that Mr. Bowerman called him and told him that this matter would probably
be discussed~today.- Mr-~Tucker~said he also.hadcopies of two responses~to
Roger~Flint, who'is withPepsiCola Bottling Company, ,since PepSi Colahas an
access that enters Greenbrier Drive and comes ~hrough~the same traffic.signal.
Mr. Tucker .then-quoted two letters from the Highway Department's Traffic
Engineerwhoreviewed~the situation in December, 1990 and January and Febru-
ary, 1991. "This office has on numerous occasions experimented with alterna-
tive phasing on Greenbrier Drive including-split phasing, but-due t.o the
traffic demands on Route 29 it has been shown that this will not reduce the
backups on Greenbrier .Drive but will in fact increase~them.''
Mr. Rooseveltexplained that split phasi~g~would let~Greenbrier East
traffic go atone time and Greenbrier West traffic go. at'another. Mr.
Roosevelt statedthat the Traffic Engineer also indicated in a January
.1991,.letter, that he would look at this intersection and .get back-to-Mr.
Flint. In his February.12, 1991, letter, he indicated that according~to
records there ,had been a total of 18 accidents at this location during the~-~l
~month period between January 1, 1990, and November ,30, 1990', He ,.said that~-~
these accidents only involved four vehicles on-Greenbrier Drive which were
attempting to enter across Route-29. He said the TrafficEngineer outlined
those-four accidents in hisletter and indicated that~two vehicles ran-a red
light -- one on Greenbrier Drive and one-'one-Route 29. He,added that~-the~third
accident was one where a vehicle got caught in the crossover when the-signal
changed. He said the pointwasmade .by theTraffic'Engineer that-this signal
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 72
(Page' 17)
has a one second all red clearance so any vehicle that is caught in the
crossover must have entered the intersection after the light turned red
because it should have had time to have completed its turn. Mr. Roosevelt
went on to say that the fourth accident involved a rear end collision on
Greenbrier Drive. He said the Traffic Engineer also outlined the accidents on
Route 29 in his letter, and nine of the 14 remaining accidents were rear-end
collisions which are the predominant type of accident that occurs at a
signalized intersection. He added that while no accident is unimportant and
it is traumatic to those inVolved, the types of accidents that are occurring
at this intersection are not unusual for a signalized intersection. He
believes if counts of accidents were taken at Hydraulic and Rio Road, the
figures would be in this same range or higher.
Mr~ Roosevelt stated that this is not an accident picture that leads the
Highway Department to believe that placing separate turn lanes on Greenbrier
Drive wilt~improvethe situation, and the~HighwayDepartmentofficiats know
that~if a left turnphase is placed'~on the Greenbrier Drive signal, it will
just~.add tothe.congestion rather than improve it. He compared this intersec-
tion to the narrowest part of an hourglass with traffic trying to flow through
it~ He said that every other major intersection along this route~has~dual
left turn lanes and-in most. cases there are three through lanes in each
direction. He added that this intersection only has singleleft turn lanes
and two lanes in each direction, and the same volume~'of traffic on Route Z9 is
passing through this-intersection as passes through the intersection at~
Hydraulic and Rio Roads. He recognizes that this intersection requires some
attention, and he thinks that the reason is because Greenbrier Drive is only
two laneswide. Hesupports the TrafficEngineer's statements in his letter
which indicate that the.solution to the problem is the widening of Route 19
and the widening of the approaches on Greenbrier Drive. He went on to say~
that until this happens, there is nothing of a.traffic engineering nature that
can be done that will improve~'the, situation. ~ '
Mr. Roosevelt~said he tried to think~of a positive ~answer to bring~to
this meeting, and-histhoughtwas drawn back to-an'incident that occurred at~
the high-school when a young lady was struck by a.vehiclea week or~so'ago~
He said. that the Principal had a meeting scheduled withthe Parent's'Advisory
Committee the following Monday, andMr~'Roosevelt attended that meeting.--He
received a number of good suggestions of things toconsider, and the HighWay~
Department is currently studying them. He suggested that the same thingbe
done here. He said that there are at least three groups that are ~concerned
about this intersection.~ He thinks it would be profitable' if heand-the
District Traffic Engineermet withrepresentatives of these'three groups and
heardfrom themtheir concerns, received~suggestions fromthem and then did an
additional investigation. He believes that an engineering analysis~of~'this
intersection shows that there is nothing else that needs tobe done+ He
concluded-that the Highway,~Department needs to hear about the actual incidents
that are occurring, and from that something may be determined that can be done
that~is relatively cheap and feasible~~ ~
Mr. Bowerman~ondered ho~ this matter would be handtedadminist=atively.
Mr. Roosevelt-answered that either-the.County or_the"Highway Department could
organize the meeting~ ~ He said that he has the names of the three concerned
groups, and he noted, that some of the people are'at today's meeting, and~they
could probably furnish other names. ',~
Mr.~Bowie suggested that .Mr. Bowerman.and Mr.-Roosevelt work together to
coordinate this meeting. Mr..Bowerman-agreed that he would coordinate~between
the groups, theHighway Department and County representation. .He asked'Mr.-
Roosevelt to considerthat'white there may not, be.a.significant.traffic'
improvement benefit in terms of the flowOf traffic.~through there~theproblem
that heencounters at thatintersection, with. a'left turn is intimidations'more
than.anythingelse. ~He~'stated that-this is because there~is traffic~thatis
eastbound onGreenbr~er.on the'other side'of Route 29 which.can either~turn
right or come straight through~ He added that not all vehicles signal their
intentions, and ~when"a person pulls out-to'make a left turn,~.~thatperson has
to judge whether' theother traffic is going to come through or,.turn'right
before-a turn~.is made. ~He said that sometimes~a person=will misjudge ~this and
pull out, and then find that the other vehicle is coming straight acrossl .... ~t
would seem better to him to have a slightly different traffic signal process
even if traffic is slowed somewhat. He suggested that, even if the signal
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 73
(Page 18)
remains at 45 seconds, if the first 20 seconds of the signal could be for left
turns only, a larger volume of traffic could be moved as far as left turns are
concerned, because it would have the right-of-way and there would be no
opposing traffic. He added that for the remainder of the time, the light
could be green through a right turn. He thinks that this would greatly lower
the intimidation and conflict at this intersection without pulling away any
signal time from Route 29. He went on to say that traffic might back up more
in both directions on Greenbrier Drive, but it might be safer. He asked Mr.
Roosevelt to think about his suggestion before the meeting with the different
groups of people.
Mr. Bowie stated that he thinks this can be worked out at the meeting,
'but if necessary, it can-come back:to the Board.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned-that Hillsdale:Road between-Sq~ireHiltand
Greenbrier Drive is still a private road. He said that it is~dedicated for~--
public-use, but ithas not been accepted by'the HighwaY-Department~from the
developers. He noted that there is a-speed problem involved with HiltSdale
Road because it is a wide~openstretch of-road, and traffic goes 50.plus~miles
an hour. He said that there is no center line yet, either. He pointed'out
that the County hasthe power to place speed limit signs, which areacceptable
from .an engineering~ and-traffic point of.view asa private road, because'lit
connects two secondary road portions. He would like to propose to the County
-Executive that the signs be placed there until such a time as the road is
accepted into the State system, in the normal procedure that is used for
identifying the volume of traffic,~the speed flow and~the'markings on the
highway.~ He said.that'there is a~County ordinance which allows this to be
done.
Mr..St. John commentedthat the section towhich-Mr:'Bowerman refers.is
.Section 12-41 of the County Code. This seCtion of-the Code'empowers th
CountyExecutive, without furtheractionof-.the Board once a traffic study has
been done, to post the.speed..He, said that the.Code does not'use-the term,
,private~.road~'' He noted that this is really not~a~private road, but.it is a
public.road that is. not in the State secondary system.- He would like. to make
sure, while Mr. Roosevelt is present, that doing this will not interfere:-with
'the process of getting the road into the system. He 'said that.the:instant the
road is taken into.the State sYstem, then the'pOsting of-the signswould be.
~void, and..theDepartmentofTransportation would post whatever speed-'it,deemed
propers. ~'' '
- ~-Mr.~ Roosevelt ~agreed that~once the road.is added to:the system, the
Department would, as rapidly as possible, do the necessary speed studies, and
post the road based on its studies. He said the posting of County signs would
not delay'-the, inclusion of this road into the State system~
.Mr..~Bowie commented that this concerns,him, because no other member of..:
this Board has had a chance to'prepare or research, anything pertaining to this
matter. He senses that proposals:will be forthcoming., and he ~is uncomfortable
-dealing .with. ordinances, signs, etc., with-no prior alert.
Mr.-Bowerman stated that this road'has been identified as a-problem. He
was not able to communicate to'all members of. the Board,~but~the problem~stems
· from the'delay in acceptance of Hillsdate Roadinto the-S~ate system. He:-said
the public will not be served if it is another six or eight months before the
road is accepted, and he was not looking for.a .long survey to determine what
the speed limit should be. It seems to,him that the County has the power to
post the speed limit on a public road where none-currentlyexists andwhen~it
has not been accepted intothe system. He said that,this action would benefit
the public.
Mrs. Humphrisasked what a study-of'the Hiltsdale Road situation:would'
~entail. Mr. St. John'replied that theOrdinance and the enabling legislation
fortheOrdinance does not.say what kind of s,tudy is necessary~..He,quoted
from the Ordinance which states,~!'providedsuch speed limits shall be based on
an engineering and traffic investigation." He added that this has been ~done
before on certain~roads, but he does not remember.where they were.-located~-He
stated that hedoes not believethe procedure is Compticated~
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
74
Mr. Tucker said that County staff needs to discuss the situation with Mr.
Roosevelt so that two different studies do not have to be done. Re said that
he would hate to post a speed, and then another study would cause the speed to
be changed.' Re suggested that the County's engineering staff work with Mr.
Roosevelt to get a design speed that will be accepted by the State when the
road is accepted into the State system.
Mr. Bowie asked if this matter could be studied and the results brought
back to this Board. Mr. Bowerman answered that this would be acceptable to
him.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Bowerman to enlighten the Board as to the danger
ofthe situation. ~She noted~that the speed on the road is dangerous, but
there~is no pedestrian traffic there, and the vehicular traffic is not heavy.
She asked to whom is the danger.
Mr. Bowerman replied that there is a considerable amount ofpedestrian
traffic on the sidewalks, and there~is an increasing amount of vehicular-~
traffic because Hitlsdale Road now serves as a cutoffbetween'Rio Road and
-Greenbrier. Drive. He said that~a vehiclecomes through the developed section
of Squire Hill~II, and when that vehicle gets to Toys-R-Us, the road is broad
and expansive, so people tend to speed up. He noted that he has had people
pass him when he, was driving 35 miles per hour on-that stretch of road. He
stated that now a person-can do what'he or she likes because the'road is~not
posted, marked or in the State system.
Mr. Bain commented that there will be a lot.more traffic-~inthat vicinity
because~Toys-R-Us~is locatedthere~: '
_Mr~ Bowie stated that the Board would get a report from staff designed to
solve the problem. He remarked that he was not being critical, but that most
Board members had. nobackground-concerning the"situation~,'He wasconcerned
that-signsmightbeplaced there tomorrow. -
Mrs.-Humphris tOld Mr.'Roosevelt that since the pedestrian accident:on~
Hydraulic Road, she has had a few questions abouttheintersection.at Hydrau-
'tic and GeorgetownRoads. .She noted that heading west'on-Hydraulic~Road-and
:turning left on Georgetown'Road is difficutt~because there,~is no left turn
signal there. She said that the vehicle turning left is faced with two lanes
of traffic coming toward them. She asked if Mr. Roosevelt had any details
regarding .accidents, etc. at the intersection'of Hydraulic/Georgetown Road..'
Mr, Roosevelt responded thatit would be possible to bring the Boardthis
information.
Mrs; Humphris then corm~ented that~the latest alignment on the Route 29
North Bypass, Alternative 10, was rgceivedbythe Countyon Friday afternoon.
She noted that nobody had a.chance to look at this alignment until yesterday
because of theholiday weekend. She said when.~shereturned.home yesterday,
she had lots of phone.messages waiting for her. The people'in Squirre!'Ridge,
Roslyn Ridge, Montvue and COlthurst SubdiVisions are asking for an opportunity
to come before this Board and-express their feelings and explain what has been
done to-them physically, emotionally, etc., since-this designation was made~
She thinks the Board needs to set aside timeto listen to these people's
comments. ~ ~ ·
Mr. Bowie-commentedthat there is little that Board members can .do.!except
sympathize with the people. He asked what the Board members wiSh to do.
Mrs.. Humphris repliedthat more needs to be done than having the matter
brought up as other~matters-,from the public. She~said that this situati6n is
devastating to these people. She recalled~that onetadywho foundthat-her
~house~is going to. be taken was widowed~a~coUple"of weeks ago. ~ ~
Mr.~Bowerman asked~Mr., Roosevelt if'there are hardship fUnds~to~purchase
rights-of-way. Re said that if..thisis the case, even if there arehardship
cases and those people know'that they~are in the way'of the alignment, the~
Highway Departmentcannot removethem from their property.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
75
Mr. Roosevelt answered that all of the funds allocated for this year have
been used, but the plan is to allocate funds at least for the next two years
for this purpose. He said there certainly is no reason to delay the hardship
determination until the funds are allocated in 3uly of next year. He remarked
that it could take that much time to go through the process for the appraisals
and offers and to arrive at a price. He added that he has suggested to anyone
who feels that he or she is in a hardship situation that they make their
request for hardship consideration to the State Right-of-Way Engineer.
Mr. Bowerman asked if people are being discouraged based on the fact that
funds might not be available until July 1, 1992. Mr. Roosevelt responded,
limo. ~l
Mrs. Humphris asked if any properties have been purchased. Mr. Roosevelt
replied that offers have been made and accepted, but he is unsure if money has
physically changed hands from the Department of Transportation to those ~ -- ~
property owners. He knows that negotiations have taken place for two proper-
ties in Squirrel Ridge and one in Roslyn Ridge~and a price.agreed:upon~, .... ~
Mrs. Humphris recalled that VDoT had set aside $700,000 this fiscal year.
for hardship cases and $700,000 next year..She said the homeowners tell her
that this amount of money is equivalent to one and one-half to two of their
homes, and there are many more people who might fall into .thehardship catego-
ry. She added that these people are naturally distressed and while it might
be nice iftheycould get the hardship designation process over with, it will
not do them any good if there is no money available.
Mr. Bain asked Mrs. Humphris what she hopes to accomplish by having an
itemon the agendapertaining to this problem. He said that there is not-much
that this Board can do except take the position to ask the Highway Department..
tOmake more hardship funds~available.
Mrs. Humphrisresponded that through all of the years tha~t Albemarle
County has fought against this bypass, the people involved in fighting the
bypass had a clear understanding that they were all in,it together andthat
they would always fight to keep from having any bypass, anywhere, anytime.
She said that it all had been understood until this last designation. She
explained that the people involved, now feelthat.the County of Albemarle is
causing them this grief because of the existence of the. agricultural/forestal
districtnext to them. She added that the State did not design the roadway
throughthe agricultural/forestal district, hut instead it is designed.to be
-put through their subdivisions. She stated that instead of believing that
this is the fault of theDepartment~of Transportation, which is the fact,
these people are saying that Albemarle County has. done this to them bythe.
establishment of the agricultural/forestal district which is immune from-the
roadway~ unless some kind of action is taken~ She went on to say that this is
their cause for anger, and upset and they. want to talk to this Board about it.
She stated that this matter relates to people's lives, and their total equity
suchasretirement, etc. is tied up in their homes. She reiterated that the
people.are blaming this Board of Supervisors instead ~ the Department~O-f.
Transportation~, andshe thinks that the 'Supervisors meed to.deal with it.
Mr."Bowiesaid the.Board is aware of thehardship caused by building a
roadthrough a~subdivision. It seems to him~that the-citizens'.basic request
is to let.the bypassgothrough the agricuttural/forestaldistrict. He.noted
thata public hearing would ultimately be~necessary~-but the reques~ could be
handled with a motion.
Mr. Bain remarked that he has no problem with hearing whatthe 'people
have. to say and maybe having a staf~f report on the matter. He said that the
staff~has previously been involved in this type of situation, and the Board
has taken a position on the agricultural/forestal district which it 'continues
to maintain. Headded that if a meeting needs to. be held' so that the' people
willunderstand all.the aspects-, then heis willing to have a. meeting.
~- Mr~ Bowie stated-that 'if there is a.solution, then that should'be part of
the public hearing instead of having a public hearing to see if a public
hearing is necessary. He, said thatif, ~in fact, the roadis going.~through a
subdivision because .the County will not let it go through an agricu!tural~-~'
forestal district, 'then a~publliC hearing should beheld on-that subjee~t~ Ee
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
76
added that people could then address their comments in the proper manner,
because it is already known that homes will be lost if the road goes through
subdivisions.
Mrs. Humphris commented that if a public hearing is held, she feels it
must involve agricultural/forestal districts in general, and this Board's
position on them. She said that the public in the entire County needs to be
aware of the situation because of all the acreage that is in agricultural/
forestal districts and the potential for the disruption of the entire system.
She said the Board needs to be updated on the legal aspects if an agricul-
tural/forestal district is invaded. She added that this is not a simple
situation, and it involves a whole lot of things.
· Mr. Bain wondered when the Department of Transportation will be holding
its public hearings on the new alignment. He said that it is possible to get
started with the~process,~ if the~Board wishes~but he does not think~that the
~Board~should rush into anything. -~ ~
Mr. Tucker stated that Mr. Roosevelt had indicated that usually the
designpublic hearing~is not held until prior to starting construction. He
said that Alternative 10 is supposed to be completed in 2010, and normally it
would.be the year 2005 or 2006 before there would be~a hearing on this issue.
He added that he had talked with Mr. Hodge about~ the situation, and he felt
that'a public hearing could be held earlier than that. He-said Mr. Farley
stated that he would like to finalize the plans for this road in someway
mainly because of the hardship situation. Mr~ Tucker went on to say that the
alignment determines where hardship cases will be negotiated. He has suggest-
ed · that this information be available by early December. He is sure, however,
that the Board can take whatever time is necessary~to consider the, agriculr
tural/forestal district issue. He. said that the staff can prepare something
before~the year is out, but the agenda for ~November 20 is already full. He-
noted that the matter could be postponed if the Board so chooses.
Mrs..Humphris pointed out that she has not had an opportunity to'see the
map, but she has some questions. She has heard that. the proposed bypass is
designed with no-interchanges.I The whole idea ofthe interchangeswas to'
provide a great deal of relief for Route 29 traffic. She realizes that the-
County said~it didnot want interchanges.because of.theimpact on~the:water-
shed, etc. Since the road is supposed to. be builtwithout interchanges, she
wondered~ what amount of vehicles this road is supposed to serve and~what
relief it will provide to Route. 29.
Mr.'-Tucker replied that-there is traffic data that will answe~ Mrs,
!
Humphris questions. He does not know if there~is data-that will, alter the
counts ifthere are interchanges, He said that. this. information might, be
~factored~into the traffic model,~ but it wi!l have to beexplored with!YDoT~
~He.--suggested that the staff might alter the ,counts with regard to interchanges
at Hydraulic and Barracks Roads, for example. He said that VDoT did what was
suggested, and without ~nterchanges the road would betruly a, bypass and would
not create an impact on the watershed through other pressures for land, use
changes around~those-interchanges.
Mr. Bowie ~commented that it will takea ~while to get.~the information
together and to consider it. Mr. Bain stated that he 'is willing to allocate
30 minutes at t-he, first meeting in December simply for the people to come in,
withtwo or three spokesmen, to tell the Board their concerns. He said that
this would only involve the people who are.directly affected and would not
involve all of t-he~.~agricultural/forestal.district~people~ Hesaid that this
could then'be tiedin'-to the~work that thestaff is .doing and Wouldpoint~out
anything that theBoard hasnot considered. He added thatin~January, or
February there,could bea more detailed presentation involving, agricultural/
forestaldiStrict~representatives.. ~He went on. to saythatthese concerns~
coUld, be put befOre the BOard in public before the .detailed meeting' is held~.~
Mr. Bowie:reminded Board members that,.~thereis nothing.~.-ye~ 'scheduled to
come before the~Board on December 4th. He said that the meeting could be
cancelled, or Board members could come in for a 30 minute public.hearing. He
did not anticipate spending 40 minutes on other matters today,~atthough-~his
matter could be more important than the items that.are on the-agenda. He
noted that there has been no preparation or staff work, and he is unsure how
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
77
to handle this issue. He does not like to se~ up a public hearing just to see
what will happen, and he feels strongly that there should be some type of
preparation for discussion of these issues.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she brought up the matter because the map was
just received, and nobody has had a chance to see it. She agrees that the
Board needs some time to deal with the issue. She would not mind m meting on
December 4 to hear the public because she understands their frustration,
although she believes that the speakers should be limited to a representative
from each group -- Squirrel Ridge, Montvue, Colthurst and Roslyn Ridge.
Mr. Bowie commented that if a meeting is what the Board desires, then 20
~inutes~coald~bel. se%,,-,,aside at the~beginning of next week's meeting to hear
one,representative from each subdivision. He said that this would help the
Board direct the staff as to how to proceed.
Mr~ Bowerman remarked-that there is some~confusion~0n~the~,.part~,0f the
public as~to this Board!s position. He,thinks that this Board needs to
articulate exactly what actions or lack of actions this Board has taken and
where it is in ~the process. He noted that this ~ill*not be a~pubtic hearing
on'~Alternative t0~ He~addedthat if~the, County!s position needs to~ be clari-
fied, then~that.'needs to be'done~at.this meeting~,so there~will he good,commu-
nication between this~.Board and,,the pubtic.,and,~the process~that~witl~be
followed after~themeeting.~He notices that there are, other itemson~today!s
agenda which pertaintO this matter~ This leads~himto beIieVe-~that another
day will be needed to deal with this issue, so he recommends that th~ meeting
be held~on, December ~4. He'suggested~that.the decision be ~made~at the end~,of~
~his?meet~ng af~e~,the?~her~items~have been discussed..~Mr. Bowie~greed.~that
i~would'~be better toe.dec,de one,he.,time of~the~-meeting later~in the~day~.~He
asked Mt, Tucker to~hink about an~appropriate date.
~,At~this time,.Mr%~Way?notedthat abridge is,being~widenedon~RoUte 20,
and it hss beeen'signalized~',~Hewondered~'about?the-schedule for~this signal,
because'last night ~he~trafficon. Route~20 ~as?backed~up from, that~.bridgs~for
three~fou=ths~of~a mite.'~',He is~Sure that'~during~-morning hours'it~is~the.same
+/~ ,Mr,,~ ROosevelt answered that. the, signat~ is~On ~afixed-timeschedule~..~and~
it.~is the same.~',in ~the.middle of~the night~as~it, is,~during rush~hour~He~added
that-the TransportationDepartment can.examine the*signal~,to determine~if~rthe
time~eriOd is, set property~.-~He'said the signal~might need'~adjusting a~ittie[
~nge=~`~in~ieach~dire~ti~n~s~that~vehic~es~wi~have"m~re~timet~get?aer~ss~a~
Mt. Way stated that this was the first day of operation for the ~signal,
so it may well have 'been that thesignal has not,yet been adjusted.
~Mr~. Boweman~ andl~Mr~.Bain~wondered,, if .a~poliae officer, could be 'stationed
at~the.bridge,',du~ing the morning~and, evening,~zushhours~ ,Mrc Roose~elt,~ag~eed
that,,ithislcouldlbe done ...... ~ .... :- ~,~.- ....
Mr. Way suggested a week's wait to see 'if there, is really a problem. Mr.
Bowie.:ask~dm~which~bridge~is involved. Mr.~,~Wayreptied~;thatthe~b=idge~,:which
is bein~ discuss'ed'-is southof~Carter!s?~.Bridge,on~.Route,~0i~ :-~u'
~.~'.Th~ ,Board,recessed.at 10:'34 ~a.m~ and reconvened.at 10:46 a,m.~
Agenda Item~No. 8. ApPeal: Sara Watsonpreliminary~Pla~.
Mr. Bowie stated that there has been a request to defer Sara Watson'S
preliminary plat~,appeal.un~il~December ~li, l'991~.Mrs~ Humphris~moved.,thab~he
appeal for Sara~Watson's preliminary plat~be deferred~u~til~ December,~.it~,~t991,~
M~.~Perkins'secondedthe motion. -
Rol. l,,:was called~and,?the motion car~ied~by thefollowing,,recorded ~ote,:~
AYES: Messrs~Bain~ Bowerman~..Bowie, Mrs~.Humphris, Mr.-Perkins and Mr,~.~
NAYS: None., -
78
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Agenda Item No. 9. Deborah DiCroce, Update on Piedmont Virginia Communi-
ty College (PVCC).
Dr. DiCroce thanked the Board for allowing her the opportunity to provide
an update on Piedmont Virginia Community College and especially the College's
service to Albemarle County. She acknowledged three PVCC Board representa-
tives from the County who were present at the meeting. They were: Grace
Carpenter, Hal Dixon and Joe Henley. She stated that the fourth County
representative on the PVCC Board is Bruce Norris, who could not be present
today. She added that these PVCC Board members represent Albemarle County
extremely well, and their leadership goes beyond the bounds of Albemarle
County and serves the best interests of the whole community.
