The URL can be used to link to this page

1991-12-04168 December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 4, 1991, at 7:00 P.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 M. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. St. John. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 2~ Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. ~Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Ms. Angela Glomm from CART was present to make the following request: "A comprehensive recycling program is needed in Albemarle County, even if recycling alone is not the full solution to sound waste management practices. Moreover, recycling must be cOmbined with effective source reduction and reuse efforts and incentives to be successful. A comprehensive recycling program should ultimately divert recyclables from all households and commercial establishments in the County. The County-sponsored voluntary pilot curbside program to collect aluminum, glass, tin and plastics from approximately 1000 households is a good first step. Your support of the Crozet monthly recycling effort is also. commendable. However, with over 24,000 households and many commercial establishments in the County, a more vigorous recycling program is needed to be truly comprehensive. The following is a brief list of possible options for a more compre- hensive source reduction and recycling program in Albemarle County~ We do not necessarily endorse any or all of these options at this time; we do, however, feel that these and other alternatives should be thoroughly discussed by your Board, analyzed by County staff and finally put before the public for comment. Add paper (e.g. newspapers, mixed paper, high cardboard, maga- zines, etc.) to your current pilot curbside program. While.the market conditions for paper may currently be very poor, we understand that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority pays about $20 per ton tohave newspapers hauled off for recycling. Considering that you have agreed to pay a local scrap dealer more than $40 per ton to. transport, separate and recycle non-paper recyclables leads us to suggest this as a potentially cost-effective addi- tion. Subsidize a drop-off recycling center at the Ivy Landfill for residents who bring their own trash. This should be located before crossing the scale in order to give residents a monetary incentive to recycle. o Support a regionalized materials recovery capability so that all recyclables collected in the region can be appropriately and cost-effectively processed and marketed, and so the number of recyclable materials collected can be increased. Expand the voluntary pilot household program to all households in the County with County financial support for the processing and marketing costs of co-mingled recyclables. You should also consider subsidizing the collection costs which would, at least, 169 December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (2) make recycling 'free' to residents with curbside trash service: as long as recycling costs the resident extra, as in the current pilot program, it will never be comprehensive. Mandate recycling by way of a County ordinance that requires all haulers, through the licensing process, to collect appropriate recyclables from all households and commercial establishments they serve. The licensing could also establish a standard fee structure (e.g., volume based as the City of Charlottesville has adopted), a description of the materials to be recycled, and fines for failure to comply. ¸, Mandate recycling via an ordinance placed on all residences and businesses. o Push for the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority to prohibit appro- priate recyclables at the Ivy Landfill and any possible alter- native disposal sites. We understand that the Virginia Depart- ment of Waste Management will enact state-wide legislation prohibiting the landfitling of yard wastes in 1995. Therefore, measures to deal with yard waste composting must also be taken immediately. Establish service districts, as recommended in the Charlottes- ville/Albemarle Solid Waste Task Force Report, in which the collection of trash and/or recyclables would be under contract with the County (or a regional agency, if appropriate). Service districts would have the advantage, as already evidenced in many other communities, of cost-effectiveness via the competitive bid process. As you are aware, illegal dumping is a serious problem in the County. With solid waste service districts, every resi- dence and business would have a hauler, which would eliminate any incentive to dump illegally, currently a serious problem in the County. Such an approach could also make a truly comprehensive recycling program simpler to implement. In addition, incentives for residents and businesses to reduce, reuse and compost their wastes could more easily be added to such a system in the form of a variable rate user fee. Collection of recyclables from County Schools and Office Build- ing. We appreciate your taking the time to consider a broader range of optionsthan we have heard discussed to date. Each of these options has been successfully implemented in other communities across the country, and as such they warrant serious consideration for possible adoption in the County. We look forward to working with you, both on the task of considering these and other alternatives for Source reduction and recycling in Albemarle County, as well as on their eventual success as adopted policy. Ms. Glomm commended the Board for the pilot program it began, as well as the January expansion of the program to 3000 households. She also commended the Board for its support of the Crozet project, but noted that the Crozet project will have its last pickup this coming Saturday. She asked the Board to consider expanding the pilot program to include paper. She added that $40 a ton is already being spent for the processing, pickup and transportation of recyctables other than paper. She said that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has a program which will accept paper for $20 a ton, and she pointed out that it might be a cost-effective expansion of the County's current program. Ms. Glomm said there have been requests from many CART members to have a drop-off center at the landfill. She said people who are taking trash there are interested in being able to drop off recyclables as well. CART hopes the Board will consider a regionalized materials recovery capability, and expan- sion of the volunteer program to include more households. Anotheroption might be to mandate recycling by an ordinance placed on all residents and businessesl She suggested that the Board consider looking at the establish- ment of a service district in which trash and recyclahles would be collected under contract with the County. She also suggested that purchasing recycled 170 December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (3) products, especially paper, be considered by county staff. She pointed out that recycling is not just collection, but it is remanufacturing and repur- chasing the product. She stated that as the staff considers these options, a broad look can be given to all of the possibilities. She added that each of these options has been successfully implemented in other communities, and she would like to make sure that the options get a full hearing in Albemarle County as a County recycling plan is developed. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve 5.5 and 5.6, and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. There was no further discussion. Roll.was called andthe motion carried~by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS:~ None. Item 5.1. Copy of the Planning Commission,s Minutes for November~ 12 and November 19, 1991, received for information.. Item 5.2. Copy of letter dated November 14, 1991, from Ms. Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Charles and Mrs. Mary Jane Dwyer~ entitled "Official Determination. of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1, TaxMap63, Parcel 29,!' received for information. Item 5.3. Copy of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the FisCal Year. Ended June 30, 1991, from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority received for information (on file in the Clerk's Office). Item 5.4. Copy of letter dated October 31, 1991, from Mr. Steven G,~ Meeks, President, Albemarle County Fair, Inc., addressed to Dr. William Allen, Associate Director, VCES Extension Programs, expressing his views on the proposed reorganization of the Virginia Cooperative Extension in regards to county~based staffing, was received for information. Item 5.5. Request to have-the roads in. South Section 5 of Mill Creek Subdivision taken into the State System of Secondary Highways, having been received from Craig Builders of Albemarle, Inc. in a letter dated 'November 22, 1991, the following resolution was adoptedby the vote shown above: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33~1-229, the Virgin- ia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to finalinspection and apProval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in . · Section 5 of Mill Creek Subdivision: Stoney~Creek Drive Beginning at Station 10+25, a point common to the centerline of Stoney Creek Drive and the edge of pavement of State Route 742, thence, ina.westerly direction 1830 feet to Station 28+55, the end of the temporary cul-de-sac. Shady Grove Court Beginning at Station 10+25, a point common to the centerline of Shady Grove Court and the edge of pavement of Stoney Creek Drive at Station.17+04.36, thence in a northeasterly direction 1921.21 feet to Station 29+46.21, the end of the cul-de-sac. Homestead Lane Beginning at Station 10+25, a point common to the centerline of Homestead Lane and the edge of pavement of Shady Grove Court at Station 11+89.02, thence, in a westerly direction 806.15 feet to Station 18+31.15, the end'of the cul-de-sac. December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (4) 171 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans- portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50-foot unobstructed right-of- way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1110, pages 424 - 438. Item 5.6. Request to have Wingfield Road Extended in Ivy Farm Subdivi- sion taken into the State System of Secondary Highways, having been received from Mr. Stephen M. Melton, Agent for Charles W. Hurt, Virginia Land Company, in a letter dated August 28, 1991, the following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above: . BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the-Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and~approval~by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Ivy Farm Subdivision: Win8field Road Extended Beginning at Station 20+01.72, a point common to the centerline of Wingfield Road Extended and the edge of the pavement of State Route 1012, thence in a northeasterly direction 4356.18 feet.