1991-05-08May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 8, 1991, at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County Office Build-
ing, 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 9:02 A.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. There were none.
Non-Agenda Item. Mr. Way asked that the Board consider hearing, out of
the established sequence, a request from a citizen for a zoning text amend-
ment. The citizen is a resident of the Scottsville District and has been
working with the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Amelia Patterson was present and
commented that February 19 was the deadline for filing requests for zoning
text amendments to be heard in June. Motion was then offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Hr. Bowerman, to consider the zoning text amemdment out of the
established sequence.
Mr. Bain was concerned about setting a precedent and asked if the Board
has taken requests out of sequence before. Mr. Way responded that the Board
has taken such action in the past.
Mr. Bain asked for some information about the request. Ms. Patterson
said the request is to amend the RA district to allow a contractor's office
and equipment storage yard by special permit. This use currently exists in
the high commercial and industrial districts only. The request also includes
an amendment to the definitions section. The applicant is Jim Clarke and
Schuyler Enterprises. Ms. Patterson added that the applicant has built a
facility and has a use in operation that is technically in violation of the
Zoning Ordinance. 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. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain,
seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve Items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4, to pull Items 5.3
and 5.21 for discussion, and to accept the remaining items as information on
the consent agenda. 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.
Item 5.1. Resolution to request that Hawkwood COurt in Laurel Ridge
Subdivision be taken into the State System of Secondary Highways, and guaran-
teeing the road against defective materials and/or workmanship for one year up
to a maximum of $3750.00. (In a memorandum dated April 24, 1991, Mr. Hoyt B.
Alford, III, Civil Engineer, Department of Engineering, certified that all of
the work'had been completed in accordance with approved plans, and further
stated that VDoT requires that a performance bond be posted for one year from
the date of road acceptance to ensure against defective materials and/or
workmanship. Since the completion of Hawkwood Court was a joint effort
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
between the Board of Supervisors and the property owners along the roadway, it
is requested that the Board guarantee the road construction for the required
one year period.)
Mrs. Humphris asked if it is standard policy for the County to make such
a guarantee. Mr. Tucker said the guarantee has been made whenever the County
has shared in improving a roadway.
By the above recorded vote, the following resolution was adopted:
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, the following road in Laurel
Ridge Subdivision:
Hawkwood Court:
Beginning at Station 0+25, a point common to the edge
of State Route 676 and the centerline of Hawkwood
Court, thence in a northeasterly direction 798.79
feet to Station 8+23.79, the end of the cul-de-sac.
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 this requested addition as record-
ed by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 838, page 635 and Deed Book 949, page
155; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby guarantees, for a period of one year from the
date of acceptance into the Secondary System of Highways, Hawkwood
Court in Laurel Ridge Subdivision, against defective materials and/or
workmanship up to a maximum of $3,750.00.
Item 5.2. Resolution to request that Westfield Road Extended in Wynridge
Subdivision be taken into the State System of Secondary Highways. (By letter
of November 12, 1990, Mr. Scott Williams, Assistant Project Manager, Republic
Homes, requested that Westfield Road in Wynridge Subdivision be taken into the
State Secondary System.) By the above recorded vote, the following resolutior
was adopted:
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 final inspection and
approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in
Wynridge Subdivision:
Westfield Road Extended:
Beginning at Station 22+82.80, the centerline of Westfield
Road Extended and the edge of state maintenance on Route
1452, thence in a westerly direction 950 feet to Station
32+32.61, the end of the cul-de-sac.
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 this requested addition as record-
ed by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 740, page 423; Deed Book 787, page 684;
Deed Book 843, page 93.
Item 5.3. Request from Frederick County Board of Supervisors for resolu-
tion of support re: repeal of the Dillon Rule. (In a letter dated April 26,
1991, The Honorable Kenneth Y. Stiles, Chairman, Frederick County Board of
Supervisors, stated that Governor Wilder was interested in repealing the
Dillon Rule. The Frederick County Board passed a resolution supporting the
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
56
repeal and forwarded same to the Governor and local members of the General
Assembly. They also requested that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
do the same.)
Mr. Bain asked that this item be pulled for further discussion.
Item 5.4. Memorandum dated May 3, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
County Executive, re: Shenandoah National Park - Related Land Studies. (In
his memorandum, Mr. Tucker states that several departments at the University
of Virginia will be undertaking a study on behalf of the National Park Service
to identify, among other things, land resources within and near the Shenandoah
National Park which may be worthy of further protection. This study would be
beneficial to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's regional
land resource analysis as well as the County's open space planning. Mr. J. W.
Wade, Superintendent of the Shenandoah National Park, has requested that one
or two persons be designated as contacts for them to discuss various phases of
the study as it is developed. Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Thomas H. Jen-
kins, Planning Commissioner from the White Hall District, and Mr. V. Wayne
Cilimberg,' County Planner, be designated as appropriate County contacts.) By
the above recorded vote the Board designated Mr. Thomas H. Jenkins and Mr. V.
Wayne Cilimberg as the County representatives to the Related Lands Project.
Item 5.5. Letter dated April 15, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resi-
dent Engineer, re: Route 615, was received for information. (This letter is
in response to a request from a constituent mentioned at the April 10, 1991,
Board meeting. Mr. Roosevelt states that right-of-way to improve Route 615
from Route 639 to the Louisa County line has been donated by the property
owners along that section. This right-of-way was recorded in June, 1990.
While the recordation date for this right-of-way is after the date set by the
Board of Supervisors when they revised their priorities for hard surfacing
projects, it is his intent to recommend that this road be added to the Six
Year Plan when that Plan is next revised. Revision of the Plan is scheduled
for late this year or early in 1992. Mr. Roosevelt further states that the
current Six Year Plan contains a number of gravel road improvements which are
to receive the County's first consideration for hard surface funding. Of the
15 projects currently listed in the Plan, only nine have some funding within
the life of the financial plan which runs through June, 1996. The other
projects are anticipated to be financed after that date. He would anticipate
that funds for Route 615 would not be available until after July 1, 1996.)
Item 5.6. Letter dated April 22, 1991, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commis-
sioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that roads in Hickory
Ridge were added to the Secondary System effective April 23, 1991, was re-
ceived as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated October 31, 1990, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby
approved, effective April 23, 1991.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
HICKORY RIDGE
Route 1070 (Pelham Road) - From Route 665
to 0.58 mile Northwest Route 665
0.58 Mi
Route 1071 (Martingale Lane) - From Route
1070 to 0.08 mile Southwest Route 1070
0.08 Mi ·"
Item 5.7. Letter dated April 25, 1991, from The Honorable John G.
Milliken, Secretary of Transportation, in reply to the Board's resolution
concerning the replacement of the Moormans River Bridge at Millington, was
received as follows:
"Thank you for the telefax transmittal of April 10 which included the
resolution by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors concerning the
replacement of the Moormans River Bridge at Millington.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
The Virginia Department of Transportation does not believe that
rebuilding the bridge at its current location will provide a safe
approach to the new facility. The Department believes the proposed
alternative location is the least damaging alternative. I understand
from the Department that the Commonwealth Transportation Board consi-
dered and voted on this matter in December 1989.
However, the Department of Transportation will incorporate those
agreed-upon modifications to the 'Green Line' alignment and the
proposed bridge structure as stated in the last paragraph of the
resolution by the Albemarle County Board.
I appreciate your providing me with the Board of Supervisors' resolu-
tion."
Item 5.8. Letter dated April 30, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resi-
dent Engineer, giving monthly update on Current Projects, Construction Sched-
ule, was received for information.
Item 5.9. 1991 First Quarter Building Report, as prepared by the County
Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for informa-
tion. (The report indicates that during the first quarter of 1991, 142
permits were issued for 152 dwelling units. In addition, nine permits were
issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of
$2500 for a total of $22,500.)
Item 5.10. Copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for April 9, 1991,
was received for information.
Item 5.11. Notice dated April 16, 1991, from the State Corporation
Commission re: application of Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc. for a rate
increase, was received for information.
Item 5.12. Letter dated March 6, 1991, from Mr. Hugh C. Miller, Direc-
tor, Department of Historic Resources, stating that BLUE RIDGE FARM was
entered in the National Register of Historic Places on January 25, 1991, was
received for information.
Item 5.13. Letter dated April 17, 1991, from Mr. Hugh C. Miller, Direc-
tor, Department of Historic Resources, stating that ARROW~kI) ANDWA%q~RTRRR
HALL FARM have been added to the Virginia Landmarks Register and endorsed to
the National Register of Historic Places, was received for information.
Item 5.14. Letters dated April 22, 1991, from Mr. James Christian Hill,
National Register Assistant, Department of Historic Resources, stating that
OLD RECTORY AND R]9~WOOD have been determined to meet the criteria for listing
on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic
Places, were received for information. The staff of the DHR does not plan to
prepare the nomination as its work program is fully scheduled for the remain-
der of the year.
Item 5.15. Letter dated April 22, 1991, from Mr. James Christian Hill,
National Register Assistant, Department of Historic Resources, stating that
T~E SOUI~IWEST MOIR~AINS RURAL IIISTORIC DISTRICT has been determined to meet
the criteria for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National
Register of Historic Places, was received for information. The Department
will pursue the nomination of this area.
Item 5.16. Letter dated April 24, 1991, from Congressman D. French
Slaughter, Jr., acknowledging receipt of the Board's resolution of support for
H.R. 1079, the Mobility Assistance Act of 1991, was received for information.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
58
Item 5.17. Letter dated April 26, 1991, from Mr. Roger Flint,
Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission (CAC3), thanking the
Board and County staff for support of CAC3, was received for information.
Item 5.18. Memorandum dated April 29, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, entitled "CAC3 Funding," was received for information.
(In his letter, Mr. Tucker states that during the budget work sessions, CAC3
identified a potential shortfall in funding through October 31, 1991. As a
result of greater demands for information, the CAC3 staff has been working
approximately 33 hours per week when the budget was based on 20 hours per
week. To sustain these operations, CAC3 estimated a funding shortfall of
$7727 and requested consideration for additional funding. Since that time,
CAC3 has modified its staffing/service requirements and will no longer require
the additional funding. CAC3 is also working with the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority to consider shifting its recycling operations to RSWA.)
Item 5.19. County Executive's Financial Report for the Month of March,
1991, was received as follows:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT
FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1990 TO MARCH 31, 1991
GENERAL FUND
REVENUES
1990/91 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
56,672,233 42,824,532 13,847,701 75.57%
4,285,269 2,690,586 1,594,683 - 62.79%
166,900 54,328 112,572 32.55%
490,135 0 490~135 0.00%
61,614,537 45,569,446 16,045,091 73.96%
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TRANSFERS
NONDEPARTMENTAL
TOTAL
SCHOOL FUND
REVENUES
3,771,276 2,615,031 1,156,245 + 69.34%
1,287,796 962,385 325,411 + 74.73%
5,692,600 4,354,204 1,338,396 + 76.49%
2,344,922 1,352,347 992,575 + 57.67%
3,572,977 2,459,427 1,113,550 + 68.83%
28,974,085 21,546,983 7,427,102 + 74.37%
2,073,318 1,405,110 668,208 + 67.77%
1,561,928 1,075,149 486,779 + 68.83%
9,476,565 4,055,372 5,421,193 + 42.79%
2,859~070 2~839~217 19~853 + 99.31%
61,614,537 42,665,225 18,949,312 + 69.25%
1990/91 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
702,995 254,615
20,006,716 13,538,248
431,775 134,080
29~114~923 21,540,006
50,256,409 35,466,949
448,380 - 36.22%
6,468,468 - 67.67%
297,695 - 31.05%
7,574~917 73.98%
14,789,460 - 70.57%
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
INSTRUCTION
ADMIN., ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES OPERATION & MAINT
FACILITIES
TOTAL
39,394,013 25,655,106 13,738,907 + 65.12%
1,853,376 1,403,888 449,488 + 75.75%
4,211,544 3,063,362 1,148,182 + 72.74%
4,632,968 3,360,939 1,272,029 + 72.54%
164,508 94,469 70~039 + 57.43%
50,256,409 33,577,764 16,678,645 + 66.81%
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
1990/91 RECEIPTS
REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD
59
LOCAL SOURCES 291,800 185,260
COMMONWEALTH 802,040 0
NONREVENUE RECEIPTS 11,904,082 4,867,683
FUND BALANCE 924,330 0
TRANSFERS-IN 6~500~000 1~500,000
TOTAL 20,422,252 6,552,943
90/91 EXP/OBLIG
EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD
106,540 63.49%
802,040 - 0.00%
7,036,399 - 40.89%
924,330 - 0.00%
5~000~000 - 23.08%
13,869,309 - 32.09%
BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION 99,747 36,404
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 1,403 0
PUBLIC SAFETY 592,351 555,268
PUBLIC WORKS 3,039,413 734,296
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 7,000 0
EDUCATION 12,532,318 8,585,705
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL 2,348,086 1,075,465
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 301,356 56,272
TRANSFERS 1,500~578 0
TOTAL 20,422,252 11,043,410
63,343 + 36.50%
1,403 + 0.00%
37,083 + 93.74%
2,305,117 + 24.16%
7,0OO + O.0O%
3,946,613 + 68.51%
1,272,621 + 45.80%
245,084 + 18.67%
1,500~578 + 0.00%
9,378,842 + 54.08%
OTHER FUNDS
1990/91 RECEIPTS
REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD
BALANCE COLLECTED
YTD YTD
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 197
DCJS: DRUG ENFORCEMENT 0 10,519
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 0 1,057
MODERATE RE}lAB. GRANT 0 696,667
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 134,997 55,267
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0 404,077
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 81,176
FOOD SERVICES 1,510,500 1,047,993
CHAPTER I 538,994 288,749
CHAPTER II 57,929 21,607
MIGRANT EDUCATION 57,093 35,935
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 25,000 0
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 0 0
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 74,181 10,083
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 14,995 0
SLIAG PROGRAM 34,219 4,417
CBIP SEVERE 461,547 183,697
E. D. PROGRAM 622,315 165,338
PROCESS APPROACH (PAL) 23,311 0
G E ELFUN 20,000 20,000
COMMUNITY EDUCATION 637,500 432,503
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 369,411 209,505
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 8,221
A H S FIRE DAMAGE 0 363,320
30INT SECURITY 2,626,614 1,935,462
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 30,619 23,676
3OINT DISPATCH FUND 784,642 592,222
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 179,905 64,353
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 2,341,333 0
VISITOR CENTER FUND 0 50,801
DEBT SERVICE FUND 3~429~096 2~555~372
TOTAL 13,984,201 9,262,214
90/91 EXP/OBLIG
EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD
(197)+ 0.00%
(lO,519)+ o.ooz
(1,057)+ 0.00%
(696,667)+ 0.00%
79,730 40.94%
(404,077)+ 0.00%
(81,176)+ 0.00%
462,507 - 69.38%
250,245 - 53.57%
36,322 - 37.30%
21,158 - 62.94%
25,000 - 0.00%
0 - O.OO%
64,098 - 13.59%
14,995 - 0.00%
29,802 - 12.91%
277,850 - 39.80%
456,977 - 26.57%
23,311 - 0.00%
0 + 100.00%
204,997 - 67.84%
159,906 - 56.71%
1,779 - 82.21%
(363,320)+ 0.00%
691,152 73.69%
6,943 - 77.32%
192,420 - 75.48%
115,552 35.77%
2,341,333 0.00%
(5o,8ol)+ o.oo%
873r724 74.52%
4,721,987 66.23%
BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
YTD YTD
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 4,412
DCJS: DRUG ENFORCEMENT 0 27,258
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 0 910
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0 620,170
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 134,997 73,922
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0 167,000
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 82,338
(4,412)- 0.00%
(27,258)- 0.00%
(910)- 0.00%
(620,170)- 0.00%
61,075 + 54.76%
(167,000)- 0.00%
(82,338)- 0.00%
BALANCE COLLECTED
YTD YTD
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
FOOD SERVICES
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
MIGRANT EDUCATION
MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
SLIAG
CBIP SEVERE
E D PROGRAM
PROCESS APPROACH (PAL)
G E ELFUN
COMMUNITY EDUCATION
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND
A H S FIRE DAMAGE
JOINT SECURITY FUND
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL
JOINT DISPATCH FUND
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND
VISITOR CENTER FUND
DEBT SERVICE FUND
TOTAL
1,510,500 1,027,721 482,779 + 68.04%
538,994 331,835 207,159 + 61.57%
57,929 36,910 21,019 + 63.72%
57,093 40,078 17,015 + 70.20%
0 3,996 (3,996)- 0.00%
25,000 2,669 22,331 + 10.68%
0 0 0 - 0.00%
74,181 48,469 25,712 + 65.34%
14,995 29 14,966 + 0.19%
34,219 13,054 21,165 + 38.15%
461,547 339,839 121,708 + 73.63%
622,315 318,179 304,136 + 51.13%
23,311 10,000 13,311 + 42.90%
20,000 630 19,370 + 3.15%
637,500 495,062 142,438 + 77.66%
369,411 206,294 163,117 + 55.84%
10,000 0 10,000 + 0.00%
0 249,830 (249,830)- 0.00%
2,626,614 1,838,974 787,640 + 70.01%
30,619 23,676 6,943 + 77.32%
784,642 596,148 188,494 + 75.98%
179,905 106,151 73,754 + 59.00%
2,341,333 32,212 2,309,121 + 1.38%
0 50,801 (50,801)- 0.00%
3,429,096 2,557~711 871~385 + 74.59%
13,984,201 9,306,278 4,677,923 + 66.55%
Item 5.20. Memorandum dated May 1, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
County Executive, entitled "Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority water line,
review for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan," was received for information.