~--.,' .~?D~. DiCroce stated that this past year has been a year of unprecedented
challenge for PVCC. She noted last year's Annual Report for PVCC and said
that the, Cover~of.that report has a~ Chinese~' symbol ~on~it~ She cQmmented'-.that
the'~Chinese have an intriguing way of forming the word, "crisis." She said
that they do so by joining together the character for danger and the character
for opportunity.. She thinks that this Chinese-sense-of the-word, "crisis~'~!~.~,~
best captures .What~ the 1990~91 year,-has been about-for PVCC. She~ added that
PV~CC has encountered danger, and'~has seized~'~a positive opportunity,' in~the'-.'~
course?of-this past year~ She went~ on to say t~hat~the danger revolves
primarily around .the Comm0nwealth!s budget crisis, and the~'recesSion~ · She
stated~that this ~recessiOn has~ in part resulted in.a 15 percent reduction'~in
State revenue for Virginia community colleges~ and 'she pointed.~-out~ that-,15
percent is~,a large 'part of PVCC!s'~budget~~ She~ Said, the college,has had to
take'unprecedented~ action to-address this issue, and she wanted to give this
Board ~an idea Of :what. was done.
Dr.-,DiCroce Commented. that for the first~ time ~in the history of the
college~ there have'been ~ lay~offs~ She doeS, not~ mean ,that people were m0ved%
around. ~, She stipulated that ,full-time, good. employees who were at the college
last year are not there~this year because-~of the~bUdget crisis~ The full.time
work >force,,at. the college~has ~been, reduced ~by.-eight. and one-half 'percent ~. lin
addition, the respiratory ~therapyprogram ~has been discontinued~ P¥CC'has~.?
restructured administratively~ ,vacant positions have,~ been frozen, hours-for
support, services ,have been reduced in areas?such~as~ the library and academic
computing lab, ~equipment~orders have,been~ frozen, class sizes have increased
significantly, course-offerings have been ~educed, ',and~ salaries for all~' of ,the
employees ':were ~ cut, la,st 'December.r ,and since' that. time have- remained frozen ~
- Dr, DiCroce.,said ,tuition costs have increased to,.help 'address some of the
revenue~shortfall and over the past two years Virginia community college
tuition has gone up 31.4 percent. The tuition is.currently at $35~ a credit~
hour for in-Sta~e 'students which is still ~the best bargain ~for ~higher
educatio~~ She ~noted~,that the~reality can best be,. seen~as to ~the danger ,,~
community.~colleges face by-factoring in a~ten-year~ pattern of funding for
Virginia community colleges~ The Virginia communitY,college system~ including
PVCC, ~'has.-grown',at an exceeding rate from 1980~to 1990, and essentially this
was done without~.additional funding~ to support the growth. , Dr. DiCroce.stated
that during that time.period~ PVCC grew approximately 35 percent in full'time
equivalent~· students, but ,those students were served with approximately the
same constant dollars, and~ten percent less full-time classified staff~,
percent, tess teachimg faculty and. six percent,tess administrative~facultyi
She ~added 'that approximately~ 420 students,~ were turned ~away 'at'.Piedmont this
fall which was specifically a result of PVCC!s inability to address the demand
given'~the ~resources ~available. '~She believes that,~this number will on~ty get.
worse.~/~ She remarked *'that she, has seen p~ojections for PVCC which .take the
enrollment-up 25 percent in the next'ten years, and other projections take the
enrollment~up 50. percent 'during that same time period~ She/noted 'that this is
not unrealistic,~ and'the point is that PVCC witl~not ~be able~to,=meet,.that kind
of. demand without ~some additional ~resources. · She pointed~,out that this~is the
danger, and it is· very real. She wants the Board ·of' Supervisors, as County
leadership,.! to, know that it ,is real.. At-~the'same time, she woutd~ like~,for ithe
County~leadership.lto ~know-~that ~PVCC looked-for and seized opportunities during
the past~year. .,~ · , ·~ ·
~ Dr. ~DiCroce said that las~ year PVC~,ser~ed~.6756. different community
individuals, ands,it ~was ~a record~enrollment ~,~ The growth.,~was in' the%transfer
area~ Which involves students ~Who ~e~ect to start ~at PVCC~ to.pursue ~a~ ..... :~
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
79
Baccalaureate Degree and then transfer to the senior institution of their
choice. She noted that there has been considerable growth in the younger
student population -- the traditional student who is 18 to 22 years old. She
thinks that this parallels the growth in the transfer area. She pointed out
that while P¥CC's tuition has increased, so has the tuition in the senior
institutions in the Commonwealth for the same reason. She believes that
parents are electing to send their children to P¥CC for the first two years
because it is more cost effective, and then have the children transfer to
another facility. She brought out that overall the average age of students is
still approximately 29. She said that even though there is an increasing
number of people ages 18 to 22 years old, PVCC is still serving a tremendous
number of non-traditional students, who are the adult learners. These are
~ommunity~individuals,~ho~wish to~cOme back to school for various retraining
and~up~rAding of skills that may be job related.
,_~-,~i~Dr~',DiCroce-~,went~on tosaythat PVCC has worked hard~with,the'Tpublic
school systems.~-.~PVCC-has-worked~witk.the~Albemarle County School System-in
an~attempt~to b~idge~-thegap'between~the ~public~ school setting ~and what
happens~in the~community-college setting and the senior-'institution settingi
and bey0nd.~ P¥CC has,attempted, to address-the%issueof,.,~"is there life after
high,school?" She~pointed outthat~PVCC has'just received funding, through
some-Federal sources channeled through theState, to,work cooperatively,~with
the public schools in developing a tech prep program.-, She is pleased to. say
that Albemarle CountM%isa ,very active participant, and is co-directing the
grant withone of~PVCC's r~presenta~ives. Public school partnershiphasbeen
a ~major ~iece of the~initiative of'opportUnity over the past.year.
~,~?~Dr~-'DiCroc~/th~n stated~that-PVCC's partnershipwith the University of.~
¥irginia~is~also continuing. PVCChas a mOdel-,relationship with the
University and, together, they have taken leadership state-wide in looking at
waYs~to h~lp.students transfer~frOm commUnity colleges<to senior public -
institutions~in ¥irginia~ with~no loss of credit~.and witk:as .much ease-as
possihte~!'She mentionedthat it isstill"t~Ue, that?PVCCtransfers more
students~to~the'Un~versity of.~Virginia than.~alt~22other community,colleges
combined~,,' She said,%hat~%his'speaks~.to the,very~finerelationship that PVCG,"
has~-~with'.,the University and to the. quality,~of'~P¥CC!s academic programs~and~the
ca~ibe~!of~PVCC~s faculty,~ ·
Another piece-of opportUnity, which PVCC seized and of which Dr~ DiCroce
spoke waS~to contihhe to expand the~partnershiP~effort with~MaryBatdwin
Gotlege..~She recalled~that~'~VCC~'.~has'a cooperative-~adult~de§ree.programwith
Mary Baldwin, and PVCC actually gives MaryBaldwin space on the campus. She
said that.'this program~allows~students who~cannot~transfer~to the~,University,
cannot~gofull~time~ or who~would~have to-leave ~the area, to pursue
BaCcalaureate study. ~She noted that now,there are 417:students in that:
progr~m,~and most,~of~them.,are...w~men. ~ -, .~
~ '~.Minority~recruitment~'and,retention is,~another~,i~itiative, in'te~ms of
opportUnity, according to'.Drl DiC=oce. She~,notedthat P¥CC,has done a~signif-
icant'.j~ob in~'improving this~area, and~has'made great..,strides~,?~She stated ,that
%here w~s~'a~15 percent increase o~er~the,'past year in~.the, minority~enroltme~nt
which bringsthis enrollment during the past year to approximately 13 percent.
She thinks that this is real progress and should be noted, but it also points
out'how'far PVCChasiyet togo. She-thenbrought.out-~the~fact-that interna~
tionalism and mutti~culturalism have caused'.PVGC-,tobecome'.increasingty~
sensitive to recognizing~the~fact,,~hat the'world, is becoming-smaller'and
smaller~ ~-She said that~PVCC~is looking to its,curriculum as'well~as~to it~
extracurricular,activities· to embracethis aspect of multi-culturalismlandi'
internatio~alism.'~,She~is pleased to"say thatlthis past~year,~P¥CG?received a
national award recognizing its-efforts in this regard by the American~
Association~of CommUnity and Junior Colleges. -.
Dr.<,DiGroce-stated thata~final piece of~a~'larger~effort dealing~ith
is P¥CG .s,.effort to Continue~to expand~its.efforts
opportunity this~past~year '
in'~.,the outtying~counties,~and~'!to take. the..'cOllege off~the~-hilland~to'~c~eate·
a,-~powerful presence, in all,of the serviceareas,.that~..PVCC is~a part,~of.~'~!
Dr~DiCtoce-then, spoke,about~Albemarle CoUnty~ Shesaid that this past
year~ 2604~of.P¥C~'~s students~were from Albemarle County~and,~.thataccoUnted
for44~2 percentlof all studen%s~enrolled.~in the col~ege~,and~3.8 percent of
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
8O
the County's total population. She said that generally a community college
would hope for a penetration rate of one and one-half to two percent, so this
shows that PVCC has had a tremendous impact on Albemarle County. Dr. DiCroce
handed out information to the Board on Albemarle County and explained the
profile of the Albemarle County student at PVCC. She said that approximately
81 percent of the Albemarle County students are part-time, 62 percent are
women, seven percent are African-American and 72 percent are returning
students. If these figures are compared to a larger college student body,
this shows that Albemarle County has approximately the same percentage of
part-time students and approximately the same percentage of women, but
Albemarle County has more returning students. She went on to say that
Albemarle County has fewer African-American students. She added that this
Past year, PVCC enrolled 31.6 percent of the 1990 graduating class of
Albemarle High School which was approximately a one percent increase over the
previous year. The college also enrolled 28.1 percent of the 1990 graduating
class'of WesternAlbemarleHigh School, which was~approximmtelyathree and
one-ha%f percent increase. She noted thatthis parallels what she said
earlierabout the increase in transfer students, the younger student and
perhaps, suggests the reasons that parents are electing to have their children
start their Baccalaureate study at P¥CC. ~ ....
Dr.. DiCroce pointed out that this past year PVCC offered approximately 80
classes at Albemarle~High School with 900 ~students enrolled, thereeach
semester. She saidthat PVCC rents approximately 15 classrooms each semester
from. Albemarle'~High~SChool at a cost of $18,000 and'.that is how PVCC can offer
those 80. classes;' thereis no place for them on PVCC'campus. In-addition, in
1990-9t~.the college offered 18 classes at CATEC, enrolling a total~of 23t
students~ She~Said~'that. PVCC works~-closely in partnershipwith CATEC to meet
theoccupationaltechnicalneeds of thecon~nunity. She pointed~out that~PVCC
and~CATEC~share equipment~and try to avoidduplication of effort. The~resutt
of that'is more cost effective~than it would-be if each~schooloperated
independently~ -' ~
· Dr.'DiCroee then talked about a special outreach partnershipeffort in
which PVCC engagedwith the public Schools this past~year. The program is the
continuation of philosophy in the third grade, and she said that PVCC has a
philosophy instructor who literally takes philosophy to the.third grade. This
year the philosophy instructor involvedthe Yancey Schoolin~this program, and
the third graders engaged in a 'discussion about life's largerquestions. In'
addition, third graders, are given'the opportun%tyto come on cmmpus and'mix
wit~ the regular philosophystudents. She notedthat an off-shootof this
program this pastsummer was a philosophy campthat was,offered oncampus, and
270young people~ranging in age from eight to~12 years~old were provided an
opportunity in a ,one week time period to engagein a'variety of activitieSat
PVCC that focused on the concept of philosophy in the third grade. She said
that~the philosophy campwas sponsored in atarge~part~ by the. City'of
Charlottesville. She added that PVCC would welcome the opportunity to look at
asimilar activity in Albemarle County. She went on to say that a side
benefit to this'whole third grade program should be obvious~ Ih exposes
children to college at a young age, and she. is more and more convinced that
the key to higher education is to start as.~young as possible and expose~
studentsovera variety of b~okgrounds to the college experience~ It.helps~
them better seethat~it is within.their reach and plants seeds of connection
to.the public school experience and beyond. ~
Dr. DiCroce thentalked about the business world. She said that this
past'year'PVCCcontinued to' provide specialized training to, a. number~of ~
Albemarle County businesses, including Comdial, Cooper Industries, GE-Fanuc,
SperryMarine and-Teledyne~ ,P¥CC.also continues to sponsor the SmaltlBusiness
Development Center~ She indicated that~more than one-third of the cl~-ents
from the Small, Business Development Center comefrom. Albemarte County~ P¥CC
also works with the'~Chamber of Commerce-in promoting business in the area~
'Dr. DiCroce ~stated that overall shethinks that outstanding progresshas
been made toward-the goal of providing, with the County public school.s, the
beast of all possible learningopportunities forCounty residents. She~said
that PVCC.is'challenged by the. future and excited bythepotential in the.'
community. PVCC will continue its outreach,..will continue~to~take.the-~coltege
off. thehill, will continue to strengthen partnerships with public schools and
the University of Virginia and other senior institutions, will 'continue to
enhanCe~its service'to the business community,~and will continue to assist the
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
81
community to prepare for the 21st Century. She thanked the Supervisors for
their support over the past year. She mentioned, especially, the personal
support that has been given to the College. She said that this means an
incredible amount to the college community and to the people of Albemarle
County. She looks forward to working with Albemarle County in 1991-92 for the
betterment of this community and for the betterment of the people that PVCC
and the County both serve. She said that she would be happy to answer ques-
tions.
Mr..Bain wondered about the comparison of the cost of PVCC's credit hour
with other community colleges around the State. Dr. DiCroce replied that all
of the community colleges in the State have the same tuition charge, and they
are alt~ fUndedi~as a-S~stem.~'~.~ She.~said that the Virginia Community College
~System. functions as one system. She noted that there is one governing board,
which is the State Board for Cox~unity Colleges, and a local Board serves in
-am ~ advisory capacity.' ~,. ~ ~ - ~ ?-~
Mr. Bain'asked if there.' is any flexibility, i,n, regard to.the credit hour
Charge. Dr~ DiCroce ' '' " "
replied, no She said that ,for some of the students,
increased.tuition is. not, Significant. For others, .it.is truly significant,
and a f~ive dollar increase for a credit hour for, 'some of~ the students might as
well be $500. She said that PVCC has to be careful and looks~ increasingly at
ways to support financially those individuals where the extra increase really
does create an impediment to them in pursuing their education. 'Along those
lines, for the first time in the history of the Virginia Community College~,,
System, PVCC .is participating inthe State financial aid program this ~year.
She commented .that the General Assembly made this-a law this ~year, '. and it
means that PVCC Will receive approximately $.79,000 from the Commonwealth to
support full-time students who have a hardship' in~ tuition accessibility. She
said that .this is a .gigantic step in the right direction, ~but this opportunity
~also. ?needs to ~be available for the part-time students because, the part-time
students have the same needs. She does not see tuition decreasing any time
soon,~ and she see's~the ,real possibility of a' tuition~ increase sometime.in~the
future. · ,. ~ ..... : ~ -' -
Mr.. Bowie thanked Dr. DiCroce for the ,report' =and for the service PVCC'.
gives.to Albemarle County.-
Agenda' Item No~ 10. DisCussion with Private Roads ~Committee: ~ .
~a)~ STA-91~i. Amendment to' .Chapter 18 of. Albemarle :Code to incorporate
VDo.T mountainous terrain and rOlling' terrain standards;
~ b) ZTA-91-06~ Amend Albemarle County~Zoning Ordinance in Section 10~4
to' ~amend setback regulations in the Rura.1~ Areas District related-to private
roads.. (Deferred from October 2, 1991.) ....
Mr. Cilimberg stated~.that at the public hearing on these amendments, the
Board had requested answers to certain questions about the recommended private
roads provisions, and~ also requested the Private' Roads Committee-members to be
present to discuss their thinking behind the recommended allowances and
standards. Only Ms. Babs Huckle and Mr. Mike West could be present. He then
distributed a letter from Mr. Blake Hurt, who was also a member of the Commit-
tee. He. said that Mrs.. Hurt, in his letter,-supports having private roads
continue to be available~ particularly, the mountainous terrain, standard-.
recommended for~.private roads serving: lots an-d subdivisions of more than',fiv, e
lots.. He believes Mr, Hurt' likes the flexibility provided in the allowances
for private roads that are not available from VDoT when public roads are
designed. He added that VDoT has allowed the rolling terrain standards for
'subdivision streets-in., the 'County, but private road provisions allow.flexibil-
ity~.to use the mountainous~.terrain standard.
Mr. Cilimberg said~ at ,the last meeting, ,the Board asked how VDoT's
standards compare'.to existing standards for private roads~ The .staf:f~looked
at the difference between the standards-for more than five lots and what the~.-~
YDoT ~standard ~ould allow. In terms of design speed, there is no standard
now, but~ the mountainous terrain standard is for 20 miles per hour. The
radius curvature would not .change, and the ~DoT standard used is 110 feet~ for
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
82
the typical subdivision street. The grade difference would not be great -- 15
percent is in the current ordinance, but it would be 16 percent under moun-
tainous terrain standards.
(Mr. Bowie left at 11:14 a.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said stopping sight distance would increase slightly from
120 to 125 feet, and there would also be an intersectional sight distance of
200 feet under the mountainous terrain standard. He stated that the width of
travelway would stay the same, which is 18 feet.
Mr. Bain asked if the width of travelway standard applies regardless of
the .number'of houses served. Mr~ Citimberg replied, "yes." At the present
time, less than 18 feet is required if less than 10 houses are located in the
subdivision. This new standard is for the subdivision street that is generat-
ing no more than-25Otrips per day, or basically a 25 unit-street~ Mr. ~
Gilimberg said current standards require a right-of-way width of.~50 feet~but
it would go to 40 feet under the mountainous terrain standard. Typically, in
Albemarle County, there is a 50 foot requirement on public streets.
Width of shoulder and width of ditch now are subject to County Engineer
approval, but they wouldbe established under the mountainous terrain standard
at-four feet for each one. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Committee members..~elt
as. though the mountainous Certain standard was an accepted standard-and '.~
reflects AASHTO standar~ds.whichare nationally, accepted. The COmmittee felt
that the mountainous terrain standard had some foundation in engineering work
on roads throughout the country~
~Mr.~ Keeler commented that the increased right-of-way, in some,cases,
could go to 50 feet if it was necessary forthe associateddrainage~facitities
to be. within the easement. He said these increased dimensionsof easements is
one of~ the reasons for t~he reduced setback, which 'is to be discUssed~.neXt oR
theBoard~s agenda.
Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Board members that they had also raised the
question of whetheror not private roads, ~in general, would be Counter-produc-
tive to the ideaof clustering.. He said that clustering is something that?~.the
County has 'been dealing with overthe last year and one-half~ anda number-of
rural'prleservationdevelopments have occurred. He has not found in any of
thOse~cases that the ~decisionto ciuster ~was based, on. the opportunity,to
build private roads. Developments. seem to be based on~ the market conceptof a
particular project. Physical characteristics of the land are always consid-
ered, but decisions seem to be based on-how the property can beldeveloped.
M~ Cilimberg said the staf~f has discussed the idea of allowing-private'~,
roads without exception in rural preservation' developments.- If this.~was~the
case, a developer wouldnot haveto prove~environmental de~radation~
developer could automatically get a private road if it was desired, but if a
conventional subdivision was being 'done, private roads would still remain an
exception andbe at the discretion, of the'Planning Commission.' He Said this
was.notrecommended because, staff,felt that'private roads were allowed, for.~the
environmental~ benefit,
Next,. Mr.- Cilimberg informed the Board thatMs, Jo Higgins, County
Engineer-, could best answer question's regarding the responsibili~ty forsuper-
vising the construction of the privateroads, the actual testing and how it.'s
performed, and',relying on information from the developer versus the County's
own in-the-field inspection. He added that therewas a further question on
how to make sure these standards would be available and obtained in ~he field
during construction~ He believes this question relates tohow inspection
.would take place throughthe Engineering Department.~.After Ms. Higgin~s
speaks, Mr. Keeter~'will disCuss-the ques~tiono~setback regulations.
(Mr. Bowie returned at 11:~1 a.m.)~
~Ms. Miggins stated that now the Zoning Department inspec~tors are. involved
when site work is complete, but they don!t .have the expertise tO inspec~the~
private road design. She suggested that a plan could ,be developed tofollow
up on site plans where privateroads are planned, and the inspector.f~r the
secondary road system could~possibl~ do an inspection on the~ private roads~
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
83
She added that there has not been a specific inspection program because these
roads do not come under scrutiny by YDoT, and there are no further require-
ments for signing off on the document.
Mr. Bain remarked that this is his major concern. He knows of a situa-
tion where for ten lots it will cost $60,000 to bring the road up to standard,
and this road should have been built according to this standard ten years ago.
There are a lot of subdivisions involved in similar situations, and he sug-
gested that there will be more in the future. He believes it is going to be
necessary to have one or two engineering people involved with the inspections.
At least with a State road, the homeowners cannot come back to the County with
their concerns. Ms. Higgins remarked that the site plan is reviewed by the
Engineering Department~, .and the Engineering Department makes sure it is
d~s~gned in accordance with the proper standards. Mr. Bain replied that he
understands this.
Ms. Higgins went on to'say thatenforcement is another issue,. ~,She does
not know what~ has happened inthe-past, and she wonders how many roads could
result from this program. Mr. Bain answered that he suspects nearly all roads
in the County's'rural~ area would qualify.
Ms~ Higgins stated that this matter, will be left,up to-the Board of
Supervisors as~to whether or not they want~ to make a commitment to set up,a
program which has a specific checklist for inspections~to make sure~theroad
is inconformance with the site, plan. Now, the inspectors-do not routinely do
this kind_of inspection for every site plan. She added~that the Inspections
Department has the expertise and the ability, but its manpower is~limited~
Mr,. Tucker mentioned that it might,bepossible to talk to.ths Highway.
Department~about their taking more responsibility to review and inspect their
own roads. Now, by agreement, the County's engineering inspectors review
secondary road,improvements for ultimate-acceptance into the,~State system,so
the County%s Engineering Department inspectors spend-all of their time on'
secondaryroads for the State system~ He/hoped that an arrangement, couldbe~
worked outwith ,VDoT that would, give the County's inspectors more time to do
inspections on private roads. Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Tucker is referring
roadsthat developers are,building that will-be taken into the State, system.
Mr.,Tucker answered, "yes· .'"
Mr~,Baincommented that, if the Board approves the new standards, fewer
roads will come into the State system~ Mr. St. John asked if the County
either bonds or inspects, private roads. Mr. Bain responded that privates'roads
are bonded. Mr. St. John stated ,that he does not understand how the County
can release a bond once it has been put in place, unless somebody inspects the
road. He thought that this had'been happening, but he, will look into
matterwith the Engineering Department,·
Mr. Bain remarked,that the Board:has approved'a lot of private roads. He
does not think it:is smart for the County to acknowledgethat. it, will: have..:..
private:roads, they must meet certain standards, but when they are construct-
ed, true inspections are not done as to the quality, width, depth, etc~ He
wonders what message is being sent to the developers. -
Mr. St. John commented that, in his opinion, if there are no inspections
of these roads before the bond:is released~, this is a,.breakdown off'the whole
process'. He thought all this time that inspections were. being done on',-the
roads, and heknows that up until a certain point in time,~inspections were~%~
being done. He. does .not know when the Engineering Department~stopped doing
these inspections. ~
Mr. Bain informedM=. St. John that six years ago these inspections were
not being done. He recalled a certain project where a small portion ofthe
bond was held. Hesaid that inspect,ionswere-made on the ditching~-etc~,~but
the~construction was not'done~ Mr. ~St. John reiterated~that-it is no use-to
bond a road if'the bond~ is released before someone inspects the road. ,He~
added that the inspector should be somebody on which the County can rely who
could certify approval'or'the road. Mr. Tucker believes that a certificate
from a certified engineer is required before the bond is released.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
84
Ms. Higgins replied that this opens up the whole subject of site plan
approvals and filing certificates of occupancy. She noted that even with some
of the commercial inspections, the Zoning Department checks to make sure that
everything is shown on the site plan, but they don't have the expertise to
look at everything. She said that, to her knowledge, there has never been
enough manpower to go out on every site. This also deals with entrances on
existing private roads. Mr. Tucker' stated that he was speaking of a certified
engineer's report from an engineer who had inspected the road and given
approval to the County that the road had been built to the required standard.
Ms. Higgins replied that she would check the files of some of the private
roads in the County to see if this has been done in the past. Mr. St. John
~Stated that he Would'~also-look into the situation.
Ms. Higgins referred to Peyton Drive as an example. She said that it was
a privateroad Ghat was dedicated.and bonded at one time, but the bond Was
released, There is no-evidence in the files that the,road was ever inspected.
during the.construction process. Mr. St. John commented, that there~has to, be
some triggering mechanism to justify releasing a bond. He will make a point
to look into this matter. ·
Ms. Higgins mentioned that the magnitude of the number of bonds involved
requires a significant inspection effort.
Mr. Bowie apologized for having to leave briefly at the beginning of this
presentation. He shares the County Attorney's views that there used to began
inspection process. He does know that in his own subdivision the to'ads ar~
a!l~private, the~.bond was released, and they are all terrible. He said that
the road he lives on is "beyond repair." The road will have to be rebuilt or
the people there will have'to live with,it theway it-is. He said that his~-~
subdivision was-built~a long time ago, end-the pr~ocedure did not worktoo well
as far as safeguarding the homeowners. - .....