~to Station 63+57.9,~the. end of the~cul-de~sac. BE IT FURTHFA{ RESOLVED that the¥irginia Department of Trans- portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right- of-way and drainage easements along this requested addition as record- ed by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in.Deed Book 643, page 117, and Deed Book 1185, pages 528 and 531 Agenda Item No. 6. To take public comments on revised plans for Alterna- tive 10, RoUte 29 North Improvements project. Mr. Bowie commented that this is a public hearing on the VDoT plans for the Route 29 North Improvements, Alternative 10, and.it is a plan over which the Board has little Control. He said that Ms. Humphris had asked that the Board allow the public to make.comments on the proposed Alternative 10, which is the western bypass proposed by VDoT for Route 29 North. He noted that the Board had adopted some rules for this meeting'which are printed on the final agenda. Mr. Bowiesaid there are four subdivisions involved, and they are: Squirrel. Ridge, Roslyn Ridge, Montvue and Colthurst. He saidthat up to five minutes has been allowed for a representative from. eachsubdivision to make a presentation on behalf of-that subdivision. Atthe conclusion of the repre- sentatives' remarks, there will be ten minutes allotted for comments from the general public. He said that the discussion,will start with a historical review bythe County Executive. Mr. Tucker commented that this issue has been under study for almost 20 years, with. the seven.most significant studies having~occurredsince 1979. Themost recent study was VDoT's Route 29 NOrth~Corridor Study which was a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The,culmination of that study is what willbe discussed, tonight. Mr. Tucker pointed out that there are seven major alternatives in that. report which Were suggested for study by the consultants hired by~VDoT. He noted ~that these seven alignments included three alignments to, the west of Routers29, threealignments to the east of Route 29 and.the expressway concept. The County's position has always been that-no bypass was really needed to solve the traffic problems, and the study that Sverdrup'~s Corporation completed, in the County's opinion, confirmed that. He remarked that-the County has held~to the idea that Alternative 10 is not needed, provided that: the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) improve- ments were completed, the widening of Route 29 to eight lanes is constructed, grade~separated interchanges along Route 29 at Rio, Greenbrier and Hydraulic roads are constructed and the Meadow .Creek parkway is built. The CoUnty still believes that if these improvements are provided, this Alternative 10 proposal will not be needed in the next 20 years, and there will still be a level of acceptable~service on. Route 29 North. December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (5) 172 Mr. Tucker noted, however, that the Commonwealth Transportation Board has seen fit to approve Alternative 10 to be constructed within the next 20 years. He pointed ~out'~that even after this action, the County still held the position that Alternative 10 was not necessary. He said that the County received, on November 8, the alignment that is posted tonight, and this is the latest alignment of which the County is aware. He added that there are three major changes to this alignment. One change is a shifting to the east to avoid the Headmaster's house of St. Anne's-Belfield. Another major change is to avoid the Ivy Creek agricultural/forestal district, and the third change is to provide a limited access facility, which means that there would be no major interchanges along this aligrnnent at Hydraulic or Barracks Roads. Mr. Tucker said he would be glad to answer questions. ~ MS. Bowie stated that he has decided, unless there are objections from the Board, to take comments from representatives of the four subdivisions in the following order: ,Squirrel Ridge, Roslyn Ridge, Montvue and ColthU~st,, Mr, Bowie noted that the Montvue Citizens Association has turned, in a typed presentation, and,:hepointed out that the time limit for each representative's comments is~ five minutes. He was unsure if the Montvue presentation could be read in five minutes,, but in fairness to others who wish to speak, he asked that the~presenter summarize the presentation. Mr. Harold Warnerrepresented the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision. He said that his family is one of eighteen families who live in the Squirrel Ridge subdivision. He noted that the State has already bought two houses in Squir- rel Ridge, and the bypass will basically eliminatethe subdivision. He said that his house is located at the end of the cul-de-sac, so he will be isolated from everything, and, will not ha~e access or egress to the property unless he has an entrance onto Hydraulic Road. He pointed out. that the proposed bypass has killed any sales in that subdivision; there have been houses on the market there for'over a year. He. said that people come and tookat the. houses,:but the real estate, agent mentions that a bypass may be-comingthrough, and the people walk away. Headded that one family has already built, another house~ and. they~are renting~their house.now, and they areprobablynot even close to the bypass. He.said that originally his house and another house was to be taken with the interchange, but that plan has been eliminated, so these two houses have been isolated. He went on to say that it seems silly for the State to say that this route will be.the bypass when2Oyears from now the bypass will,probably have to. be put through at Ruckersville to make it feasi- ble and accountable to accomplish.its purpose.. He hopes that this proposal is withdrawn and that the.Statewill admit that it made a mistake. · . Mr. Bowie asked if there was; a representative at the meeting from Roslyn Ridge. Mrs. Humphris responded that Mr. Bowerman had distributed a statement fromRoslyn Ridge to theBoard, She asked Mr. Bowerman if he·would present the statement. ~ Mr. Bowerman remarked that Mr. Dennis Rooker, from the RoslynRidge.- Subdivision, had left a letter with him because he could not. attend tonight's meeting. ~ Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. Rooker had asked that this letter'be made a permanent, part of the record and that it be included in tonight.'s meeting. Mr. Bowerman then proceededto read the letter to the Board, as follows.: "I am a homeowner in,the Roslyn Ridge Subdivision of Albemarle County, and~.I am also a general partner in a homeowners' partnership which owns Lot 1 in the SubdivisiOn, a 21 acre parcel of land. The proposed Bypass crosses through the middle-of Lots 1 and 2 ofour subdivision, taking an existing home on Lot 2. The highway department has made it clear that a fixed center line for the Bypass will not be established for many years and that the corridor may be moved a number of times before a road is ever constructed. The State has further acknowledged that funds are not available for either acquisition of right of way or for construction and-that' the need, for the road is uncertain~anddepends upon future traffic volumes and the completion of other local road improvements. In short, the Bypass may never be built, December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (6) 173 At the time that our homeowners' partnership purchased Lot 1, it was being actively sought out by other buyers and at least one other con- tract was pending. Shortly after our purchase of Lot 1, it became apparent that it was in the favored route of the proposed Bypass. For more than a year, we have attempted to market the lot and have had no offers. The fact is, we may never be able to sell this property in which we have over $300,000 invested. If we are lucky and the State buys the property fifteen or twenty years from now, we will no doubt receive a price significantly depressed by the long-time existence of the corridor. This is merely an example of the profound affect which the proposed Bypass route has had on people who own property within the corridor. It has long been recognized that the State may exercise its power to condemn property where necessary for public improvements. When a public need is identified,~the State is required to pay fair cOmpen~ sation for property so that the burdenof the public, benefit is not borne by a few individuals. We have seen a complete circumvention of this principle with respect to the Bypass. First, the public, need was never~clearlyestablished, since the State!s $3.6 million study did not support the~building of. this $120 million road. Second and.more impor- tantly, the State has imposed severe financial burdens on individuals who have not been compensated for the alleged public-benefit. The situation is manifestly unfairand is., I believe~ a violation of State and Federal constitutional principles. If there is public benefit realized from the designation of a Bypass corridor, the cost of that benefit should be borne by the public. The solution to thisproblem is not to favor neighborhoods over agricul- tural/forestal districts or vice versa. It must be acknowledged that this Board does not even~have the authority to bind a future Board's decision withrespect to permitting the violation of an agricultural/ forestal district ........ The. solution is to seek a legislative resolution to_the problem. State legislation must be~passed to prevent the establishment of~roadcorri- dors for which there is no commitment to immediatelypurchase.theright of ~way and for whichthere is no definite.commitment to build in a specific location, We respectfully request that this Board take a lead in lobbying for~ legislation, which will accomplish that goal.. Thank you." Mr. Bowie asked the representative from Montvue Subdivision to summarize his presentation, if ir'is lengthy. He added that the minutes of-this portion of the meeting could be forwarded to the Transportation Board, depending upon the wishes of the Board. Dr. M. C. Wilhelm, President of the Montvue Citizens Association, said they have. been working to develop, a relationship with the State Department of Transportation to try to resolve this difficult situation. He realizesthat this is hard to do, but it is essential if anybody is going to be a winner. It istheMontvue residents,', consensus that the Board has a responsibility to the citizens of .the County to try and protect their rights. Hethinks that. these rights concern the location Of the bypass as.well as working with the Transportation Department.and With the various branches of the state govern- ment to try and alleviate this hostage situation. He said that not only is this situation not morally correct, but it also may be unconstitutional to hold people~hostage for~ a number of years. He concluded~ by saying that the Montvue~Citizens Association, therefore, proposes that the Board of Supervi- sors appoint a comittee, which, will.consist of-at least one representative~of the*neighborhoods involved, to work with the members of the Board to try to explo=e the various ways in which these problems can be resolved and in which pressure can be Put on the State to relieve this hostage situation. He then proceededto summarize the following statement: "We want to let you know in the strongest pOssible-Way that.: December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (7) 174 ONE: We and our homes are being held hostage by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation (vDoT) by their announced inten- tion to build a bypass, but probably not until 18 to 20 years from now. We question the legality, the constitutionality, and most of all, the morality of the VDoT's actions. TWO: We are amazed by the process of definition and redefinition of the bypass line during the past two years--this process has demon- strated the worst in the workings of the VDoT and also the inability of the Board of Supervisors to deal with this issue. THREE: We feel that the VDoT has brought about great costs to the property owners in and near the bypass line. These costs are immense in both the lost marketability of our homes and the attendant human toll. Dollars and cents alone cannot even begin to measure the costs to us from this action of VDoT. The recent variations in the bypass line have notably been in the area which includes Montvue and Colthurst Subdivisions. During this year alone, the VDoT has proposedthree bypass lines: first, at the western edge oflMontvue, second at the eastern edge of Montvue, and now the third version of the line deci- mates at least fourteen Montvue homes and destroys the value of the remainder of Montvue property. TheMontvue Subdivision of 36 homes was established 35 years ago and has now been threatened with three different variations of the proposed route, all of which involve homes in the Subdivision. The latest Proposal will remove 40~ percent of the Subdivision and will signifi- cantly devalue the remainder~ of this small neighborhood. The total appraised value of this Subdivision is over nine million dollars and all~Montvue properties are owned by their occupants, 58 percent of them being senior citizens. The VDoT has. stated, that bypass will not be built for 18 to 20 years and its specific route could be changed many times. The entire Subdivisionof Montvue is held hostage by this action of the VDoT. Property values have already suffered and will continue to decline with this threat over the area. In.~view of the fact, that the average,age of the citizens directly affected is over 60 years, the likelihood thabmany will need~to sell their property before the 18.~to 20 years period is quite obvious; These citizens have invested in their property as a means of supporting them in their retirement, and the action of VDoT is destroying their property value,, thus imposing severe financial hardships at a time when retirement income demands are steadily increasing. The State of Virginia admits it has set-aside only minimal funds to allow the buy oUt of involved property in the foreseeable future. This, then, is a..situation in which theVDoT is holding us hostage for the'next 18-20 years. This type of disruptive behavior by any individual would be immoral and illegal. How, then, can a state agency like VDoT justify the same behavior. Their standard line of "good for the state" does not wash when.actions<by the VDoT bureaucracy during the past two years are kept in perspective. Further, the human toll, by any measure, cannot be justified by a potential reduction in the time of trip from Southside Virginia to Northern Virginia by approximately fiveminutes! FOUR: The recent history of the bypass line is indicative of the behavior of.the YDoT and their blatant disregard of the individual home owner: MOVE.I: In Spring-'91, the highway line, was drawnthrough Western Montvue, rather than through open farm land, because of policy, or notions, of the VDoT to stay off of land that is connected in any way with a structure stated to be potentiallyeligible for national regis~ terror historic, buildings... This potentially eligible structure is a December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (8) 175 "groom's house adjacent to a horse barn" and is located on the Haffner farm (Tax Map 60-2) about a quarter mile from the western edge of Montvue. MOVE 2: In August-'91, the highway line was drawn at the Eastern edge of Montvue. This plan was quickly withdrawn by the VDoT perhaps because of the proximity of this line to the Colonnades--a retirement community for several hundred people on UVa property and of special interest to UVa. MOVE 3: In November-'91, another highway line was released to show a move into Montvue to go around an "Agricultural District" (Tax Map ~ 60~77). This is,an agricultural district on which no discernible farming has been done in recent memory. This is the highway line which largely decimates Montvue homes and is the operative highway line for the next 18 years at which time ~a design hearing is being planned by theVDoT. . Whereas the decision of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to establish the Agricultural andForestal Districts was not intended to. lead to the destruction~of an entire neighborhood, the, preservation of this single parcel of land, with its accompanying tax advantage, has indeed resulted in the destruction of at least one-third of an old established Subdivision and the devaluation of its remaining property. This destruction will result in the loss of over 45,000 dollars a year in taxes and will express to the public that the County has little concern for the economic hardships imposed by the State on its citi- zens--senior or otherwise, It seems paradoxical that onfrequent occasions the Supervisorsapprove the development of, a Subdivisionon open farm land and at the same time do nothing to Prevent the destruction of an established high value Subdivision. FIVE: We in Montvue feel like hostages in a larger struggle. We are squeezed from both ends. We feel the power of theState and an insensi- tive transportation bureaucracy on the one hand, On the other, we have the high real estate appraisals of January, 1991. But there is total gridlock with respect to the ability to sell our properties. This gridlock is aggravated by .the constant redrawing of lines and other actions of the,VDoT. SIX: The three-phase plan approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board seems to have been ignored by the VDoT. This plan requires the State first to construct Base Case improvements (Phase I)and inter- changes on, U.S. 29 (~hase II), before it constructs a bypass (Phase III), should the need for a bypass still exist, after the.Phase I and Phase II improvements. We believe the specific location for the bypass should not be established until that time. The VDoT has a fixation with, the bypass and is ignoring more basic transportation needs. This must'be corrected now. SE~EN: During, the current budget shortfalls in the State, it is obscene for the State to~ push a $200 Million or more Western bypass project to save long-distance drivers five minutes, at a time when state and private workers are being laid off, libraries cannot buy books, schools and colleges are pruning bud, getS, and basic transpor- tation.needs of U.S. 29 ,Phase I and Phase II are not seriously being discussed. EIGHT-: The recently reported statements of.Mr. Roosevelt in which Mr. Roosevelt told us 'to accept.the bypass and,to resign ourselves to the fact that it is going to be built', are revealing of the VDoT atti- tudes. The tail is leading the dog and the system is obviously skewed. NINE:, We respectfully recommend the following: (1) The Albemarle Board must find ways to develop effective and non,adversarial working relationship with the~state in developing a workable plan. We note that the present plan is not a workable~ plan. 176 December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (9) (2) The Albemarle Board demand that state promptly follow the three- phase plan approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and demand to see the YDoT basic plans and schedules for Phase I and Phase II together with a realistic overall schedule for Phase III. Consider legal and legislative options if the VDoT is not forthcoming on this matter. (3) It is the consensus of our Subdivision that our Board of Super- visors of Albemarle County does have the responsibility to work with its citizens to protect their rights. This responsibility directly concerns the location of the bypass. The Board should take specific steps with the Attorney General of Virginia and the General Assembly to prohibit the present drawn-out vague methods concerning property designations and acquisition practiced by the VDoT. (4) We, therefore, propose .that the Board of Supervisors appoint a Committee with at least one representative of each neighborhood direct~ ly involved with the bypass. This CoF~ittee should be directed to explore in depth the 'bypass' question and propose steps which can be taken to resolve the current intolerable and possibly unconstitutional situation. This proposed Committee will thus put in practice the recently reported desire of the VDoT for the "bottom up" planning process. We thank you for your consideration and request prompt action to resolve this mess quickly." Mr. George