(Mr. Tucker states that the Albemarle County Planning Commission found that
the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority's water line is in compliance with the
County's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed water line will be 6.6 miles long
and extends from the South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant to an existing line
in the vicinity of the 9th Street and Main Street intersection in the City of
Charlottesville. The Executive staff recommends no change in the Commission's
review. Mr. Tucker further states that in the future, as these types of
reviews for compliance with the Plan come before the Board, they will be added
to the consent agenda for approval. In the event that the Executive staff
disagrees with the findings of the Commission, he will bring that to the
Board's attention also.)
Item 5.21. Memorandum dated May 3, 1991, addressed to Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, from Dr. John J. English, Assistant Superinten-
dent for Instruction, entitled: "CA-TEC Budget Information and Direction,"
was received for information.
Mr. Way asked that this item be pulled for discussion at the joint
meeting with the School Board.
Mr. Bowie then asked for discussion on Item 5.3. Mr. Bain commented that
the letter from Frederick County is not very informative. Mr. Bowie said,
although he thought the request was self-explanatory, he would be happy to get
more information from Frederick County. The Governor did make an announcement
that consideration should be given to relaxing the Dillon Rule. The Virginia
Association of Counties (VACo) has consistently supported review of the Rule.
He thinks that the more localities that request the repeal, the better chance
it will have.
Mr. Tucker said this item has been discussed for a long time. The staff
does not have strong feelings as to whether the Rule should be repealed or
relaxed, but does think that any kind of action would be positive.
Mr. St. John said he does not think the exact wording in a resolution
will make any difference because the Dillon Rule is not a law, so it cannot be
repealed. To do away entirely with what the Board thinks to be the Dillon
Rule would require a change in the State Constitution.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mrs. Humphris said the resolution from Frederick County is encouraging
the Governor to repeal the Dillon Rule. There is nothing on "the books"
anywhere, so this Board would be asking for something that is not technically
correct.
Mr. St. John said the resolution would actually be a statement of philo-
sophy. Mrs. Humphris said she does not want the leadership of the Common-
wealth to think that this Board is "out in left field" thinking that there is
a rule that can be repealed when that is not the case. Mr. Bowie suggested
that language be added to any resolution clarifying that there is no Dillon
Rule per se, but it is a body of law that requires a constitutional amendment
and this Board supports that amendment.
Mr. St. John suggested that "relaxation" may be a better word than
"repeal". The Legislature cannot repeal something that is not "on the books".
Mrs. Humphris said the Frederick County resolution requests that "conside-
ration be given to relaxing the provisions of the Dillon Rule" which is
incorrect and that the language relating to "repealing the Dillon Rule" is
incorrect. She wants to make sure that this Board is more technically correct
in what it asks for.
Mr. Bowie asked if Board members support the Frederick County position,
but just have problems with the wording of their resolution. Mrs. Humphris
replied "yes".' Mr. Bowie suggested that the County Attorney write a resolu-
tion that is technically correct. Motion was then offered byMr. Bain,
seconded by Mrs. H~mphris, to request the County Attorney tow rite a resolu-
tion relatimg to the Dillon Rule. 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. 6. Approval of Minutes: February 6, February 20,
March 13, March 18, March 20(A) and April 3(A), 1991.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of March 13, 1991, pages 1-16, and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes of February 6, 1991, pages 12-23 (#8) and
April' 3(A), 1991, and found both sets to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of March 18, 1991, pages 1-8, and
found them to be in order with two typographical errors.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Hn~phris, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the
minutes as read. 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. 7a. Highway Matters: Reconsideration of Federal Express
Site Plan (Deferred from April 10, 1991).
Mr. Cilimberg said this appeal is based on the Board's decision of
November 14, 1990, to either close or modify the northern entrance to the
service road serving Federal Express. This item was deferred by the Board, at
the request of the applicant, so that the entrance could be redesigned.
Modifications of the access were submitted to the Planning staff. Mr. Cilim-
berg then summarized his following memorandum dated May 2, 1991, and letter
dated April 17, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer,
respectively:
"Following is a status report on new information regarding this
matter. Mr. Wendell Wood, property owner, submitted three alterna-
tives for modifying the existing northern access to the frontage road
along Route 29 North. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, in his letter of April 17,
1991, found each to be unacceptable. On May 2, 1991, Mr. Wood's
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
62
consulting engineer, Mr. Arthur F. Edwards, submitted a new alterna-
tive in response to minimum design standards provided in Mr. Roose-
velt's letter. Staff, on the same day, hand delivered this alterna-
tive to VDoT for review and comment. Staff has no further information
to report to the Board of Supervisors at this time."
"Reference is made to the three alternatives for modification of the
proposed frontage road along Route 29 which have been submitted by Mr.
Wendell V. Wood. These three alternative designs were hand delivered
to my office on April 15, 1991.
I have reviewed all three designs and find them unacceptable as an
alternative to the currently approved design for the frontage road.
The concern I have consistently expressed regarding the access between
the frontage road cul-de-sac and Route 29 is that traffic entering
from Route 29 has to cross over the exit lane for traffic leaving the
frontage road onto Route 29. This conflict occurs at a point where
neither vehicle can adequately see the other vehicle approaching and
there is no feasible procedure for determining who has the right of
way.
At our meeting on March 19, 1991, I was under the impression that Mr.
Wood's engineer was to contact my office concerning design standards
for an alternative design. To my knowledge no such contact has been
made. Let me, therefore, outline the minimum design standards which
should be considered if a permanent entrance is to be constructed in
the vicinity of the frontage road cul-de-sac.
The permanent entrance will serve as both access to Federal Express
and to the frontage road which leads north from this entrance.
Therefore, the intersection of the frontage road and the Federal
Express entrance should be sufficiently removed from Route 29 to allow
proper control of these two movements. The entrance at Route 29
should meet normal commercial entrance standards and have a minimum
entering radius of 50 feet. This would allow large trucks to properly
exit the roadway. The radius from the entrance into the frontage road
should also be 50 feet to allow these same trucks to make the 90
degree turn into the frontage road. Adding these two radii together
the curb line or the distance between the edge of pavement on Route 29
and the edge of pavement on the frontage road should be 100 feet. The
entrance to the Federal Express property could then be designed as a
direct extension of the entrance off Route 29 or as a direct extension
of the frontage road depending on which design best meets the needs of
the developer. Such a design as outlined above will require redesign
of the frontage road to place a reverse curve on the approach to this
intersection. The design of this reverse curve should meet a minimum
25 mph design speed."
Mr. Cilimberg said on May 2 a fourth alternative was submitted to YDoT.
Staff from the County and VDoT met at the site to look at how the access would
work. If the Board deems the change to be acceptable, it would require a
major site plan amendment. Mr. Cilimberg indicated the existing cul-de-sac
and entrance shown in gray on the proposed plan (copy on file). He indicated
that the parking area for Federal Express is further to the north. The
proposal is to extend the existing service road further north into part of the
Federal Express parking area, then bring the service road around a curve onto
Route 29 North, providing a 100 foot radius and providing for an entrance to
the parking'area of Federal Express as originally proposal at three locations.
VDoT determined that for this to work properly and be acceptable, one of the
entrances would have to closed, curbed and then the parking area cut off. He
indicated places where the staff would require a longer radius and restoration
of existing paved area to its natural state, with removal of paving and
revegetation. The staff has not discussed this with the applicant. He does
not think the requirements would be a major change over what was submitted by
the applicant, but this would be a major site plan amendment and he would want
it processed through the site plan amendment procedure. If the Board is
agreeable to the proposal, he does not think the site plan will need to go
before the Planning Commission again. The staff could review this administra-
tively as a final site plan amendment. They would put the applicant on notice
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
63
that existing paving would have to be removed, vegetation restored and a new
plat filed showing the changed road alignment. He also recommends that the
Board require that if nothing is done by November 1, the entrance be closed.
Whether or not the applicant is finished with the work, the closure should
take place.
Mr. Bain asked the distance from the northern entrance to the South Fork
Rivanna River. Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, replied 100 feet. Mr.
Bowie asked what happens to the parking. Mr. Cilimberg said parking spaces
would be reduced and the applicant notified that any additional development on
the site may be affected by the limited parking.
Mrs. Humphris thought the current proposal was a major change over the
original approval and asked why the new proposal would not automatically be
reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board feels the modifi-
cation is reasonable, the staff did not feel there was any reason to send it
back to the Commission. The staff would be reviewing the proposal for compli-
ance with the ordinance which is what the Commission would also be doing. The
Board would make the decision about the new concept. There would be nothing
of material difference for the Commission to review. Also, everyone is trying
to get this done as soon as possible. If the staff has any problems with
getting the work done, it would bring the site plan back to the Board.
Mrs. Humphris asked about future consequences due to the loss of parking
spaces for existing uses. Mr. Cilimberg said that has not yet been deter-
mined. It is his understanding that the applicant will develop one more
building in the general area that would have to use the parking area. Mrs.
Humphris said the Board would be making a decision which would have a definite
affect on the parking available without knowing what the affect would be. Mr.
Cilimberg agreed. Mrs. Humphris said she is not comfortable with making a
decision on something in which she does not have all of the information. Mr.
Bain did not think that the Board was being asked to make a final decision
today, but is being asked if it would consider this plan as an alternative to
what is there now. Mrs. Humphris wanted to know exactly what the Board is
being asked to do. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff is presenting a concept
because it was the Board's decision to move in this direction. The staff is
presenting all the information it has and is saying that there seems to be a
reasonable alternative that is acceptable to VDoT. The staff would recommend
proceeding under a major site plan amendment to consider this change. The
Board would be approving a concept of what is to happen. If the staff runs
into a problem such as inadequate parking, then it would have to come back and
discuss that with the Board.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the process and the timetable if the Board were
to approve the proposed concept. Mr. Keeler said the applicant would be
required to amend the Federal Express site plan so that the staff could
determine what would happen to the parking. Road plans would have to be
approved by the Engineering Department and the Highway Department including
drainage plans. The staff would recommend placing a note on the revised plat
that the tear-drop shaped area left between the service road and Route 29
North is not available for any future development. There are a number of
things that would be addressed in site plan amendment. Again, the staff has
had less than a week to look at this proposal.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the staff arrived at the November 1 deadline for
the closure. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff chose a date in which it felt that
it could administratively review, approve and amend the plan. Of course this
all depends on the applicant getting information to the staff so that it can
go through the process. Mr. Keeler said the staff receives submittals every
two weeks; 17 days after the submittal, the Site Plan Review Committee con-
venes and if everything is in order, the Committee recommends that the plan be
approved. Otherwise, the applicant's consultant makes whatever changes are
necessary and the applicant can then resubmit the plan for final approval.