Mrs Perkins pointed out thatthe concrete is breaking up on .Interstate~
64. He said that he is sure 1-64 was inspected by the. best engineers in the
country, and he wondered how long roads should be expected to last. He is
sure the repairs to Ir64~ are costing the.taxpayers a lot~ of money.:'He~thinks
that it~is possible to require the contractor or developer to have the road
certified by an engineering firm. He explained that the .certificate could ~
ensure-that the roadhas.been built to the correct specifiCations, it has been
compacted, no stumps~or~ rotten wood are buried under it, there is the specir?~
fie~amount of gravel,.the specified amount of blacktop, and the~roadhas {he
required thickness and grade~ He-~said that whoever signs the certificateis
putting his or her reputation on the line%
Ms. Higgins agreed that no matter what standards arerequired~.for.~ road,
over. a'time there will be-deteriora%ion, and it wil'l have to-be maintained.
She said that a private road situation will also need attention over a period
of time. Sheno%ed that even ~the grass growing on the shoulders will'eventu-
ally erode anddecrease the width of the road. She pointed out that there'.has
to be a definite~financial responsibility to,the property',owners along~,the
road. She thinks that often when.peoplebuy property, they don%t realize~thmt
their property~is located on~a Private roador~what-,their responsibility.
involves~
~Mr., Bowermanstated that the private maintenance agreement should-deal~
with the~prOblems that Ms~ Higgins_mentioned. He understands that~ after~a~'~
road is, apProved by theEngineering Department, it can. be built, but it may
not he.compacted. In the future, the private homeowners don't have just a
maintenance problem, they have a reconstruction problem based upon the fact
that it wasn't built correctly in the beginning~
Mr~ Perkins reiterated that. the construction problems could be corrected
if a certified engineerinspected the road. ~
Mr. Bain.commented that he does not want to hire a lot of people to~ do
these inspections~ In these situations, t~hereare, only six, eight or
homeowners who are. responsible for paying tohavethese private,~roadsr~con-
structed. He said that if a certified engineer approves the road, and five
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
85
years later something is wrong, it will be impossible to require the engineer
to do anything about it. He added that it might affect the engineer's reputa-
tion, but that does not do those people any good in the affected subdivision.
Mr. Perkins said private roads are not adequately maintained, but then
neither are public roads. All of the road problems cannot be solved by making
all of them State-maintained roads. Mr. Bain replied that this is not what he
is implying.
Mr. Perkins added that this puts the responsibility for the roads on the
State. He said that the State will say that it does not have the money for
repairs, and the homeowners do not have the money.
. ~ M~ Bain remarked that homeowners know they will have to pay a certain
amount of money for road maintenance into the homeowners' association. He
added that the'~t~r~ubles arise when ~they discover in three y~ars that ~the
problems involved,with the roadare not maintenance problems, and instead the
road will have robe reconstructed. , ·
Mr. Bowie stated thatthe County now-requires a maintenance agreement~
approved by the County Attorney for private roads, so this should take care 'of
the maintenance problems~ He believes theproblem that is left relates.to
inspections, but options as to how this can be handled are lacking. He
mentioned that the County could have its own staff do these inspections, in
which case-the County would have the liability. He is not too comfortable
with anybody with a. license 'being able to certify the road, but one option
would be to contract' someone who does haVe revolving bonding and fiduciary
responsibility as an inspector. He said that if the County is going to allow
private roads, there has to be assurance 'that they are built properly-.
Mr..Bain .thinks .private roads are needed~ however, problems are surfacing
in subdivisions over the years. Me if there isa legal issue as to, whether~or
not~the~County is responsibte-iC~the road is not constructed in the proper
manner. He went on to say that if the County is not legally responsible, is
this still something with whichthe County. wants to be involved. He is-not
sure thatit ~is in~thepublic interest not-to have somebody'responsible for ~
the ~eview of 'the r~adconstruction.
.Mr. Bowie asked Mr..St. John if he was going to look intohow the inspec-
t~ions were done'in the past and report back. to. the Board~ Mr. St, John
answered, "yes.', He said he was going to report back to the Boardwhat the
County actuallydoes as far as inspections are concerned.
Mr. Bain reminded Board members~that, Ms. Higgins-has alreadysaid that
there is no one on the staff who inspects the construction of the road. Mr.
St, John state~ that the ordinance requires that the bond be released when~,-~
writtencertificate is received stating that construction~was dOne,in-ac.cor-~-
dance with the bonded plan~
Mr. Bowie inquired when this requirement was enacted. Mr. St. john ~
replie~ that this requirement was enacted in'.August, 1974~
Mrs. Humphris asked from whom the written certificate has to be received.
Mr. St. John responded that the certificate needs to be~received from the ~
subdivider or'hisengineer. ~
Mr. Bain stated that~usually ,the engineer providesthe, certificate. Mr.
St. John pointed out that the question is whether or not the Board wants to
leave this requirement the way it-is and accept certificates or whethers.the
Board wants the County to go into the business of inspecting private roadsin
the same manner, as the Highway Department does for its secondary roads,..
MrsiHumphris pointed out tha~ the requirement is not working properly.
Mr. St. John replied that the requirement may not be working to the satisfac-
tion of those who live on these bad roads, butthe County's own Code~states
that for every private road there be a homeowners~ ~agreement. The Code
requires, in big print, that these roads are to be maintained privately by the
owners and neither the Commonwe,alth of Virginia~nor Albemarle County is
responsible for their construction, repair ormaintenance, He went~on~to say
that homeowners paid less for their lots than they would have had. to pay
originally if there had been a State road required.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
86
Mr. Perkins wondered if the problem is the actual construction or the
maintenance. Mr. Bain responded that the problem is with the construction of
the roads. He said that when homeowners start having problems with their
roads after a short period of time, often they don't just have to patch the
road, they have to rebuild it. Mr. St. John said that when building opera-
tions start, heavy cement and construction trucks travel over the roads. He
said that even when the roads are built to these standards, they are not
designed to carry the kinds of trucks that it takes to carry these kinds of
construction materials. He added that this is the point where the most damage
is done to the road.
(Mr. Bowerman left at 11:41 a.m.)
,.~ Ms. Higgins mentioned the written certification that comes from the
developer or the developer's engineer stating that the road was constructed
according.to the way'~it was proposed,and approved.~She-said the.developer and
contractor can~contend thata private roadis built according to the .way~.~it~
was designed, but it may not actually be built that way.~ She noted~that this
is the reason so many bonds are being held, and she is checking,onsome ~bonds
that have been held for a long time. She pointed out that even ~ith written
certification,~if there is not someone to verify that this certification is,~
correct, it will not mean anything. She added that it 'will take approximately
the same level of effort to inspect private road construction as it. takesfor
roads that are to be taken into'the secondary road system.
Mr. Bowie asked what this level of effort would require as far as person-
nel is concerned. Ms. Higgins answered that she could estimate the number of
manpower hours necessary for these inspections based on the anticipated number
of roads. She pointed out that currently there' is one inspector who is
~nspeQting the roads that go ,into the secondary road, system, and it"is~a
full-time effort for~him .... ~ ~
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 11:,44 a~m.)
Mr.~Bowie remarked thathe still thinksthe key is~howto tighten~p,the
inspections system, if~the County is going to have private roads. He thin, ks
that ~most of the ~Board agrees ,that private roads are justifiable,_but~the~
inspections problemhas to be solved. He said there haveto be ways this~
problem:can be handled either by .the staff or the contractor.
Mrs.~ Humphris'~agreed with Mr. Bowie,~hut she thinks that another problem
deals with the release of the bon'd~ Mr. Keeler said the language in,the
ordinance,might need to be ,changed. Whether or not the current private road
provisions or the new provisions'are involved, there ~are other engineering
matters involved in subdivisions',such as stormwater detention'facilities, etc.
He does not think the developer can be relied upon to saythat private roads
are built in the proper fashion.
Mr. Bowie agreed that Mr. Keeler is probably right, He be~lieves that the
Board w,onld like to havesome options on to how to solve.the inspections ,~
problems. He noted~that the problem has-at,least been identified as.~to~here
~thesystem is breaking down~ and'it strictly,involves inspections~ Mr.~ Tucker
stated .that if ~it~iS the Board's intent to maintain the private'roads provi-
~sions,'in theordinance,- then asolution to that issue willhave to be found.
.Mr, Bowiecommented that he believes Board members want to have a private
road provision inthe ordinance, but theywant to make .sure that they are
built properly.
Mr. Bowermansaid the' issue is~whether the standards ~for priVate, roads
can be changed to a more. tolerable and less intrusive condition. Did the
Planning Commissionand Committee members discuss whether or not adopting a
mountainous road standard would be counterproductive or supportive of the
clustering provisions that are in the ordinance? tt seems~at first glance
that if a longer private road could he'constructed to mountainousstandards,
whichwould be less intrusive to the envi=onment and less costly tobuitd,~it
might work against open space provisions and alustering provisions and icause.
development to occur which was not clustered. ~ - ~
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
87
Ms. Huckle replied that the Committee did discuss ecological advantages
of a mountainous standard because State roads require rolling terrain to be
flatter, straighter and wider, which means that there will be more cut and
fill involved. She agreed that purchasers of property on private roads have
the right to have a road that is soundly constructed. She wondered if further
inspections could be done. She said Mr. Tucker had mentioned that the Engi-
neering Department inspector is doing the State inspections for secondary
roads. She suggested that this inspector be relieved of the secondary roads
inspections or another inspector be hired. She feels there is a need for more
inspections in other areas such as soil erosion. She pointed out that this is
a big County and it is hard for these inspectors, no matter how diligent they
are, to get around to all the projects. She stated that the Committee did not
discuss the question~of-limiting development by requiring private roads, but
She~feels that there are some developers who are not going to be deterred by
the greater expense of the public roads. In those cases, she thinks the
ecologicaldamage is Considerably greater~ Ms. Huckle added that abetter way
to control rural gr~owth would be to lower'the number of by-right divisions.
Mr~ Bowermanstated that~he ~s not.trying to use private or public roads
to control development. He-said that clustering was considered in the hope~?
that'~if a'parcel was entitledto seven division rights,-and seven houses were
going to be built, they would 'be built in the most advantageous location to
the environment. He suggested that perhaps they could bebuilt 'where it~is
flat~andwhere it doesn't make any difference whether it is a publia or
privateroad,-regardless of the standard, instead of developing-larger lots
throughout a longer portion of the property.~ He added that market demand..,
might indicate that people want larger lots, but the developer mightdecide
that~he can clusterthehouses, have smaller infrastructure costs, sell the
~lots-cheaper and have a nice development with 93 acres of open space, which
accrues--to the benefit of these seven lots. His_concern iswhether this
differentstandard for rolling terrainmightmake it more, advantageous~to no~
cluster so thedeveloper will putin a~road and~sell the'larger lots,.
seems to him that anything other than clustering in the rural areas,would not
be advantageous to the' Comprehensive Plan. ·
Ms.~Huckte stated that the larger the road, the greater the cos~ would-~be
for the developer plus. there would be a greater maintenancecost. She said
that the incentivefornlustering'may still be there because of the~cheaper
road. Mr, Bowermanreplied thatthe devetoper~would have a different standard
underwhich he could build the road. He said that the road would be'built to
ahigher standard which would require less slopes, less grading andmore cut
and fill, which would.cost more than this proposal. Ne said that~it could
change the equation,
Mr.-Keeler remarked that thereis no guarantee, that thiswilt continue,
but~ since the rural preservation development was adopted in November~of 1989,
in staff' discussions with developers, there has-.only been onecase wherethere
has~beenm large development that was susceptible'.to.rural.preservation
development.~He mentioned~that a'development might still qualify for a
private road within a cluster as well as a private road if the whole property
is divided, if there is relatively ~the same topography throughout the properr
ry. Mr. Keeler infOrmed-the Board that to, date rural.preservation develop~
ments have'been successful, in getting developers topursue them as opposed~to
conventional~development. Ne cannot say with confidence whether or not ~he,
private ~oad is the "straw that will break the namel'sback" but he believes-
~hat it was observed earlier that-the selling price of rural lots isn't driven
so much by development costs as by the market. He thinks, that this is what is
creating thcS250,000 lots, and it~is not a question of whether or not it is
served by a public or private road.
Mr. Bowerman. askedif~-based upon M~.Keeler~s ~experience. of-dealing.with
thistype of-.situation, Mr. Keeler is implying that Mr. Bowerman's concerns-
might'not be warranted. Mr. Keeler replied that thereare likely to be some
situations wherethe development prices of the project~ are a big factor, and
whether a public or private road will be a big issue-to the developer~
said that under this proposal, a reduction of development costs would be~in
terms of cut and fill-because the pavement would 'be.the same.- He is not
saying ~that it will .not occur,~but he is not.sure that it is a major issue 'or
something that~willoccur frequently. ~
88
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Cilimberg commented that it has been observed that the more likely
scenario is that a developer will want 'to have the cluster, but he will ask
for a private road instead of a public road. He mentioned The Rocks develop-
ment where the developer shifted from a public road to a private road.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the market demand is there for a $250,000 lot, if
the developer will construct the development in that manner. Mr. Cilimberg
answered, "yes." He said that the developers will find a way to make sure
they can deliver what the public wants. Mr. Keeler stated that because of the
grade differences between VDoT mountainous standards and the rolling terrain
standards, there will be cases where a property can develop with a private
road where a public road could not be constructed.
,~ Mr.. Bowerman asked if Emerald Ridge is an example of Mr. Keeler's com-
ments. Mr. Keeler responded that Emerald Ridge is one of a very few cases
where VDoT allowed mountainous-standards because it~.~was close to'~the National
Park.. Hesaid that there is a big difference.between~ the rolling terrain~
standard of ten percentand mountainous terraih standard of 16 percent, an~
the horizontal curvature alSo makesa big difference.
Mr. Bain called attention to Page Eight of the staff report in thesecond
paragraphof the ~'Comment" section. He read from the report as follows:
"Provision is made to apPly mountainous standards to urban development-and
each case would be judged on its merits." He asked the meaning of~this state~
ment. Mr. Keeler answered thatthere are five distinct cases where private.
roads~are permitted in the ordinance. He said there~is anotherprovision-that
allows,the County to approve private roads outside of these five cases. He
mentioned that there~are two tables involved, and one table involves mountain-
ous standards and the~othertable requires rolling terrain standards which is
for townhouse developmentin the urban area. He added that if a public~-
purpose can,~be serve~.by using mountainous standards, then mountainous stan~
dards can beused fortownhouse development in the urban~area.
Mr. Bain'commented that the State would never allow this to happen, and
he recalled the situation at Redfields. Mr. Keeler responded that the State
would never take the private~ roads that Albemarle' County allows for townhouses
into~ the system b~cause the County allows parked cars to back out'into~.the
travelway~ Mr. Cilimberg commented that it is unlikely that the'State would
have allowed the~mountainous terrain standards at Redfields, even though'the
County had asked the State before toconsider that flexibility. Mr. Cil~imberg
then recalled theGlenmore development situation where the devel~pers.actually
asked for private roads because they were anticipating that the State would
never allow~mountainous standards for public use. He said there were~also
some concerns about the relationship of the roads, and the golf course'.
said that the Bomrd agreed~to let Glenmorehave private~roads under the
mountainous standards.'-He added that private roads were primary in the
Glenmore~developers' request.
-Next, Mr.. Cilimberg said~that he had'information for the Board on a
setback situation with'ZTA~l-06~ Mrs. Keelersaid that Mr. John Grady~ Zoning~
Department,~was present at the meeting andwould discuss asubdivision plat,
if Board members wished, that,~Mr~ Keeler handed out. Hesaid his~subdivision
plat woul.d~be affected, by the amendment to the ordinance. He went on to say
that currently the~required setback in the rural areas for aninternal private
or public road is 75 feet, and the amendment'would~ reduce that to~25 feet~ He
added that this change is in part to offset the increased right-of,way that is
being proposed with the new amendments. He added that the setback is also
being reduced because there have been several cases~where there is an existing
property that has a house on'it, and when it is subdivided; an~easement cannot
be obtained to where--the~ houseis located when it is 75'- feet~ from~the- ease-
ment~ He. noted thatsince the mid-1980's,-there have been nine variances
requested because of this. He is not sure all of these situations could be
helped-by this setback change, but it would have,helped some of them.
Mr. Keeler said~the~subdivision plat that was distributed to.'the BOard.'~is
pending.approval now~ and the dark triangle shows the area available under'
current ordinance provisionsto locate, the house~ The-lightershadedareas~
would be.-areas that would beavailabte under theamendment proposed-~ Most'of
the variances reqUested have inVolved front andback setbacks..He haS, .~
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
89
examples of plats of several to show what is occurring. He pointed out on one
plat where the proposed lot was located, with a good portion of the property
being in a flood plain area. He noted that a house and mobile home were
already in place on the front part of the property, and the subdivision could
not be approved without a variance because the mobile home was located 75 feet
from the property line but was only 45 feet from an easement. He said this
situation occurs with such frequency that the staff recommends that the Board
consider amending the ordinance. He stated that when there is a situation
occurring with a significant frequency, the Code suggests that theBoard of
Zoning Appeals recommend that the ordinance be amended if there is a provision
in the ordinance that many people cannot comply with. Mr. Keeler said he has
nine examples, and he knows of two plats which are being held awaiting the
outcome~oflthis~amendment.' If this amendment is approved, the two plats can
move forward, otherwise, the owners will have to obtain a variance. These are
the family division of one or two lots subdivisions.
Mr. Keeler then mentioned the Beaumont~ subdivision and Mrs. Humphris-'~ .
comments about the additional grading because of the .public road.~He pointed
out-the Beaumont subdivision on a map and noted the swale in a certain area,.
and said that in. order to meet public road standards, a tremendous amount of
fii1 work.~was done. He. indicated a yellow band on themap and stated-that
this is.an,area on each of the lots that will be picked up for building
location.'. He~addedthat this amendment does not affect septic system loca-
tion, only building setback. He said that septic systems can be. located in
these areas now, however, if the building.setback-is pushed 75 feet back from
the right-of-way, the housewill need to be put uphill from thedrainfietd~.~
He noted~that the blue on the map represents 25 percent.slopes. He pointed
out,~'that-if the building setback-.is 75 feet, some of the sites may have to
pump to-the drainfields, He reiterated that this amendment will provide50
feet of area available for thehouse-location.~ The areas are already avail-
able for well and septic system locations.
Mr. Bain asked if the~road that Mr.. Keeler mentioned is an internal
public road,. Mr. Keeler answered, "yes." Mr. Bain asked Mr. Keeler to.assume
that this road is a private road with a right-of-way width of 40 feet. He
wondered~if the requirement would encompass 20-feet on each side of theroad
plus 25 feet for the location of the house or would there just be a total
requirement of 25 feet.. Mr. Citimberg responded that the~distance is measured
from the edge of theeasement.~ Mr~ Bain remarked that in some'of the subdivi-
sions, the'developer is not going to allow a house'to beclose toga public~ ~,~
road. He asked if-this will affect this amendment. He pointed out that in
reality what is: hopedto be accomplished might/never happen~
Mr. Keeler answered that ridge lines are followedwith road designs.~He
said that~with large-scale commercial developments, this amendment would be of
benefit, and the developer may.be able to acquire one or two more lots than he
could otherwise. He showedon the map where one lot was deleted because
septic locations, and house site could not be found on slopes of less' than 20~
percent. He added~ that the primary effect of this amendment is for the oneor
two'lot subdivisions and family-divisions where the front part of the~property
is already developed, and. there is'no way to have an easement and meetthe
setbacks. Subsequently, a variancehas to be pursued which may ormmy not be
approved.,. :
Mt. Bain asked-if, for the most part, the variances are approved,~ 'Mr~
Keeler replied thathe, believes most variances are approved~.
Mr. Bain stated that for a family subdivision, he is not concerned about
the variance. He does. notwanttomake it easy, however~ for a develOper to~
use thefamily subdivision situation. He:wonderedif a distinction can, be
made under,existing State law. Mr.-.Keeler-answered.that he believes it is
possible~tobe more liberal with family divisions than a standard subdivision,
but he is unsure exactly how this could be accomplished: He said that the one
advantage to a familydivision.is that the Code, spells'Out:the right-of-way,.'
so.in some. cases, the people have been able to-meet the Code'requirement and.',~
nothave~to obtain a variance. He said that the requirement is'for a minimal
tenfoot right-of-way which is really not practical'for maintaining, a driveway
or:tohave the necessary drainage.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
9O
Mr. Grady pointed out that the nine variances that Mr. Keeler mentioned
are for single-family homes, but as far as farmland is concerned, that one or
two-lot subdivisions are also seeking variances for accessory structures such
as storage sheds, barns, pools, detached garages, etc., He noted that anywhere
the side setback may be encumbered by a structure, whether it was established
prior to December, 16 when the ordinance was put in place or whether it is
being created now, staff has to be sure an easement along the property line
does not restrict the neighbor and the property owner by 75 feet. He noted
that 10 to 11 variances are being granted each year on the accessory struc-
tures. He remarked that it is hard to tell people that the easement is not on
their property, but because it is adjacent to their property they cannot build
their structures closer than 75 feet to that property line. He noted that Mr.
Ke~e~te~is holding two~plats~andMr. Grady is holding has four variances that
involve~ 25 feet and they are all one or two family subdivisions, and they are
all on easements for rights-of-way that were established prior to December, 16
when the Ordinance-was .adopted~
Mr.<Bowie commented that the issue of inspections is~stillunresotved,
whether.or not,the' amendment is approved. He added that this Board'wiltbe
getting more information-ata.later time dealing with inspections. Mr. Bain
wondered if sug.gestions and costs-from staff could be~given~tothe Board
before a decision is made.. ~
Mr. Bowie asked if Mr~ Bain would like for'the inspection-issue to be
settled before the amendment on the roads is~approved., Mr. Bain answered.that
Unless there is some urgency tohave this amendment approved, he would like to
getthe inspections issue settled first. He said he knows the staff has been
working on. thequestion for a long time~
Mr~ Bain then moved, that a decision be deferred until December 11 on
STA-i-~i, Amendment to Chapter~18 of the Albemarle Code to incorporate VDoT
mountainous terrain and rolling terrain standards so that a response can be
received fromm, staff on theinspections issue ash well asthe estimate of. cost.
Mrs..Humphris seconded the motion. Roll wascalle~, and ~the motion'_'
carried by the following recorded vote:~ ~
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: - None.
Mr. Keeler told the. Board, in regard to ZTA~i-06, that this' amendment.~
really stands on its own,~ regardless of what is done with the private roads
amendment. He noted that even if private roads were not allowed, there ~are -
still- easements to ~be~'~cOnsidered. ·
At this time,, Mr., Perkins~moved to approve ZTA-1-06, by' adopting An
Ordinance to Amend~ and Reenact Section 10~4-, Area and Bulk Regulations, of~ the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, to amend setback regulations in the Rural
Areas'District related~to~privateroads.
Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried
with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way.
Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 10.4, AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS,
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
91
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 10.0, Rural Areas District, HA, in Section
10,4, Area and Bulk Regulations, of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, be amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Amend table under Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, as
10.4 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS
!
{
{ mv_,ouxmmm~s
{
'DIVISIONS BY RIGH~ DIVISIONS BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
(Amended 8-14-85)
Gross Density O. 5 du/ac O. 5 du/ac
{Minimum lot size 2.0 acres 2.0 acres
{Minimum frontage
{existing public
_{roads
{
{Minimum frontage
linternal public
{or private roads
250 feet 250 feet
1..50 feet
150 feet
{Yards, minimum: _ .
{ Front (existing public roads)
{- Front (internal public or -
{ private road)
{Side
{ Rear ~
75 feet 75 feet
25 feet 25 feet
25 feet 25 feet
35 feet 35 feet
{Maximum
{ structure
~height
35 feet 35 .feet
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: To amend the service area bounda-
ries of the Albemarle County Service Authority, in Scottsvilte ~o include
~M130A~i).~ Parcel 64B on ~the southwest corner of Route 6 and Route.726 across
from the Scottsvitle shopping center for water and sewer service (Deferred
from October 9,1991).
Mr~ ~Bowie.noted that this public hearing deals with amending the service
area boundaries of Scottsville to include Parcel 64B on thesouthwest corner
of Routes 6 and 726. He asked for &brief summary from the staff before he
opened the public hearing.
Mr~ Cilimberg told the Board that a history as to the considerations that
went into.the servicearea designations in Scottsvilte~isincluded~in.amemo
to the Board dated October 2, 1991. He said the staff's recon~nendation is
baser on/the Comprehensive Plan recommendations that there not be any service
area expansion~oUtside of growth areas. ~In~this particular case, the area~
lies in the Totier Creek watershed. This request only involves making water
and sewer service available for this one property, whereas, it is now desig-
nated only for water service, -
Since there were no more questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Bowie opened
the public hearing and asked if the' applicant .would like to speak.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
92
Mr. George Dansey told the Board members that he owns the property known
as Parcel 64B in Scottsville. In 17 when he purchased it, Mr. Dansey said he
was told that this property was to be served in the future by water and sewer
service. He said that he has a map to indicate that. He added that thinking
these services were available influenced his decision to buy the property. He
stated that at no time between 17 and now was he made aware that the property
would not be served by water and sewer service until Mr. Brent informed him
that only water service was available. He noted that properties around him
that are zoned in the' same manner as his property are getting water and sewer
service, such as the Shopping Center, a Chevrolet dealership and the National
Bank. He would like for his property to be included for both services, also.
~'Mrs. Humphris wondered if there is any danger to public health or safety
by'not extending service to this piece of property. Mr. Cilimberg answered
that he is not aware of any danger. He asked the applicant to respond as to
whether or'not the property has had percolation~tes.ts.~ ~Mr. Dansey.replied
that the property was .threeacres in size, 'and it~has~been divided'in half.