Larie, representative of the Colthurst Property Owners Associ- ation, said that the designation of the Alternative 10 bypass presents several serious concerns for the residents of Colthurst. He added that those who need to move and cannot sell their houses are real hardship cases. He went on to say that in the last 12 months, seven houses have sold in Colthurt Farms, and six of them are on the west side of Colthurst Drive, which is parallel to the route of the bypass. He mentioned that one house is on the east side, which is closer to the bypass. He stated that many realtors tell the Colthurst owners that they will not show houses on Colthurst Drive east of that section because of the bypass. He said that prices of homes closer to the bypass are lower, comparing the sales price to the assessed valuation. He noted that this is well documented by the paper that Mr. St. 3ohn, the County Attorney, filed on September 21 with the Transportation Board. He said, also, that there is a letter from the President of Real Estate III which says, "the result of the designation of the western bypass corridor with respect to residential real estate values andtransactions in or near the designated corridor has been devastating. Homes which fall into that category have proven to be almost impossible to. sell resulting in significant hardships imposed upon the owners." Mr. Larie went on to say that of the 50 homes in the Colthurst development, two are currently available for sale east of Colthurst Drive. He said that one has been on and off the market for the last several years and backs up directly to the proposed bypass. He added that the owner must relocate south for health reasons, but they have no offers on their home. He said that the other home belongs to a widow who has moved to a retirement home. He went on to say that for the six months that the home has been on the market, the price has been reduced twice to below the assessed valuation, and still there are no offers. He noted that the average age of long term homeowners close to the bypass is at least 60 years plus, which is similar to the Montvue situation. He said that these people over the next ten to 15 years will probably be forced to sell their homes into this depressed market. He added that an associated concern is the assessment and real estate tax problem. He said. that if a house is in or near the bypass route, the value is reduced. He stated that homeowners have a legitimate right to property tax relief and~a reduced assessment, yet if YDoT later takes the property, it may do so at this lower valuation. He said that Colthurst residents question how this property should be valued to provide fairness to the owners, and he asked the Board of Supervisors to help provide legislative relief with the State legislators in the January legislative package for this hostage situation. He added that specifically legislative action is needed to stop VDoT from designating highway corridors without the funds to make the necessary purchases on a timely basis. Furthermore, the Colthurst homeowners request that this legislation be mmde retroactive to the Route 29 bypass which December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (10) 177 would result in the State buying the property now or dropping the designation. He said that yesterday's Daily Progress contained a letter to the editor from Mr. Walter Johnson which he thought was relative to this point and very timely. He quoted from the letter, "The Resident Engineer says that more - revisions are possible and it may be 18 years before a public hearing is held on the road's design. In the meantime, those having interests on or near the route are experiencing the anguish of not knowing now or for perhaps 18 years the status of their property and its fair market value. This situation is in direct conflict with the protection provided by the Bill of Rights, specifi- cally Amendment 5 which guarantees protection of life, liberty and property with due process of law and with just compensation and Amendment 7 which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. This continuing action is not due process of law, does not involve just compensation and it is cruel and unusual punishment." He said that Colthurst supports the continuation of the agricul- tural/forestal district plan and urges that the State not acquire access to these lands anywhere in theCounty. He added that if one such violation is allowed, in the years ahead, VDoT could claim a precedent as future roads are planned, and VDoT could thereby have a free hand. He went on to say that the Colthurst residents feel that the proposed Alternative 10 is not a~long-term solution to the Route 29 problem simply because it does not bypass the present and future growth of Route 29 NOrth. He pointed out that Alternative 10 will only eliminate five stop lights and new lights continue to be added as the road goes north. He also feels that the University's position is incomprehen- sible while protecting its investment in the Colonnades, as evidenced by its fast action last August on the proposed shorter routing by the Colonnades. He predicted that the proposed bypass will probably take the homes, or at least reduce the value of homes, of loyal faculty in Montvue and Colthurst neighbor- hoods. He said that these people find the close-in access to the University of great value and, at the same time, the University is losing valuable expansion land to the west of the Colonnades by the proposed route. He next stated that the Colthurst residents feel that this route is ill-conceived and it isnot justified by the facts. He added that after spending $3.5 million for a factual study, VDoT ignored the report which does not support a bypass, and went ahead with Alternative'10. He said that what should be done is what the City, County and University agree should be done, and that is to widen Route 29 to six traffic lanes with two turn lanes, provide access to the North Grounds of the University, build the. Meadow Creek Parkway and build three grade-separated interchanges at Rio, Hydraulic and Greenbrier Roads. He conCluded by saying that the Colthurst residents urge the Board's support for legislative relief to the current hostage situation for those in the current bypass corridor. He added that the Colthurst residents also urge the Board to continue its policy of keeping the agriculturat/forestal district inviolable, and he stated that citizens' groups should continue to oppose this untenable and unacceptable action. Mr. Bowie informed the group that there would now be ten minutes allotted for anyone else who would like to speak in addition to the people who have already spoken. Mr. Jack Marshall, President of Citizens for Albemarle, spoke on behalf of that organization. He noted that they have consistently supported an expressway as the least damaging solution to the.problem that VDoT has defined. He said that his organization supports this alternative because any bypass would not only disrupt residential neighborhoods, but itwould degrade farms and forest lands important to the traditional character and resource~ based induStries of the County. He said that the County, like the Citizens for Albemarle, has consistently stood in opposition to any bypass. He added that in considering changes in alignment to such a bypass, the Board of Supervisors should not allow itself to be drawn into "choosing a color for a car that it doesn't want to buy in the first place". He went on to say that this Board has represented the will of the majority of its citizens in oppos~ ing all bypasses equally. He stated that the Citizens for Albemarle urge the Board not to pit its citizens against each other or to tie the hands of a future Board by preferring one alternative over another. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, said that she was speaking at Mr. Tim Lindstrom's request because he had a conflict and could not be present tonight. She read the followingprepared statement: 178 December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (11) "The Piedmont Environmental Council is dismayed by the constant signi- ficant changes in the alignment of a road which we have long believed should never be built. More importantly, it appears to us that the current preoccupation with the alignment of a road which the Sverdrup study, the Department of Transportation recommendation, and the resolution of the Commonwealth Transportation Board all contemplate may never need to be built is fundamentally wrong. The proper focus of the Department of Transportation should be on implementing the first phases of the resolution of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, not the last phase. For these reasons the Piedmont Environmental Council strongly supports the provision or-the draft joint resolution of the City, County, and University which would allow for construction of a bypass only after each of the following conditions have been met: ~Completion of improvements to Route 29, including widening and the construction of three grade separated interchanges; con- structionof a controlled access North Grounds connector; and construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Traffic on Route 29, after.completion of the foregoing improve- ments, becomes unacceptably congested. 