This process puts the whole burden on the applicant. The time schedule is
primarily dependent on the applicant complying with the recommendations of the
site review. Mrs. Humphris asked who established the November 1 deadline.
Mr. Cilimberg said he is asking the Board to establish that deadline. Mr.
Bowie commented that the Board already did that once and it was absolutely
meaningless. Mr. Keeler said the deadline for the entrance to be closed is
past. The staff is suggesting that the deadline be set for November 1 regard-
less of what the applicant does with this plan, but on November 1 the existing
Mrs. Humphris asked if problems were anticipated when the decision was
made to have the service road concept with single accesses to Route 29. Mr.
Roosevelt said it was known that there were some negative aspects to the
concept. Originally this design was to run the service road back behind the
lots.! At that time, the lot owners informed the Board that they did not like
those!plans because they needed a back to the properties to store trash and if
the service road ran back along the bank 200 feet or so from the roadway, the
buildings would be facing the service road and the trash would be on the back
of the buildings facing Route 29. The Board then decided to allow the road
parallel to Route 29, about 30 feet off the road. He still thinks that even
with the negative aspects, the frontage road concept overweighs having seven
or eight individual commercial entrances along that section of Route 29. Mrs.
Humphris asked if the frontage road had been set further back if that would
have been a better situation. Mr. Roosevelt replied "yes" from a transporta-
tion standpoint, but not from the property owners' standpoint. Mr. Roosevelt
said the plans before the Board today were not available when the frontage
road concept was originally discussed.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
64
entrance be closed and it be up to the applicant to get the approvals and
build this new entrance if he wants direct access to Route 29. The applicant
would be required to post a bond for the activity. Mr. Cilimberg said the
staff felt that the time allowed was reasonable to complete.the work.
Mr. Bowerman asked the function of the service road proposed as a connec-
tion through to the Sheraton Hotel at the traffic light, and the entrances and
exits. Mr. Cilimberg said the function is the same as originally intended at
the southern end of the property which is to allow traffic to go south on
Route 29 or cross over and go into the development on the west side from the
entire area. Northbound traffic could go directly out and then north on Route
29.
Mrs. Humphris asked for a summarization of what is being asked of the
Board. Mr. Cilimberg said the concept creates a modified entrance at the
northern end of the site. Staff asks for an extension of the closure of the
entrance until November 1. The Board should direct staff to consider this new
modification under a major site plan amendment to be handled administratively
in the interest of time. Noting that none of this is in writing, Mr. Bowie
asked about the cement which is to be torn up and about replanting which
should take place. Mr. Cilimberg said that would be handled in the site plan
amendment. Mr. Bowie suggested that review of the site plan amendment also
include the parking exits that are to be closed and notice that further
development may be restricted because of the loss of parking.
Mr. Bowerman said the original intent of the service road concept was to
limit the access points to this entire piece of property. This proposal would
give two permanent accesses. He asked if it is staff's opinion that the
concept proposed is better than the original intent of the service road
concept. Mr. Cilimberg said there are both benefits and negative aspects to
the new concept. He does not know if it was anticipated when the service road
'concept was established that there would be a lot of traffic generation from
the northern end which is a benefit to having the entrance. The staff felt
that even with the establishment of the new retail uses an entrance at the
northern entrance was necessary and that the traffic could be handled most
efficiently by the traffic light at the crossover when the service road is
ultimately connected.
Mr. Bain's concern was the closeness of the exits going north to the
South Fork Rivanna Bridge, but particularly having to cross the South Fork
Bridge and then turn to come back south, and whether people will find that
easier than waiting in line for the traffic light at the crossover. Mr. Dan
Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said there possibly may be people who
will exit the property, go north and make a u-turn to come south again, but he
thinks that will only happen if there is a long backup in traffic. He thinks
an advantage of this plan is the turning movements. It will be fairly easy
for large trucks to exit and go north~ The negative aspect is that a second
access adds another friction point. Mr. Bain said this is a major generator
of traffic and he thinks the people will get impatient. Mrs. Humphris asked
if the problem is with one tenant having large trucks or if the design and
service road concept is flawed. Mr. Roosevelt said in his opinion this
concept improves the access to the Federal Expresssite.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
The Chairman asked the applicant if he had any comments to make. Mr.
Wendell Wood, the applicant, said this is the fourth proposal submitted to the
Highway Department. He thinks the concept will work and he would like the
Board's support. He presented a petition of more than 500 signatures from
people in the area who are concerned about safety. They will work diligently
to make this concept work by November 1. He had not seen the modification
presented to the Board until this morning. In general he thinks it is some-
thing that his engineer can work with. It is an improvement to the traffic
and safety aspects of Route 29. Mr. Bowie asked about the reduced parking,
restriction on development, etc. Mr. Wood said that is all something that the
owners will look at eventually. At this time he does not think there is
excess parking in the plans. It is an economic decision. This is not an
inexpensive proposition. It is probably a $40,000 expenditure just to do the
pavement. There is also about $75,000 to $100,000 taking of property to
achieve this. He thinks this is important enough for the viability of the
project.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks this is a reasonable solution. Me then
offered motion to approve the concept and modifications as shown on map
entitled "Plan Showing Revised Entrance to Federal l~xpress, Charlottesville
Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia", as prepared by B. Aubrey
Huffman & Assoc., Ltd., initialled "RMK" and dated May 8, 1991, with the
deadline for closing the existing entrance being November 1, 1991. The plan
is to be approved administratively by the staff, subject to provisions of the
site development plan and subdivision ordinances. Mr. Bain seconded the
motion. Nr. Bowie suggested also that the Board be infOrmed prior to the
November 1 deadline if the applicant is not proceeding under this approved
concept. Mr. Bower~mn included that in his motion and Mr. Bain, as seconder,
agreed. There being no other discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way
NAYS: Mr. Bowie. ·
Non-Agenda Item. Mr. Bowie welcomed students from Western Albemarle High
School present for Youth-in-Government Day. Mr. Perkins then introduced the
following students: Jessica Ludwig, George Bowles, Bob Gough, Sabrina Effin,
Stacey Diggs, Pavoro Moralis and Bob Holup, the teacher. Mr. Holup commented
that Pavoro and Sabrina are both exchange students, from Spain and Sweden,
respectively.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Discussion: Six-Year Secondary Improvement Plan and
1991-92 Secondary Improvement Budget. Resolutionto adopt list of Highway
Projects for State Revenue Sharing Funds.
Mr. Cilimberg sunanarized the following staff report:
"On March 7, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted a priority list of
65 roadway projects to be included in the Six Year Secondary Road
Improvement Plan and Capital Improvements Program as available funding
permits. This list is used as the basis for developing the Six Year
Secondary Road Plan. As you are aware, the priority list and Six Year
Plan are adopted for a two year period, with the Board adopting the
Plan's budget annually. Interim years are used to review the plan,
make minor adjustments as necessary, and provide direction to the
staff pertaining to road and other related transportation planning
efforts. It is intended that changes in the plan be made only due to
significant change of circumstance which necessitate a readjustment to
funding priorities.
The remainder of this report will focus on the following items:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Status of Six Year Plan Projects;
Funding;
Revenue Sharing;
Public Requests/New Projects; and
Other Planning Activities.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
66
Status of Six Year Plan Proiects: Attachment 2 (on file) is a
status report of the Six Year Plan. This report includes: the
individual project description and priority ranking of the
County; updated estimate of total project cost; current alloca-
tion to the project; and, updated status of the construction
schedule.
Funding: Due to the State's fiscal situation, the funds annici-
pated to be available for projects in the 1991-92 fiscal year for
the secondary system is 16 percent less. The actual amount of
funding available for FY 1991-92 has not been provided to the
County by VDoT. The Resident Engineer will be presenting his
budget to the Board of Supervisors by the end of June.
The reduction of available funds will result in an overall
slowdown in completing projects in the current plan. This is
reflected in the extension of the advertisement for projects.
Some of the projects being delayed due to financing include:
Project (Priority)
Rt. 631, Meadow Creek Parkway (13)
Rt. 631, Fifth Street Extended (15)
Rt. 743, Hydraulic Road (21)
Rt. 631, Rio Road West (22)
Rt. 866, Greenbrier Drive Ext (28)
Rt. 649, Airport Road (30)
Rt. 743, Bridge over N.F. Rivanna (31)
Rt. 677, Bridge over CSX Railroad (32)
Rt. 601, Old Ivy-Intersection with
Rt. 250 to Railroad overpass (34)
Rt. 691, Improve Jarman's Gap Road (35)
Various unpaved road projects (36)
* EkD - Estimated Advertisement Date
EAD* 90-91 Current EAD
7/94 7/97
7/91 7/92
7/92 5/93
7/93 7/95
7/94 1/96
7/95 Beyond 1996
7/95 Beyond 199§
7/95 Beyond 1996
7/95 Beyond 1996
7/96 Beyond 1996
On March 11, 1991, the Commonwealth Transportation Board submit-
ted a letter to all county boards of supervisors requesting that
each jurisdiction review construction program priorities and
provide recommendations on which projects can be delayed or
deleted.
To date, Dan Roosevelt has non begun work with staff regarding
such recommendations. However, the County has established a
prioritized list of road improvement projects since 1988. This
list, and subsequent revisions, has been used to establish the
priorities for funding under the VDoT Six Year Road Plan. Thus,
this list already reflects the County's priorities for improve-
ments as of 1990 and the order of priorities should be referenced
first in deferring projects.
Staff can identify only one project on the list which may be
deleted based on previous Board actions. This is the Millington
Bridge replacemenn project (14). The Board did not endorse this
project with the full design proposed and did not include it in
the initial County priority list of road improvements it adopted
in 1988. The Board reaffirmed its position regarding design last
month. No other projects on the current Six Year Secondary Plan
have been identified by the staff for deletion.
Revenue Sharing: The Virginia Department of Transportation
through Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia, provides
localities the opportunity to participate annually in a Revenue
Sharing Program for roadway improvements. The State will match
up to $500,000 per locality for roadway construction and improve-
ment projects. A number of County road projects are being funded
with revenue sharing money.
In order to draw down the revenue sharing of matching funds, the
County must appropriate an equal amount of money for specific
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
67
road projects. Such appropriations are to be made through the
County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process. County
appropriation of all matching funds mus~ be made for that partic-
ular project in the first year in which revenue sharing funds
will be expended. Revenue sharing funds must be expended by VDoT
on projects in the year the funds are awarded.
The County has participated in this program since 1988, and has
received between $400,000 and $500,000 each year. This year
$435,200 in revenue sharing funds has been awarded to the County.
With the approval of the CIP for 1991-92 to 1995-96, the Board
made available $400,000 in funds to match revenue sharing funds
in FY 1991-92. Thus, to fully match available revenue sharing
funds, the Board will need to add $35,200 to the 1991-96 CIP.
Due to the reduced state funding for the Six Year Secondary Road
Plan, staff would recommend that the Board approve the additional
funds.
Staff has discussed the availability of these funds and the
projects for which the funds should be used with the Resident
Engineer. Staff and VDoT recommend that these funds be used on
the projects listed below:
1. Rt. 660, Bridge replacement project - $360,000
2. Rt. 692, Plant Mix Project - $ 44,450
3. Rt. 729, Plant Mix south of Stone Robinson School - $ 30,750
$435,200
Public Requests/New Projects: As mentioned in the introduction,
it is intended that changes in the plan be made only due to
significant change of circumstance which necessitate a readjust-
ment to funding priorities. There are no new projects recommend-
ed by staff or VDoT for inclusion in the plan at this time.
There have been several requests for road improvements made to
the County by the public or which have arisen as part of site
development proposals. These are listed below:
Improvement of Lambs Road f~om Hydraulic to Greer/Jouett
Schools access road. YDoT comments regarding renovations of
Albemarle High School indicated the need to improve the
design and alignment of this road. A public request was
also made to improve the curve and sight distance just south
of the intersection of Lambs Road and the Greer/Jouett
access road. Staff recommends that a Lambs Road project be
considered for prioritization in next year's review of the
Six Year Plan.
Rt. 615, Paving of a gravel road. A request has been
received by County staff to include a 0.75 mile section of
Rt. 615 as a paving project. All right-of-way has been
dedicated to accommodate the improvement of this project.
The request was signed. Staff recommends this project be
considered under the Boards' policy for hard surfacing roads
during next year's review of the Six Year Plan.
A public request has been received from the Crozet Community
Association to consider improvement to the curve and inter-
section of Rt. 810 at Rt. 789. This project should be
considered for inclusion in the Six Year Plan in next year's
review.
Other Planning Activities~ Development of Priority List of Spot
Improvements: Many of the public requests received by staff for
road improvements are for spot improvements which relate to a
specific site along a road as opposed to whole segments of road
improvement. The public requests noted in Section 4 above are
typical examples of such requests.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
68
While public requests are one important means to determine needed
projects, there may be other locations where spot improvements
are needed, but comments from the public have not been received.
Staff recommends a priority list be established with the assis-
tance of VDoT for spot improvement projects. The County's
Criteria Based Rating System has criteria for evaluating spot
improvements. These should also be reviewed and modified as
necessary.
This list should be done prior to the next Six Year Plan review,
(November 1991 March 1992)."
Mr. Cilimberg said the decisions required by the Board today are to set a
public hearing on the 1991-92 Secondary Road Budget and adoption of a resolu-
tion requesting revenue sharing funds. He added that this report was also
presented to the Commission. The Commission supported staff on the idea of
working from the priority list on identifying projects for deferral, allowing
whatever monies are available to be allocated to the highest priority projects
and deferring projects where funding is not available. The Commission was
concerned that the Meadow Creek Parkway, from the City limits to Rio Road,
should get as much funding as possible.