He said that he has an office building on one-half, andusesa septic 'system~
Mr. Bowermanasked if staff can distinguish this specific piece of
property from properties along HYdraulic Road which 'are not currentlyserved,
or the property that-borders the boundaryof Crozet which~was requested for a
residential use outside ofthe urban area of Crozet. Mr. Ci~limbergresponded
that Parcel 64B has had commercial zoning for~some time, and the adjacent~.',~
properties have commercial zoning. He pointed out that across the street
there is a shopping, center which has commercial zoning, and it .haswater and
sewer service whereas this property has only water service. He added that
this property waspurchased when the~service area designation was less defini-
tive. He cannot cite individual commercial properties'west of Hydraulic, Road
that now have water service only. He stated that every 'additional property'
brought into water and/or sewer service areas, takes away fromthecapac~ty to
serve the growth areas; areas that are intended'fordevelopment~..-'~He said~ this
is the~negative factor that is~.always addressedin every situation,. Even
though this is just one property, it will still take something away from that
capacity.~
~Mr. Bowerman,saidhe.would have thought that staff would have'indicated
the rationale,for-the growth.area~designation is more important than.expmnding
acapacity and taking it away from the growth area for water ~andsewer~ser- ,-
vice. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the report indicates that staff certainly
does not want to extend services 'to create the possihility.fordevelopment
outside of growth areas. This property could still develop because the
commercial zoning is already in place. .The propertyhas, a septic system~and
could probably get approval for' anadditional system. He cannot say~ however,
how development is affected by not having sewer versus having it, because~the
situation has not been evaluated, ~-He noted thatthestaff' always considers-
the Comprehensive Plan in every recommendation. --
Mr. Bowerman asked if.there are properties along HydraUlic Road-which"are
zoned for~commerciat use and fall into this exact same set of circumstances.
Mr. Cilimberg replied thathe does not know ofany properties alongHydraulic
Road that only havewater service. He believes that all of the properties .to
which Mr. Bowerman is referring have' water andsewer service, available to
them. ._~
Mr. Bowermmn asked if these properties are located in the servicearea,
Mr. Cilimberg responded, "yes,"Mr. Keeler agreed, and said that any ~property
· with these services would have robe in the service area. There are sevsral
categories which include water to existing 'structures only, a cat~gory whick~'
was intended to let the developer'have water for additional development,of~'the
property. . - -.
Mr. Perkins recalled a situation in Crozet on the north side ofthe
railroad tracks wheresewer services were made available to. existing strue-,:~~
tures. ~ ......
Mr. Bowerman. asked .if this particular case involving Parcet64B isa
unique circumstance, and hewondered if it was similar, to anything else in
Albemarle County. Mr.. Keeler replied that in 1980, the Board directed the
staff to do the Zoning Map in accordance with a number of policy statements.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
At that time, staff was to reduce the urban area and potential development in
the watershed. Unless there was an approved site plan, or the property was
already developed, rural zoning was applied. At that time, the same standard
did not apply to villages, but at a later time the Board said the villages
that were located in the reservoir watershed needed to be considered with the
notion of reducing their size. He pointed out that the Earlysville Village
changed and the boundary moved. The Board did not take away urban zoning, but
service areas were changed. With the last Comprehensive Plan amendment, Ivy
was deleted as a growth area, but there is still a village residential area
designation that will allow additional development.
Mr. Cilimberg said the only commercial pieces of property lying in a
watershed, but~'lyi~g-~-outside of a growth area that have water service only,
are those several properties that are along Route 6 in Scottsville.
Mr. Bain asked .when the' shopping center:acquired .both services.-.~.Mr.~ Way
responded that the shopping center has just acquiredboth services~ Th~s~was
part' of the extension of the water and sewer lineout of Scottsville. ~He-~
recalled that this Board had indicated that even-though the shopping center
was in a watershed area, the land was already being used in a-commercial way,
and if there was-ever going to be any commercial.development in Scot.tsvi.lte,
it~would have to 'take place in that shopping center area~ Mr. Cilimberg
explained that the service area designations had existed for some time. Mr~
Way agreed. Mr. Bowie stated that the area where the shopping center is
located is the logical place for support facilities for Scottsville if
Scottsville is going to grow.
Mr~ Bain asked'~about an. area 'om~Route 726. Mr. Cilimherg answered that
alt properties in this direction are designated as full., service areas; they
are within the growth area.
Mr. Bain asked if 'the road involved is the one going to the Totier Creek
watershed. Mr. Citimberg responded,"yes."" He said that .as Route~ 6 goes ~into
town, the boundary of .the growth area is Crossed .at the intersection of Route
6 and Route 726.
Mrl Bain wondered if. Paulette's Lumber Company is in the growth arga.
M~. Way answered, '~o." Paulette~s Lumber Company is to the west of the
boundaryline~ Mr. Bain asked what is to the east. Mr. Way responded that
houses are on the property to theeast. Mr. Cilimberg said an auto dealership
is in the corner of one of the properties. Mr. Way agreed. He pointed out
three houses on the map, the Chevrolet dealership, another piece of property
that is zoned forCommercial use and the shopping center-. He stated .that'~half
of' Rarcel 64B already has a building, on it, which is being used as George
Dansey-Plumbing andHeating. He said the other half of the property is an
open field. He then pointed ~out the lumbercompany, the fire station, .the
road and an areawhere a church has been approved to.be-built. ~
At this time, Mr. Way moved to amend the'service area boundaries~of~the
Albemarle County Service Authorityin Scottsville to include TM130A(1), Parcel
64B on the southwest corner of Route 6 and RoUte 726 across from the
Scottsville shopping ~center .for water and sewer service. He added ~that.he
thought it was an oversight that this area in Scottsvillewas not included in
the service area,boundaries~ of the Albemarle County Service Authorityorigi-
natly. He wenton to say'that one of the reasons .the lumber company to ~the
west has not requested inclusion in the service area boundaries is because
pumping would be required. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion~
Mrs. Humphris said she does.not believe it .was an~o~ersightthat this
property~was not included in the service'area-boundaries, She thirds this
propertywas not included intentionally~because the property is in the Toiler
Creek watershed area~-and commercial zoning canstill be implemented through
the use of septic systems without its being connected to public sewage facili-
ties..She accepted the conc<tusions in the staff report that, based on.the ~
current policy, the service area does not need to be changed for this one
exceptiom.
Mr..~Way asked Mr.~ Dansey to commen~on the 'state of his sePtic system at
this-time. Mrs. Humphris told.Mr. Way that it is not the. proper time for Mr.
Dansey to make comments. Mr. Way then remarked that Mr~ Dansey's septic-
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
system on the current property is at a point where it is dangerous. Mrs.
Humphris stated that she had asked that question, and she was told that there
was no danger. Mr. Way commented that he would rather accept the word of the
people in the area rather than people who were not present when the ruling was
made, when all they have to rely on are minutes from a number of years ago.
Mrs. Humphris reiterated that she had asked the question of whether or not
there was any public health or safety danger, and the answer was, "no." Mr.
Cilimberg answered that he had responded that he was not aware of any danger.
Mr. Bain stated that he is looking strictly at the policy in this situa-
tion, but he would like to do something to help. He wondered how many build-
ings are on the shopping center property and for how long. Mr. Way responded
~that~i'a-tt the buildings~ in the shopping center were there prior to 1980.
However,, one of the reasons it was decided to extend the boundaries is that
there is room for more expansion on the shopping center property. He added
that~the reasonthat there has not been~more expansionis~because there was no
water or sewer services.
.Mr. Cilimberg indicated that the County's files include an area of'
expansion foc the.shopping centerwhichWould double its~existing size.. Mr.
Keeler noted that, giventhe on-site utilities, there is not~a wide choice of
occupancy that~could beincludedin the~shopping center, because the capacity
~f the water and drainfield are limited.
Mr. Bain remarkedthat unless the staff can distinguish'~etween this-~
property (Parcel 64B) and the shopping center property, he does~not~seea~
policy distinction. He noted that~ the shopping center propertyis in.the'
Totier Creek watershed area~ Headded that~if there, isn't any difference, the
-distinction should not have been made in 1989. He said. that he is not.going
back to read the minutes,~ and~he does not~knowwhy the distinction~was made.
He~'thinks-this type- of situation has to be considered as far~as'~the Urban area
isconcerned, as wellas the rational basis and policy basis that was used-.
Mr. Cilimberg said the shopping center' was never included in the growth area,
although it is~recognized in the Comprehensive Plan. There were no growth
araa boundary adjustments made,for the shopping centeror the other properties
in that area. - ~
Mr~Bowerman~ asked if one of theoriginal concerns was that there was no
public water supplied to the shopping center and this made the shopping center
a tremendous fire hazard~ Mr. Way said this could havebeen the case., He?
said that water and sewer werefinally furnished to the shopping center. The
~eason the sewer service was added was so the~shopping center could expand.
He said thiswas the~primary reason for the whole~ project of incre'asing the
boundary lines to that area so that the Town of Scottsville, which had been
designated as~ community rather than~a village,' would have the ability for a
commercial area to support its growth. _ , .....
Mr. Bain said the growth area was not expanded. Mr. Way agreed~ but~he
said. the Board recognized what was already in place. Me noted~that the piece
ofproperty in question is not vacant because there is-a large plumbing and
heating company there that employs approximately 70 or 80 people.
Mr~ Bowie recalled that there were some septic system problems in the
area and one problem was at the shopping center. He saidthat Mr. Way had
stated this problem, and if nobody objects, he~will~accept~Mr~~ Way~sstate-
ment, He asked if Board members wanted to heara response from the applicant
relating to this concern.
Mr. Bain said if there is 'a health problem, it couldbe',handled by.having
utilityservice to existing structures, but it:would not help with thefuture
development of the property~ Mr. Way pointed out that the futuredevelopment
of the property is the important issue.
Mrs. Humphris'asked, again, .if there is a health problem involved-. Mr.-
Bowerman~said now. the property is being divided into two parts~ Mr.~'Bain~
clarified.the motion just made by saying that the request is not just for
utility service to existing structures. Mr. Bowie agreed~ He said that the
motion is to approve thewhole-request' to amend'the service, areaboundaries of
theAlbemarle County Service Authority.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
95
Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowerman indicated that their concern relates to the
policy issue, and not the specific request. Mr. Bowie stated that he can
support the motion mainly because he can see the property is completely
surrounded and there is already sewer to part of the area for the purpose of
growth.
Roll was called, and the request was denied by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
_ Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Purchase and/or Disposition of
Public Property.
Mr. Bowie.said he is not sure the agenda can be finished today, and if it
cannot, he suggested that themeeting be continued tonight or until.next
Wednesday afternoon. He will ask for a vote at the end of the meeting.
At 12:49 p.m., Mr. Bain moved that the Board adjourn into executive
session for discussion on property matters-pertaining to the Greenwood School
property and property on Berkmar Drive. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS:~iNone. ~
The Board reconvened into open sessionat 1:52 p,m. Motion was offered
by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, toadopt.the following resolution
certifying the executive~session:
CERTIFICATION OF ~I4EKTING
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-kct; and ~.
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the. Code of Virginia requires
certification bythe Albemarle .County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE', BE IT RESOLVED that the~Albemarle-CountyBoard~o£:
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of~each~member~sknOwl-
edge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open
meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive
meeting to which'thisi~ertif~a~o~'~S~l~ti.on applies, and (ii) only
such public business matters as were identified in the motion conven-
ing the executive meeting wereheard, discussed or considered by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
AYES: Messrs. Bain, ]RJwermmn, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, M~..-'Perkinsand
Mr. iWay. '
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DI]RI~GM~'RTING: None.
ABSTAIN DIIR.I~GVOTE: None.
Not Bocketed:.Mr~ Tucker said that no agreement has been reached with
the Marthe Robbin. Schoo1 for~the purchaS:ei~OftheOldCrozet Elementary School.
Staff therefore requests authority to notifythem that. the sales contract is
null and Void, and that staff be authorized to look.for other uses for the
building.-
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to authorize staff to proceed as
outlined above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bain. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Finalize Bond Issue 9lB - $16,070,000.
Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum:
"Attachedfis the~final~Reso~ution for the Board of Supervisors ratify-
ing the award of the $16,070,000 ~PSA Bonds.
The~Bond Sale on November 7~'1991, resulted inan~excellentinterest
rate of~ 6.21973 percent.~ In comparison, the 1989 bond rate was
percent and the Spring issue-=ate was 6.369 percent. The closing
date, at which time the actual funds will be available to the County,
is scheduled for November 20, 1991.
The FY 91/92 Budget projected interest cost on this issue at $980,606.
Due to the reduced interest rate and the delay in the Bond Sale the
actual interest expense for FY 91/92 wilt be~$581,499, a savings of
$398,561. The first principal payment of $840,000 is scheduled for
December 1992. We' had. previously projected the principal at level
payments of $803,500 for 20 years. The actual payments are substan-
tially higher in.~the 'second, third and fourth years~ and then begin
reducing after the fifthyear.
ThiSmatter .requires the Board's approval atthe November 13th meetr
lng"
Mr. Bowerman wondered why there.was a progression in principal repayments
rather than a set amou_ut. Mr. Tucker answered that it is not a standard
funding ofprincipal payments,~and in the~ next three or four years, they will
be considerably higher~, He~.said that this isdone based on the.¥PSA!s~own
market~
Mr. Bowerman asked if'this~was the reason that.there was a lower rate of
interest.~.'.'~Mr. Tu~ker answered that ~he does no~ ~thinkthat~this is-necessarily
the reason~. He~?thinks, instead, that the'interest~ rabelais based on the market
value.
Mr~.Bain saidthe~last bond issue diduot'have.a~set principal repayment,
either.~ He is very happy with the interest rate. Mr. Tucker agreed thatvery
seldom is there a consistent principal repayment schedule·
At this time~, motiom~was offered by Mrs. Humphris,1 secendedby Mr~
Bowerman to adopt the following resolution ratifying the'awarding of the
$16~070,000 School~ Bond1991 Series B, of Albemarle County, Virginia~ to the
VirginiaPublic School Authority.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded'vote:
Messrs. Bain, BoWerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.'Perkins andMr.'Way~
None. - -~
RESOLUTION RATIFYING AWARD OF $16,070,000
SCHOOLBOND, 1991..SERIES B, OF~ALBEMARLE COUNTY~ VIRGINIA,~
TO VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
WHER~S., by resolution adopted on September 18, 1991 (the "Bond
Resolution"), the~Board of Supervisors of. Albemarle ~County, Virginia
(the"COunty")~ provided for the issuance of $16',070,000 School Bond,
1991, Series B (the "Bond~'), of the C~unty to the~ Virginia Public
School AuthOrity (the!'Authority");
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
97
WHEREAS, such resolution authorized the County Executive to award
the Bond to the Authority at such interest rate or rates as would
produce a differential in each year of not more than ten one hun-
dredths of one percent (10/100 of 1%) over the annual rate to be paid
by the Authority on the bonds it sold to provide funds to purchase the
Bond, provided that no interest rate or rates on the Bond should
exceed nine percent (9%) per year; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 1991, the County Executive on behalf of
the County awarded the Bond, bearing interest at the annual rates and
maturing on December 15 in years and amounts as shown on Exhibit A
hereto, to the Authority;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA:
1. The action of the County Executive in awarding the Bond to
the Authority is hereby ratified, approved and confirmedandthe Bond
shall bear interest at the annual rates and shall mature on December
15 in years and amounts as shown in Exhibit A,
'2. The Bond shall be in substantially the form approved by the
Bond Resolution, with such changes as may be necessary or appropriate
to conform-them to the provisions of this resolution.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
EXHIBIT A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
$16,070~000 SCHOOL BOND, 1991 SERIES B
Year Amount Rate Year Amount Rate
1992 $ 840,000 7.500% 2002 $800,000 6~.100%
1993 1,135,000 7.500 2003 790,000 6.200
1994 1,145,000 7.500 2004 760,000 6.225
1995 1,165,000 6.350 2005 735,000 6.350
1996 980,000 5.500 2006 715,000 6.350
1997 745,000 5.500 2007 665,000 6.350
1998 730,000 5.700 2008 660,000 6.350
1999 750,000 5.800 2009 610,000 6.350
2000 730,000 5.850 2010 555,000 6.350
2001 960,000 5.950 2011 600,000 6.350
Agenda Item No. 13a. Appropriation: United Way Scholarship Program
Change Request.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff's rePort as follows:
"Attached is a letter from the United Way Child Care~Scholarship Program
requesting yourapproval to transfer $10,000 of its Albemarle appropria-
tion .from the "teen mother" program to its regular child.care scholar-
ship program. The .teen program is currently servingonly three~ girls
with.two more in the process of applying, and at this rate does not
expect to use more than 50 percent of its allocated funds before-the end
of the fiscal year. In contrast, the regular scholarship program has
encumbered all of its $20,250 allocation and already has 16 working
Albemarle families on that waiting list.
Staff:recommends that .United ~Way be allowed to use unencumbered-funds
from the teen mother program to provide scholarships to other Albemarle
families. Although United Way has not been successful in finding teen
mothers to participate in this program., they. have made a genuine effort
to reach out to the schools and other community groups. They have also
documented the need for additional regular scholarships and have worked
closely with the Department of Social. Services to assist Albemarle
families.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
98
The total FY 91/92 appropriation to United Way was $40,250, $20,250 to
the regular scholarship program and $20,000 to the teen mother program."
Mr. Bowie commented that he will not support the request today because
the teen program is set up to meet a definite, identified need. He does not
understand why United Way cannot find enough people to take part in the
program. He recalled that there were other people who applied for the funds
who had enough teen mothers in their programs to justify the funds. He said
that the Board gave the funding to United Way because United Way runs other
programs. He thinks that before the program is eliminated, he would rather
see if some other agency could locate the teen mothers who need this service.
Mr. Tucker said that a letter from Ms. Beasley, the Program Coordinator,
is attached to the Board members' information which identifies the problems
with finding potential users of,lthis fund~ Headded that Ms. Beasley is ~
present,at.the meeting if~the Board would.like to hear her response. ~,
Mrs. Humphris stated that she has read Ms. Beasley's letter and she
understands what Ms. Beasley is saying. However, Mrs. Rumphris felt .as though
she would still like to hear a response from Ms. Beasley~
Ms. Beasley asked if there is a specific question that the Board would
like'for her to address.
~Mr. Bowie mentioned that when the program'beganmore mothers had.been
identified in one school than are indicated in Ms~ Beasley's letter. He
added, too, that there are other programs which have more mothers under their
care now than the letter indicates can be foundfor the United Way program.
Ms.~Beasley'icommented that the problem is not~a matter-of~finding those
mothers. She said that the principals and ~guidance counselors in all of the
high schools know about the United Way teen mother program, and she talks with
these schools regularly. She stated that she has also talked'with Teen%Sight,
and-Teen Sight has sent.her the girls who are getting assistance now. S-he~
went on.to saythat everyone involvedwith teen mothers in the County is aware
of the information that she has given to this Board. She added that no one
has indicated to her that there has been any~problem~with the UnitedWay%s
aCcessibility or aVailability of what it has to offer. She said that it is a
mystery to her why there are not more girls in the program. She remarked that
the people who are working with these teen mothersknow~that this program
exists, and they are making efforts to send people tothe program.
Ms. Beasley,noted-.that United Way's..agreement with this Board is-to::-
administer the funds on the basis of referrals. She said one of the recommen-
dations that Teen Sight'madethis-summer was to, recruit more providers from
theWestern Albemarle High SchOol area. :Shenoted'that the programworks with
children and youth~and, also, advertises itsservices. She stated'that eight"
to.~ten people responded.to the advertisement, and when school opened, there~
was not a single reques.t'for a provider. She wanted theBoard to know the
program's willingness to work with any recommendations that are presented,.
Mr.s. Humphris-stated that~itseems to~her the perceived need does not
exist~ Ms~ Beasley responded that that it looks as thoughthere is no need,
but she pointed out that this program is helping some girls. She noted~that"~
help is important whether two, fiveor ten girls are involved~ She 'added that
the numbers are much smaller than the information that was given to this Board
two yearsago. She said that United Way did not get involved until it was
asked, and.UnitedWaydid not come to this~Board initially.to~saythat~there
was a need and to ask for a certain amount of funding. She said that United:~
Way wanted to be responsive~to the County's'needs. She pointed'out that~"-
United Way already had..a program~and it was hoped the~teen program~coutd
coordinate with that program. · .~ ~-~-
Mr. Way commented that he does not believe any Board member isinferring
that United Way has not done a good job in running this program. He called
attention to the last paragraph of Ms. Beasley's letter, and he said that
there are a number of reasons, other than child care, that are.suggested as
possibilities of how the program's funds can be.utilized. He,wonders i£ it
would be worthwhile for this Board to bring Ms. Beasley's group together, as
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
99
well as someone from the schools and someone from Teen Sight to see if there
is an element that might be missing in this program other than just child
care. He wondered, as an example, if Teen Sight might have a counseling
service that could be used along with this program and then perhaps more than
one element of the program could be considered. This would at least present
an opportunity to explore where this money might be used, and it would also
address a larger issue.
Mr. Bowie stated that he does not think that anyone meant to imply that
United Way was not properly administering the program. He pointed out,
however, that the teen mothers are somewhere, and rather than transferring the
money to a different program, he would like to make sure that there isn't some
otherway thatthe intended, population can be served. He would rather explore
the.situation before a decision is made. He does not think that this will
take a great deal of time, and if a teen mother needs help, she will still be
served~ -Meanwhite,':it will' allow time to-find out what else is availabte~
Mrs~ Humphris remarked that the program has already consideredwhat could
be keeping teen mothers from participating in the program. She'agreed with
Mr. Way that if a group.-could get togetherand decide how to bring these funds
to bear.on the identified problems then perhaps more teen mothers might, be
served~
Ms. Beasley mentioned that the program is in a transition period at this
time, because she is leaving at the-end of theweek. She said, however, that
the new.coordinator is present at the meeting. She added that for. this~
program to take a-leadership role in the next few weeks, she would ask for- .~ -:
directionfrom the'Board for thenew coordinator~
Mr. Way stated~that he was thinking of someone from the County's staff
who would ~coordinate the group meeting. Other Board members agreed~ Mr;
Tucker suggested that the matter be deferred until December 1t. He said that
an answer may not be available at that time, but a report would'be given to
the Board.
Mr. Way commented that if the suggestioncomes'back that'the teenprogram
be administered in the school system, he will vote against it on December 11.
Motion was offered'by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to defer this
item untilDecember 11,~ 1991. Roll was called and the.motion carried by the~
following recorded vote:
AYES: :Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs~ Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13b. Reappropriation: School Fund Balance.
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"At its meeting~on October 14, 1991, the School Board votedunanimous-~
ly to request the Board of Supervisors to'reappropriate the ending
fiscal year 1990-91 School Fund balance. As stated in my prior
communication to you, if this request~isapproved, the-individual
schools that ended the fiscal year with a positive balance would
receive their prorated share of the ending School Fund balance~ The
schools that ended the year with a negative balance would not receive
additional funds. The additional monies would be used to provide
instructional materials, supplies, textbooks, and library materials."
Mr. Tucker indicated that the 'School Board had requested to reappropriate
the ending fiscal year 1990-91 School Fund balance of $189,567.00. He said
that Dr. Paskel would like to shift'these fundsto~those schools that were
able to save money during the school year so that they can have additional
monies for instructional materials, supplies, textbooks, etc. He said:that
Dr. Pasket is present.at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board
might.have. ~
100
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mrs. Humphris asked if there is any possibility of an incentive program
in the upcoming school budget that would relate to the use of utilities within
the schools to encourage them to conserve energy and water usage. She added
that it might be possible for something positive to result from it for the
individual schools. Dr. Paskel replied that in the initial stages of budget
development for 1991-92, one of the objectives was implement energy conserva-
tion on an incentive basis. He noted that he had done the same thing in two
other school systems where it was highly effective for three or four years.
He said that everybody figures out the system, they are generally rewarded
well, and money is not basically saved, but it is redirected. He added that
rather than sending the money to power companies and service authorities, it
goes into the classroom.
Mr; Tucker explained that part of the savings depicted in this School
Fund balance is from VRS, so the entire amount is not totally from the
schools! savings~ Mr~Bowie asked how much of the,money is from VRS.
Tucker responded that $103,000 is from VRS,~ (Mr. St.; John returned at 2:10
p.m.)
Mr. Bowie stated that the schools' savings amounted to approximately
$85,000. He recalled that the finance report earlier in the meeting showed
that a small reserve was'available to meet anticipated shortfalls. He won-
dered about the difference in spending the money as it is appropriated or
saving it and then spending it all. .He added that either way the money is all
gone, and there is nothing for the next year's shortfall. He said that there
might be some justification~to use part of the $85,000 as an incentive, but if
it is all spent, then there is no saving.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the return of the VRS. money was anticipated. Mr.
Tucker answered that it was learned after the fiscal year beganthat the VRS
money would be~returnedbefore the end of thefiscal~year.- Mrs~ Humphris then
inquired'if theYRSmoneywas anticipated-when'the 1990,91 budget was~ap-.
proved. Mr. Tucker answered, "no." He explained that YRS rates were budgeted
based on the rate that had been expected.
Mr. Bain commented that someof the'schoolshad .savings interms~of.their
allocations for materialsduring the existing fiscal year, butall of the
money wasnot spent~ Mr. Tucker,stated that Dr. Paskel had explained inhis
memo of October 22, 1991, that the funds would be prorated to those schools~
which had some~savings. ~The'schools that:did not have'any savings will not
receive any of this money.
Mr. Bain remarked'that the schools are probably doing the same thing with
this year's budget. He said that some of the schools do a better job tham'
others as~far as budgeting is concerned, and he would like-to know that~these
schools ~wilt be able .to get somefunds, because he feels~they'will use-them,
wisely~ Mr. Way said.that this.sort~of system provides, for that.