3. Economic conditions permit construction of Alternate 10. Thesepreconditions to construction of a by-pass are not only sensible and in line with the findings of the $3 million Sverdrup Study, they are identical to the Department of Transportation's own recommen- dations, and the conclusions of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The. membership of the PiedmontEnvironmental Council believes that the greatest service which the County can render to its citizens under current circumstances is to maintain pressure~upon theDepartment of Transportation toperform, in good faith, the work which it has committed on paper to perform. It is the hope of the PEC that the propoSed joint resolution will provide sufficient leverage with the Department of Transportation to get that Department to conform its actions with the findings of its own expensive study, its own recom- mendations to the CommonwealthTransportation Board, and the final resolutions of the Commonwealth Transportation Board itself." Mr. Robert Langbanm., from Montvue, said thatthe Department of Transpor- tationshould be urged to scrap the whole plan for Alternative 10 as of now. He added that the Department needs to wait for 15 to 18 years until the money is available to do.studies and to pay for~property_as it is condemned. He said thatwhat is so outrageous now is that property is being destroyed before it is evenknown where the road is going to go, what property will be. pur- chased-or whether it will be purchased at all~ No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowie, closed the public hear- ing. He asked if any~of the Board members would like to comment. Mrs. Humphris stated that, in response to what several of the presenters have saidtonight, she would like to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. She. said that at the time the Commonwealth Transportation Board was meeting in Manassas and making its decision as to whether or not to build this bypass,~ one~ of its. own members,~ Mr. Edgar Bacon, who is a,representative from the soUthwestern part of the State, said,that he was going tovote for the recommendations'because the recommendation to buildthis bypass was made by Ms. Kincheloe, who represents the Culpeper District. Mrs. Humphris. remarked, however, that Mr. Bacon said that. he did not believe that such a thing should be allowed to happen,~andthathe would recommend that if. this were voted on and~ approved by the vast majority of the Commonwealth Transportation Board that legislation be introduced in the General Assembly which would not only make such a premature designation of.a road with no plans or funds to build it illegal but would make it retroactive to involve this project. Mrs. Humphris is not aware that anybody took note of his remark, but she suggested that the Supervisors explore it and add it to the legislative package that will be sent 179 December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (12) to the County's three legislators on December 18. She would like to ask these legislators to join in soliciting support from other delegates around the State for this legislation. She thinks that it is the most important thing that is available to the County now. She said that the legislation is needed, - and Albemarle County is not alone in the State in suffering abuse from VDoT's decisions and from an unelected bureaucracy which is running roughshod over the people. At this time, Mrs. Humphris moved that a request be added to the legisla- tive package for legislation that would deny VDoT the right for this premature designation of Alternative t0 and would make this legislation retroactive to include this project. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. He asked Mrs. Humphris to explain further as to what should be said to the legislators about what the legislation would entail. Mrs. Humphris responded that the legislators should be told that this Board would like legislation enacted that would hereafter deny the Virginia Department of Transportation the right to designate a corridor for~some indefinite period of time or for some indefinite centerline without the fiscal means to do it. She said that She does not .know if it needs to be spelled~ out, but she thinks that there is a difference in this situation because VDoT has designated a developed corridor and not open land. She mentioned that this was spelled out in Mr. Rooker's letter, the Colthurst presentation and in some of the other presentations tonight. She said that this is, in~ effect, a taking of land without compensation, and she does not believe that bureaucracy should have the right to do that to people without their having some way to deal with it. Mr. Bain said if:this Board takes such a stand, he would like for Mr. St. John to give the Board a better understanding of the private condemnation laws in Virginia as they relate to something of this~nature. He would like some better understanding of the law so that when a proposal is made to the legis- lators, the Supervisors will know exactly what the law is as it relates' to condemnation of private property. Mr. Bowie said he supports the motion, and if the motion is approved, he will place this item on the agenda next week for a report from the County Attorney. He thinks the property in question should be bought by the State now, even if it is not needed for 30 years. If the State is unable to buy the property now, then he thinks the whole issue should be dropped. He does not think that it is fair to tie up property and make it impossible to sell for 20 years. Mrs. Humphris stated that the major problem is that there is no center- line designated. It has been made clear that there will be no centertine for an indefinite period of time, and the District Engineer has said that the corridor will change many times before the road. is built, if it is ever built. People cannot live in that kind of situation, and she thinks that the Supervi- sors owe it not only to Albemarle County, but to the whole State, to at least try to get legislation pertaining to this issue approved. She feels the Supervisors have explored every other, possible avenue. There being no further comments, 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. 7. Public Hearing: 1992/93-1996/97 Capital Improvements Program. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on November 19 and November 26, 1991.) Mr. Tucker explained that this public hearing is for the total five-year Capital Improvements Program from FY 1992-93 until FY 1996-95. The total expenditure for FY ~1992-93 amounts to $9.5 million, with $2.4 million for general government projects and $7.1 million for school projects. Approxi- mately $5.0 million of the $7.1 million for school projects is designated for committed debt set-vice, and $1.6 million is proposed for a bond issue for school projects. He commented that the total expenditures, excluding the debt 180 December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (13) service for projects in 1992-93 amount to $4.1 million. The most signifi- cant change is an item that was suggested at the Board's last work session, and that is the restoration of a $500,000 highway revenue sharing project item. He went on to say that the budget has been balanced by taking $11,500 from excess revenues in the CIP, as well as transferring $488,500 from the General Fund in 1992-93. He wanted the Board to understand that this transfer will come from the $1.4 million of additional revenues that are anticipated for 1992-93. He said that in shifting these funds to balance this budget, it will reduce what had been anticipated for next year's operations. Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that this is a hearing on the entire five-year program, and it is not a hearing for the budget for 1992/93. He said that the hearing on the 1992-93 budget will probably be held in early: Spring Mr. Bowie asked if Board members had any questions for Mr. Tucker before the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Humphris said she has already.mentioned to M~. Tucker the problem that parents have brought to her attention about the Greet Elementary School walls. She asked for his comments on this project. Mr..Tucker .responded that because of limited funds, the SUperintendent Of Schools and his staff were asked to review items that were originally recom- mended in~1992-93, and to suggest what their highest priorities might be. Thi.s was done, and one. of the items that was shifted 1992-93 to 1993-94 was the Greer~.Elementary walls project. He added, that this project isin the amount o~ $58,000. If this Board chooses to move-this project forward to 1992.-93, Mr. Tucker's. recommendation would be to add this to the debt service for. the schools for next year. He noted that the bond issue would be approxi- mately $1.~7 million and the annual de:bt service project' approximately$59,000. Adding another $58,000 to the bond issue, would add an insignificant amount to debt service. Mr. Bowie explained to.the audience that the Board. used to have this pnb'lic hca=lng after the operating budget was approved, and the Board was always in the position of trying to set a tax rate without really knowing what the. commitment for the capital program was. Over a period of three years, the whole capital improvements planning process was moved to the Fall. This public hearing tonight involvesthe total five-year:program,. He added that in theSpring., the. Board will get into the funding when both the .capital and operating budgets are considered at the same time. At .this time, Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing on the Capital Improve- ments Program. He asked if, anyone in the, audience cared to discuss anything under the~category of "Administratio~ and Courts.!' No one-came, forward to speak. Mr. Bowie then asked if anyone cared to discuss anything under the "Education" category. Mr..Lucky Stone stated that he has three children at Greet Elementa~ry School, and he is at,this meeting on behalf of the Greet Parent/Teacher Organization. He does not know if. the. members of the Board are aware of how important,this relatively minor $58,000 issue is to the school. As far as he knows, all of the. other schoolswhich had the open classrooms have since had those classrooms divided. He said that, at this point, there are two full grades at Greet that are not divided, and all of those students are in the same room. He noted that he has been to those classrooms, and he, does;not ~ .know how.