Mr. Bowerman asked how much funding is currently allocated for the Meadow
Creek Parkway. Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, responded
$700,918. Mr. Bowerman asked if the estimated advertisement date and the
actual construction of a portion of Meadow Creek could be moved up if it was
designed as a four lane facility, but in the beginning constructed as a two
lane facility. He asked if this segment of Meadow Creek could be constructed
earlier. Mr. Roosevelt said the revised date of July, 1997, is due to financ-
ing. It is due as much to financing of the portion in the City as it is to
financing of the County's portion. This project has been discussed with
VDoT's Urban Division which handles the financing for City projects and they
have had to defer the City's portion of Meadow Creek, McIntire Extended, to
the date of July, 1997. He is still working on the premise that they do not
want to build the County's portion of this road until the City's portion can
be built so as to provide the connection to the Route 250 Bypass. VDoT could
certainly finance and construct the County's portion before this July, 1997,
date, but it would have to be done without the City's portion and the only
connection point after leaving Rio Road is Melbourne Road, which is a City
residential street. He does not think it would be a good idea to push ahead
with this road before the city is ready. Mr. Bain asked what is the latest
position of the City. Mr. Roosevelt said he has not talked with the Urban
Division about when the City is going to proceed to the location and design
public hearing which is what has delayed this project and is the next step in
the process. The City has been waiting for a resolution on the Route 29 North
issue so that its action on Meadow Creek does not end up being a resolution to
the Route 29 problem by providing a corridor for Route 29 traffic to come
downtown along the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Bowerman commented that that
decision does not affect the terminus of the County's portion of Meadow Creek.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Commonwealth Transportation Board has to agree on the
location. He does not know if the CTB will take action on the location
without a position from the City, nor does he have any authority or influence
over the CTB. If this Board wants to press ahead with that idea he could
discuss it with YDoT management, but he does not believe the CTB will move
ahead and adopt a location for Meadow Creek in the County without a position
from the City.
Mrs. Humphris asked how this relates to the fact that the City's repre-
sentative on the MPO voted this year to have the City portion of the Meadow
Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to the City limits in the TIP. Mr.
Roosevelt said he does not think there is any question that the City supports
a connection between Route 250 at McIntire and Rio Road, the question is where
is it going to be located. Mrs. Humphris said the County wants the Meadow
Creek Parkway built and to see the estimated advertisement date to suddenly be
deferred for three years brings about a lot of questions. Who made the
decision to defer the advertisement date? Mr. Roosevelt said even if the City
were to pass a resolution indicating its preference on a location and the CTB
were to adopt a location for Meadow Creek and McIntire, there then is the
problem that based on the City's priorities and the money available to the
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
69
City for road improvements, VDoT cannot finance the City's portion until 1997.
If VDoT were to proceed with Meadow Creek earlier than July, 1997, it would
mean tieing the road in at Melbourne Road without the City's portion being
available to accept that traffic. Mr. Bain requested that the Coumty Execu-
tive correspond with the City Manager to find out if the City intemds to f~nd
its section of the Meadow Creek Parkway as originally planmed amd on schedule.
Mr. Bowie said the entire integrity of the CATS Study depends on this
project moving forward and there is no guarantee that in 1997 the project will
not be moved again. Mrs. Humphris said the County cannot be held hostage to
some decision over which it has no control. The County's interest should be
that this road be built.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Board needs to recognize that there are two
separate actions; one is the City taking action on the location and design
hearing, and the other is the funding. They are totally separate issues. The
financial plan that has been worked out means that dates for other projects
will be put off until some future time. The projects on the list that are
ranked lower than the Meadow Creek Parkway will be set off further because
VDoT assumes that Meadow Creek will not be built until 1997. If that project
is moved forward to 1994, $5.0 million in a three-year period will be needed.
Mr. Tucker said that assumes that a four-lane facility would be built and Mr.
Bowerman's question was whether two lanes could be built in the initial phase
which would require less than the $5.0 million. Mr. Roosevelt said currently
the road warrants four lanes. He does not know if VDoT would agree to build a
road with a "D" or "E" level of service.
Mr. Tucker asked if there would be any negative impacts to building the
part of Meadow Creek within the County to Melbourne Road. Mr. Roosevelt said
that would dump a large volume of traffic onto Melbourne Road which is not
designed to carry it. It would also have the potential to dump large volumes
of traffic into the City neighborhoods around Charlottesville High School. It
would also make the intersection of Park Street and Melbourne Road more
congested. Most of the negative aspects would be borne by the City. It would
be an inducement to the City to proceed with its portion of the road, but if
they do not have the money to build the section, the road will not be built
between Melbourne and the Route 250 Bypass. Mr. Bowerman said that is a good
reason to have the Meadow Creek Parkway designated as a primary road.
Mr. Bowie reiterated Mr. Bain's request that the County Executive corre-
spond with the City Manager to find out if the City intends to fund its
section of the Meadow Creek Parkway as originally planned and on schedule. A
three-year delay in the project is not acceptable and the project should
remain in 1994. Mr. Bowie said the Board has carefully kept money for this
project in its budget for eight years and now the project should be built.
Mr. Bain then asked that the staff begin the process of evaluating the Meadow
Creek Parkway for designation as a primary road. In addition, prepare the
information necessary to introduce to the General Assembly to mmke the Meadow
Creek Parkway, along its entire lemgth to Route 29, a private toll road. He
feels the information should be ready to take some action in 90 to 120 days.
Mrs. Humphris asked what the process is for getting the Meadow Creek
Parkway designated a primary road. Mr. Roosevelt said based on criteria this
Board makes a request to the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Mrs. Humphris
said since this Board has made that request informally at least twice recently,
she would suggest that the Board formally make the request. Mr. Bain then
included in the request to staff to find out if the City also needs to ,~ke
the request to hav~ the Meadow Creek Parkway desigmated as a priory road.
Mr. Cilimberg said about a month ago the staff reviewed the criteria for
designating Meadow Creek as a primary road. The staff first found that the
system was set up for designating existing roads. They were able to verify
from the list of criteria for primary roads that five of the nine points
available are applicable to Meadow Creek. Four are based on actual traffic
characteristics. The staff discussed with the County Executive the concern
that if the County immediately tried to get the road in the primary system,
that it may hurt part of the funding for Meadow Creek rather than helping,
because the road is currently in the secondary program. The primary program
is a competitive program district wide and with Route 29 and Route 250 both
being primary projects, as a primary road Meadow Creek would probably not get
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
70
funded until the year 2000 or beyond. The staff feels that the project could
get funding quicker if the project proceeded through this part of the second-
ary system instead of immediately trying to put the road into the primary
system. If there is a road in place, the County may be able to make the best
justification for bringing the second portion and then the whole road into the
primary system. Mr. Bain said that is one of the reasons the county needs
some other means for raising funds, either general obligation bonds or by
havingfic, a private road toll. There is no doubt this road will move the traf-
Mr. Bowie again suggested that the staff get this information back in 60
to 90 days. Mrs. Humphris said the Board does not want to get into a situa-
tion where VDoT, all of a sudden, says the County needs a bypass without the
Meadow Creek Parkway having been built first. Mr. Bowie said he feels that is
exactly what VDoT has said; there is no way this road will ever be built so
the County will get the Route 29 bypass, and this is the first delay to insure
there will be no improvement in traffic. That is just his opinion. Mrs.
Humphris said it is shocking to look at this report and see a three year delay
and not know why.
Mr. Roosevelt said the delay is based on the City financing their sec-
tion. He has not been instructed to delay this project for any hidden reason.
It was delayed simply because the amount of money available for the City's
section and the City's priorities would not allow it to be financed until
1997. Knowing the tenuous nature of this project, to try and build these two
sections any other way than simultaneously will not work. He has been with
VDoT for 15 years and quite honestly the project is no closer to being started
than it was in 1976. No location has been approved. If it gets to a question
of the City versus the County, this project will never move forward. He would
not recommend delaying this project at all if he thought it could go ahead
without the City's approval. Mr. Bowie said, for the record, Mr. Roosevelt is
not the VDoT employee he previously referred to.
Mr. Bain said the staff report references a 16 percent decrease in
funding for secondary roads. Mr. Roosevelt said in the middle of the current
fiscal year, all Department Resident Engineers were advised that the amount of
money that would be available this year was going to be less than what they
had budgeted. Last year this Board approved a budget of $3.1 million. He was
advised in November that the amount available would only be approximately $2.8
million, $344,000 less than what had been anticipated. At than time he was
instructed by VDoT management not to revise the budget, but to wait a while
longer to find out exactly what would happen. When his budget instructions
for the coming year were received, he was informed that it was as bad as
thought but they were going to make it up by reducing the $344,000 along with
whatever can be reduced for the coming fiscal year. This is approximately 30
percent less than what was anticipated when the County developed the Six Year
Plan in March, 1990, and includes a 10.9 percent reduction in 1991 added to
about a 19.9 percent reduction in 1991-92. Again, this is making up two years
of deficits in one year.
Mr. Bain said that not including the Meadow Creek Parkway, some of these
roads are simply not going to get built anytime soon unless funds are raised
by some other means. He thinks the Board needs to look at some alternatives.
The only alternative he sees is identifying certain roads for funding and
holding a bond referendum.
Mr. Perkins said it was stated previously that there was no need for the
Board to look for projects to be deferred or eliminated because the County had
$5.0 million to spend on roads. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not see deferring
projects that are high on the priority list now because there is $4.8 million
available. The County has a $5.0 million balance at the moment, but $660,000
of that is for the McIntire/Meadow Creek Parkway project, $1.7 million is for
Fifth Street Extended, and about $1.8 million is for projects that are cur-
rently under construction. To be as simple as possible, until the Fifth
Street project goes to construction, the County has money in the bank. When
that project goes to construction, all of that balance that has been built up
will be used. From that point on the County will basically have a zero
balance each year and projects are going to have to wait in line until monies
become available.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18) 71L
Mr. Perkins asked about a project identified as "incidental construction
- spot improvement at Crozet School". Mr. Roosevelt said that is to pay fOr
the additional costs of the recently completed spot improvement on Route 810.
This project was originally financed with revenue sharing funds and it was
agreed that any department costs beyond the $100,000 would be covered from the
seCondary budget. The additional Cost is $18,000.
At 10:32 a.m., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at
10:47 a.m.
Referring to the list of unpaved roads, Mr. Way asked what it means to
say a road is currently in the Six Year Plan. It was his impression that some
of the other roadS being discussed were also in the plan. Mr. Roosevelt said
this is the COunty staff's list. This list is the same list that was used in
develoPing the 1990'96 Six Year Highway Plan. The asteriks beside some of the
projects indicate that those roads were in the 1988-94 Six Year Plan. Every-
thing on the list, projects 1 though 15 is in the current Six Year Plan also.
Mr. Cilimberg said for the Board's information, this is the same priority list
adopted by the BOard last year. The staff did not update the list. Mr.
RooseVelt said the actual status of each of the roads is included in his
report to the Board.
Mr. Way asked about Route 737. Mr. Roosevelt said even in the original
financial plan, Route 737 was beyond the current six year period. It is on
the priority list in the six year plan but there is no funding available for
it. '
Mr. Roosevelt said the Code of Virginia states that once each year the
Resident Engineer will meet with the Board and inform it what funds are
available, which is $2,336,000, and then the Board and the Department shall
jointly prepare a list of projects to be carried out in that fiscal year taken
from the six year plan by order of priority and generally following the
policies of the CTB. The Code does not say that the Board has to designate
every project that goes into the list nor that it must designate how much
funding is to go to each project. He has provided the Board a list of recom-
mendations in priority and funding to reach the $2,336,000. The Board must
develop a priority list that it wants funded and then VDoT will decide how
much funding it will apply to each project. Although he knows the Board's
feelings about Route 671, he has included it in his priority list. He cannot
guarantee that some money will not be in the budget for that project, if the
Board decides to remove it from the priority list. If VDoT can resolve the
right-of-way problems, he can guarantee that some money is going to be put on
the project. He hopes that the public hearing can be held on June 12 and
a resolution obtained from the Board at that time.
Mr. Bain asked the bid date for Route 654. Mr. Roosevelt responded the
bid date is currently April, 1992. Money is needed in the plan to allow the
Department to purchase right-of-way and to have 70 percent of the money "in
hand" to advertise the project. Mr. Bowerman asked if the funds allocated for
Greenbrier Drive are planning funds. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department has
built up a $68,000 deficit developing plans to this point. These funds cover
that deficit.
Mr. Bowie asked if there were any objections or changes to the proposed
budget or projects for revenue sharing. There were no comments from the
Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set a
public hearing on the 1991-92 Secondary Improvement Budget for the day meeting
of June 12. 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by l l rs. H~mphris, to adopt the
following resolution requesting highway revenue sharing funds in the a~ount of
$435,200 for Fiscal Year 1991-92:
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
72
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 33.1-75.1, the
Virginia Department of Transportation can provide state funds to match
county fUnds fOr the construction, maintenance or improvement of
primary and secondary highways in the coUnty; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County requests $435,200 from the Primary and
Secondary FUnd Revenue Sharing Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle CoUnty, Virginia, requests the Department of Transportation
participate in matching Revenue Sharing FUnds for FY 1991-92 for the
following projects:
Route 660, bridge replacement project
Route 692, plant mix project
Route 729, plant mix south of Stone Robinson School
$360,000
$ 44,450
$ 30,750
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. 7c. Discussion: Letter dated April 19, 1991, from
Secretary John G. Milliken, Secretary of Transportation, re: Route 29 North
project.
"April 19, 1991
The Honorable F. R. Bowie
Chairman, Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Dear Mr. Bowie:
As you undoubtedly know, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has
voted not to rehear the issue of the location of Route 29 in Albemarle
County. The purpose of this letter is to respond to some of the
comments and written submission by Mr. St. John to the Board at its
February meeting and to your follow-up letter and submission of
February 28, 1991, regarding the Board's decision on the location of
the Route 29 corridor and your position that the ComMonwealth Trans-
portation Board has not complied with the provisions of § 33.1-18 of
the Code of Virginia.