Mr~ Bowerman asked how the additional textbooks and library materials and
supplies Would be allocated beyond giving back to thoseschools what they
saved.~ He'noted that there will still be a significant balance left.
pointed out that'hehad some difficulty-following~theaccounts in terms of
where the money came from.
Dr. Paskel answeredthat they are school based accounts, ~and they are~the
accounts .that now havea formula based on the number of dollars that a given
school receives. He said that there is approximately $2.1 million throughout
the school system that is divided based upon thenumber of students. -Henoted
that he and Mr. Tucker cooperatively.worked through this and tried to narrow
it to those accounts thatdirectlyaffected-the classrooms. .He said that
those are-the accounts that have been.hit as-hard as any at the school-level
with the 17 percent cut from last year and the 15 percent-holdback that is in
place this year. He added that there will probably be some cuts yet to. come
this year from Richmond that will affectthose same accounts.
Mr. Bowerman'asked if the revenues and expenditures account for the
$189,000~ ~ Mr. Tucker~answered, "no~" Mr, Bowerman then asked if thewS189,000
was only from YRS. Dr, Paskel stated that the $85,000 is the net savings of
all of the school accounts. He added that it is not being said that because
building services saved$40,000, it will get that amount of'money. He went on
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
101
to say that the greatest need is in the classroom so, from an accountability
standpoint, he would like to reward those that save. He stated that those
schools which have overextended have already gotten an advanced appropriation
because they were covered under another accounting system rather than the
site-based accounting system which is now in use.
At this time, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to adopt the following
resolution reappropriating the School Fund of $189,567. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Way.
Mr~ Bowie asked Dr. Paskel if the money that was saved will be put into
the classrooms for such things as textbooks, and will it go to those schools
which,haveshown better performance in savings. Dr. Paskel agreed that the
savingswill go to the schools which have shown better performance in managing
their resources.
Mr. Bowie then-inquired ifthe schools that~have overspent will get any
of this money. Dr. Paskel answered, "no."
Roll*was called~and the motion~carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. ,Bain',' Bowerman,-Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and~Mr. Way.
NAYS: · None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92
NUMBER: 910027
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE: 'REAPPROPRIATION OF ~SCHOOL FUND BALANCE FROM FY 90,91
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ~
1243161101601300 INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES
TOTAL
$189 ~567 ~00.~?
$189~567.00
REYEN-~E DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200051000510100 SCHOOL FUND BALANCE
$189,567.00
TOTAL~ $189,567.00
Agenda Item~No, I3c. Appropriation: Pulsar Grant for the School Divi-
sion.
Tucker presented, the following staff report:
"The Office of. the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, using
funds from~the .U~S.~ Department of Education Drug-Free Schootsand
Communities Act of 1986, is funding a $9,800.00 grant for-the program
entitled "Police, Public Educators, Peer Facilitators Utilizing their
leadership for Students at Risk" (PULSAR). PULSAR is based on the
successful program in Staunton between the Staunton School Division
and the Staunton Police Department. The goal of the PULSARprogram. is
to provide the non-traditional Murray High SChool with relationship
building experiences to promote positive social bonds between school
(students and staff) and community (police, agencies, businesses, and
the University of Virginia). To achieve this goal, the Murray High
School students and staff as well as eleven Albemarle County Police
Officers and nine community agency staff members attended an overnight
field trip to Camp Blue Ridge on October 1~3, ~1991. Utilizing their
experiences at Camp Blue Ridge, family groups comprised of students,
staff, police officers, and community agency members are developing
community outreach-progr~m~.
At its meeting on October 14, t991, the School Board approved the
addition of $9,800~00 to the 1991-92 budget for the abo~e mentioned
PULSAR grant. The Board or'Supervisors is requested to amend the
current budget.to receive and disburse~these funds. Please refer'~to
the attached-lineitem budget."
102
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt
the following resolution approving the request for appropriation. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92
NUMBER: 910025
FUND: PULSAR GRANT
PURPOSE: FUNDING OF PULSAR PROGRAM GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1310761101160300 STIPENDS-STAFF DEVELOPMENT
1310761101210000 FICA
1310761311550400 TRAYEL-EDUCATION
1310761311580000 MISCRIJ.ANEOUS
TOTAL
$1,184.00
91.00
6,480.00
2,045.00
$9,800.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2310733000330207 PULSAR GRANT
$9,800.00
TOTAL $9,800.00
Agenda Item No. 13d. Appropriation: Year-End Adjustments.
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Attached are several appropriation forms requesting approval of year
end adjustments and overexpenditures~ --..
Appropriation #90004! - Capital Improvement Fund (CIP)
This form lists the School projects which are completed and have
overexpenditures. Significant overages include:
1. Improvements to State Route 810 in 'connection with Crozet School
was originally budgeted at $200,000 for the County with the
balance to be paid by VDOT. Final negotiations of the contract
resulted in the County paying the total cost with VDOT reimburs-
ing the County for their portion. We are currently awaiting VDOT
reimbursement of $129,~000.
2. Changes to various projects resulting fromgymnasium improvements
authorized by the Board~of Supervisors totaled $67,000.
3...~.--~Roef replacement at. RedrHill Etemenhary~inVo!ved asbestos removal
resulting in $18,595.35 in additional costs.
Construction at Stone-Robinson Elementary included a turn lane on
Route 639. VDOT required the repavement of the road adjacent to
the turn-resulting.in $16,888.26 of unanticipated cost.
The remaining overexpenditure of $53,000 results from various
change -orders' which, exceeded the contingency. This amount
represents 0'~4 percent of the total project cost of $13,272,000'.
An additional $2500 expenditure for Crozet is currently in the process
of being approved~-. An appropriation will berequested after thefinal
amount is determined. The CIP Fund Balance will cover these items.
Appropriation #900042 - General Fund
This form details the five cost centers which had overexpenditures.
The large overexpenditure in the Sheriffts Office is due to the
purchase of new vehicles in FY 90/91 to avoid the price increase
projected for FY 91/92. These expenditures~canbe covered from the
General Fund Balance.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
103
Appropriation #900043 - Miscellaneous School F~nds
Food Services Expenditures exceeded appropriation by $49,310.33
which can be funded from food sales which also exceeded projections.
Migrant - This program is based on available Federal funds. The final
grant amount was not determined until after the original appropriation
was approved. Revenues have been received to fund the appropriation.
CBIP Expenditures exceeded appropriation by $61,566.93 which can be
partially funded from program revenue in excess of projections
($33,831.15) and the transfer of $27,735.78 from the School Fund
Balance. The expenditures were incurred for field trip transportation
funded in part by the Piedmont Regional Education Programs (PREP).
E;D~"Program'-':Program'revenues?were':less:.than'projected and require a
transfer of $959.86 from the School Fund Balance.
Community EdUcation Expenditures exceeded appropriation by
$68,073.71 resulting primarily from Special Education needs. This
expense can be funded as follows: Tuition Receipts $26,910.661 Fund
Balance FY 89/90 $4541.29; transfer from School Fund $36,621.76.
Summer School A separate fund was established for FY 91/92 to
account for~summer school activities which had previously been within
the School Fund, .Since summer school' actually began in June of FY
90/91 a small amount of expenditures were incurred - $514-,41. Reve-
nuesduring June'1991 ($16,463.55) exceeded the expenditures and 'will
be'used to cover these, expenses and the balance carried forward to FY
91/92.
Due'to the close association of the CBIP. Program, E.D. Program and
Community Education Program with School activities, it is often hard
go. distingUish when an exuense should be charged to,~hich~fund. A
large portion of these expenditures probably should have..been charged
directly to the School Fund~which would have eliminated the. overex-
penditures, however, the net result is the same by transferring School
Funds to these programs and requires substantially less time. In
addition, County Auditors have previously preferred that it be handled
in this manner.
School Administration andthe School Board are aware of this adjust-
ment.
Appropriation #900044 - School Fund
This form will authorize the transfer .of $65,317.40 from theSchool
Fund Balance to the three funds previously discussed related to
Appropriation #900043.
In addition, expenditures in the School category for Administration,
Attendance and Health exceeded appropriation by $28,000. This also-
authorizes the transfer of this amount from the Pupil Transportation
category. No additional funding isrequired~
Appropriation #900045 - Soil & Water Conservation Grant
This grant actually ended in FY 89/90. However, the employee merit
payment of $909.77 was not paid until July 1990. Grant funds are
available to-~cover .theselexpenditures.
Hopefully this completes all FY 90/91 transactions."
Mr. Tucker stated that Appropriation #900041, the Capital Improvement
Fund is involved with this request. Mr. Bain asked which appropriation is for
the CaleSchool. Mr. Tucker answered thatthe Cale School is related more to
some change orders and gymnasium equipment. He said the amount for Cale-
ElementarySchoot is $34,855.
104
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Ms. Jo Higgins explained that the gym floor was not included in the
$67,000 for Cale Elementary School. She said that there were three other
schools that received gym floors. She added that Cale Elementary School had a
$50,000 contingency and basically the change orders ran in the two percent
range on the settled project.
Mr. Bain asked about Yancey Elementary School. Ms. Higgins replied that
Yancey and Stony Point Schools had slightly higher percentages of change
orders. She pointed out that when buildings are being redone, there are
sometimes things that cannot be addressed in the original plan. She noted
that if there had been a five percent contingency involved, there would have
been some money left. She then mentioned that the Route 810 project was
involved with the Crozet,Schoolproj~ct.
Mr. Perkins called attention to Number Five under Appropriation #900041
where a total project, cost.of $13,272,000~was.shown. .He asked if theword,
"Projects," should have-beenused instead of."Project." Ms. Higgins agreed
that~this was a total of.all of those projects~added together~
Mr. Bain asked about.the Route 810 project cost. Ms. Higgins responded
that the total amount for the Route 810 project was approximately $326,000,
and VDoT's~reimbursement will be approximately $129,000.
Mr. Bain asked if the $162,000 is the. County's share of the road money.
Ms~ Higgins explained that the $162~000 will be reduced by $129,000 when-it is
received from VDoT. She pointed out thatCrozet also. had a gym floor added.
Shesaid that the costs arefairly reasonable when the $129,000 reimbursement
and. S27,000 for the gym floor are .taken out.
Mr. Bowie wondered if the money is put into the capital plan when itis
received. Mr. Tucker replied that the money that is received will goback
into the Capital Improvement Fund balance..
Mr.-Bain then inquired about the repair to the Crozet gymnasium floor.
He asked ifthis was done at the'contractor's expense. Ms. Higginsanswered
that the Yancey gym.floor was completely taken up, and the floor was leveled,
and a brand new floor was put back. She said that the gym floor at Stony
Point was refinished.
:Mr. Bain recalled that the Crozet gym floor had~lots of dead spots in it.
Ms. Higgins responded that strips of the Crozet gym floor were taken upand
flooring put back.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $284,958.03. Roll was
called and the motion carried bythe following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1990-91
NUMBER: 900041
FUND: ~CAPITAL
PURPOSE: YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO OVEREXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURE
COST'CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1900060203800650
1900060207800902
1900060210800650
1900060211800650
1900060213800650
1900060214800650
REVENUE
CROZET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
RED HILL-ROOF/MASONRY REPAIRS
~STONEROBINSON SCHOOL
~STONY POINT SCHOOL
YANCEY SCHOOL
CALE SCHOOL
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
$162,999.76
18,595.35
16,888,26
15,348.94
36,270.71
34,855.01
$284,958.03
AMOUNT
2900051000510100
CAPITAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$284,958.03
$284,958.03
105
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Tucker explained that Appropriation #900042 includes five different
cost centers, but the largest overexpenditure in this category is due to the
purchase of additional police vehicles in the Sheriff's Office. He noted that
there was a very good rate available for police vehicles and it was possible
to purchase them in the Spring, but it overexpended the Sheriff's Office
budget by $22,000. He said that the entire amount for the appropriation is
$32,600.
Mr. Bain asked how many vehicles were purchased for the Sheriff's Office.
Mr. Tucker replied that the Sheriff's Office got two new vehicles.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
following resolution~of appropriation in the amount of 32,600. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1990-91
NUMBER: 900042
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE: YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO OVEREXPENDITU~
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1100031020800501
1100835010110000
1100059000563000
1100069001110000
1100082030110000
SHERIFF-NEW VEHICLES
ANIMAL CONTROL-~WAGES'~!
DISTRICT HOME
PVCC
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION-WAGES
TOTAL
$22,000.00
7,000.00
2,500.00
500.00
600.00
$32,600.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100051000510100
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$32,600.00
$32,600.00
Mr. Tucker stated that the appropriations on #900043 deal with various
programs and funds in the education department. Most of them have been
covered either'bytheSchool Fund Balance or by the fund that had been created
where there were revenues to cover the overexpenditure. He noted the situa-
tion With~Food Services where expenditures exceeded the appropriation, but the
expenditures can be funded by food Sales revenues which also exceeded projec-
tions.
Mrs. Humphris called attention to the category of Community Education~.:
She asked what is included. Mr. Tucker answered that after school programs
and night programs, etc., are included in-the_ Community Education category.
He said that Community Education is becoming a very big program for the~'school
system. He added that the night school is run partly with PVCC, and many of
the schools have other community education programs. He went on to say that
Albemarle~High School probably has the largest Community Education program,
because of the night school that is held there.
Mrs. Humphris quotedfrom the memorandumwhich stated that~ "Expenditures
exceeded the appropriation by $68,073,71 resulting primarily from Special
Education needs." She said she thought Community Education was a self-sus~
taining program~ and she doesnot understand why Special Education is a part
of it. Mr. Tucker replied that Special Education needs of certain students
have to be contracted out to other organizations, if the schools cannot
provide the 'actual service. He noted that the County is required by law to
provide for these Special Education needs, and it is sometimes-difficult~to
budget enough money to accommodate the needs because it isnot alwaysknown
what the individual students' needs will be.
Mr. Bain stated that he.thought Special Education was aseparate program
from Community Education. Mrs. Humphris agreed. She said-that she thought
Community Education was a selfrsustaining,.tuition funded program. Mr. Tucker
replied that SpecialEducation is a separate program under the Community
Education'Fund.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
106
Mr. Bain asked if the staff was following the auditor's advice in listing
them all together. Mr. Breeden answered that the staff could try to separate
the items and list them as education expenses instead of including them in
this program, and it could have probably been accomplished without an appro-
priation request. He noted, however, that the expense is shown where it was
originally reported, and money can be transferred from the School Fund balance
to the program with two or three entries. He said that it would take an
employee a week to try to figure which expenses should go back to the School
Fund.
Mr. Bowie commented that he feels the money was properly spent, and it
had to be spent. He said that if it had been done in another manner, it would
probably require more~staff just to go over all the bills and figure out where
they belOng.
Mr. Perkins asked if Federal funds were involved insome-of these pro-
grams. If so, he wondered if they~have to be kept separate. Mr'. Breeden
replied, "yes."
Mr. Perkins then inquired how Federal funds can be kept separate whenthe
bills are all thrown together. Mr. Breeden responded that reimbursements are
only for certain things under certain programs. He said that it is nora case
of having to keep the funds separated.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she is confused. She said that if it is hard
to distinguish when an expense should be charged to which fund, then how is it
ever known when the self-sustaining programs'are actually self-sustaining or
when-they-are beingsupported by some other source of income. Mr. Breeden
answered that he is not sure that it will ever be known exactly. He said that
he can come close to figuring out which funds are self-sustaining, but when
supplies are beingbought for the after-school program orfor other education,
al programs~ a lot of times it depends on who is ordering the supplies as to
whether or not the bill is separated into several different places. He said
that if this is not done originally, there is no way for his staff to know
where the supplies are to be billed; He went on to say that at the end of the
year, when the school system can go back to its reimbursement sheets and
submit its reimbursements, that is the time when it will be known what is
allowed for different programs.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the school systemhas tocode its own expenses
when the bills are presented to the Fiance Depart~ment. Mr. Breeden replied,
"yes." He added that this does not always mean that the information is
correct.
Mr. Bain commented that he understands what is happening~because there
area lot of categoriesinvolved. Mr. Tucker explained that one student may
utilize several programs~, and it gets complicated.
Mr. Breeden stated, for example, that .a certain amount of after school
services have to be provided for handicapped children. He asked who should .~
pay forthese services, the schoolsystem or the program. He said'that'both
programs are usually involved because equipment, etc., will be used. for after
school programs and also during the day.
Motion was offered by.Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation in the amount $181,930.55. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
FISCAL YEAR: 1990-91
NUMBER: 900043
FUND: MISCELLANEOUS SCHOOL FUNDS
PURPOSE: YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
107
~Ot~T
1300063100600200
1310361101380000
1320161102112100
1330063300132100
1330063300600200
1.331061120580000
REVENUE
FOOD SERVICES-FOOD EXPENSE
MIGRANT-PURCHASED SERVICES
CBIP TEACHERS WAGES
COMM EDUC-TEACHER WAGES
COMM EDUC-FOOD SUPPLIES
SUMMER SCHOOL-MISC
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
$49,310.33
2,465.17
61,566.93
38,073.71
30,000.00
514.41
$181,930.55
AMOUNT
2300016000161204
2310333000330102
2320118000189905
2320151000512001
2320218000189906
2320251000512001
2330016000161201
2330051000512001
2330051000510100
2331016000161221
FOOD SERVICES-FOOD SALES
MIGRANT-FEDERAL FUNDS
CBIPrPROGRAM FEES
CB1P-TRANSFER FROM SCHOOL FUND
E.D. PROGRAM-PROGRAM FEES
E.D. PROGRAM-TRANSFERFROM SCHOOL FUN
COMM EDUC-TUITION
COMMEDUC-FUND BALANCE
COMM EDUC~TRANSFER FROM SCHOOL FUND
SUMMER SCHOOL-TUITION
TOTAL
$49,310.33
2,465.17
33,831.15
27,735.78
(959.86)
959.86
26,9i0.66
4,541.29
36,621.76
514.41
$181,930.55
Mr. Tucker explained that Appropriation #900044 will authorize the
transfer of $65,317.40 from the School Fund Balance to CBIP, ED and Community
Education programs. He said thatthis will allow the School Fund balance to
be used to cover the~.overexpenditures in those particular cost centers.
MotiOn was offered byMr~ Bain,~'seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation-in rhea mount of $65,317.40. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the folloWing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, .Bowie, Mrs~Humphris, Mr. Perkins and~Mr. Way.
NAYS: None;
FISCAL YEAR: 1990/91
NUMBER: 900044
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1200093010930000 SCHOOLS-TRANSFER TO OTHER FUNDS $65,317.40
..... SCHOOL-PUPIL .TRANSPORTATION (28,000.00)
SCHOOL-ADMIN, ATTENDANCE, HEALTH 28,000.00
TOTAL $65,317.40
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200051000510100
SCHOOL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$65,317.40
$65,317.40
Mr. Tucker stated that Appropriation #900045 is a year-end adjustment to
accommodatea $909.77 overexpenditure for merit pay for employees for the Soil
and Water Conservation Department.
Motion was offered.by Mr. Bain, seconded~by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolutionof appropriation. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins andMr.~Way.
NAYS: None.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
FISCAL YEAR: 1990-91
NUMBER: 900045
FUND: SOIL & WATER GRANT
PURPOSE: YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
108
AMOUNT
1122282030160900
WAGES
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
$909.77
$909.77
AMOUNT
2122219000199900
GRANT PROCEEDS
TOTAL
$909.77
$909.77
Agenda Item No. 13e.' Appropriation: Fieldbrook Retention Basin.
Mrl Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Background: A retention basin was designed and built in the Field-
brook Subdivision several years ago after being approved by the
Departmentof' Engineering. The basin met state design standards for~a
ten-year storm. This particular design has been used on ten basins or
ponds in the County. During heavy rains in 1990-91, the basin failed.
This has occurred in other jurisdictions resulting in the State no
longer accepting this type-of basindesign. An upgrading of the basin
is necessary to meet current design standards. The cost to replace
the original design is$2000 and the cost for the upgraded design is
$.3850.
Decision: The Homeowners' Association assumed maintenance responsi-
bility for this basin but their responsibility is to maintain it only
to the originaldesign. The homeowners are prepared to complete these
repairs at a cost of $2000 but, in all likelihood, the basin will
continue to fail. As the HomeownerstAssociation is only responsible
for maintaining the basin, to original design criteria, the basin will
continue to fail with recurring replacement costs being borne by.the
homeowners. This is not ~in ~the best interests of the homeowners or
the County nor is it meeting the intent of our stormwater control
program.
The homeowners are willing to assume maintenance responsibility after
the basin is upgraded, but they do not want to bear the.additional
$1850 cost as they feel the original basin design was inadequate. The
homeowners have requested the County to fund this additional $1850.
Although it is in rthe best interest of the homeowners to avoid recur-
ring replacement costs for the original design, an upgraded basin is
also:in the best interest of the County's stormwater control measures.
The County has funds available in the Stormwater Fund for the addir
tional $1850. If you approve the appropriation for the upgrade,~ there
is a precedence for potential future repairs to the other nine basins
of similar design.
Recommendation: Authorize the appropriation of $1850 from the Storm-
waterFund for the upgrade to the Fieldbrook Retention basin with the
remaining $2000 being paid by .the Homeowners' Association. The
Homeowners',Association will then assume' maintenance responsibility
for the upgraded basin and any future repairs."
Mr. Bain wondered if the ten-year storm standard has changed. Mr. Tucker
answered that he believes the design itself is the only thing that changed.
He said that the design is an improvement and is, therefore, more costly. He
believes that the ten,year storm standard has not changed.
Mr. Perkins asked how retention'basinsfait. Mr. Tuckerresponded that
the design was not able to accommodate the runoff and the magnitude of the
water.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
109
Mr. Perkins asked if the Fieldbrook Retention Basin washed out. Mr.
Tucker and Mr. Bowerman answered, "yes." Mr. Bowerman explained that the
velocity of the water pushed the basin down the hill. He noted that the basin
was an earthen dam with rip-rap in the center. He said that the runoff
control device was the rock in the center of the dam because the water was
supposed to infiltrate through the rock, and it would then be discharged at a
slower rate.
Mr. Bowie commented that this might be a site problem instead of a design
problem. Mr. Bowerman stated that it was a design problem for that site. Mr.
Bowie remarked that the same problem might not affect the other basins, if the
site is also at fault.
Mr. Perkins asked if the basin was adequately seeded so that the water
would run over it, and the basin would not wash away. He asked, too, if there
was a spillway.
Mr. Bowerman replied that the spillway was the rip-rap. He said that the
design of the~basin was such that the spillway, the overflow and the~infiltra-
tion wereall taken care of withe'the rip-rap. He added that there was no
grass except on the earthen portion of the basin. Mr. Tucker stated that the
stall-was not aware of any problem in the design, itself. He said that the
basin was designed according to standard, and it was built according to
design. He does~not think that there was any flaw involved. He said that the
basin-was just underdesigned.
Motion-was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, approving the
following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $1850.00. Roll was
calledand the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991/92
NUMBER: 910024
FUND: STORMWATER
PURPOSE: FUNDING OFSTORMWATER IMPRO~NTS FOR FIELDBROOK BASLN
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1910041051800975 F1ELDBROOK BASIN $1,850.00
- TOTAL. $1,850.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2910051000510100
STORMWATER FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$1,850.00
$1,850.00
Agenda Item No. 13f. Appropriation: Albemarle High School (AHS).
Mr. Tucker summarized the following staff report:
"Attached are four appropriation forms dealing with adjustments to the
Albemarle High School Capital Improvement Project. Explanations of
these requests are as follows:
Appropriation 900040: Payments received from the insurance company
resulting from the fire at ARS total $512,226.40. In order to track the
expenditures related to this fire a separate fund was set up. .Emergency
expenditures during FY'90/91 totaled-S257,472.09 as detailed on the
appropriation form. Approval of these expenditures is requested.
Appropriation 910018: This request deals with the balance of the
emergency expenditures resulting from the AHS fire totaling $17,851.25.
The remaining repairs are to be done as part of the ARS renovations and
expansion. This request also includes approval to transfer the balance
of the insurance recovery totaling $236,903.06 to the Capital Improve-
ment Fund.
110
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Appropriation 910019: This request is to increase the FY 91/92 CIP
appropriation for AHS for the amount being transferred from the Fire
Fund.
Appropriation 910020: This request is to increase the FY 91/92 appro-
priation for AHS to include the expanded field house. Funding for this
increase is being provided by the AHS Field House Committee."
Motion was offered by Mr. Way to adopt the following resolution of
appropriation in the amount of $257,472.09. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bowerman. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None-.
FISCAL YEAR: 1990/91
NUMBER: 900040
FUND: ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FIRE FUND -
PURPOSE: APPROYAL OF EXPENDITURES FROM INSURANCE PROCEEDS
EXPENDI%URE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
13910646001299t2~
1391064600510410
1391064600800661
1391064700331000 ·
1391064700510410
1391064700600100
1391064700800201
1391064800312300
1391064800540200
1391064810332200
1391064810600700
WAGES-TEMPORARY REPAIRS
DEBRIS REMOVAL
BUILDING REPAIRS
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
DEBRIS REMOVAL
OFFICE SUPPLIES
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
ARCHITECTURAL SER¥ICES
LEASE/RENT-BUILDINGS
MAINT. CONTRACT-BUILDINGS
REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES
TOTAL
$933.75
'~6~1t0.63
94,130.I3
15,304.17
269.20
122.08-
3,782.20
50,000.00
5,425.00
28,660.00
2,734.93
$257,472.09
REVENUE.. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2391019000190800
INSURANCE RECOVERIES
TOTAL
$257,472.09
$257,472.09
Mr. Tucker said that this request deals with the balance of the emergency
expenditures resulting from the AHS fire. He said that $17,851.25 will be
used for furnitUre and the remainderwill be used in the Capital Improvement
Fund.