-the teachers, can tolerate it, even.though a few years ago, open- classrooms were, a, popular idea. Mr. Stone noted that the Greer walls have been promised many, many times, and he-recalled that last year while going through the budget process, one of the~things that was sworn to the parents was that the money was still avail- able for these walls. He said that these are the last two grades that need the walls, and it, is not a major item. He stated that.there are other members ofthe PTO at this.meeting, but the, PTO members had fairly short notice of thismeeting. He urged the Board~.to include the $58,000 in the Capital Improvements Program for this fiscal' year mainly because every year that it.is not done, is another year that ,those grades have to go throug~ the agony of trying to learn., and the, teacher;has to try to teach in,that open classroom idea. He realizes that there are Qther priorities,as well, but his organiza- tion urges the Board to consider thewalls as a priority item this year. December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (14) 181 Mr. Bowie noted the other people in the audience from Greer by asking for a show of hands. He then asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak about the "Fire, Rescue and Safety" category of the CIP. No one came forward to speak. Next, Mr. Bowie asked for comments on the "Libraries" section of the Capital Improvements Program. Ms. Cindy Caughron, one of the trustees appointed to the Jefferson-Madi- son Regional Library, thanked the Supervisors for funding the Northside Branch. She said the Northside Branch is incredible, and she goes there every day. She invited all of the Supervisors to come by, and she reminded the Board~ members about the dedication of, the facility on December 14, 1991. She mentioned that a few other volunteers are present at today's meeting, and she indicated that these volunteers have been busy putting books on shelves, vacuuming~and straightening ~up. She state~ that it is abeautiful facility. She noted that the Supervisors were generous in budgeting f~or the beginning of this facility originally, and it has gone beyond everyone's expectations as to how the Direct'or of the Library has managed to create such an incredible facility. She thanked all of the Supervisors, and she said that it has been a great experience to see this. happen. She then stated that she wantsthe. Northside,Branch tobe successful, and she pointed out that there is a request for $300,000 in the third phase of the Capital Improvements Program~ to build up the book. inventory. She thinks there are about 20,000 books already on the shelves,- although a final count has. not been done. She. said that it. is hoped that the inventory will be built up to 50,000 titles after a few years of being open to the public. She added that this is approximately the sam~ number of titles that are in the Gordon Avenue Library now, but approximately one-third more books are being circulated from that library at the same time. She anticipates even greater circulation for the. Northside Branch fOr a number of~ reasons.. She said that one reason is that the books will be new and currently popular and necessary, and they are ones that patrons have requested o~er the past few years. She went on to say. that the bookcollection is getting better everywhere, and the Northside Branch will have the ~best collec- tion. Because the Branch is not open yet, there is no idea of how many people aregoing to. use the library. Shesaid the Library Board is asking that their original request of $300,000~ for the third phase of the funding be kept in the CIP. She added that the Library Board realizes that these are hard times for everybody,~however, this institution supports the public on mmny. levels, as far as all ages~ all walks of life, parents, children, professionals, and,,~ ~ especially in hard times when people~don't have money for other~kindsof entertainment, in other, ways of, bettering themselves~. She ~asked the Supervi- sors. to reconsider, the~ $54,000. and look at it as a long-term betterment project for the entire community .... Mr. Bowie asked if anyone wouldlike to speak about the remainingcatego- riea of the CIP which are "Miscellaneous," !'Parks and Recreation' and"Utili~ ties Improvements."~ No one came forward to speak. Next, Mr. Bowie stated that the"Highways and Transportation" category of the CIP would be discussed. Mr.'Dan Roosevelt introduced himself to the group, and he said that he is the~ Resident Engineer for the Department of Transportation. .He noted that for the first year of the County's CIP, almost one-eighth of~ the money that, has been set aside is. designated as revenue sharing, which he knows has been designated to match $500,000 that the Department of Transportation has for road improvements. Thiswill add another $1~.0 million to the secondary road improvement funds for the coming fiscal year. The Department is in the process of working with the County's staffon updating the Secondary Six-Year Highway Plan, and.he can say that without revenue sharing of a half-million dollars, matched by the Department~each of the next. six years, projects will be~delayed. The extension of the Old Lynchburg Road project would be delayed nine months, the Hydraulic Road project would be delayed at least a year, the Rio Road project will he delayed at least.a year, and the Greenbrier Road improvement.will be delayed as much as four years. With the revenue sharing funds, however, the schedule will not only be maintained for these four projects,~ but there will be approximately $4.5 million available for new projects which this. Board and the Department of Transportation will determine in the next. two or three months. He believes that there is a need in. the December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (15) 182 Secondary System of this County, estimated conservatively at $4.0 million. added that to reduce the amount of money that the County is putting into revenue sharing would be a mistake. Mr. Bowie asked if there were any other comments about "Highways and Transportation." No one else wished to speak. Mr. Bowie then asked if Board members had any other questions or comments. No Board member responded. Next, Mr. Bowie asked if there were any general comments about the CIP. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. ,'~ Mr. Bowie asked for an explanation concerning the funding for the Northside Branch Library. Mr. Tucker replied that on July 1 of 1992-93, $54,600 will be available from the County. He said that there will probably be ~six~to eight months of: experience by the time the:next CIP review is · completed. He added that the funding for 1993~94 can be adjusted, at that time, based, on circulation. Mr. Bain askedabout the amount for the Keene Landfill Closure. He said that he did not want to spend all of the money for the closure,~ if it Could be avoided. He wondered if there was any further word o~ approval about the closure plan. Mr Way agreed that he did not want to spend all of the money for the_. closure of the Keene Landfill, either. Mr. Tucker responded there has been no approval, at this point, of the closure plan by the State. ~Mr. Bain wondered if anybody~has contacted the State to check on the process of.this specific plan. Mr. Tucker answered that the. staff is trying to. put together a~report that will tie in with part of. Mrs-. Glomm's remarks tonight,. Ha thinksthat the report.will be completeand ready for the Febru- ary Supervisors! meeting. He mentioned that part of the report relates to specifications and regulations that affect the Keene Landfill Closure. The staff has discussed meeting with, Mr. Woodfin in.Richmond, but felt that might precipitate an approval ofthe plan and force the County to move forward~with the~closure before adequate funding is available. Mr. Bain stated that if the County does not~ get anywhere with the State, he is wiliing~ to. take the matter~ to court. Heis disappointed that a report will not be readybefore February, becausethe General Assembly begins in 3anuary. He would like to be able to report to the legislators what the County is being told by the State and ask the legislators if something can be done about it. Mrs. Bowie askedwhat happens if the County doesn't, do what the State requests. Mr. Tucker replied that there are penalties involved, He noted that the closure plan has not been approved, and that is the holdupnow. He added that once the closure plan is approved, there is a reasonable amount, of time to complete.it. Mr. Bain wondered if the.closure plan could be withdrawn. Mr. Tucker responded that he believes the closure plan can be withdrawn. Mr. Bowie suggested that perhaps the closure plan.could be put on hold. Mr, Tucker answered that the closure plan is on holdnow~because this isone or. the few landfills in the State that is not taking any additional refuse. He,said that the~State.is dealing more with closure plans on cells of existing landfills. He added that this is the only reason that action has not been taken on. the Keene Landfill closure. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that Albemarle .County. is one of many counties in the same situation, and there is ptrength in numbers. Mr. Tucker agreed. He notedthe resolution from Mecklenburg County, and said that other counties are. supporting this legislation. Mrs..Humphris reiterated that Albemarle County would not he alone in putting up resistance and probably would not be alone if it came to litiga- tion. She said that the numbers are so large in terms of the waste of fiscal resources that litigation is worth considering. Mr, Bain remarked thathe wants to listen.to counsel, but he does not believe that there is~much sense relating to a lot of the regulations. December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (16) 183 Mr. Bowie stated that if this County is going to resist the State's regulations, then the other counties with the same problem need to work together. Mr, Tucker commented that this is what Mecklenburg County did with its resolutions. Mr. Bowie asked if there is a list of the people who responded favorably to Mecklenburg County. Mrs. Humphris stated that VACO probably has a list of the favorable responses. Mr. Tucker agreed. He said that this is part of VACO's legislative package, as well as part of this County's legislative package, and it will be given to the legislators. Mr. Bowie commented that there is probably no choice except to leave the plan. With the State., at thistime, but he thinks that options should be explored. Mr. Bain said he thought Albemarle County should know about other options before the plan is withdrawn. He does not think that the County should wait before investigating the situation. Mrs. Humphris agreed that something needs to be done now, but she won- deredwhat this Board is asking Mr. Tucker to do. Mr. Tucker responded that this problem should be emphasized, with the legislators, since,the General Assembly will be beginning in JanUary, and relief should be sought.. He thinks that Mr. Bain is going further to say that even if the County's plan. is, app?oved, Mr. Bain is not sure that the County wants to go forward with it. Mrs.'Humphris agreed that the, County may not want to execute that plan. Mr Tucker stated that he, will need, some advice and guidance-from Mr. St. John as to.what will happen if the County does not go along with the State's regulations. .Mr. Bain commented'that this is a separateissue from the largeexpendi- ture relating to the current, Ivy Landfill. He said that this is a comparable issue and is much more significant in terms of dollars, and it needs to be addressed. He realizes that this. is part of the, County's legislative package, but he. would like for something to bedone before February. Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Bain wants to pursue the issue of withdrawing the plan orputting it, on hold. Mr. Bain responded that he would like to have informationon this issue as quickly as possible. Mr. Bowie suggested that the County Executive and the County Attorney sort outthis issue and provide the Board with its options, next week. At this time, Mr. Bowermmn offered motion to adopt the Capital, Improve- ments Plan, 1992/93-1996/1997, and to move financing on Item II.3. Greer Elementary Walls, $58~000 from1993-94 to 1992,-93. Mrs Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Way asked if this. Board has agreed to build a new middle school the year after next. If not, he wonders why the money is in this Capital Improve- ments Plan. Mr. Tucker replied that a portion of the middle school is in the 1992-93 budget and is part of the bond issue for next year. Mr. Bowerman stated that~ this is because the, planning has to be done in advance of the actual construction. He said that the decision to actually go ahead and build the new middle school in a specific location has not been made. Mr. Tuckerresponded that the decision has not been made, but planning money is in the 1992-93 budget. Mrs.~ Humphris noted that the advertising for a project planner has alreadybeen done. Mr. Tucker stated that $447,000 is for the planning, engineering and architecturalktudies which are scheduled to be done next year. He said that money has not actually been committed for construction, but that 'is the intent. He added.that if this Board is hesitant about going forward with this middle school, he thinks the~School Board should be informed,.because he thinks that it is the School Board's understanding that the school will be built._ Mr. Bowerman explained that the feasibility of a new middle school was discussed, and the feasibility of adding to existing middle schools was also December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (17) 184 discussed. Mr. Way responded that redistricting some students into the 200 plus empty spaces at Walton Middle School was considered also. Mr. Bowerman indicated that he did not realize the decision had been made that a new middle school would be constructed. He thought that the funds were included so that certain things would already be done in case the County wanted to proceed with the new middle school. He thought that the engineering and feasibility studies would determine whether or not existing middle schools would be getting additions or a new middle school would be built. Mr. Way agreed that this was his understanding. He pointed out that he will no longer be on the Board after the end of the year, but he does not thinktha, t this Board.has made' the decision to go ahead with constructing the new%middle school. Mrs. Bowie Stated that, the Board has definitely not made that decision~. Mr. Way commented that the decision to build the new middle school was made by somebodyelse, and not by this Board. Mr. Bowie explained that this, item was included in the CIP before all of the other enrollment figures were available. He said that he is in the sa~e, position as Mr. Way, in that he will not be on the Board when the matter is resolved. He added, though, that.he is concerned that there will be the advertisement for the planner, the architects will be hired, a study will be done, and then a contract will be let for a $7..0 million school.. He stated · that all of these things will probablyhappen while this Board thinks that only:.options are being considereg. He went on to say that he is concerned that there will be no looking at options, and if this passes, there will be a new middle school, whether or not it is needed. Mr. Bain remarked that the last thing this Board received from the School Board was a long range planning report, and he understands that the School Board is still coming to, this Board with the final cost figures. He said the School Board brought this Board some beginning information,-but he thought that this Board. would get further information by January or February. He believes the decision will be made when the Long. Range Planning Committee comes back to the joint Boards. · ~ Mr. Tuckerexplained that this Board is not committing~any moneytonight, and the money will not be committed until the budget is approved in March or Aprils of next year~ Mr. Bain wondered how much the School Board is planning to pay an archi- tect. Mr, Tucker responded that the School Board had a prior commitment of $50,000 which the Supervisors approved last year. . Mr. Bowerman stated that this. goes back to the issue of how to. accommo- date the middle school population. Mr..Bowie asked what Wouldhappen ifthe CIP~ was approved, but the money to construct the middle, school was deferred, instead ofsending a message that contracts.would~be awarded next year. He said this money could be held so that it would not be used for anything else, Mr. Tucker explained that no contracts can be awarded,, because the money has .not been appropriated, except for $50,000~ He noted that the, School Board cannot commit to the $447,000 because it, has not been appropriated, and it will not be appropriated until after the budget is adopted. MrS. Humphris wondered if the money is in. the CIP for planning purposes so that when this Board gets a recommendation from the School Board when this Board is dealing with the budget in March and April, the money is already included. Mr. Tucker replied, "yes.i! He said that the $447,000 is for that purpose, but he reiterated that, this money is not available yet. He thinks that it is important that this Board meet with the School Board before the first of the year .... Mrs:. Humphris noted, that the last word. that this Board received from the School Board dealtwith the options.that the School Board was considering.. 185 December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (18) Mr. Bain stated that the moving of the school district boundaries had been discussed to some extent at the last meeting, as well as adding on to Henley and Jouett Middle Schools. He did not think, however, that a final decision had been reached. He understood that the School Board was going to meet, not only about this issue, but about other matters, and then bring back its recommendations to this Board. Mr. Bowie commented that he never got an answer to his question. He asked, again, what happens if the $7.0 million is deferred. Mr. Tucker replied that nothing would happen as far as the process is concerned, but the issue would still have to be brought back to this Board. He said that if this Board should then choose to go forward with the new middle school construc- tiog, this plan woulg have to be amended as well as adding the funding to the budget in March or April. He noted that the Board has the option of not funding the middle school in March or April, shifting the school back another year, or deleting the item completely. Mr. Bowerman believes that this Board should recognize the liability. He thinks it should be made clear that the solution to the problem isnot yet being endorsed, since it is unknown what all the factors are, and this Board has not had a recommendation, He added that this Board knows that it has to deal with a certain significant population of children who are going to be in the middle-schools, at a certain period in time.. He said that~ this can be recognized in the plan because it is going to cost-money whether existing middle schools are renovated or a new one is built. He reiterated that it should be made clear that this Board is not endorsing a solution at this time. ~,. Bowie recalled that this Board had discussed previously taking a line item such as this one and putting it in a County Executive's reserve or somethingsimilar. He gave an example by saying that instead, of showing an amount of'$9,000,000 for a certain school, there would be nothing shown hy this particular school. There would, however be a reserve under the control of the County Executive until a recommendation comes to this Board that is acceptable. He added that the money would then, be put back by that particular line item.-He said that he would feel better, if this issue was handled in . this manner. He commented that if the money is taken out completely, then there:will be nothing, and there are certain to be costs involved in solving the middle school problmmm. He added that themoney could:be pulled out of the line. items so that there is no indication that this Board is willing to fund a new~,middle, school. He went on to say that the money could be put in a County Executive's reserve, to be allocated upon the solution of the middle school analysis. He stated that this way the money is in the, plan, but this Board will have control Of what happens to it. Mr, Way commented that if the money is, left in the plan, the parents will be notified that the school will be built. Mr. Perkins suggested that the wording f. or the item specifying a new middle school could ~e changed to.represent a middle school update. He recalls the discussions pertaining to this situation, but he said that the School Board always,responds that~it will,cost as much to enlarge an existing school because the libraries and cafeterias are not large enoughrto accommo~ date. a bigger school. He. said that. the libraries and cafeterias were large enough ten or fifteen years ago, but the State changes its~ standards so that everything has to. change. He thinks~, that it is about time that the County tells the State that it is not going to build to the State's standards. Mr. Bowie agreed, that the same thing cOuld be told to the State about the road situation. Mr. Perkins mentioned that a media center was built seven years ago at Broadus Wood and now the back end of the media center will have to be knocked out, and the whole media center will be remodeled. In his opinion, the facility is almost new, and he noted that people, do not remodel their houses every seven years. He said that the media center is not large enough, accord- ing to State standards, to serve the school popula~ion that will be there. He noted that at one time Henley hadover 8001students, and the cafeteria, fed e~ery one of them ..... December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (19) 186 Mr. Tucker pointed out that an analysis was done for Henley and Jouett Middle Schools relative to adding on to those facilities. He said that it is less than the amount of money shown in the CIP, but he believes the School Board was concerned about the size of the schools, if they were enlarged. Mr. Bowie commented that the matter relating to the size of a school is a local decision. Mrs. Humphris remarked that this Board needs a decision from the School Board relative to the best way to handle the middle school issue and the costs involved. She asked if this is not what is really needed. Mr. Tucker re- sponded that he believes the Supervisors need to discuss this issue. He pointed out that theSchool Board~might feel that it has already made its decis%on by recon~nea~ding this to the Super~isors through the CIP. Mr. 