Two issues have been raised. First, that a rehearing of the Common-
wealth Transportation Board's decision is a matter of right under §
33.1-18; and, second, that the Commonwealth Transportation Board has
never held a hearing as required by § 33.1-18.
Regarding the first contention that a rehearing is a matter of right,
I have discussed this issue with the Board's coUnsel, and his reading
of the second paragraph of § 33.1-18 leads him to the conclusion that
the Commonwealth Transportation Board must hear the County's applica-
tion for a rehearing and the opportUnity to file an application is a
matter of right; however, it is within the Commonwealth Transportation
Board's discretion, based on its review of the application, whether an
actual rehearing of the issue shall be held. This position is consis-
tent with the position taken by the Board on the application for a
rehearing filed on the Route 288 location decision in the Richmond
area. The Board has now decided not to rehear the issue.
Regarding the second point that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
has proceeded erroneously in approving the location corridor for this
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
73
project, I must respectfully disagree with your position. I do not
believe it is the intent of§ 33.118 that the Commonwealth Transporta-
tion Board choose a specific location and then hold a public hearing
to substantiate its choice of a particular locatiOn. Rather, I
believe the public hearing process that the Department and the Common-
wealth Transportation Board have used for a number of years is in
accord with the legislative intent. Moreover, the Department of
Transportation and the Commonwealth Transportation Board's interpre-
tation and apPlication of this section of the Code should be giVen
substantial deference. As I am sure Mr. St. John is aware, it is a
known and fixed rule of statutory construction that the interpretation
given to a statute by the officials charged with the duty of admini-
strating the statute is entitled to great weight in determining the
operation of the statute. In addition, the public hearing process
used for this project followed the Federal Highway Administration's
public hearing process for highway projects.
In my opinion, the purpose of § 33.1-18 is to inform the public of
potential location decisions to be made by the Commonwealth Transpor-
tation Board so that these decisions are not made in an arbitrary
fashion without public input. Based on the history of this project
and the public involvement in the process, I believe the Department of
Transportation and the Commonwealth Transportation Board's actions in
approving the location corridor are consistent with the statute. This
same location hearing process has been used for a number of years on
projects in Albemarle County and there has never been any objection
from the County to this process prior to this time.
Under Mr. St. John's rationale, the Commonwealth Transportation Board
would have to hold and attend every public hearing on every road
project within the Commonwealth. Mr. St. John's interpretation would
turn the Commonwealth Transportation Board from a part-time citizen
Board into a full-time Board. Again, I do not believe it was the
legislative intent that the full Commonwealth Transportation Board
hold and attend every public hearing on every road project within the
Commonwealth.
Finally, the first paragraph of § 33.1-18 requires 30 days' written
notice of the Board's proposed action, publication of th~ Board's
proposed action not less than 30 days prior to the Board's action, and
a local hearing, if requested. In reviewing the files on this pro-
ject, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was notified on
June 4, 1990 that the Commonwealth Transportation Board would be
holding public hearings relating to the selection of a corridor for
Route 29, and this same notice was published in the local newspapers.
A location public hearing was held on June 26, 27 and 28, 1990. The
Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the location corridor for
Route 29 on November I5, 1990; therefore, I believe the Transportation
Board has complied w~th the letter and the spirit of § 33.1-18.
In conclusion, I believe the Department of Transportation and the
Commonwealth Transportation Board's process and procedures for the
selection of a Route 29 corridor were in accordance with applicable
law and policy.
This has been a long and difficult process for the community and the
Board. There is obvious disagreement about the wisdom of the Board's
decision. The Board respects the views of the County in this matter,
respectfully disagrees, and believes we now must move forward together
to address the area's transportation needs.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
John G. Milliken"
Mr. Bowie said he thinks this Board should request from Secretary
~illiken, the Commonwealth Transportation Board's counsels written legal
opinion that no rehearing is required. Mrs. Humphris agreed and suggested
that further discussion on this issue be deferred to June 12.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
74
Mr. Bain said he does not think the Board will get the opinion because
the opinion is not actually in writing and he thinks it is a waste of time to
ask for it. It is a legal opinion and he does not think this Board is legally
entitled to receive it. Mr. Bowie said when the Board receives a reply, it
can then move forward. The other Board members concurred.
Agenda Item No. 7d. Request to abandon the public rights in a road
running from Rou~e 717 through the lands of Charles Clinton Morris and Coleman
R. Morris and Sarah L. Smith to State Route 712.
Mr. Bain said someone from his firm is involved in this request and he
would abstain from participation. He then left the room at 11:00 a.m.
This request was brought to the Board in the following letter dated
April 24, 1991, from Mr. Matthew B. Murray:
"We represent the owner of Quiet Entry Farm, Mrs. Jeff Miller Smith.
I am enclosing a letter (following) signed by counsel for Mrs. Smith
and counsel for two adjoining landowners, Charles Clinton Morris and
his wife and Coleman R. Morris. Attached to this letter (on file) are
two copies of USGS topographic maps and a copy of the Albemarle County
tax map.
We would respectfully request that the Board entertain this petition
to abandon any public rights in the existing road reflected on the
attached maps."
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following letter received from the adjoining
property owners:
"The undersigned landowners in Albemarle County hereby jointly peti-
tion the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to abandon any possible
public rights to the use of an old existing road as shown on the
attached (on file) topographic and tax maps traveling from State Route
717 through the lands of Charles Clinton Morris and Coleman R. Morris
and Sarah L. Smith to State Route 712.
There is no credible evidence that this road was ever maintained with
public funds, either as a county road or state secondary road, nor is
there any evidence that this road has been utilized by any person
other than the owners of these properties or their guests since the
1940s.
The parties affected hereby are: Sarah L. Smith, T.M.P. 111-41,
Charles Clinton Morris and Carolyn B. Morris, T.M.P. 111-49 and
Coleman R. Morris, T.M.P. 111-45. '
Respectfully submitted,
(SIGNED)
Matthew B. Murray
Richmond and Fishburne
P. O. Box 559
Charlottesville, VA 22902-0559
Counsel to Sarah L. Smith
John A. Dezio
(SIGNED)
414 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Counsel for Charles Clinton Morris and
Carolyn B. Morris
Robert H. Downer, Jr.
(SIGNED)
Boyle & Bain
P. O. Box 2616
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Counsel for Coleman R. Morris"
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Cilimberg then summarized the following staff report:
"Mr. Matthew B. Murray, representing the property owners whose lands
this right-of-way traverses, has requested that the Board of Supervi-
sors take action to vacate any public rights in an old right-of-way
situated between the Hardware River and Beaver Branch and connecting
Routes 712 and 717. According to Mr. Murrays' research there is no
'evidence that this road has been utilized by any person other than
the owners of these properties or their guests since the 1940s.'
The roadway appears on topographic maps from 1929 and 1935. The USGS
map of 1967 refers to the majority of the road as 'Jeep Trail.' The
access to Quiet Entry Farm near the Alberene Church appears to be in
general alignment of the old road at Route 712. At Route 717, the
road appears to be obscured or gated. 'No trespass' signs are posted
along most property on the wes~ side of Route 717.
To staff's knowledge, all properties with direct access to the old
right-of-way are party to the petition of vacation (as stated earlier,
the road right-of-way appears to have been abandoned to public use
prior to the 1940s). Route 712 and 717 intersect in close proximity
to this old right-of-way.
Staff can determine no property which would be landlocked by right-of-
way vacation; nor any public purpose or convenience by maintaining a
public right-of-way in this area.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors take action to proceed
to public hearing to vacate this old public right-of-way."
Mr. Bowie asked if the applicant had any comments. Mr. Matthew Murray,
representing the trustees for Quiet Entry Farm, said a dispute over the use of
the old road arose between the Morris' and the Smith's and led to this matter
being brought before the Board. As part of the dispute, the Smith's filed a
suit to acquire title to the right-of-way. The suit filed in the County was'
settled by an agreement under which the Morris' and the Smith's agreed to join
in a petition to the Board to abandon the right-of-way. There is no evidence
that this was ever a public road. In order to be a public road, it must first
show a dedication by a landowner and acceptance by a governmental authority.
There is no evidence of either of those. Secondly, the public road must be
shown to be worked by road officials and then used for 20 years by the public.
The road in question fell into disuse in the 1930's when the landowner gated
the road at Route 712 and changed its entrance. From the 1930's to present
day, there has been very little, if any, public use of the road, but once a
public road, always a public road. If it was a public road, it certainly is
no longer. For some reason, about 100 years ago when the County took over the
road, Route 717 was improved and has been used since then as a public road,
but this road was not used or taken into the State Highway System. Repre-
senting the owners of Quiet Entry, he would ask that the Board abandon the
road to public use.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set a public
hearing for July 10 on a request to abandon the public rights in a road
running from Route ?17 through the lands of Charles Clinton Morris and Coleman
R. Morris and Sarah L. Smith to State Route 712. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
NAYs:AYES: None.Messrs' Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
(Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 11:11 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 7e. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bowerman asked that VDoT consider painting temporary lines at the
:rossover on Route 29 North across from the Sheraton Hotel.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
76
Mr. Bowerman requested that the County Executive communicate with the
City about the status of the proposed connection between Hillsdale Drive and
the Seminole Square Shopping Center. He thinks that such a connection could
remove 5000 to 10,000 vehicle trips per day from Route 29 North. The other
Board members concurred with the request.
Mrs. Humphris commented that there is a sign lying down in the divider at
the Route 250 Bypass crossing with Barracks Road.
Agenda Item No. 8. Aspden Preliminary Plat, Discussion of Planning
Commission Action and request for appeal.
Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to decide whether it will hear this
appeal which is based on a wording difference in county ordinances. In the
Subdivision Ordinance, the language for an appeal requires that any written
notice for an appeal must be submitted to the agent for the Board within ten
days of the decision of the Planning Commission. The Ordinance does not state
whether it is calendar or working days. In the Site Development Plan section
of the Zoning Ordinance, the language specifically states ten calendar days.
The applicant did not submit the appeal within ten calendar days, but it was
received with ten working days. The staff has always taken the position that
the language in the Subdivision Ordinance alludes to calendar days. If the
Board concurs with staff that the intent is ten calendar days, then the
applicant has missed the deadline for the appeal. If the Board feel there is
reason to proceed with the appeal because of this technicality, then the
appeal will be scheduled for hearing by the Board at a later date.
Mrs. Humphris asked if this firm has ever misinterpreted the language
previously. Mr. Tucker said he is not sure.
Mr. St. John said he can understand that the Board would not want to sen
a precedent than the stated time limits do not mean anything, but the second
part of Section 18-4 states that "the Board of Supervisors reserves unto
itself the right of final review of any plat .... " If the Board wants to
review this plat then all it has to do is exercise that part of this provision
and it will not have any precedential effect one way or the other on the ten
day limitation.
Mr. Bowie felt the Board should hear the appeal. He also thinks the
Subdivision Ordinance should be clarified.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. H~mphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to grant a
hearing of an appeal of t~e Aspdem Preliminary Plat for June 12 in accordance
with Section 18-4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance. 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. 9. Crozet Recycling Center, Funding Request.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated May 1, 1991:
"A group of volunteers from the Crozet community have started a local
recycling campaign where citizens can bring their recyclable material
to a central area once a month where a private waste hauler will
pick up the material.
The group is coordinating the manpower requirements through volunteers
from various Crozet organizations, citizens and other service groups.
The only costs involved are for the private haulers which are estimat-
ed at $40 per month, or $480 for the year. While the first drop-off
resulted in more recyclables than could be removed in one trip by the
hauler, it is expected that the amount of future material will be
covered in one trip.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
77
As there are no recycling centers in the Crozet area, this material
has generally been going to the landfill with its attendant costs to
the hauler as well as using landfill space. In an effort to encourage
new recycling initiatives, the Board approved a $20,000 fund in
1991-1992 for these types of activities.
If the Board is receptive to providing funding for this program, I
would recommend that you authorize funding up to $240 to support the
Crozet initiative for the first six months of operation. During this
time, the program will be reviewed along with other programs being
considered by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. Based on this
review, further funding may be requested at that time. Finally,
coordination with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) is a
condition of staff's support for this recycling program in Crozet."
Mr. Tucker said he is encouraging all groups to go to the RSWA for
recycling or solid waste efforts. There are going to be times when the County
may have to initiate or fund certain things, but it will be coordinated
with the RSWA.
Mrs. Humphris said she is a strong advocate of recycling, but as she read
the proposal many questions came to mind. Who are these people? Are they
organized? Do they have a name? What about the billing and the bookkeeping?
Who will do the reviewing of what they do? What are the criteria for accept-
ability at the end of the six months? How do they interface with RSWA? Why
is the County getting involved? Mr. Tucker said all of those things would
have to be coordinated with RSWA. RSWA knows what is going on in the City and
the County. They are the appropriate organization to review this center along
with any other initiatives that may be underway. The reason the County is
getting involved is because the City would not be supportive in helping to
fund an item of this nature, just like the County would not be supportive of
funding the Blue Bag proposal that the City has in its recycling effort. The
only way RSWA could support this would be by looking at the current tip fees.
Is the County prepared to have a different tip fee for County residents than
for City residents? That may ultimately be done. There are some larger
issues that will be forthcoming to the Board. One issue is the recycling
center on McIntire Road and the one that CAC3 has at University Hall, whether
or not both the City and County should get involved in helping to fund or
would that be through RSWA. Another issue is a pilot project to have roll-off
bins at the Ivy Landfill for the private haulers to bring in recyclables so
that they can offer to the residents in the County a recycling pickup. Those
things are underway. If that type of activity picks up, there may be little
need for this type of center to continue.
Mrs. Humphris said her only reluctance is getting involved in small items
when larger items are proposed.