Motion wasoffered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $254,754.31. :There was
no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs.. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr...Way.
None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991/92
NUMBER: 910018
FUND: ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FIRE FUND
PURPOSE: AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURES AND TRANSFER BALANCE
TOCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
EXPENDITURE
~COST'CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
I391064700800201
1391093010930004
REVENUE
FURNITURE & ~FIXTURES
TRANSFER TO CIP
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
$17,851.25
236,903.06
$254,754.31
AMOUNT
2391051000510100
FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$254,754.31
$254,754.31
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
111
Motionwas offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $236,903.06. There
was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991/92
NUMBER: 910019
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE: ALLOCATION AND TRANSFER OF ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FIRE FUND
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1900060301800901
BUILDING.CONSTRUCTION~
TOTAL
$236,903.06
$236,903.06.
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900051000512008
TRANSFER FROMAHS FIRE FUND
TOTAL
$236~903.06
$236,903.06
Mr. Tucker stated that the next appropriation is in the amount of
$240,000, and it is being provided by the Field House Committee for Albemarle
High School's expanded Field House.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt
the following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $240,000.00. There
was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following'recorded vote: ..
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way~
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991/92
NUMBER: 910020
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE: INCREASEOF ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT DUE TO PARTICI-
PATION OF ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FIELD HOUSE COMMITTEE
EXPENDITURE
COST~-. CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPT~itON AMOUNT
1900060301800901
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL
$240,000.00
$240,000,00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900019000199922 AHS FIELD HOUSE COMMITTEE
TOTAL
$240,000.00
$240,000.00
Agenda Item No. 139. Appropriation: Federal At-Risk Child Care Program.
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Our office has received additional funds from the above mentioned
program. Upon receipt of apprOval of a revised Day Care plan from this
office the state will authorize funds~ to~Albemarle totaling $52,616.
These funds require no local match and are to be used in the following
way:
Direct purchase of services, 80 percent
Quality Enhancement services, 13 percent
Administration, 7 percent
I am requesting .an appropriation from the Board as we do not have
sufficient local dollars~in our existing .budget to cover these expendi-
tures. This is particularly true for the direct purchase of service and
quality enhancement services. Funds for administration are already
provided for in our existing budget. The following is a breakdown of
funds needed and the services they will provide.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
112
1 - Direct Purchase of Service - $42,093
These funds will provide direct cash payments to providers of day
care services for non-ADC income eligible families who are working
or in education/training activities. Income guidelines are based
on 50 percent of the state median income. Currently we are serving
eight families that would be eligible for these funds through our
Fee Day Care Program (also known as At Risk Child Care). Since we
have encumbered all available funds in the Fee Program and current-
ly have a waiting list for service it would be very helpful to
transfer these cases to 100 percent reimbursed funds. Additional-
ly, the Fee program does not allow the use of funds for families in
trainimg/e~ducation(See'attached chart for comparison of programs).
These eight families are eligible for the Fee Program now because
they are also working.
2 - Quality Enhancement Services - $6840
Local agencies had many choices to enhance the quality of day care
in their locality. ~Afterdiscussion with staff, our decision
was to contract with'the Office for Children & Youth - Central ~ ~
Virginia Child Development Association (OCY-CVCDA). Theactivities
we chose are as follows
$1500 ~ To purchase Resource & Referral services
$2400 - Advanced Training for unlicensed family day care homes
and/or in home providers of child care.
$2940 - Provision of community-wide education designed to educate
the public regarding quality child day care and to recruit
additional family day care providers.
$6840 - Total
This brings the total reque~st from the Board to $48,933."
Mr. Tucker summarized the memo from Ms. Kathy Ralston, Deputy Director of
the Department of Social Services, relating to the Federal At-Risk Child Care
Program. He said that the amount of the funds allotted to Albemarle County
total $52,616. -He noted that 80 percent of the funds have to be used for
direct purchase of services, 15 percent for quality enhancement services and 7
percent for administration. He added that the actual amount that needs to be
appropriated is $48,933,
Motiom was offeredby Mrs~ Humphris, secomded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
the request and adopt the following resolution of appropriation.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the. following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None,
FISCAL YEAR: 1991/92
NUMBER: 910026
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE: FUNDINGOF SOCIAL SERVICES AT-RISK CHILD CARE
PROGRAM
vEXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1100053013571104
1100053013571700
CHILD CARE-BLOCK GRANT
SSBG-PRO¥ RECRUIT~TRAIN
TOTAL
$42,093.00
6,840,'00
$48,933.00
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
2100033000330013
FEDERAL-CHILD CARE
TOTAL
$48,933.00
$48,933.00
113
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Agenda Item No. 15. SP-91-58. Clifton. Public Hearing on a request to
amend SP-87-49 to permit a 14-room bed & breakfast & a 24-seat restaurant on
10.1 ac zoned RA. Property on E side of Rt 729 approx 0.4 mi S of Rt 250.
TM79,P23B&23C. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 29
and November 5, 1991.)
Mr. Bowie asked if representatives of Clifton are coming to this meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that originally the Clifton petition was scheduled for
the December 4 night meeting. He said that the Clifton representatives asked
to have this matter considered today. He added that the notification that
went to Clifton had a 7:00 p.m. time listed, but a member of Mr. Cilimberg's
staff talked to the applicant this week, and he thought that the applicant was
aware that~this was aday meeting. -He said that the applicant also received
an agenda where he was listed at 1:30 p.m. He went on to say that his staff
had called the Clifton Inn today, and the applicant is not there. He stated
that he.does not believe anyone will be present for.this hearing~ but~he _
pointedout that there are no outstanding issuesany longer. He said-that
eVerything at the site has been done that needed to be done.
Mr. Bowie stated that normally the Board does not act without the appli-
cant being present. Since the applicant was not present at this time, this
item was temporarily skipped.
Agenda Item No. 16. Stormwater Management Report - Status Report on
Committee Recommendations. Due to the lateness of the hours, this item was
skipped.
Agenda Item No.'17. Set public hearing date to amend the "Equalization
of Pay Ordinance"to add the BOCA Code. Board of Appeals and the Fire Preven-
tion Code Board of Appeals.
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"This is a request to add the BOCA Code Board of Appeals and the Fire
Prevention Code Board of Appeals to the County's 'Equalization of Pay
Ordinance', Section 15 of the Code of Albemarle.
In July, 1990 the Board. approved a policy revision to the Ordinance.~that
limited, compensation to those agencies that are setby state statute as
citizen appeal boards. The Ordinance now includes the Board of Zoning
Appeals, the Equalization Board and the Land Use Tax Advisory Board.
The BOCA Code Board of Appeals and the Fire Prevention Code Board of
Appeals were. not added to the Ordinance at that time and have.since~
requested~that they alsoreceive the $35 per meeting~compensation. Both
boards-meet~approximately four to five~times a yearfor an additional
cost to the County of $350.
Staff recommends that they be included and that a public hearing be
scheduled in-~December, andthat the Code be amendedto reflect this~
change~effective with the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1992."
Motion-was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to set a~
public'hearing on this ordinance amendment~ for December 11, 1991. Therewas
no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion.carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and ~r~Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Comprehensive Plan Status Report. Because of the
lateness of the_hour, the Board decided to carry this item over to a later
date.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
114
Agenda Item No. 15. Clifton (Skipped above). Because the applicant was
still not present, and there was some confusion as to whether the applicant
had been told this was a day meeting, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to
defer consideration of this petition until November 20, 1991, with the staff
advised to renotify the applicant.
The motion was secomded by Mr. Bain. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. 1992 Legislative Program, Approval.
(Note.: Mr. St. John left the room at 2:52' p.m. and returned at 2:55
p.m.)
POSITIONS
EQUAL TAXING]BOIIROWING POWER. To meet the increasing demand to provide
services to a growing:pQpulation, Albemarle County urges the General
Assembly to-grant Counties the same taxing and borrowing authority as
Cities.
STATE LOT~ FUNDS. Albemarle County supports legislation requiring that net
funds raised from the Virginia State Lottery be distributed back to locali-
'ties.£or needed capital projects;
STATE MANDATES. With ~the increasing fiscal stress on local government from
declining federal and state aid, Albemarle County strongty~requests full
funding of all state mandates.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT. To eff~cti~l~:pIan~f0r..and,~man~ge the projected growth in
the next decade, Albemarle County supports enabling legislation that will
," allowq, th~'Tuse~.df~g=owth~-mRnagement tools such'as impact fees, transfer
development rights'and purchase development rights.
LOCAL GOIIERI~ STRUCTURe. To provide greater flexibility at the local level
to plan for and manage growth issues and declining state revenues, Albemarle
ig6iink~-[~ongl'~2supports a legislative .commission to study the impact of the
Dillon Rule on Virginia counties.
SOLTB WASTE REGIILATIONS. With the increasing cost of state mandates for solid
waSte~-d}sPosal, Albemarle county supports a separate, legislative commission
toreview theefficacy of the state's current solidwaste regulations~
SPECI.FICL1EGISLATIV~PROPOSAI~
FINANCES: To expand revenue powers by adding:
One/two percent sales-tax for localities.
Regional gasoline tax'.
~-'~_.Tran~ient~Oce~pancY-~ax (Counties permitted to levysame rate ascities).
Reinstatement or-the state recordation tax'to localities~
~'~Local;imealstax option without referendum~ LocaLoption income tax.
To provide for local flexibility of real estate tax collection, so that
. ~.th~i{long..term home owners.are notdriven.'from their primary homes due.
to rapid inflation, i.e. homestead exemption, circuit breaker, refund
of excessive tax based on sliding scale, classification allowing
different rates for different values of property.
'To return a~0rti6n of the state lottery funds to localities for infra-
structure needs.
To.includecomputerequipment used foreither administrative or'research
purposes in the local manufacturer's Machinery & Tools tax.
To provide enabling legislationto allow for the increase of the roll-
back period for land use tax from five to ten years.
Torequest enabling-legislation to allow ticketing of parked vehicles-for
County decal.violations.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
115
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING: To provide for enabling legislation which
allows for the use of growth management tools in all localities such as:
Impact fees.
Transfer development rights (TDR's).
Purchase development rights (PDR's).
To require recognition of local comprehensive plans by state agencies.
To support enabling legislation for an Adequate Public Facilities Ordi-
nance.
To oppose legislation providing vested property rights in rezonings.
To support the State Data Center Network (which includes the ¥irginia
Employment Commission, the Center for Public Service, and PDC's) and
appropriate funding for =egional and local analysis and growth
.management planning.
To promote shared land use data and Geographic Information System (GIS)
technology among state.agencies, PDC's~and .localities.
To provide funding for regional environmental plansand assessments.
To develop financial incentives to promote regional planning efforts,
including infrastructure planning, construction and maintenance.
EDUCATION:
To oppose requiring binding arbitration for teachers.
To provide funding for standards of quality.
To provide statefunding for local school construCtion and equipment.
WASTE MANAGEMENT:
To provide funds for the upgrading of landfills to legislated standards.
To provide funding'for state and federal mandated qualities of standards
for~solid waSte and clean water management.
To support legislation establishing acontainer deposit on bottles,
To prohibit~the use of nonbiodegradable containers whenever safe, degrad-
ablealternatives are viable,
To request the state ensure participation in solid waste management
programs by its own agencies.
To request the state to take an active role in developing markets for
recyclables.
To request that the stateinstitute incentives to encourage source
reduction.
Institute financial incentives to work regionally on waste management
solutions.
To request local option of a single liner in rural landfills.
To provide separate propertytax classification for certified recycling
equipment. ~
To reserve all-recyctables for the localities or their designated author-
ities so that the.waste~stream flow is sufficient to be marketable.
To establish a separate legislative commission toreview the efficacyof
solid wasteregulations. Included should be representatives of YACo,
VML, and Planning District Commissions~
LOCAL GOYERNMENTLSTRUCTURE AND LAWS:
To support thecreation of a legislative commission to review theDillon
Rule'and its impact on Virginia counties.
HOUSING:
To support low income housing initiatives by continuing state funding of
the Housing Partnership Fund.
To allow greater local'authority to require~provisions for affordable
housing. -
CORRECTIONS:
To provide adequate state facilities for state felons in order to relieve
local jails.
To request that reimbursement.for jail construction projects be incremen-
tal rather than.at the conclusion of'a project and that reimbursement
for regional projects be at 50 percent of the construction, enlargement
or renovation costs, not "up to 50 percent."
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
116
TRANSPORTATION:
To provide funding for regional transportation planning and for local
transportation needs.
To provide enabling legislation for transportation districts which would
allow for inclusion of state universities and colleges.
To require VDOT to consider land use impacts and local comprehensive
plans before proceeding with highway projects.
To continue full state funding of the secondary road system.
REGIONAL HEALTH:
.' To continue statefunding for indigent medical care.
To ensure that the state provides adequate sanitarian staff at the local
level.
Mr. TUcker said-this informatiOn is being provided to the Board members
today so that a December. il meeting can be scheduled with the legislators in
order to discuss legislative requests for1992. In this information is a
memorandum from Dr. Robert Paskel regarding issues that relate to the School
Board. He said that the School Board will not take final action until Novem-
ber 25 on their requests, but this is provided to the Supervisors today for
information. He said there will be a final recommendation fromthe School
Board to be added to the Supervisors' legislative requests.
Mr. Tucker said the last item in the paperwork deals with landfill
legislative issues~ Twlo reSolutions~ave beenprovided that the Mecklenburg
County Board of Supervisorsadopted~ Mecklenburg is requesting other juris-
dictions in the State to adopt these same resolutions regarding the new permit
fees for landfill closure, the requirements for closing older landfills, and
requesting that they be allowed to be closed under the old regulations. If
the Supervisors choose to adoptsimilar resolutions, the staff will rewrite
the resolutions tol fit Albemarle County"s needs and bring them back tothiS
Board next month fOr adoption.
~ Mr. Tucker remarked that Albemarle County and YACO have requested a
legislativecommission'to be' appointed regarding the Dillon Rule. He.said
that the Governor appointed an administrative committee, so he hopes ,that
Albemarle County can still maintain its posture in supporting a legislative
commission to consider the Dillon Rule. He does not believe that the admin-
istrative committee will have the power to!do what will be necessary to relax
or change the requirements thatthe<Dillon Rule now imposes~
Next, Mr. Tucker asked the Board to accept or approve the 1992 legisla-
tive proposals so that they can be sent to the Legislators.before the meeting
nextmonth.
(Mr. St. John returned at 2:55 p.m.)
Mr. Bowie stated that there is too much information to consider at one
time. Mr. Tucker said the major legislative-positions are on the~first page
ofthe~proposals,~ butthere~ are other proposals throughout the package~:~
Mrs. Humphrismentioned that, at theVACO Planning and Natural Resources
CommitteeMeeting, Mecklenburg County made its position known. Mecklenburg
then asked that each locality ask its delegates and senators toco-sponsor its
waste management resolution on closure requirements that the counties actively
support. She added that Mecklenburg County proposed that each locality take
care of each'landfill individually because each one was an individual situa~
tion with individual problems which they do not feel can be mandated' across ~
the board by the representatives in Richmond. She went on to say that it was
indicated that the "cap" might not be the answer, but it could be if a problem
shows up by the test wells, but that'will not be known until it happens. She
said another important thing discussed was a proposal concerning low flush
toilets. She added that one of the members of the committeeindicated that 12
states now make a requirement mandatory in new construction for'low'-flush
toilets. The whole point is not just the conservation of water, but also a
reduction in the need for treatment. She said there was a lot of discussion
that'eventually low flush toilets would be required, and it would be good if
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
117
the counties could do it first before it is mandated. She went on to say that
Matthews County's Health Department is already doing this as part of its
agenda, and it was then adopted as an addition to VACO's agenda to the General
Assembly. She remarked that it was the only thing that she heard during the
whole conference that was added that was not in the original YACO proposal.
Mr. Tucker stated that he knows the legislative packet looks as though it
is too much for a legislator to deal with, but emphasis is on specific posi-
tions from the legislative perspective. He thinks it is important to have
proposals from other localities and the legislators will know that this is
something that Albemarle County also supports. At least Albemarle County's
general feeling will be known as the bills go through the House and Senate.
MetoldMr. Bowie that he-shares'his concerns about narrowing the list down
and. focusing on a few important issues.
Mr. Bowie asked if the staff reco~nends the legislative packet.~ Mr~
Tucker indicated that the staff endorses the legislative packet.
Mr. Bowie recalled Mrs. Humphris' statements about the iow flush toilets.
He said that he wouldn't object to supporting something 0f this nature, bUt it
should probably be done separately. He asked for a motion for the legislative
packet.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins to approve
the 1992 Legislative proposals as presented. Mr. Bain asked if other propos-
als could be added later. Mr. Bowie replied in the affirmative. Mr. Way
asked if acceptance of the legislative proposals meant that this Board agrees
with all of them. He said that he does not agree_with them all.
Mrs. Humphris answered that she does not think supporting these proposals
means that' if they are approved, i Albemarle' County will agree toimplement
them, but Albemarle County would like to have the flexibility to do so. Mr.
Tucker explained that if these proposals are approved by the Legislature, it
will give-Albemarle County the.authority to utilize them. He said,that the
Board woulld then make that decision. ,
Mrs. Humphris noted that her motion and her vote will not signify that
she is in favor of every single proposal, but only that she approves the
progr~am~':in!,'~general. She said that~the counties~:should havelthe right ~o~<these
proposalswhether or notthey are implemented. Mr. Tucker commented that'it
helpsthe legislators if they can have something in hmnd instead of meeting
with them and ta-lking generally. He said that there are concerns about
certain areas in the proposals~ and the proposals could be narrowed down to
only the major legislative positions.
Mr. Bain pointed out that some proposals are just being fleshed out' and
are already included in the major positions headings. Mrs. Humphris remarked
thatshe feels it is important to support the YACO position. She said that
VACO needs the leverage and lobbying power~of the counties to support its
program. Mr. Bowie agreed.
Mr. Bowerman asked'if cities have the opportunity to ticket parkedvehi-
clesthat don't have a city decal, and the counties do not have this privi-
lege. ~',M~,~ Tucker, replied,that he-believes'this is'true.
Mr. Bowerman called attention to the transient occupancy tax where the
counties'c~n chargetwo percent and the cities can charge four 'or five per-
cent. He said this situation, as. we'll as the situation withthe decals, is
unfairly differentiated between cities and counties, especially when decals
are one of the primary means of enforcing the payment of the personal property
tax.
Mr. Bowie explained that the situation to which Mr. Bowerman refersis
not ticketing cars with other decals on them. He said that it is when the
decal is expired and it allows the car to be ticketed without waiting for the
driver. Mr. Bowerman responded that he understands this, He said that this
is one of'the means of contro~ that Albemarle County has over payment of the
personal property tax. Mr. Bain~said that a valid reason for ,the discrepancy
between 'counties and. cities has never been given~
November 13, 1991 (Regular~ Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
118
Mr. Bowerman stated that the point has to be continually made that there
are unfair powers of revenue collection and enforcement between cities and
counties, and there is no real reason for it.
Mr. Way remarked that he does not disagree with what Mr. Bowerman is
saying, but he can point to a couple of the proposals that he thinks are
ridiculous. He mentioned the meals tax, and he said that it would be ludi-
crous for Albemarle County to pass a meals tax. He reminded Board members
that the meals tax has been defeated by Albemarle County voters twice.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:,.~Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie~ Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
'NAYS: ~'Mr. Way.
Mr. Perkins noted that last week while working' at the election polls, he
noticed that a lot of the people came to vote were driving cars with out-
of-State license plates. He remarked that if they have lived here long enough
to vote, certainly they should have had time to get their licenseschanged.
Agenda Item No. 19. Land Use Value Taxation Report.
Mr. Tucker and Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Attached is a report regarding land use value taxation as discussed
earlier this year~ The reportprovides several-options available to
you for consideration listing advantages and disadvantages of each
option. The report also provides background regarding the County's
1975 adopted Land Use Taxation Ordinance and attempts to define the
issues as we see them. -
The current land use program, for preserving rural land has beenan
objective of the County for almost two decades and thebenefits ~'
derived from this program are significant for the community at large.
However, if the objective of the Board is to provide the maximum
amount of revenue .for the General Fund, then Option A provides for the
elimination of all categories of landuse value taxation, will meet
this objective. Anotherissue concerns the elimination of use value
taxation from property owners who are primarily involved in land
speculation. A solution to this aoncern becomes more difficult
because the land use program is~.base~on the' currentuse of the land,
not on the intention of the land owner to sell or not to sell the
property. Option C provides for the elimination of use value taxation
in the growth, areas~which addresses this particular' issue.
Should the Board choose to alter the current land use program signifi-
cantly, as provided in Options~ A, B and E,"staff would recon~nend an
18-to 24-month implementation period prior to enactment.
LAND USE VALUE-TAXATION REPORT
INTRODUCTION
Use value taxation was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in
1975 to preserve rural farmland and open space and to promote
land use planning and orderly development. This program has
recently ,been criticized by citizens on three grounds:
That it places an unfair burden on county taxpayers who are
not eligible for land use;
That it benefits~ developers and speculators, as well as'~
legitimate farmers and foresters,
That eligible,land in the growth areas provides an incentive
for use which conflicts with the goals of the comprehensive
plan;
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
119
In response to these criticisms this report provides background
on the state's enabling legislation and the county's land use
program and presents several available options, should the Board
decide to discontinue or modify the current program.
II. BACKGROUND
In 1970, the Virginia General Assembly enacted a law providing
for special ad valorem property taxation of real estate devoted
to agricultural, horticultural, forest and open space use. House
Bill 99, as the special assessment law was called, outlined the
objectives of the land use value taxation program, which became
the current"Virginia Land Use Tax Act."
In 1975, after extensive citizen involvement and public hearings,
Albemarle County-adopted land use:taxation for.'all~four classes
of land defined in the State Code:-agricultural, horticultural,
forestal,'and open space..-Currently, 64 counties have use value
taxation, the majority of which include all fourcategories of
land. Only 20 counties exclude one or more classes of property.
State statute establishes the criteria for eligibility and the
State Land Use Advisory Committee(SLEAC) promulgates evaluation
criteria to be used by .local commissioners of the revenue. The
minimum acreage for agricultural and horticultural land is fiwe
acres; the minimum for forestal land is 20 acres~ In November,
1990 under local option, the minimum acreage for the open space
designation was' raised from five to 20 acres.
Currently, 325,100 acres in Albemarle County are underland use:
108,600~in agriculture, 2500 in horticulture, 114,00 in, forestry,
and 50in open space% This represents approximately 70 percent
of the county's total 474,000 acres.
Once a land use tax ordinance is adopted, any parcel that meets
the state criteria must be granted use value taxation. The
county cannot impose additional eligibility requirementsbased on
zoning, the~comprehensive plan or the owner's future intentions
for theuse of the land.' Eligibility is determined by the
current use of the land, not the identity or occupation of the
owner.
Once a parcel qualifies for landuse, the owner is not required
to reapply unless the use of the land changes. If the land
changes to a non-qualifying use, the property is then subject to
roll backtaxes for the year of the change and for five years
preceding the change, including 10 percent simple interest. The
county's real estate division ensures that land use properties
continue to meet the SLEAC criteria during the biennial reassess-
ment. A SLEAC recommended rangeof land values based on the
earning power of that particular type of land is used to deter-
mine the value .ofthe county's land use property.
As part of the background of land use taxation, it is important
to understand the relationship of the Agricultural/Forestal
District Act to the Land Use Value Tax Act, both of which are
optional local ordinances. The link between them is that if you
have agricultu~ral/forestal districts, then land within these dis-
tricts is entitled to land use taxation whether or not you have a
land use tax ordinance, provided the land meets the criteria for
such taxation.
III. ANALYSIS OFT HE CRITICISM
The critics of land use ,are correct in their assertion that the
land use program costs the county millions of dollars a year.
However, they are incorrect in stating that the transfer ofthis
tax burden abuses or violates the intent of the program enacted
by the county in 1975.-The land use program may be costly, but
it closely follows the intention of. the comprehensive plan to
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
120
utilize land use to preserve rural land and open space. Whether
one can demonstrate that land is ultimately being preserved or
protected for the long run benefit of the community is a separate
question, but it is not a question of abuse.
Property that is ineligible for use value taxation does bear a
greater share of taxes as a result of having a land use program.
Assuming the current level of deferred taxes at $4.2 million and
the FY'91-92 estimate of $377,590 per penny on the real estate
tax, the additional cost to county taxpayers equates to approxi-
mately 11 cents on the tax rate. Exacerbating this problem is
the increasing disparity between rising fair market values on
ruratland and decreasing SLRAC land use values. This has caused
deferred taxes to increase significantly in the past three years.
The cost of land use is not a hidden fact, since it is implicit
in the concept of land use taxation that the tax burden is
shifted to other taxpayers. It is also.implicit in the land use
concept that the redistribution of the tax burden is in the
public interest both to the direct beneficiaries of land use and
to the other taxpayers who derive indirect benefits from land
preservation.
Although only eligible land use properties derive amonetary
benefit from land use, it. can be argued that all county residents
receive intangible benefits via their proximity to rural land,
open space and woodlands. Not only do county residents enjoy the
aesthetic, benefits of the land use program, but also the environr
mental benefits of a protected watershed and surrounding forest
land. It can also be argued that all county properties, even in
the urban,area, derive increasedmarket value for property by
virtue of the surrounding open space and countryside.