'Way commented that he thinks Mr. Bowie's suggestion is the~best one. Mr. Perkins stated that the figure would be much higher if the land had to be purchased. He pointed out that the middle school in question is the school planned for the Hollymead site. Mr. Bowie reminded the Board that a motion Pms been made which includes the Greer walls expenditure. He said, however, that it might be a good idea to amend the motion to stipulate that the new middle school.funding will be pulled out' of that line item and put, into a County Executivets..reserve .to be allocated after the middle school issue has been'resolved. He said that he could support the motion if this stipulation is included in it. OtherWise, he is'concerned that a school may be built that is not wanted or needed. Mr. Bowerman stated that he will accept this amendment to his motion because he thinks' that this is a .rational way to deal with the.questions for which there are not yet facts. He said that with this action the money will be allocated and the liability will be recognized. Mrs. Humph=is, as the seconder to the motion, agreed with Mr. Bowerman. Next, Mr. Perkins commented about the $500,000 in matching highway funds. He thinks that if the State wants to build more highways, then the people who use the highways ,should pay for them. He added that if more money is needed to build highways, then taxes ~should be raised on gasoline and tires, etc.. He does not think that Albemarle County should be spending.money that is.coming from real.estate .taxes and personal property taxes to build highways, particu- larly in the budget crisis that this County is faced with at the current time. He expressed this at the last meeting, and he is expressing it again. He said that the Board could.consider the matter agaim next Spring when a decision will.have to be. made concerning how much money will be stipulated for matching funds. Henoted that the .State has not been able to match this $500.,000 the last three or four years. · Mr. Bain commented that if the money for revenue sh~ring is included in the CIP, a decision will not have to be made before April of 1992. Mr. Tucker agreed. He said that the Transport~tion Department will make its requestto the County in March, and the County will have to respond byApril, which is the same time that the budget is adopted. Mrs. Humphris remarked that it seems reasonable to her to expend .$500,000 to get another $500,000. She said that this is why she is~such a firm sup- porter of,~revenue sharing. Mn. Perkins stated that he agrees with this philosophy, as long as the money that the County is getting .is not its.own tax money. He pointed out that with revenue sharing, the County is .getting its. own money back.. He said that if it was private money that somebody was giving to the County, he would match it every time. Since there were no other comments, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie., Mrs..Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. December 4, Page (20) 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 187 000 000~0 0 0 O0000 000 0 0~0 O~ ~0 0 O 00000 000 0 0~0 ~ O0 0 0 00000 000 0 000 00000 0 0 00000 000 0 000 00000 0 0 00000 000 0 0 0 0 000 000~0 0 0 00000 OOO C ~ O0 ~ 0 0 0 O0 0 ~ C~ 0 0 0 0 O0 O ooo oo0oo o o o0ooo oso 0 0 O O0 O OO0 0 O 0 0 0 ~ O0 0 000 O 0 0 ~ ~ O~ 00~ ooo oo6~0 o o oooo6 °&.o o 04o omo~o ~ o ooooo ooo o ooo mo'ooo o ooooo o'oo o 000 O00000000 0 O ~O000~. 000 0 000 000~0 O, 0 00000 000 0~0 O~O ~ 0 ~0000 000 000' ~ OO 0 ~00'00 000' December 4, 1991 Page (21) (Regular Night Meeting) O0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 oo0o 0 O' 0 O0 0000 O0 oo o o ~ 0ooo 0 0 0000 0 0 O0 0 ~ ~00~ ~00000 ~00000 ~ 000000 000000 O0 O0 O~ O0 O0 ~0 0 ~0' 0 o,oooO0 00000 ~o0Oo ~ooo 0 000000 00000 00000 ~0000 ~000 188 0 00000 0 00000 0 00~0 0 00000 0 O0 0 o 0 00000 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ oo006 ,n 00000 0 000,00 °°~°° O0 ~0 December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (22) 189 O0 O0 O0 O0 O~ O0 ~ 00000000 0 O0 0 O0 o o ~ ~00000010 ~0oo~ooo10 0000~000 0~0~0~0 0000000 0 0 0 o o ~ o o ~ o oo o 0 0000 O0 0 0 0 0000 O0 0 0 0 0000 O0 0 0 0 ~ oo ~ o ~ 0000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 O0 0 0 0 000 0 ~ 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ooo0 oo ~ 0 &, O O ..-1' O000 O0 ~ ~ O0 0600 Oo o o o O000 O0 ~ 0 O 0000 0'0 0 0 0 ~ oo ~ o ~ 0000 O0 O0 December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (23) 190 000 O0 0 0 0 0 000 0 00~ 0 0 0 0 0 000 O0 0 0 0 0 000 0 00~ 0 0 0 0 00o OO 0 o 0 o 00o 0 o0~ o o ~ o oo 000 O0 0 0 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 o g 000 O0 0 0 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0oo oo o o o o oos 0 Soo S o o o o 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 000 o06 oo o O0 O0 000 0oo oo o o o o oooo oo~ O, 0 o o o ggg oo o o o o ooo § oo~ g o o o g g December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (24) 191 O0 Ou'~ O0 Ot-H OO", u':, '.0 ',.Or"',.. O0 (DO 0 O0 01"1 O0 O0 (DO Ot--I 0,0 0 .,-.-t Or.n' O0 O0 0 oo ~0 ~00 0 OOC 0 0 0 0 '.DO December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (25) 192 Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: April 10 and May 8, 1991. Mr. Bowerman stated that he has read the minutes of May 8, 1991, Pages 19, Item 7(c) to Item 19 on Page 34, and find them to be in order. Mr. Bain commented that he has read the May 8, 1991, minutes, Pages 53 to the end, and there are a couple of typos that he will give to the Clerk. Mr. Bowie reported that he has read the minutes of April i0, 1991, Page 40, Item 9 to Page 54, and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins said that he has read the Ap.rtl 10, 1991, minutes, Pages 26, Item 10 to Page 40, Item 9, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bain offered motion to approve the minutes of April 10 and May 8, 1991, with the noted corrections. Mr:. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called,-and the motion carried, by.the following recordedvote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters Not Listed-on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Tucker reported that Mr. James Heilman, the County Registrar, reques- ted. that he be-authorizedto contract with a service by the name of Virginia Election Service to be available during the recount for the House of Delegates race to be of assistance to the three judge panel in answering questions concerning the recount. Mr. Tucker ~stated that this particular consultant sets up the voting machines, etc. He said that the cost amounts to approxi- mately $400, but~the Registrar did not have that amount budgeted~ and~did~not feel that it could be spent without this Board's authorization. Ona motion by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, authorization~was given to the County Registrar to contract with the Virginia Election Service for its services during the House of Delegates race recount. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: .Messrs..Bain, BoWerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mt. Way. NAYS: ,None. ~Mr. Bowie suggested that consideration be given to some monetary level whereby the County Executive does not have to bring items using only a small amount of.money to this Board for approval. He thinks that this should be~ considered at some future meeting by the Supervisors. Several. Supervisors were unsure if this could be done.. Mr. St. John commented that he does not feel safe in saying that this can be done without looking into thelaw. Mr. Bain commented that there are a number of requests for names for certain stretches of roads. He is not sure that he agrees with the Board!s original road naming policy, and he would like to reconsider the question. He said that.he is not ~implying that the whole length of a road needs~.to, have, only one name. He recalled that Mr. Bowie had a request from his district for three names on a small portion of road. Mr. Bowie indicated that all three names would not be used on the road to which Mr. Bain referred. Mr. Bainstated that if a majority of the people on the. road want a certain name, it has been the policy to go along withthe people, even though the Board is, not required to do this all the time. Mr. Bowerman responded that he would not mind discussing this again. Mr. Bain said that this is all that he is asking. He would like for it to be discussed at a future meeting because this needs to be done before the changes go intoeffect. Mrs. Humphris askedif the Board could be given a report~ She said she is getting a lot of mail relative to the roads, and she understands that the letters are pouring into. the County, as well. _ 193 December 4, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) Page (26) Mr. Bain mentioned that he has~ talked with someone from the County staff, and there seems to be nine or ten roads that are the reason for the influx of mail. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff had attempted to put a time limit on the road naming so that there would not be so many requests that keep on coming into the County. He said that a notice could also be put in the newspaper. He added that the matter could be discussed again by the Board. Mrs. Humphris commented that now there is some knowledge as to what can be expected, so the Board might find that there is a better way to deal with the situation. -'Agenda Item No 10. Adjourn. At 8:38 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.