Mr. Perkins said this started as a civic project of all of the civic
clubs in and around Crozet. They have had at least two meetings coordinating
their efforts. Each civic group would be responsible for one of the months
when the recycling is done. The first few months the haulers charged nothing
for collections, but when they have collected it they have almost had to pay
to get rid of it. The only thing they make money on is aluminum. They first
month they collected about 9000 pounds. He thinks this is just one small step
and the RSWA should pick it up eventually. It is something to get people
started in recycling and make people aware of recycling.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board needs to realize that if this project is
successful, it will become more expensive to the County so it is important
that something get started at the landfill to deal with recycling these
materials.
Mr. Bain said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is
coordinating a regional task force on recycling, including solid waste. They
plan to hold a public hearing some time in June. They anticipate providing
the Board with a report by the end of May. Mr. Tucker said a hearing has been
tentatively scheduled on the regional solid waste management plan on June 5.
It is an opportunity for this Board and the public to make comments. He
commented that recyclableS are not paying for themselves and it is going to be
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
78
a difficult situation even though there are State mandates regarding this
matter. This will continually be a difficult problem and the Board will have
to decide on its importance, and whether to provide funding or defer it all to
RSWA. If these efforts are successful, it may avoid RSWA having a major
capital expense.
Mrs. Humphris said an education program is lacking. The haulers do not
even understand the situation.
Mr. Bowie said it does not make sense that tipping fees must be raised
for recyclable material; they should be lowered. Mr. Bain said the reason is
that there are operational costs. Sixty-seven percent of the fee is to meet
mandates. Mr. Bowie said he thinks tha~ every time material going into the
landfill is reduced that extends the life of the landfill, so it should reduce
operating costs. It must be to the County's advantage and it must cost less
even if someone has to be paid to haul it away. Mr. Tucker said the key is
paying someone to haul the materials away. Mr. Tucker said because there is
no market for recyclables, the county has to pay to get the material hauled
away. It still does not pay for itself.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. H~mphris, to
authorize f~nding of up to $240 for the Crozet recycling center and to request
an update on the operation in six months. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item No. 10. FY 1991-92 Partial Year Budget Appropriations
Discussion. ·
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated May 1, 1991:
"In response to a request from the Board at its April 17 meeting,
staff has looked at the feasibility of a bi-annual or a partial
appropriation of the adopted budget, and after reviewing the implica-
tions of such a change, feels that this approach to fiscal or program
control is not an effective management tool. Rather than helping the
county to more efficiently monitor and evaluate programs and spending,
it would create significant problems for the County's budgeting and
financial management system and would reduce the efficiency of depart-
ments, the School Division, and particularly the Department of Finance.
For the reasons cited below, staff recommends against partially
appropriating the FY 1991-92 operating budget:
o The County has contractual obligations for the fiscal year that
require a commitment of funds through an official appropriation
ordinance. Teacher contracts, lease purchase agreements, insu-
rance contracts, debt service, and other contracts, such as the
City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement and the City fire contract,
cannot be entered into unless backed by appropriated funds.
Purchase orders for capital equipment such as school buses,
police vehicles, etc., require appropriated funds before pur-
chases can be ordered or encumbered.
Community agencies have contractual obligations for the fiscal
year that depend on the commitment of County funds. They also
must contract for personnel, pay vendors and sign insurance
contracts and leases based on an approved annual budget. More
importantly, many of these agencies, such as Region Ten and the
Health Department, need a firm commitment of County funds in
order to draw down matching state and federal grants for the
upcoming fiscal year. A six-month appropriation of funds would
not insure this commitment and would create needless apprehension
and uncertainty among community programs.
County departments and the school division could not take advan-
tage of volume discounts or price breaks, if they occurred in the
first half of the year before full funding was available. Funds
cannot be encumbered unless the funds are backed by an official
appropriation.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
79
Outside of contractual and committed funds, there is very little
discretionary money. The following is a breakdown of the FY
90-91 budgeted expenditures:
1. Salaries
2. Fringes
3. Contracted services
4. Outside services
5. Utilities, travel, contributions
6. Office supplies, vehicle costs, etc.
7. Joint operations
40,140,706 54.83%
10,655,291 14.55%
2,033,943 2.78%
128,247 0.18%
10,330,927 14.11%
3,013,595 4.12%
4,286,641 5.86%
2,6_.~.~18362 3.58%
$73,207,712 100.00%
~ital
Total
Looking at No. 5, over 50 percent of the 14.11 percent allocated
for utilities, etc., is committed to outside agencies and revenue
sharing; over 30 percent is committed to obligated expenditures,
such as insurance, utilities, refunds and mandated local costs of
social service programs. Combining the remaining 20 percent or
approximately $2.0 million with $3.0 million in office supplies,
etc., (No. 6) provides only $5.0 million in discretionary funds.
Holding back six months of these discretionary funds would free
up $2.5 million or less than 3.5 percent of the total budget.
The automated Financial Management System (FMS) is currently used
by departments and the County Executive's office to monitor
monthly and year-to-date expenditures and encumbrances relative
to the total annual budget. Since program managers and depart-
ment heads review their budgets by analyzing percentages and
remaining balances based on the fiscal year, reducing the budge-
ted or appropriated amount on the FMS system will not only be
confusing to department heads, but will reduce the benefit of
long term fiscal planning.
Revising all the adopted budget numbers that have been entered
into the computer system over the past three months will require
an enormous amount of staff time for very little benefit. Since
there is no computer program in place to automatically calculate
the reduction, each line item (over 2000) must either be manually
entered prior to being downloaded into the FMS system or Data
Processing staff will need to spend additional time writing a
program to effect the change. This seems to be an inefficient
use of staff time for minimal benefit.
Aside from practical reasons, this funding restriction may have a
negative effect on departments and community agencies that is
unintended by the Board. As previously mentioned, community
agen6ies, having gone through the rigors of the budget process,
may feel undercut by the new uncertainty of their fiscal year
funding. Departments that have consistently underspent their
budgets each year through careful management may interpret a hold
back on the annual appropriation as an implicit lack of confi-
dence in their ability to manage their budgets, particularly
departments that have already made significant reductions to
bring in a bottom line way below the four percent allocation set
by the Board.
It is understandable in a time of dwindling resources and increasing
demands from departments, schools and agencies that the Board feels a
need for more program monitoring and evaluation during the year, not
just during the budget when time is limited. However, restricting or
reducing the appropriation does not address this problem. If effec-
tive fiscal management and more intensive program evaluation is the
goal, then there are alternative ways to effect this change without
disrupting the financial management process and creating a climate of
confusion and fiscal uncertainty.
Staff suggests that the following changes may address this need:
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
80
Begin to investigate and develop a stronger program evaluation
component in the budget process that will not only help the
County Executive's office to review budgets, but will help
departments to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of their
own programs. Such a program would include the development of
more clearly defined evaluation procedures and program measures
for service delivery in County departments, as well as outside
agencies. As it is developed, this type of program information
can be used to supplement current financial reports that are
distributed to the Board.
With the new, approved position in the County Executive's office,
staff can begin to explore the feasibility of an expanded program
evaluation component. If better fiscal and program management
are the ultimate goals, this is a more direct and long term
approach to the problem.
Request that the Board provide direction to staff on specific
areas of concern in fiscal management or program implementation.
If problem areas are identified early in the fiscal year, staff
can concentrate their efforts on those specific areas of concern
and provide a more in depth evaluation to the Board.
Fully appropriate the FY 91-92 adopted budget, but have the
County Executive direct departments and agencies at the beginning
of the fiscal year to hold back a five percent reserve on spend-
ing due to the uncertainty of the economic climate and a possible
revenue shortfall. This action should encourage departments and
agencies early on in the funding cycle to closely monitor their
expenditures in light of a possible funding reduction at the end
of the year."
Mrs. Humphris suggested that the Board consider the suggestions outlined
in the memorandum, especially the stronger program evaluation component and
asking departments to hold back five percent from their budgets at the begin-
ning of the fiscal year. She thinks the document is well written.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks that if there are areas of concern, the Board
should make the County Executive aware of those concerns. For example, he is
concerned about the CA-TEC budget.
Mr. Perkins asked if the School Division will also be requested to hold
back five percent. Mr. Tucker replied "yes". He recommends that the entire
budgeted appropriation be made, but he will contact Dr. Paskel, as well as
every other agency and department head and ask them to hold back the five
percent. Quite frankly, the schools have already done this, administration
has asked the various schools, etc., to hold back a percentage until the last
quarter of the fiscal year.
There was no further discussion
Agenda Item No. 11. Request for Appropriation of Grant Funds: Title II
Infusion of Literature into Science Curriculum. '
Mr. Tucker said that the School Division has received federal funding for
a grant to support the elementary science curriculum through purchase of
children's books. The $13,660 grant will enable the division to purchase
books and train teachers to integrate their use into the science curriculum.
The School Board approved this addition to the FY 1991-92 budget for the
Literature/Science project and requests the Board to amend its current budget
to receive and disburse the funds accordingly.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
an appropriation for the School DiVision in the amount of $13,660 received
from a federal grant to support the elementary science curriculum.
Mr. Way said he has a problem with this request. He is concerned because
of the $13,660 grant, $7000 is being spent administratively and only one-half
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28) 81
of the amount is being used to purchase books. There is no information on the
kinds of material that will be used. He will not support the request. He
cannot support this continued business of throwing things into the classroom
without having all of the information. He thinks it is absurd to spend
one-half of the grant to determine what books will be used.
Mr. Perkins agreed with Mr. Way and added that he would think the teach-
ers would be trained to use this material and not have to spend one-half the
grant to get trained. It would be more worthwhile to spend all of the money
on the materials.
Mr. Way said he has no problem with additional materials being purchased
to assist in the curriculum and thinks it is an excellen~ idea, but proper
information has not been provided to the Board.
Mr. Bain did not understand the problem. It seems that the Board keeps
beating and attacking the School Division for everything they do. He does not
have a problem with spending money on training teachers. This is for six
teachers getting the materials out and conducting a workshop and these tea-
chers may not know anything about what they are to do.
Mr. Bowie said in 1987, the Board provided for an 18.9 percent pay raise
for teachers to implement the Career Ladder Program. The theory was that at
the top of the Career Ladder, the professional teachers, master teachers and
guidance teachers were going to take on these extra activities. Why is the
County paying 13 teachers just to read the material and why is the County
paying six teachers extra money when that is the reason they get the stipend
during the year? That is the information that should be provided to the
Board.
Mrs. Humphris said the reason she supports the request without having any
additional information is because each Board member appointed a School Board
member and she considers them to be responsible. For example, she thinks that
if her appointee to the School Board had a problem with this request, he would
have informed her. If her interpretation of the request to integrate child-
ren's books into a science curriculum, to get children to read books that
relate to science is correct, she perceives that as a good idea, because she
does not think that the children are exposed to science in a way that makes it
interesting to them. If she were a teacher responsible for doing this then
she would need some training to help in learning to choose the books and
implementing the new idea. She depends on the School Board to forward this
type of request to this Board with confidence. She has not heard a negative
word about it and is comfortable with her motion.
Mr. Bowie suggested that Dr. John English, Acting Superintendent, be
present when the Board reconvenes after lunch to answer questions. The other
Board members agreed. There was no roll call on the motion at this time.
Agenda Item No. 12. Job Description Approval, Police Department.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated April 29, 1991:
,,Atj ~ ,
nacnea (on file) for your approval are the position descriptions
for the newly funded Police Department positions of Property Clerk and
Administrative Services Division Commander effective July 1, 1991.
You will recall that these positions will be filled by civilians and
will allow the officers currently filling these positions to return to
the field.
Position descriptions (P.D.) are a management tool that are an inter-
nal part of our Personnel Management practices for the County. They
define the typical tasks, knowledge, skills, abilities, education and
experience required of employees. The description is used not only
for pay classification but is the basis for the annual performance
appraisal/merit review each May. Because the requirements of a
particular position can change as the result of market forces (such as
technology changes), internal restructuring, or realignment of tasks,
there is a need to be responsive to these situations and make adjust-
ments to P.D.'s on an as-occurring basis. Past practice has been to
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
82
do these reviews every three years in conjunction with the Pay and
Classification Study. As Albemarle County now has the ability to do
classification reviews internally, I envision more frequent changes,
typically an annual review each fall and a verification prior to
advertising vacant positions.
In view of the dynamic nature of potential changes and since these are
primarily administranive in nature, I suggest allowing the County
Executive to approve necessary changes in Position Descriptions. I
will keep you informed of significant position changes as they occur."
Motion was offered by Mrs. H~mphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the
job descriptions for a Property Clerk amd Administrative Services Division
Co--rider, effective July 1, 1991, in the Police Department and to authorize
the County Executive to approve necessary chamges in position descriptions in
the future. 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. 13. Medical Insurance for Early Retiree, Approval of.
Mr. Tucker said on April 23, 1991, the School Board approved medical
insurance benefits to those retiring school employees who are between the ages
of 62 and 65. The 5enefit provides for a $1026 payment toward medical insur-
ance for those early retirees. Local government has only one employee who
would benefit from this type of proposal should it be adopted. This payment
would be only for one year for this employee and would be offset by the
savings in salary in future years. In order to maintain commonality with
school employee benefits, staff recommends Board approval of this payment.
Mrs. Humphris asked if in future years the benefit would be for more
people. Mr. Tucker responded "no", this is a one-time request. The employees
who are retiring this year at an age earlier than 62 are not being provided
with this benefit. There will be no employees in General Government in this
program next year, although there will be some from the School Division.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
payment of $1026 for one year towards medical insurance for am employee,
betweem the ages of 62 and 65, retiring under the Governor's State Early
Retirement Plan. 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. 14. Employee Safety Policy, Approval of.
Mr. Tucker presented an Employee Safety Policy developed by a joint
General Government and School Division staff safety committee. The draft
policy stresses on-the-job safety and will become the basis for a detailed
procedural manual which will guide employee safety issues in the future.