In addressing the charge that land use benefits developers and
speculators, as welt as legitimate farmers and foresters, it must
be reemphasized that'use value taxation levies a tax on the
current' use~of the land, not on the owner. The land use program
cannot distinguish between property owners or the income level of
the o~ners. The intention of the~landowner to sell or not to
sell is not considered. If the land'meets the criteria, i:e., is
farmed, planted, forested to SLEAC standards, it is eligiblefor
use value taxation. To determine eligibility among property
owners-based oncriteria other-than the current use of .the land
is illegal.
Erom the start of theprogramat the state level, it has been
understood that land use benefits would apply tothe developer
and big timber companies, as well as bona fide farmers, provided
they meet the eligibility criterim. It wasa conscious decision
by the Legislature that sixyears of roll-back taxeswas the
necessary incentive to keep land'from being developed, and
conversely, to recompense the county if and when the use was
changed and the land developed. Therefore, it should not be
considered m 'loophole' when a property owner converts land from
land use taxstatus to developed status mnd pays six years of
roll .back taxes.
Recognizing that im times of rapidly escalating land prices, and
increased land speculation a five-year roll-back may not ade-
quately compensate the county for the-benefit of a deferredtax
status, thecounty has petitioned the. legislature for the past
~wo years.to increase the roll-back period to 10 years.
Even though the program is not being 'abused' inviolation of its
originalintent, if the Board f-eels that the current policy needs
to be revised, the following options are available.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
121
IV. OPTIONS
A. ELIMINATE ALL CATEGORIES OF USE VALUE TAXATION
The most restrictive option is to eliminate all categories
of land use value taxation, which means only eligible land
that meets the SLEAC criteria within an agricultural/
forestal district would qualify for land use taxation.
Parcels currently receiving land use would have to join an
agricultural/forestal district in order to continue to
qualify for land use.
Adv~n,tages:
Since agricultural/forestal districts are permitted only in
the rural areas, land use in the growth areas would be
eliminated. Assuming that open space benefits the growth
area, this can also be a disadvantage.
Immediately restricting land use to eligible land within an
agricultural/forestal district would significantlyreduce
the acreage under land use. With 63,476 acres currently
enrolled in agricultural/forestal districts and deferred
taxes of $807,000, the immediate impact would be a net
increase in revenues of almost $3.4million.
Assuming that any major change in land use policy would
defer ~he effective date to allow rural parcels to join an
agricultural/forestal district, realized revenues would be
substantially lower. Most rural properties would eventually
be able to either join or establish an agricultural/forestal
district.
Requires a four to ten-year commitment from bona fide
agricultural/forestal parcels, and ultimately gives, local
government more control over the location and extentof land
use taxation~
Disadvantages:
Offsetting the potential revenue increase, roll-back taxes
will not become payable upon eliminating use value taxation,
but onlywhen the land is changed to a non-qualifying use.
Potential destabilizing and devastatingr impact on the bona
fide agricultural and forestal community and loss of impor,
rant natural resources.
Administrative problem to rapidly organize and. implement new
agricultural/forestal districts.
Inconsistent with the comprehensive plan that endorses land
USe.
Rate of development may increase. Although some experts
support this view, others argue that~developmentis linked
to demand and that the rate. will not change significantly.
B. USE VALUE FOR OPEN SPACE ONLY
A second option is to eliminate use value for agricultural,
forestal and horticultural classes and allow only the open-
space designation. Based on 1988 amendments to the use
value taxation law, a locality may authorize use value for~
open space only. The property mUst meet one of the follow-
ing three requirements: locatedwithin an agricultural/
forestal district; subject to a recorded perpetual easement
held by a public body; subject to a recorded commitment
between the landowners and the local governing body not to
change to a non-qualifying use~for a time period of four to
10 years.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
122
Advantages:
It is the best alternative from a planning perspective,
since it is consistent with the comprehensive plan to
utilize land use taxation to preserve rural land uses.
Recognizes that rural properties, not just farms, provide a
benefit to the county, such as protection of watersheds and
preservation of natural, scenic and historic resources and
open space.
First requirement achieves the same effect as eliminating
use value except within the agricultural/forestal districts.
Second requirement encourages property owners to grant an
easement to a public body in return for the benefit of use
value taxation and the assurance that the property will be
preserved in open space under private ownership.
Involves governing body indecisions about landto be
included in agricultural/forestal districts or subject to a
contractual agreement. Allows more Board control over the
range and extent of use value taxation through the contract
option.
Use value tax would be eliminated in the growth areas,
except where.the county entered into a. contractual agreement
to Preserve~farmland~or desired open space.
Allows qualifying agricultural or forestal parcels to have
land use without joining an agricultural/forestal district
under the contract option.
Disadvantages:
Would require current recipients of land use taxation to
make a commitment not to change the use of their land for
specified period of time. However, length of commitment
could be based on proximity to the path of development.
Administrative problemto either enroll current eligible
properties intoagricultural/forestal district or develop
individual contracts for Board approval.
ELIMINATE USE VALUE TAX IN THE GROWTH AREAS
The~third optionis to retain use value tax in the rural
areas while eliminating it in areas designated for growth in
thecomprehensive plan. This option is not available to
Albemarle County under present enabling legislation and
would require that our legislators seek either a general
amendment, or one specifically applicable to Albemarle
County.
Advantages:
Conforms to the goals of the comprehensive plan toencourage
development.in the growth areasand retain farmland and open
space in the rural areas.
Property in the growth areas held solely for development
purposes would no longer beeligible for land use.
Elimination of land use in the growth area would increase
revenues by approximately $338,000.
Disadvantages:
Existing farms, desirable open space or wooded land in the
growth areas would also be eliminated from use value taxa-
tion.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
123
Do
Roll-back taxes are not due if the county eliminates land
use in the growth area. Roll-back taxes would come due only
if owner requested a change in the use of the land and would
apply only to five years immediately preceding the change.
CREATE LOCAL DISTRICTS PROGRAM
Virginia Code Sections 15.1-1513.1 through 1513.8 currently
allows certain counties, i.e., Loudoun, Fairfax and Prince
William, to create districts of local significance s~m~lar
to agricultural and forestal districts with a minimum
acreage of 25 acres. Through the same type of application
process, review by the Planning Commission, and public
hearing and approval by the Board of Supervisors, a small
parcel of land may be considered for its own district under
criteria set'out in ~the local ordinance. The type of
criteria would include agricultural ,and forestal~signifi-
cance, the nature of the land use in and adjacent to that
district and local development patterns and needs based on
zoning and the comprehensive plan. The criteria would also
include the scenic, historic and environmental benefits of
preserving that land.
Accepted parcels may not be developed to a more intensive
use for a period of eight years and would automatically
qualifyfor an agricultural'or forestal assessment if the
land met the assessment criteria. Upon request, a property
can beterminated from the dist=ict, but will be responsible
for roll-back taxes in addition to a penalty in the amount
equal to two times the taxes determined in the year fol-
lOwing the-withdrawal..
Advantages
Would allow the.county greater flexibility in preserving
small tracts of land that 'provide open space, historic-and
environmental benefits in rural, as well as designated
growth areas.
If land use assessment was eliminated in the growth areas,
this legislation would allow a small area or an individual
parcel to apply for a special district and be eligible for
land use-taxation. Consistent criteria would have to.be
developed for the application and approval process.
Would allow small parcels in the rural areas to be in an
agricuttural/forestal district that cannot be incorporated
into one of the larger districts.
ELIMINATE USE VALUE ON FOREST LAND,
This last option has been implemented by at least three
other counties, and in Albemarle County would remove more
than half (66 percent or 214,000 acres) of the property
under land use.
Advantages:
Parcels in agricultural/forestaldistricts could~still
qualify for land use taxation if eligible under forest
classification.
Would have large initial increase in revenues. Assuming
equal property values for all categories, 66 percent of
deferred taxes~would be $2.7 million recovered in deferred
taxes. However, assuming that much of the forest land would
eventually beincorporatedinto an'-agricultural/forestal
district, recovered revenues would drop significantly.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
124
Would not impact the true agricultural com~nunity, because
use value taxation extends to up to 20 acres of forest or
woodland on farms.
Disadvantages:
Forest land provides non-market benefits to the community,
i.e., temperature moderation, reduction in non-point source
pollution, critical slopes, natural beauty and animal habi-
tat.
The comprehensive plan purposefully established the 21-acre
rurmliot size in ord'er to qualify for all types of use
value taxation including forestal.
LAND-USE DEFERRALS/ROLL-BACK TAXES
YEAR -TAX DEFERRED DEFERRED ROLL BACK
RATE ASSESSMENT TAX COLLECTED
1985 $0.77 $317,814,185 $2,447,169 $ 56,421
1986 0.77 317,704,000 2,446,320 39,421
1987 0.72 342,879,545 2,468,732. 1'09,330
1988 0.72 341,024,760 2,455,378 121,956
1989 0.72 405,044,920 2,916,323 220,633
1990 0.74 407,007,250 3,011,853 100,569
1991 0.72 582,345,000 4,192,884 111,407
Mr. Tucker noted that the report provides several options available for
consideration, and also provides background information regarding the County's
1975 adopted Land Use' Taxation Ordinance. He thinks it would be helpful if
the Board discussed the options it believes should be considered further. He
pointed out that several of the options would be significant changes to the
current land use program, ~and there ~should be a public hearing scheduledif
the Board chooses Options A, B or E. Also,~18 to 24 months would be needed to
implement any change requiring that a property be in an agricultural/forestal
district before it could be in the land use program. Refeels strongly that
if this is implemented, staff should provide'help to individuals tryingto put
together an agricUltural/forestal district, rather than leaving it to the
individuals to put their own district together. Option C, relating to the
elimination of the use value tax in the growth area requires legislation
allowing the county to do that. There are advantages and disadvantages to
each option.
Mrs. Rumphris said she was impressed by the amount of-work that had gone
into the analysis. She wouldlike to discuss the report, but is not prepared
today to make a decision.
Mr. Bowie agreed with Mrs. Rumphris that this is an excellent report, and
he does not expect the Board to reach a decision today. He said that he-i.s
inclined not to go: much beyond the growth area, and he still feels.there has
to be a way to allow for the working farm. He.stated that farmers cannot help
it if the Board designates a growth area around their farm. Re said~ that
these people do not want to be in a growth area, they want to have a farm.
Mr~ Tucker replied that if this is thedirection that theBoard favors,
the staff'can consider other available alternatives~ Much of this will depend
on what the State law allows, so there will have to be methods used, such as
changes in zoning, etc., to make those kinds of ideas work within the frame-
work of limiting land use in a growth area. Restated that there are some.-
lands in the growth area that legitimately meet the criteria of.a working
farm.
Mr. Bowie inquired about the open space concept. Mr. Cilimberg replied
that in order to have theopen space classification, land would have to be in
the agricultural/forestal di-strict, have an easement, or enter into a con-
tract.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
125
Mr. Bowerman asked for the arguments against the situation where there
are three alternatives: 1) a commitment from a landowner who wants land use
taxation to join an agricultural district; 2) or donate his land to a perpetu-
al easement; 3) or have an agreement with some public body that the land would
not be developed until some specific point in time so that it could continue
to be used for agricultural or forestal purposes in exchange for the abate-
ment. Mr. Way pointed out that the landowner could die. Mr. Bain stated
that when a landowner dies, the land can be taken out of the agricultur-
al/forestal district. Mr. Bowerman noted that the agreement is violated if
the owner dies and the heirs don't live up to the agreement. He wondered if
the heirs would be responsible for the deferred land use taxes. Mr. Bain
replied that the heirs would be responsible for these taxes only if the use
waschanged.
Mr. Bain asked if staff knew figures if the roll-back was increased from
five to ten, years. Mr. Tucker answered that the figures were not-available.
Mr. Melvin Breeden stated that whether theroll-back was on five or ten years,
the property would stitlhave to change use before any of this was
implemented.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the amount of time it has taken volunteers,
~especially the Piedmont Environmental Council, to enroll people in the agri-
culturat/forestal districts. It would appear that the burden of enrolling
eligible properties under Option B into an agricultural/forestal district
would be enormous. She feels that this option would require adding paid
staff, and the County Government' would have to set up a new office.
Mr-. Tucker commented that this is why he had asked for the 18 to 24-month
time period for several of the options. He believes the County should provide
the impetus to coordinate and facilitate the implementation before it is
actually enacted. He-added that the contract should be available so that the
1,andowners cansee what is in the contract and what isexpectedof them.
Mr.~Bowerman asked for Mr. Perkins' comments on Option E, the ethr~nation
of use value on forest land. Mr. Perkins replied that he thinks this is one
of the most important categories available in land use evaluation because of
the long commitment the landowner, has to make in growing timber.. He feels as
though there should, be something in the lawthat would force the owner to
harvest timber,~ because there is a lot of timber that needs to be harvested on
land that-is in land-use. He said that sometimes the landowner never takes
the initiative to cut the timber off of the land. He noted that in m~ny cases
the timber rots, or a storm knocks it down, and there is no income generated
that would cause the pro.perry owner to pay income taxes. He said that selling
timber would generate revenue throughout the whole community. He added that a
law such as this might be unconstitutional, but he thinks that Option E is
veryimportant as far as preserving land and the benefits that the citizens
get out of it, such as clean air, clear water, aesthetics, etc.
Mr~ Bain asked Mr. Perkins how many people he thinks would be interested
in putting forest land into an agricultural/forestal district or under con-
tract, etc., for' six-toten years. Mr. Perkins said he thinks if the landown-
ers were forced intothis typeof situation, a lot of them would choose to do
something of this nature.~ He mentioned that alot of this property.is rough,
mountainous property that probably will never be developed anyway. · He.be-
lieves the point is being missed with the whole land use issue. Ithas been
pointed out that land use costs the County money. That is one way to.look at.
it, but he would put the word "costs" in quotation marks. He added that it
might be revenue that could be collected this'year, but five years from now~
it would probably cost the County more money by having to extend servicesto
those pieces of property that would get developed. There are other things
involved that costs cannot be put on. For each ~dollar .that is collected from
those lands, the cost is only a dime or 20 cents in services that has to be
given back, so the County is really making money on most of the land that is
in land use. He mentioned the applicant who appeared before theBoard last
week for a permit for a stream crossing. He~ said this man has 21 acres that
is getting the benefit of land use taxation, but he did not see this as being
of any benefit to the county. This man could build one house on it, but as
far as agricultural/forestal use, he does not think the county is getting much
benefit from it. There is nothing else the man can do with the land.,, so-why
should he be getting land use-taxation on it, even though it probably doesn't
amount tovery much.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 71)
126
Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. Perkins about the aspect of services involved
with certain pieces of land. He said that for the County to have a rate of 72
cents/per one hundred of assessment for steep mountainous land does not make
any sense to him. The people who build houses on these pieces of land are
paying fair market value taxes on the amenities and improvements on that land
anyway. He agrees with Mr. Bowie that in the growth areas, where the true use
is not being made of the land, the Board should consider if there is something
that can be done.
Mr. Perkins believes that there is a misunderstanding on the public's
part as to what land use actually is. He stated that the farmer who has a
farm and gets land use taxation still pays the same rate on his house and the
parcel~of, land aroundit as anybody else in this County pays. He said that
just because some landowner happens to be rich does not mean that he can be
denied land use taxation. He added that the use of this method of taxation
has to be extended to the rich and the poor. This County would be in trouble
with the courts if landowners were distinguished because of their wealth.
Mr~ Tucker stated that the staff brought this matter to the Board at this
time in the event that the Board wanted to select the optiondealing with the
legislative amendment. Mr. Bowie asked to which option Mr. Tucker is refer-~
ring. Mr. Tucker replied that Option C deals with eliminating use valuetaxa-
tion inthe growth areas. He is suggesting that if there are no major objec-
tions to this option, the staff could at least prepare a draft. He said that
other options could continue to be considered, but the legislators could .be
asked to sponsor that type of legislation. This would just enable the County
to have this option, but the Board could still choose not to do it.
Mr. Bowerman said if this legislation to remove land use in the growth
areas were approved, he understands that roll-back taxes could not be col~lect-
ed unless use of the land was changed. He asked what wouldhappen if the~tand
were zoned R-6, and land use taxation were removed from the urban area. Would
this situation relate to a change of use or would it still be zoned R-6 and
have a lower tax rate? Mr. Tucker answered that the tax'rate would change if~
land usetaxation were removed, however, roll-back taxes would not have tobe
paid until the actual change in use occurred. He said taxeswoutd be collect-
ed according to fair market rate. Mr. Bowerman asked if this would be-the r~
same rate as with anyotherland in the urban area. Mr. Tucker answered,
"yes."
Mr. Bowerman continued discussing Option-C. He noted that it was the
opinion of the deputy county attorney that landuse could be eliminated within
the urban area without any legislative change. Mr.' Tucker responded that the
deputy county attorney has since changed his-opinion. Mr. Bowerman asked*if
the only way that Option C could be implemented would be to have the legisla~
rive initiative. Mr. Tucker answered that this is correct.
Mr, Bowermannext asked if Option C were implemented if there would be a
way that active, producing farms within the urban area, active open space that
serves a significant public benefit, could:beseparated from other land in the
growth area. Mr-. Tucker repliedthat he was not sure. He believes there.may
bea way, but the issue has not been totally explored. Hereferred to his
earlier comments that a change in-zoning might be necessary even thoughthe
· land is in the growth area. He knows of one active farm in the growth area
that is currently Zoned for medium or high density residential growth. The
landowner may not want-the change of zoning, but in order to maintain theland
use, it may have to be rezoned to RA. He said this would be an interim time.
period so that whenever' that person stops farming, the zoning would probably
be changedbackto the zoning as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. He
said thisis one idea that is being pursued. '
Mr. Cilimberg stated that there is some'existing legislation in effectin
PrinceWiltiamand Loudoun counties that is'similar:~toMr. Tucker's statements
and Albemarle County'might qualify under this legistation~ He thinks that in_
those counties the,legislation, is applied to the zoning and not the Comprehen-
sive Plan'. Mr~ St. John commented that the legislation to whichMr. Cil~mherg
referred only applies to zoning that was,in place when the land use taxation
program was adopted. He said that even if Albemarle County was included as
one of the named counties under that legislation, it would not accomplishwhat
hasbeen mentioned today. He went on to say that only those areas zoned
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 72)
127
industrial or commercial have those certain qualities. He thinks it is
self-contradiction when Board members do not want land use taxation to be
available in the growth area, but they want it available to bona fide farmers.
He said this comes back to the fact that the land use tax basic structure does
not allow for a determination as to whether the farmer intends to rem~in a
bona fide farmer in the future. He noted that having the person sign an
agreement is the only way to make certain of this, and that is not the option
the Board is discussing.
Mr. Bowie remarked that, on the surface, he likes the growth area con-
cept. He really does not want 200 more acres of houses whether or not they
are in the growth area because for every house that is built, the County loses
money~ He said it has been proven, so it is not to the County's advantage to
encourage any open space to develop. He stated that the minute land use
taxation is taken away, development is encouraged, and it may even force the
sale'of land that otherwise wouldnot be sold for ten years, ifever. He is
concerned with the whole concept.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Bowie means that he is not at all sure that
the whole program should change to capture some specific amount of revenue
that, in the end, will cost the County a whole lot more money. Mr. Bowie
responded that if the County had $4.0 million this year, it would not take too
many houses to eliminate that amount of money in the education budget alone,
since there is a $3000 cost per child. He noted that anything that is done to
encourage growth costs money. He is not sure what the total amountof money
would be if every piece of land under use value taxation were eliminated~in
the County. He could imagine_what would happen, to the County's budget if-t~hat
land were developed.. The budget would increase tens of millions of dollarsT
just for education. He stated that, at this time, he is not prepared to do
anything.
Mr. Bowerman askedwhat has been the argument on the part of the legisla-
ture not to increase the period of the roll-back tax. Mr~ Tucker replied that
he is not sure. He noted that it has been~almost 20 years since this legisla-
tionwas passed. He added that this is not the first time that VACO and
others have,made this request.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she read that the proposal cannot even getout
of committee. Mr. Way said one thing that could probably be done is to
eliminate Option A without any further consideration. He feels that Option E
could be eliminated also.
Mrs. Humphris askedwhat this Board needs to do to get this issueadded
to the legislative program. Mr. Bowie remarked that two of the options
require legislative action. Mr. Tucker answered that Option D creates the
local districts program where there can be a small agricultural/forestal
district up to 25 acres. He noted that Fairfax, PrinceWilliam andLoudoun.
Counties have the program already. Mr. Bowieasked if Option D requires
legislative action. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." - ~
Mr. Bain said all of these counties are close to the Washington, D.C.,
area. Re wondered if it makes any sense for Albemarle County to do this. Mr.
Tucker replied that it might give the Board another option for thelegitimgte
farmin~ the growth area because the requirements are for a smaller amount of
land than the minimum required now for an agricultural/forestal district.
Mr. Bowerman commented that there are a lot of statements, goals and
objectives in the Comprehensive Plan which speak to,many areas of this cent
cern, He asked if it would not be to the County~sbenefit to have a carefully
worded statement of public policy regarding the benefits of land'use 'and what
all members of the community derive from .-it. He added that this statement
could mention some of the advantages and disadvanta§es so it would be clear as
to why there is land use in Albemarle County and why this Board and, maybe
future boards, feel it is appropriate to have the program, Mr. Bowerman
commented that much of this information is already in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bain agreed.
Mrs. Humphris pointed out that not many people read the Comprehensive~~'
Plan. Mr. St. John stated that one thing that is not in this report or in the
Comprehensive Plan is that the County encourages the creation of a large
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 73)
128
number of 21-acre lots based on the specific proposition that this is the
smallest size~lot that would be.eligible for this kind of taxation. He noted
that this is why that size lot was selected, and a lot of the parcels, which
are now eligible, are near that size. He said that the lots have been bought
and sold with the knowledge that they would be eligible for land use taxation.
He pointed out that they would no longer be eligible under any of these
options unless they banded together. He thinks that this should be taken into
account.
Mr. Bowie remarked that if land use taxation was eliminated in the
County, it would only take 1300 additional students to wipe out the $4.0
million not counting capital costs. He noted that 1300 students would involve
more than two schools, so it would probably cost $20.0 million for the
schools. He said the County would be building schools for the first five
years, and the County would then be in debt for 30 years to try to pay for
them~ Mr. Way commented that Mr. Bowie is assuming that all of these houses
will be built, and he thinks this is a ridiculous assumption.
Mr. Bowie replied that the chances are, if land use taxation is eliminat-
ed throughout the County, that 600 houses would be built, and they would be
all over the County. He said that he pointed this out as a mathematical fact,
but he does not know if it will happen. He commented that it does not'take
much to eliminate $4.0 million a year. He added that he would like to see the
pros and cons of whether it should be done at all before figuring out how to
do it.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that the increased assessments have h~lped drive
the.value up to ~$4.2 million. Henoted, too, the reduction of land use values
becauseof~poor crop years. He pointed out. that the land use values are lower
now than they were two years ago. He said' these are two reasons that there is
a cost figure of $4.2 million whereas in 1990~ it~was $2~5 million.
Mrs. Humphris said the County obviously needs to explain its position
carefully in the Comprehensive Plan~ She said that the Comprehensive Plan,
however, does not get out to the public. She believes Mr. Bowermanwantsto
find some' avenue whereby the public.will understand the purpose of land use
and what value it ~brings to every-residentof the County.
Mr. Bowerman said a year ago it was determined that land use taxation is
a very important component of the land use policy in this community. Now, a
year later, the question has come up again. He thinks it is important to
capture both the benefits and~the disadvantages so that everybody.can"see what
theyare. He thinks it. needs to be communicated to the public at large in a
manner that is understandable to them so they can either agree or disagree.
Mr. Bowerman remarkedthat~ the explanation could be in some sort of-an appen-
dixto the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker commented that the Plan can cer-
tainly be amended to include an explanation. He believes the question comes
down tohow to communicate the explanation to the public.
Mr. Cilimberg indicated that included in a brochure on agricultural/-
forestal districts, thereis a'statement of the advantages and what the
program is all about. He thinks that use value can be summarized from the
standpoint of planning and the growth management program. He said it proba-
bly would only take one page to do this.
Mrs. Humphris said she has been talking to Mr. Tucker about the need to
communicate information to the public so they will know about County govern-
ment and their rights, as citizens. She thinksthat this matter relatingto
land use is a prime example of a complex subject in which the information .has
not gotten to the-public. This has been going On for years, and although she
traditionally has beenopposed tothe expenditure of County funds on public
relations type.of materials, she did bring back from the VACO conferencesome
examples of what' other counties are doing. She said that many of the counties
publish a .quarterly publication for their citizens, and she feels that it has
a ~great deal of value, She added that there is a lot of information in these
publications which would be of benefit to Albemarle County citizens and could
make their lives easier. She also wants the public to know that the questions
which are brought up totheindividual departments arebeing addressed aswell
as the major issues in the Comprehensive Plan. She suggested that the exam-
ples which she brought back from the YACO meeting be studied. She said the
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 74)
129
publication would not need to be anything expensive or fancy, but maybe an
effort should be made since there are now over 68,000 citizens in Albemarle
County, and they obviously are not coming to Board meetings. She thinks staff
needs to be directed as to the items to be added to the legislative program in
time to have the information ready to meet with the legislators in December.
Mr. Bowie said he had already asked for such a motion. Mrs. Humphris
indicated that Mr. Tucker's help was needed for the wording of this motion.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Board needs direction which would request that the
legislators seek enabling legislation that would eliminate use value in the
growth areas. He said the staff will develop the language that is necessary.
Motiom was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to direct
staff t0develop language that is necessary to request the Legislators to seek
enabling legislation that would eliminate land use taxation in growth areas.