Based upon this policy, staff will expand its training for supervisors and
employees as it relates to employee safety which will hopefully result in a
reduction of on-the-job accidents and premiums paid for workman's compensa-
tion. The County currently has a good safety record, but this policy and the
procedural manual will provide the County with a comprehensive, integrated
safety program. The staff recommends approval of the draft policy.
Mrs. Humphris referred to the second asterik, following the fifth para-
graph which reads: "The County shall provide the necessary funds to implement
health and safety programs," and asked what that obligates the Board to do.
Mr. Tucker said if any additional programs were considered, they would be
required to go through the budget review process. The staff does not current-
ly have any programs scheduled or proposed. Mrs. Humphris was not comfortable
with-the wording. The word "shall" indicates that it is already approved.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
83
Mr. Tucker suggested changing the word "shall" to "may" to add some flexi-
bility. The reason for "shall" is because the County shall provide the funds
in lieu of the individual providing those funds. Mr. Bowie suggested deleting
the sentence and replacing it with the following: "Request for funds to
implement health and safety programs will be considered in normal budgetary
process". Mrs. Humphris agreed.
Mr. Perkins suggested that the paragraph preceding the asteriks be
changed to read: "To fulfill these goals, the County may" instead of "shall".
Mr. Tucker said the purpose is to make a positive statement, that a safety
policy is important and that the County will do everything that it can to
reduce health and safety risks. Mrs. Humphris said if the document is struc-
tured so that it states that the County "shall" and for some reason that is
not done exactly, would the County then be held responsible for not doing it
Mr. St. John said he does not think so. '
Mr. Bowerman asked if there are any insurance implications to adopting
this policy. Mr. Tucker said he does not know, but there may in the future.
Mrs. Humphris asked the meaning of the statement in the second paragraph,
under Environmental Considerations which reads: "It will cooperate fully with
federal, state and local efforts to clean up hazards (dump sites) when it was
directly involved in such practices before the present concerns became known."
Does this mean that the Board may find that the County was involved in such
practices before the dangers of hazardous waste became known? She does not
think that the County should not cooperate, but is wondering why that is
included in the policy. Mr. Tucker was not aware of any hazardous waste or
dump sites that the County is involved in. The Board may want to look at the
entire paragraph. This policy was drafted when there were employees at the
Keene Landfill. He thinks the statement is to cover those employees with
regard to federal and environmental regulations. Mr. Bowie suggested deleting
the entire second paragraph. He does not know whether the policy should
reference something that may have happened years ago. Mr. St. John believes
that this language does not mean that the County has present concerns. He
suggested the language could be amended to include "... directly involved
before such hazards became known ..." He does not believe this is referring
to any existing concerns, but is an after-the-fact discovery of something that
is now known to be a hazard. This language is included in federal guidelines.
Mr. Tucker said this language came from other federal and state publications
that are similar. Mr. St. John then suggested rewording to "... the practices
before such hazards became known." Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the entire
phrasein is,,difficult. She suggests ending the sentence after. "... directly
volved. It does not matter whether the County was directly involved know-
ingly or unknowingly. Mr. Bain suggested studying the language to see if
there is a reason for its inclusion.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Safety Coordinator is a new position. Mr.
Tucker replied "no", the position was held by Mr. Brandenburger prior to his
becoming the Assistant County Executive. This position is currently filled by
Mr. John Baker.
Mr. Perkins said he works for a corporation in which safety is undoubted-
ly its number one concern and any meeting that they have begins with safety.
He has seen in the past this safety coordinator position used as a dumping
ground to find a job for somebody and he does not want to see it used that way
in the County. He agrees that there is a need for someone to coordinate the
program. The way this is set up where he works, the person who had the last
accident is in charge of safety. It would be set up on a department-wide
basis that each department has a person who is designated as its safety
coordinator and will take information and disburse it to the employees in that
department. Mr. Tucker said that is done. This position is the individual in
the Personnel Department who coordinates with both general government and
ments.SCh°°ls' In addition, there is a contact person in the individual depart-
Mr. Bain suggested deferring action on the policy until June 5. The
)ther Board members concurred.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
84
Not Docketed: At this time Mr. Bain stated that he had read the minutes
of February 20, 1991, pages 1-10 (#8), and March 13, 1991, pages 17-26 (#19)
and found them all to be in order. He then offered motion to approve the
minutes as read. Mr. Way 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: None.
At the request of Mr. St. John, the Board again discussed Item 5.3
(Request from Frederick County Board of Supervisors for resolution of support
to repeal of the Dillon Rule) from the consent agenda. Mrs. Humphris sugges-
ted changing the word "repeal" in the fourth paragraph to "abolish", to read:
"... strongly encourage the leadership of the Commonwealth of Virginia to
abolish the Dillon Rule in order to allow all of Virginia's localities to
become more independent and fiscally responsible". Mr. Perkins did not like
the wording "fiscally ' "
responsible . He thinks that all localities should,
regardless of what kind of rules they operate under, be fiscally responsible.
Those words have nothing to do with the Dillon Rule. Mr. Bowie suggested
changing the wording to "fiscally independent". All Board memlbers agreed with
the proposed ch~anges and agreed to forward the following resolution to the
Governor and localmembers of the General Assembly:
WHEREAS, Governor L. Douglas Wilder recently announced that
serious consideration should be given to relaxing the Dillon Rule as
it relates to local government; and
WHEREAS, it has been the desire of Virginia's counties to become
more self-sufficient and independent; and
WHEREAS, with declining revenues from the Commonwealth, locali-
ties are finding it exceedingly difficult to manage their fiscal
priorities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby strongly encourage the leader-
ship of the Commonwealth of Virginia to abolish the Dillon Rule in
order to allow all of Virginia's localities to become more fiscally
independent.
Agenda Item No. 15. Proclamation: Police Week. The Chairman presented
a proclamation to the Police Department declaring the week of May 12 through
May 20 as National Police Memorial Week and called upon all citizens to
recognize the significant efforts and accomplishments of the police officers.
Agenda Item No. 16. Recess for lunch. At 12:17 p.m., the Board recessed
for lunch. The Board reconvened at 1:35 p.m., with all members present.
Agenda Item No. 17. County Office Building Master Plan, Presentation of.
Mr. Tucker said an Executive Summary of the needs assessment phase of the
Master Plan for the Albemarle County office building on McIntire Road has been
provided to the Board. This proposal, while schematic in design, does provide
for a campus-like complex which will accommodate the space needs (building and
parking) over the next 20 years. Phase I of the Master Plan calls for the
construction of a 35,000 square loon building in FY 1993-94. Staff is explor-
ing various financing mechanisms to fund such a building, but prior to pro-
ceeding any further in the Master Plan process, staff will provide the Board a
status report and ask for guidance. Mr. Kirk Train, the architect for the
project, is present to make a brief presentation.
Mr. Train said when they first began the study, they assessed the current
levels of the existing building and then assessed the future pro-
ected staff into the year 1998. They found that the present facility is
:everely overcrowded. The present building population of 423 will rise to 522
the year 1998. At present, the people occupy space on a ratio of 180
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
85
square feet net or 261 square feet gross. Standards for office space are 250
and 315 respectively. There is currently a deficiency of approximately 30,000
square feet in the building. The projected staff over the remainder of the
decade would add another 30,000 square feet. The building is currently
inefficient. For a regular office building there would be an 80 to 85 percent
efficient building. This building has about a 65 percent efficiency. Mr.
Bowerman asked how"e~=°~zlczen' cy" is defined. Mr. Train said that is defined by
the ratio of nee space to gross space. Gross space is the entire area of the
building, including walls, bathrooms, hallways, auditorium, etc.
is usable space in the building and after deductin= fr~m +~ ..... The net.~rea
o ~,,, ~,,= 8ross area, the
unusable space is what's left after deducting certain major strucnural items
that are non-movable. Habitable or usable spaces are considered in the net
area. The 250 allows the person generally their office or desk area, and
supplies them with circulation immediate to them, bathrooms, etc.
Mr. Train said a survey of the existing building was conducted to ascer-
tain the area needed. The additions which may be obtained from the existing
building are in six separate sites, totaling approximately 38,000 square feet
gross. Taking the assumption to not architecturally alter the image of the
building, i.e., add to the front of the building or to its size to disfigure
its existing character, then additions would be on the rear of the building
which is already a constricted area. Additions to buildings are expensive.
His firm ran a detailed cost analysis of adding on 38,000 square feet and
found that it would cost about $4.7 million which is about 50 percent more
than a free-standing annex. This site (12 1/2 acres) has the capacity to
essentially double the present space area. There is about 120,000 gross
square feet on-site. Mr. Bain asked if that included any traffic reduction
strategies. Mr. Train responded "no", nor any attempts to reduce Code re-
quirements from the City of Charlottesville. The attempt is to maintain the
existing parking relationships to this building.
Mr. Train said after analyzing the two options, i.e., additions to the
current building, or constructing a free-standing building, the Master Plan
proposes a free-standing structure as a more flexible long-range movement
because it provides the ability to add on as the need arises and allows for
less expensive and less interruptive construction.
Mr. Bain asked where the free-standing structure would be built. Mr.
Train said the first building would be the one closest to the north wing of
the existing building, just above the parking lot. He would recommend that
the existing building not be added onto because of the extreme disruption it
would cause. There is the capacity to move on-site at a lower expense rela-
tive to adding on to the building. '
Mr. Tucker said provisions have been made for the main roadway entrance
to the building. If and when the Meadow Creek Parkway is extended and improve-
ments made to McIntire Road, it will necessitate'closing of the current main
entrance. The main entrance would then be the first entrance into the employ-
ee parking lot which will be turned into a cul-de-sac. Mr. Train said the
first phase of construction would not include the parking lot. The parking
lot beside the north wing would be left alone. When the Meadow Creek Parkway
is built and the lower existing public entry is lost, a cul-de-sac is the way
to solve emergency vehicle service to the building.
Mr. Tucker said different financing strategies are being studied. One
area is that the federal and state agencies, and the Albemarle County Service
Authority which currently pay rent in this building, would move to the new
building and that rent would help pay the debt service on the new structure.
Mr. Train commented that if the Meadow Creek Parkway is not built, the
configuration of the public entrance can essentially be maintained. When
Meadow Creek is built it puts a lot of pressure on moving circulation to the
back of the site in order to get proper stacking distances to the road.
Mr. Perkins asked if the parking arrangements includes building a parking
deck. Mr. Train said it includes one level decks, where it can be entered on
the high side and also under the other side. The decking would not be required
until the third phase which is proposed in the year 2010.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
86
Mr. Tucker said this report is presented to the Board for information
today. No action is requested, but the staff would welcome any comments from
the Board.
Mr. Bowie asked if the 250 square feet net per person includes copy and
office machines. Mr. Train responded "yes", the square footage includes
pertinent units.
Mr. Tucker said when this building was being renovated, the architects
indicated that it would provide for space needs through the year 1987. That
is another reason there is the crunch in space.
Mr. Perkins looked at the design prepared by the architect and asked if
it makes any difference how far the buildings are separated from one another.
He asked if departments that interact could be in separate buildings and still
remain functional. Mr. Tucker said the next phase that the architect will
look at is the actual programming of those offices that would work more
efficiently outside of this building. For example, the Schools Media Center,
could be moved to another location.
Mr. Bain said he is serious about traffic reduction strategies and is
concerned about all of the extra parking. He suggested that some incentive
for carpooling be provided. Mr. Train said there are in excess of 400 cars on
site, almost 100 of these are pool cars. There are about 400 employees in the
building. To some degree there is already some carpooling done. Mr. Bowie
agreed with Mr. Bain. If the County is going to do something there is no
reason to not at least give out carpool stickers so a person could park closer
to the building. Mrs. Humphris said some incentives can be simple, but they
must be planned. Mr. Bowie said he likes the ultimate goal of the campus-like
atmosphere in which the citizen would be able to park his car and walk to
.whichever agency/department is needed. Mr. Bain said although the planning is
not that close, this would be the ideal occasion for a bond referendum.
Mr. Bowerman asked what is next. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Train will start
with the next phase in programming and looking at various things such as
other spaces where some of these departments could be shifted and traffic
reduction strategies. Staff will also continue with the issue of financing.
His approach would be to try to finance the project without going to the
referendum. If some funding were set aside next year, a bond referendum would
need to be on the ballot for the 1992-93 budget year.
Mrs. Humphris asked how long it will take to make a decision about moving
the various agencies. Mr. Tucker said it will take some time. It would be
pushing staff hard to try to do this for this November's ballot. There is not
enough information to know how much money would be needed. Mr. Bowie said one
consideration is that the agencies that are currently in the building are not
required to be on this site. Mr. Tucker said that may be correct, but some of
the agencies the County is obligated by State law to provide with space, such
as the VPI-SU Cooperative Extension Agent. If they move somewhere else the
County will have to pay rent on that facility. Mrs. Humphris said the Board
should also consider service to the citizens. The Connsy is to provide public
service and the best thing to do is to provide it all in one place if at all
possible.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to know what happens to the costs involved
and the effect on services of moving these non-departmental agencies out of
the building. Mr. Tucker said that is a viable alternative and staff will
discuss it.
Mr. Train said the Master Plan holds up irregardless of when the County
decides to expand. This is how the site can be used.
Mr. Tucker said the main purpose for getting a Master Plan is to know the
need for additional space in the future.
There was no further discussion on this item.
Agenda Item No. 18. Clean Water Week: Slide Presentation.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Peyton Robertson, Watershed Management Official, presented a slide
presentation on the County's efforts to protect its water supplies, a water-
shed tour, looking at problems, and ongoing solutions and citizens efforts.
Mr. Robertson said the County is blessed with plentiful water resources.