Mr. Bain suggested that the motion include a request for 'creation of~local
district programs. Mrs Humphrisand Mr. Bowerman agreed to include Mr.'Bain's
suggestion in the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the~
foltowing~ recorded vQte:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None. '-
Note: At 3:45 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 3:58 p.m.)
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to follow up on the land use
discuSsion~ He said:'Mr. Tucker'had indicatedthat Mr. Cilimberg had a lot of
infOrmation on agricultural/forestal districts regarding land use, etc.,
available. He wondered if the Board could directMr. Tucker to pull together
this information intoa statement 'as'to whyland use is important to the
County and get it back to t'his Board.
Mr. Bowie asked if any Board member objected. No one objected, soMr.
Bowie asked for the information by the December meeting.
Agenda Item No. 21. Cliff Haury - Revised School Enrollment Projections.
Mr. Haury informed the Board that the Oversight Committee for the
School's Long Range Planning Committee will meet on November 21, 1991, at 4:45
p.m. in Meeting Room #1 of the County Office Building. Ail of the Board
members should have received a packet of information showing enrollment
projections for 1991-and'a school-by-school anatysis~ This is the basic
document that the Oversight Committee considers first whenadjustments are
made. He mentioned that when Ms. Tracy Holt went through the enrollment
projections she foundthat the page for Albemarle and Western Albemarle High
Schools showed a major difference from laSt year. Ms. Holt then met with Mr.
Wayne Cilimberg to try and figure out why that particular projection was
radically different. It was discovered that the division for Walton Middle
School, which was used in the past, was not the actual correct division of 'the
district. He said a figure of 78 percent of students at Walton School who
would proceed to Western Albemarle High School had been used'previously, and.
the actual figure is only 47 percent. This is a major difference and would
cause the enrollment at Western' Albemarle. High School to be lower and
Albemarle High School's enrollment to be higher. He went' on to say that this
particular projection was originally made during the first long-range planning
meetings to figure out what portion of the students would go to Western. He
said that this makes a big difference because Western Albemarle High School
will not necessarily grow as rapidly as was planned. Heremarked that this
error ha.s now been corrected.
Mr. Haury mentioned that.one of the reasons there is a disparitybetween
the 78 percent and the 47 percent figures is that there was a discussion about
sending 227 students identified in the Walton School district toWestern.
However, it: was decided not to recommend that they go to Western, and they are
currently in the:Albemarle district~
Mr. Bowerman asked how the information that this Board received relates
to Mr. Haury's statements about the Walton School district. Mr. Haury
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 75)
130
explained that in the back of the packets there is a page marked Western
Albemarle High School. He said the report shows 1422 students listed for the
year 2001 instead of 1900, and this is the corrected version. He noted, too,
that when the figure was used originally, Cale School had not been construct-
ed. He then directed the Board to turn to Albemarle High School's page of
enrollment. He pointed out that in the year 2001, there are 2201 students
listed. He said that the majority of students are still in the Albemarle High
School district, unless some action is taken. He reiterated that this projec-
tion depicts the actual district.
Mr. Haury then summarized the preliminary analysis information that he
gave to Board members and mentioned that the growth for the school system in
.the. next year will ~otal 326.students. He pointed out that there was a net
1Oss'of-~five students at the high school level. He noted said the roll back
in the date for kindergarten students to December 1 cost the County approxi-
matety~120 students~.this year. He said the assumption would be that. the roll
back date to November 1 would cost another 120 students, however, the other
children can be received next year as kindergarteners or first graders., if
they have gone to a private kindergarten. He said that there is 'a comparison
of enrollment projections for 1992 included in the information. He explained
that the Center for. Public Service at the University of Virginia published a
booklet showing projected statistics, and he compared the County's projection
figures to-~the Center's figures. Heis glad that there is an external docu-
ment that has growth statistics about the division. He next discussed the
preliminary analysis for a ten-year period, and he said that these figures are
based on the information that was given to.the Board members..
Mr~ Bowerman called attention to the figures"69" and "80" that were~
shown underneath the high schools' figures. He asked whatthese figures
represent. Mr~ Haury replied that these figures represent the'current enroll-
ment and the projected-enrollment at Murray High School. He smid that'the~
Oversight Committeewill go over the preliminary analysis for the ten-year~
period in great detail.. He added that it represents 500 less students than
last year's projectionfor the year~2001. He notedthat this is because theze
were 380 less students thanhadbeen projected for this year, and over' a~ten-
year period, this will pull the projected figure down'~
Next,.Mr. Haury discussed the capital project priorities for1992-93~ He
said that~he is comfortable with dividing'the Broadus Wood expansion into tw~.~
parts and spreading the. money over atwo-year period. He called attention to
the page of classroom capacity conflicts. He said this particular page.shows
Broadus WOod with an even growth, but it, is~inexcess of its capacity..~ He
reminded~the.Board that there are a group of children.on the~left side of
Route 29 who go to. Holl~ymead School, and they-'coutd be-adequately seated in a
Broadus Wood expansion. He added that the reason this has.been considered is
because Forest Lakes South will provide anas yet uncalcutated nUmber .of-.
students for Hotlymead or Hotlymead and Woodbrook.. He.said that this situa-
tion with Broadus Wood will be considered by the Oversight Committee. for
review, but the division of the money willallow the County to plan for the
future and' accommodate Hollymead's enrollment in the .future.
Mr. Haury mentioned that the new middle school facility is proceeding by
dividing the project over a two-year period. He said that feeder patterns
wilt have to be re~examined for' the middle.'school~ He addedthat the growth
in the middle schools .is approximately 80Ostudents, ~and thethree schoOls
that, are affected are Henley, Jouett and Burtey, in that~ order. He noted that
even though. Walton has-the greatest capacity, there,'is the least ability to
deliver .the studentsto Walton because of the lacation~of the school. He said
that'it~is probably a good idea to keep the~Hotlymead site for the middle'
school construction program. ~
Mr. Haury stated that $200,000 was eliminated for the school capacity
'analysis. He added thatMr.' Reaser said that~this figure would have ~provided
overall planning money-if planning was necessary for a~middle and a high
school. He noted that $5000~to $10,000 is needed for an analysis of Western
Albemarle High School to show whether or not an addition is possible there.
He suggested that this. small amount of money be taken~from.savings from-this
year's, budget so that the analysis for Western Albemarle High School' Could
begin.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 76)
131
Mr. Bain asked when the Oversight Committee's recommendations would be
coming back. Mr. Haury answered that the Oversight Committee had put out the
middle and high school portion of the report in May. He said that it was the
School Board's thinking that the final report would be finished in the month
of December, so that it would be available for this Board in January. He
noted that the Committee has been at work for 13 months. He said the Con, it-
tee had waited for the new enrollment projections because it makes a big
difference. He mentioned that this year's enrollment is only 44 students
greater than last year's, but it affected the end result by 800. He said that
this will have to be considered every year~
Mr. Perkins stated that there is no question that a school building will
have.to bebuilt. He pointed' out the increase in the high school enrollment
and wondered when the decision will be made about building a new high school.
He said that temporary measures must be taken to accommodate the additional
students .... .He asked if Mr..~Hauryagrees. -
Mr.~ Haury,agreed.. He said theschool system had received' a warning
message·from Ms. Jo~Higgins whereshe gave lead times on constructing of a-
high school and amiddle school. He noted that the memo indicates that the
lead time on middle·schools is approximately four years and the lead time·on
high schools is approximately~five. He said that thisis one-ofthe reasons
that the~ school ·system felt it needed to start working on plans if. it does, in
fact,-take that tong.
Mr. Perkins asked how many additional students for the middle and high
schools will be needed, totarget this project. Mr. Haury answered that~there
are approximately 700'to800 people-,who could easily be housedin a mid~le~
school'just in the. urban.area of Route 29North~ He'stated, however, that the
high school would be-more problematic in determining the size of theschool.
He said that if< excess students~show andthe school ~is in excess of its
capacity,, as Albemarle High School might be, there has to be consideration
given to handling the students whoare already there~ Henoted..that,22~00
students will definitelyput Ai·bemarte~ High School beyond itscapacity, and
temporarystructures and trailers have' beenconsidered for both high-schools.
Mr*. Bain mentioned that he knows thecapacity at the Chariottesville·:Righ
School~.has·been considered and could carry as many as 400 students-until,the
County coUld accommodate them. He feels this should be considered before
trailers are added. He said that paying the City would be less than the
capital work that~would be involved with temporary measures, and other things
would still have to be done~
Mr. Raury replied that he would have no hesitation in considering· this'~
measure. He said that he personally had a conversation with Dr. McGeehan-and
he has since givenhim a~letter relating to the City's excess'seats at,the
high school. He said that Dr, McGeehan indicated that he wouldhave to
consult with City Counciland his system because there are compleXquestions
that have~ to be answered such as transportation, high school grades, Class A
versus double A, triple A~ etc. Hestated that he told Dr..McGeehanthat it
seems they are arguing about football and buses rather, than students, andDr.
McGeehan agreed~~ Dr. McGeehan said that there are a-.totof people whowilt"
worry about the footbal-1 ·and. buses, first·. the agreed that the~two systems
need to talk about this situation, and there will have to be-planning negotia-
tions to consider~where the studentswill come from, who will provide·the
transportation, the. time frame involved andif it:will affect the City's
status in the Virginia High·School League. Mr. Haury said that he certainly
would not mind proceeding with this idea as long as it is clear to everybody
what to expect, as well as the two governing bodies ....
Agenda Item No. 22. Work Session: 1992-93/1996-97 Capital~Improvements
Program (CIP)~
The following~memorandum dated November 5, 1991, from Mr. Robert W.
Tucker~ Jr., County Executive, was received·as follows:
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 77)
132
"The attached information is submitted for your review prior to the
CIP work session on Wednesday. The material includes a spread sheet
with County Executive recommendations superimposed over Planning
Commission requests and a summary sheet of recommended projects and
funding schedules for general government and school projects.
Based on the County Executive's recommendation, the FY 1992-93 CIP
totals $3.64 million, $1.88 million for general government projects
and $1.76 million for school projects. Funding for the recommended
school projects will require a $1.68 million bond issue in FY 1992-93.
The dollar discrepancy between total school projects and the bond
issue is $75,000 for Burley Middle School which was included in the FY
-.'~t991~92 $16~0 million b.ond issue, and is reflected in the carry-over
funds. Balancing total available revenues against project expendi-
tures leaves a projected balance of $11,800 for FY 1992-93.
The following summmrizes the proposed changes in ~the project: .spread
sheet from the Planning Commission' s recommendations:
Administration m md Courts:
Jail Deferred expansion of the kitchen, facility until FY
1993-94 ($104,250).
County Office Building, (COB), - Deleted $3.-0 million for C~B
expansion and retainedv$'105,000 in FY 1992-93 for minorrenov, a-
tions after other 'government agencies leave.. $190,000 in.FY
1993-94 will-,completethe renovations. ,~
Education:
Security System -.Deferred both FY 1992~93 and FY 1993~94 costs
one year
~-Greer'Elementary'.Watts Deferred for one year
Vehicular Maintenance,- Both FY- 1992~93 and FY 1993-94 .costs
deferred~for one year.
MiddleSchoot Facility -Budgeted ~$447,000 'in FY 1992-93 for
projectdesign and engineering~ and full cost of~ constrnction--in
FY1993-94, Initial proposal to-split construction costs between
FY 1993-94 and. FY !994-95 does not~ meet bond requirements
_~-'--~':~Broadus Wood - Revised project schedule uses $200,000 of prior
committed funds of $402,000 and $460,000 in FY 1992-93 to con-
struct the kindergarten wing and the media center in May. of 1992.
FY 1993-94 funding of $1,173,047 will complete the rest of the
project in July, 1993.
School Capacity Analysis - Deferred until FY 1993-94
Carpet Replacement - Deferred until FY 1993-94. May have to
replace critical/unsafe areas within school operating budget.
WAHS Press Box - Deferred until FY 1994-95
WA}IS PA and Master Clock - Deferred until-FY 1993-94
Fire/Rescue and Safety:
Police Northern Joint Facility- Deferred $70,000 oneyear for
initial planning and engineering. Deferred actual construction
until FY 1995-96.
Police Satellite Receiver Deleted the microwave portion of the
r.equest. Signals from three sites, Fan, Peters andBuck Moun-
tains, will.be relayed by leased telephone lines
133
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 78)
Enhanced 911 - The total project cost for E-911 is $2,585,459
with the County's total share over a three-year period of
$1,625,854. Since the FY 1991-92 appropriation was $1,279,500,
not $991,680 as originally shown on the project spread sheet, the
current need is reduced to $396,348 and can be delayed until FY
1993-94. Expenditures are balanced by revenues of $396,348 in FY
1993-94.
(Note: Mr. Way left at 3:26 p.m.)
Highways and Transportation:
' - 'Revenue Sharin8 - Deleted',$500,000 for FY 1992-93
Sunset Avenue Alisnment - Deleted $60,000 since staff is consid-
ering'this as a joint project with the City. -.-
Avon Street/Routes 20/I-64 Study - Deleted $50',000
(Note: Mr'. Way returned at 3:30 p.m~) -
Libraries:
Interior.Paintin8 - Deferred $10,000 painting project one year
.-.:'~.Northside.:'Bragch:?:-.-,.Spread $300,000 of book purchases across
three-year span and allocated Albemarle's share of total circula-
tion:at 54,6% = $54,600 per.'year.share.
Miscellaneous:
Computer Upgrade - Reduced request by deleting high speed laser
printer at, $14,000 and $30,900 for mainframe software utilities
Parks and Recreation:
L:::..~Deferred all FY 1992-93 Parks & Recreation projects until FY
1993-94 except Albemarle Tennis Court lighting and Agnor-Hurt
Recreation Improvements..(both funded in FY-.1991-92 bond pro~
ceeds), maintenance and repair of the Scottsville Community
Center:.($1:5,.0D0)., andhalf of the requested funding'for the
Whitewood Road Park improvements ($20,000). ....
Utilities Improvements:
Four Seasons Detention.Basin- Deferred project for one year
Peyton DriveStormwater - Deferred projectcosts in-FY 19.92-9.3
and FY 1993-94 for one year
' ~'roz~t Drainage study/Master Drainage - $90,000 project cost in
FY 1991,92 includes $60,000' for Crozet, $30,000 far the County's
share of the,Moore's .Creek study (City shareS30,000). Cost of
the Master Drainage Study'has been deferred until FY 1993-94
($355,000).
Keene Landfill--Ivy Landfill carry over funds in the amount of
$795,403 will be carried forward to FY 1991-92 to fund Keene
-tandfitl--~,ctos~re~ costs. With these additional revenues in FY
1991292~,$795,403 will be appropriated in FY 1991-92 for Keene
expenditures allowing the FY 1992-93 costs to be reduced.by the
same amount. Total project costs for FY 1992-93 are, therefore,
reduced to $500,000.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 79)
134
General Goverr~ent:
Increased CIP carry-over balance by approximately $60,000.
Added $120,000 carry-over balance from Stormwater Fund, which
reflects collected revenues for completed projects.
Schools:
Added three projects to the FY 1992-93 bond issue:
Flashing School Zone Speed Limit signs, $28,000;
Underground storage tanks $87,300;
~','~i~,~,,~:~' Br~Adh~'~:Wood, $4.60,000.
' :Total','FY".1992r93 bond issue will be $1,688,300; additional cost
of the bond issue in FY 1992-93 will be $59,091, which reflects a
half,year interest payment. ~
Mr. Tucker stated-that the Capital Improvement Program has been revised
and he commented that the 1992-93 CIP totals $3,640,000. He directed the
Board:~to,t6ok at the summary program and called attention to the third table
relating to the funding summary for school projects. He said that the third
line which-is shown as the General Fund transfer over the prior year deals
with debt service. He added thatin 1994-95 a large debt service is shown,
but that is a year after building .the middle school, ifthat'takes place. He
noted that this is also an off year for reassessment, and with 1993-94 being a
reassessment year~..it;has to be. planned for some type of reserve for the
following year to handle a debt service of that magnitude. He noted the
shortfall of $11,796'for 1992-93 which is shown at the bottom of the summary
page.
Mr. Tucker next discussed each category of the Capital Improvements
Program beginning with the Administration and Courts section. Concerning
County Office Building accommodations, staff'is loOking for leasable space .
for other government agencies; constructing another building .is alsobeing
consideredg:~Lease costs are such that it would be cheaper to build anew.
building. When costs~of a new'building are concerned, leasing looks-more
attractive, but over'2Oyears, leasing does not look so attractive. If this
Board does. not object, he will get bids on space for some of the other .agen-
cies'. Headded that several locations have been'considered, but he is.not
comfortable with doing this unless he looks at. other leasable facilities in
the community.
Mr~TuCkerthen discussed theeducational'part of the Capital Improvement
Program. He said .that all'of the educational projects have been worked out
with Mr. Reaser and Dr. Paskel.
Mr. Bowerman aSked if the "Greer Elementary Walls," that were deferred,
relate to internal classroom walls. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes."He went'on
to discuss~ the other educational items and~mentioned,that he would,like to
encourage-the Booster-Club of Western Albemarle to take on the responsibility
of the Western Albemarle High School Press Box,: PA System and Masterr Clock.
Next, Mr'. Tucker summarized the Fire/Rescue and Safety portion of the.
Capital Improvement Progrmm~ He'mentioned that he was going to refer_to the
Police~Northern Joint Facility as the Governmental Center. He said that the
police station is the impetus for this project, but he sees the project as a
satellite Governmental Center. He thinks that if this kind of money is going
to be'spent, the. project should be designed to take care. of law enforcement,'~
fire and rescue, as well as~a permanent library site and other uses.
Under the category of Highways and Transportation, Mr. Tucker stated that
when so much reduction'has to be done, big projects can be deleted ora mounts
can.be taken from smaller projects. He said that in.this case, both were
done. He said that $500-~000 in state revenuer sharing, fund projects-for FY
1992~93. had-to be deleted'even though they are.important items.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 80)
135
Mr. Tucker then explained the Libraries category of the Capital Improve-
ment Program. He noted that $300,000 of book purchases have been spread
across a three-year span. He said that one reason these purchases have been
spread in terms of circulation is that quite a bit of usage from City resi-
dents is anticipated, and there needs to be a chance to see what the circula-
tion will be.
Mr. Tucker next discussed the Parks and Recreation category. He indicat-
ed that Mr. Pat Mullaney feels that with $20,000 and the prior commitment the
necessary needs can be provided for Whitewood Road Park improvements.
The Utilities Improvements section of the CIP was mentioned next by Mr.
Tucker-. He said that, the Maste~:Drainage plan relates to the Stormwater
Management Report, but there was not enough time for the Board to discuss that
report today. He noted that this is something that will become more of a
concern, for the community as more is learned about requirements from the.'State
and-Environmental Protection Agency for stormwater drainage improvementS. He
said that it isatso hoped that the~ County can' work more closely'with the City
through theHlanning and Coordination Council~(PACC) in coordinating many of
these projects. He pointed out {hat the Moores Creek study has already been
coordinated with the City. Mr. Tucker then mentioned the Keene Landfill
closure costs. He said that if the plan fOr closure is approved soon, the
County will have to make. the money available instead of waiting for another
year.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it was foolish to delete the $500,000 in revenue
sharing projects for FY 1992-93. Mr. Tucker answered that it might not bea
good idea to delete themoney for.revenue sharing, but he does not know where
else he can get $500,000~ He added that if the Board feels it is important.-,
not to delete this item, then'the staff will look for other alternativ~s~ The
full amount-of $500,000.does not~.'have to be put intorevenue sharing. ~He ~-
wanted guidance from the-Board as to what items nould~be-reduced.
Mr. Perkinssaid~ he believes other localities will find themsetvesin the
samesituation.~ He added~that itmight be..that the~money~theState:~has put
aside won't be used. He/noted that when a choice has to be'made.between
building roads and schools, schools will always be built.
Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Tucker. He said he had gone through the CIP
and he does not see where $500,000 could be taken from any other place. He
pointedout~that one,option is not todelete~the $500,000 and seewhat~hap-
pens. He said that the money will not be needed'-before next. summer.
Mr. Bain said that he is not concerned with leaving the $500,OOQin-~.the
CIP because it is not to be appropriated now.
Mr. Bowie~saidthe figure could always be reduced later, but he thinks
the $500,000 should be left in the program now. He thinks the item is too
important not to leave it in~ Mrs. Humphris agreed that it is~an .important
amount ofmoney because it is.income producing.
Mr. Bowerman stated that, with the exception of the $500,000, everything
has been pushed.back in time so there is a $3.5 million shortfall for FY
1993-94, even with $11.0 million in borrowing for the school system.- Mr,
Tucker answered that next year the General. Fund transfer will be increased by
$500,000. He saidthat every reassessment year, his plan is to try to in-
crease as much as possible.the General Fund,transfer. He addedthat this. had
not happened in the past, and he thinks the County is paying for it now.
There.are' other~needs that are~ p=iorities that the Commission and staff~fett
are important, but there is no way-of funding them this year. He noted that
the increase in revenue will not take care of the school projects. He pointed
out that a.highschoo~ may~be.needed in the future. In FY1995-96, theschool
debt.service drops-considerably because the County wilt have gotten over the
major borrowing years and debt service, and if there are no other major school
projects, the County wiltbe in good shape-for the remaining years of this
plan.
Mr, Bowerman said.he recognizes.that the CIP budget has to be balanced.
He added, however, that when money is not available inthe CIP, the CIP-is
balanced ~and pushed forwards- Everything that is needed is funded, even though
the moneywas not,originally available, and the problem is also pushed for-
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 81)
136
ward. He does not think that delaying projects is the best way to deal with
the situation, but he feels it is the only option available now. He feels
that this is creating much larger future problems.
Mr. Bowie pointed out that if the projected school growth is considered,
and there is a rated capacity, a 600 student school will be built. He said
that the local decision is to go with 90 percent of the capacity which is 540
students, but legally a school can have ten percent over the rated capacity,
which is 660. He stated that as far as the middle school and the elementary
school are concerned, the County has never reached the rated capacity in the
projections. He said that the County high schools don't go over the rated
capacity until the year 2000 and the maximum capacity is not exceeded in the
Sntire projection He said~that the:County has millions and millions of
doltarsWorth of schools which are based on the effective capacitY of 90
percent. He added that the problem may be getting deferred, but he has never
fully accepted that as':~many schools are neededas areshown in.~the plan. He
asked why~ if the~rating capacity of the school exceeds the number oflstudents
that are~there, is theCounty rushing into building more schools.
Mr. Bain remarked that it is a question of location in the middle
schools. He noted that there are 200 seats in Walton that could be used, but
thetransportation and distance to get the students there are prohibitive.~.He
said-that he would be interested, when the situation is studied further~rto
knowwhat,~the actual time would~ be to transport students to Walton Middle
School. He said~that it is a fine school, even though it is not as easily'
accessible as some of the others, and it should be used.
Mr. Bowie stated that a public hearing date has to be set on the CIP. He
reiterated that the $500,000 should be put back into the CIP with a balancing
entry.
Mr. Bain commentedthathewould like to put more moneyintolibrary-book
purchases because the amount, listed is unrealistic. He understands, however,
why the staff did this in that manner. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Bain to suggest
to the staff how~he~thinks-it should'be done. He'said.that the staff was
trying to find some basis for the purchases according to circulation~ ~-
Mr~ .Bain noted that the Northside Library is locatedin the County~ He
said-that thereare already a majority of~Countyresidentswho use the down-
town and Gordon Avenuelbranches~ of the library. He thinks that Albemarle
County.residents represent more than~55 percent because the outlying counties
pull down'the overall use. Mr. Bowerman aSked Mr. Bain if he-is concerned
that the money for book'purchases is beingspread over a three-year period, or
is he concerned about the percentage involved.~ Mr. Bain replied thathe is
concerned about the percentage allotted for the book purchases. He believes
that $75,000 would be more realistic than $54,600. He said that he Can
support the $54,600~because.the money is not available for this year. ~He
addedthat next year, however, maybe the amountof money could be increased.
At. this time, motion was offered by'Mrs. Humphris, seconded by'Mr.
Bowerman, not to delete the.S500,000 under-the Highways.and Transportation
section of.the Capital Improvements Program.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the~fotlowing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman,~Bowie, Mrs. Humphris.and Mr~. Way.
NAYS: ,Mr. Perkins.
Motion was then offered, by Mr.~Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set
the.public.hearing on the Capital Improvements Program for December 4, 1991~
Roll was calledand themotion carried by thefotlowing recorded vote:
AYES- Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None. -~.~. ~ c: ...... ~
Agenda Item No. 23. Appointments.
There were none made at this time.
November 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 82)
137
Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Mr. Bowie mentioned that the Board .would hear comments about Route 29
North relating to Alternative 10 on December 4.
Mr. Tucker mentioned the Board's meetings in January, and the public
hearing required before appointment of a school board member. He said that
one option would be to have the Board's organizational meeting on January 2 in
the afternoon, with the hearing on the School Board appointment being held on
January 8 with the appointments being made on January 15.
The Board members agreed to organize on January 2 and to have the normal
three meetings following that meeting in January, 1992.
Mr. Bowerman requested Mr. Tucker to talk with the Engineering Department
aboutthe detention basin at Greenbrier and HillsdaleDrives. which, was de-
signed as a water filtrationsystem. He said that this area was never plant-
ed, and it is overflowing with trash. He asked who is responsible for it.
Mr. Perkins said the four ladies who have been heading up the recycling
effort in Crozet do not feel that they have the'energy to continue this
effort.~.'He hopes that volunteers can be found in the Crozet community and ~
thatthe project'can continue, if the Board will continue the funding.
Agenda Item, No. 25. Adjourn.. There being, no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:54 p.m.
Chairman