The actions by the Board in the past to protect the South For Rivanna water-
shed have resulted in a safe and adequate supply of water for the citizens of
the County and City of Charlottesville. There are other issues that can
impact water quality as the County continues to grow. He then acknowledged
National Drinking Water Week, May 5 through May 12, 1991 for which the Chair-
man has signed a proclamation. '
Mrs. Humphris asked what is the ongoing procedure for checking on and
measuring eutrophication and sedimentation in the South Fork Rivanna River
Reservoir. Mr. Robertson said the Clean Lakes Grant, Which was awarded to the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority several years ago to implement Best Manage-
ment Pracnices throughout the watershed included money for ongoing reservoir
monitoring. That has been conducted the past two summers. He has not con-
firmed whether it will be done this summer. He has not done a comparative
analysis of the data from the monitoring. The data is there for measuring
phosphates, nitrates, dissolved oxygen, etc. He has done some rough calcu-
lations which seem to indicate that in a general sense, the reservoir is
holding its own. Mrs. Humphris asked what is happening with the sedimentation
situation. Mr. Robertson said besides the work that was done for the Route 29
analysis, there have not been any bathymetric studies done since then. It is
in the RWSA plans to institute a bathymetic study for comparative purposes
with the work that has gone before and evaluate the fact that the
sedimentation rate in the reservoir is on target with what earlier studies
have shown.
There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 19. Best Management Practices Manual Advisory Committee,
Report.
Mr. Peyton Robertson, Watershed Official, said in a work session on the
proposed Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance on January 9, 1991, the
Board identified concerns relating to the reference of a "Best Management
Practices for Water Resources Protection Manual." Because this manual had not
been developed, further consideration of the Water Resource Protection Areas
Ordinance was postponed until a definitive reference could be developed. The
task of identifying a manual to be used in evaluating buffer area reductions
under the proposed ordinance was given to the Best Management Practices Manual
Advisory Committee. This committee held two meetings; the first meeting
focused on a manual to be used in the evaluation of buffer area reductions for
agriculture and the second meeting focused on the methodology to be used in
evaluating reduction of the buffer area for development scenarios. In addi-
tion, calculation procedures to determine buffer area equivalency were dis-
cussed. The Committee's endorsement of this calculation procedure included a
Provision that a default value for average land cover conditions in the County
be determined.
Mr. Robernson said the Advisory Committee recommended that the buffer
area reductions under the proposed Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance
be made in accordance with the Virginia Water Control Board Best Management
Practices for Agriculture Handbook and in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay
Local Assistance Manual Guidance Calculation Procedure for development.
Reference to these documents has been incorporated into the revised draft of
the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance.
In noting that all of the recommendations of the Committee were unani-
mous, Mr. Way asked if most of the Committee members were present. Mr.
Robertson replied "yes". Also, these were recommendations for referencing
these documents in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Samuel Austin, from the
Department of Forestry, was not present for either meeting, but forestry is
exempted from the ordinance.
Mr. Bowie said he received a comment from a citizen concerning the
proposed language in Section 10 - Appeals. That section provides for an
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35) 88
appeal in much the same way as a person appeals a decision of the Planning
Commission. The appeal can be made within ten calendar days to the Clerk for
review by this Board. The suggestion was that there be some other method of
appeal, maybe a committee with more technical knowledge. The committee could
consist of a person from agriculture, one from staff and one mutually agreed
upon. As a Board member, he can only provide his interpretation of the
ordinance. He is not sure whether the Board should be the one to hear a
dispute over anything other than the wording of the ordinance. Mr. Robertson
said with regard to agriculture, agricultural buffer area reductions and
conservation plans, all of the agricultural components are subject to review
by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District Board. It is
their opinion as to whether the buffer area reductions meet equivalency so
basically the local government involvement is nil in those situations until
there is an appeal. He is non aware of any other appeals process. Mr. Bowie
again asked what other appeals are available when the appeal is on the deter-
mination of the ordinance. Mr. Robertson said the intent of Section 10 was to
apply to appeals dealing with application of the ordinance in the case of a
non-buildable lot or various development scenarios. The agricultural buffer
"aarear' requirements~. ~in the way the administrative structure is set up for
g lcu±nura± buffer compliance" is tied to the existing agricultural agencies
as far as the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District is con-
cerned. The language can be quantified if that is the Board's desire.
Mr. St. John commented that enabling legislation for the proposed ordi-
nance contains a provision than the appeal is to be to the Board of Supervi-
sors. He believes it has to be done this way in accordance with the State
Code. Even so, Mr. Bowie asked that his request be considered. Mrs. Humphris
agreed that there is a need for some input from someone with expertise. Mr.
Tucker asked if the Board would be allowed to appoint an interim technical
committee to deal with appeals. Mr. St. John responded "yes", the Board can
use any resource it wants. Mrs. Humphris said the Board may want to do than
on a case-by-case basis so that the appropriate people can be picked when
needed.
Mr. Bowie said another issue mentioned to him is that the ordinance
provides for a buffer of not less than 25 feet. There is no provision in the
ordinance for anything less than a 25 foot buffer which is the minimum. If
there are 20 feet next to a stream where the 20 feet is actually higher than
any of the surrounding land on the crop side, unless there is a flood, there
is no way the water from the field can get to the stream. Why would the
property owner be required to have another five feet? When can common sense
be used? This property owner does not need 25 feet. Mr. Robertson said from
an administrative point of view the policy becomes difficult to administer if
there is not some standard by which to measure. The 25 feet was at the
agreement of the Virginia Farm Bureau. He can look into revising the lang-
uage. Mr. Bowie said he would like his two concerns addressed, if the Board
agrees to hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Perkins said in Section 8 General Provisions, the language refers
to a "buffer area less than 50 feet in width and appropriate BMP's located
landward of the buffer area" and continues to say that "if it is the equiva-
lent of the 100 foot buffer area it may be employed in lieu of the 100 foot
buffer". He asked how that evaluation is made. How can 50 feet be as effec-
tive as 100 feet? Mr. Robertson said that was basically agreed to in terms of
the guidance calculations procedures. It is a matter of looking at the types
of BMP's which achieve some pollutant removal which is the equivalent of what
would occur with a 100 foot buffer. It is not an exact science, but it is
basically a pollutant removal efficiency for a BMP.
Mr. Perkins said there are a couple of references to silvicultural
activities, one discusses trimming trees and removal of dead, diseased or
dying trees, silvicultural thinnings, etc., and then on page 10 reference is
made to silvicultural activities which are exempt. He asked the distinction.
Mr. Robertson said the distinction is essentially commercial forestry opera-
tions vs. the general performance criteria applying to the buffer as it exists
on a parcel of land; a commercial operation with active forestry is exempt as
a silvicultural operation. The general performance criteria is intended to be
similar to that in the Scenic Streams Overlay of the Zoning Ordinance which
restricts cutting of trees of a given size in the immediate buffer area of the
stream.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Perkins said the language states that "... as long as BMPs are
adhered to." He asked who makes that interpretation. Mr. Robertson said this
language is from the state model relative to silvicultural activities being
exempted as long as they comply with BMP's of the Virginia Department of
Forestry; there is a voluntary program within the Department of Forestry for
implementing BMP's and that voluntary program is in effect unless proven
otherwise. Mr. Bowie asked who makes the determination that someone is not in
compliance. Mr. Robertson responded that that is the responsibility of the
local forester.
Mr. Perkins said he has been asked questions about fencing streams and he
sees no reference to that in the ordinance. He asked if there must be a fence
in order to establish the buffer for a pastureland. Mr Robertson replied
Ilnotl. *
Mr. Bowie said there are a lot of other regulations that apply. There
are other agencies that actually go out and make inspections. The Department
of Forestry is mentioned, but other programs are not mentioned. He asked if a
paragraph could be added listing those other agencies which are involved in
the ordinance.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerm~u, to
set a public hearing for June 19 on a Water Resource Protection Areas Ordi-
Hal"l_Ce.
Mr. Perkins did not see the necessity for this ordinance at this time and
said he does not think the Board has enough information to justify its imple-
mentation. He thinks there needs to be studies done such as stream flows and
what those streams are carrying from the County to the Chesapeake Bay. Then
if it is justified or shows that the implementation of these BMP's will
improve that stream quality he has no problem with the ordinance. He thinks
the Board is just creating more bureaucracy and he cannot see the necessity of
the ordinance. Mrs. Humphris disagreed. Mr. Perkins said in the last 30
years, agriculture has changed and he thinks that farmers are the best coopera-
tors of implementing new techniques. There has been so much done on a volun-
tary basis that he cannot see any need for this ordinance at this time. The
Board could implement this and end up spending a lot more than the estimates.
He does not think that there will be any return on the money spent.
Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Perkins. He voted against this ordinance a
couple of months ago when it first came before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any of Mr. Perkin's concerns were addressed by the
Advisory Committee. Mr. Robertson said "no", the Committee did not specifi-
cally address the ordinance. They were charged with looking at manuals to be
referenced in the ordinance. There are problems related to all land uses in
the County. The per acre loading rates for various pollutants determined in
earlier water quality studies for the Reservoir and a study done in 1982
indicated that on a per acre basis there were significant loadings from
agricultural land uses. The watershed management plan that the County is
still operating under advocated implementing BMP's to address all land uses,
development, agricultural, forestry, road crossings from highways, etc. Ail
of those land uses are acknowledged in general in the field of non-point
source pollution as being a contributor.
Mr. St. John recommended a change in Section 15, Penalties, of the
proposed ordinance. Add a sentence before the last sentence stating: "Viola-
tion of t~s ordinance shall be a misdemeanor subject to the general penalty
and the o~ner provisions of Section 1-6 of the Albemarle County Code of
Albemarle .... "
There being no other discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie and Mrs. Humphris
NAYS: Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
9O
Noting that Dr. John English was present, the Board returned to Agenda
Item 11 (Request for Appropriation of Grant Funds: Title II, Infusion of
Literature into Science Curriculum) to continue the discussion.
Mr. Way said the paperwork furnished the Board indicates that the grant
is for $13,660 to purchase books to help the science curriculum and half of
that amount is being spent on stipends for teachers to choose the books and
the formulation of an administrative procedure for teaching. Only half of the
money is actually to be spent on books. He asked what types of books are
being purchased. Dr. English said the concept is to integrate elementary
science into the whole curriculum of the elementary school rather than it
being a separate subject, so the students can use their writing, reading,
observation and math skills as they learn science. Most of the elementary
teachers are Humanities graduates; they were not science majors. Often many
of the teachers teaching elementary science are not well versed in some of the
materials and concepts. This grant is to be used in developing their skills
to integrate science into their work with students. This is an initiative
started by the School Board three years ago to get more science taught in the
elementary schools. It was found from studies that students are excited about
science in the early grades and as they move up through the schools, they are
less excited and do not often choose these courses when they are able to make
the choice. This is an attempt to turn that around.
Mr. Bowie asked why the County is paying 13 teachers to select the books
and why the Career Ladder teachers not doing this as part of their extra
activities. Dr. English said the School Division does not think they will be
able to recruit all Career Ladder teachers to do this work. In order to
qualify for the career ladder, the teacher must be tenured in the system.
Many of the elementary teachers are new to the system. The turnover rate at
that level is a lot higher. Some of the schools may only have one or two
career ladder teachers on its staff and those people have already been assigned
to do many different jobs. The School system is careful that no teacher
collects a stipend from the Career Ladder and from a grant for doing the work.
Mr.-Perkins asked the number of elementary schools. Dr. English replied
that there are 14. Mr. Perkins asked if there would be one teacher trained
from each elementary school. Dr. English replied "presumably", if one teacher
from each school will make the commitment. This type of work is also usually
done in the summer.
Mr. Perkins said, at one time, he was on the Crozet School Improvement
Committee. One of the concepts discussed was having teachers teach either
Humanities or Science and there were strong advocates for this concept.
Actually the principal was against it and he gave some good reasons why. He
agrees that if children do not get interested at an early age, they will
further lose interest as they reach high school. Dr. English said State
certification requires only one course in science. The State would have to
change its certification requirements. Generally people who are interested in
math and science do not go into teaching because it is not a lucrative profes-
sion and if they go into teaching it is in the middle or high school level.
It is a national situation, not just in Albemarle.
Mr. Bowie noted that the previous motion by Mrs. H~mphris and seconded by
Mr. Bower,~n, to adopt a resolution approving am appropriation in the a~oumt
of $13,660 received from a federal grant to support the elementary science
curriculum, had not beemwithdrawn. Mr. Bowie said he would support 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: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 90/91
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FEDERAL GRANT (ILSC) FOR SCIENCE CURRICULUM
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
91
1320361101160300
1320361101210000
1320361101601300
1320361311600100
1320361311601700
INSTRUCTIONAL STIPENDS
FiCA
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
PRINTING & COPY SUPPLIES
TOTAL
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
$5,171.60
428.40
7,200.00
260.00
600.00
$13,660.00
AMOUNT
2320333000330008
REV UE OF (ILSC) G ANT
TOTAL
$13~660.00
$13,660.00
Agenda Item No. 20. Revised Regional Library Agreement.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated April 11, 1991:
"The Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Agreement has been under
review for the past two years by the Board of Trustees. The current
agreement was last revised in 1982. Some of the provisions of the
revised agreement are already in place. Members of the County Execu-
tive and County Attorney's offices have worked closely with the
Jefferson-Madison Regional Board revising the agreement.
Attached (on file) for your review are a summary of major revisions
and a copy of the revised agreement delineating all changes.
One of the most significant changes is the inclusion of the Northside
Branch as a regional facility beginning in Fiscal Year 1992f93. Staff
is of the opinion that considerable use will be made of this facility
by non-county citizens due to its easy access, public transit service
and adequate parking. Therefore, it should develop into a regional
facility which should result in the distribution of some of the costs
to other localities.
Library Board members, Cyndy Caughron, Shirley Dorrier, Mary Mikalson
and Librarian, Donna Selle, plan to attend the May 8th meeting to
respond to any questions you may have. The Library Board hopes to
finalize the agreement with all five jurisdictions by mid-June, 1991.
Staff recommends your approval and authorization for the Chairman to
sign the agreement."
SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES - REGIONAL AGREEMENT
(In Order of Appearance in the Document)
The number of Board members decreased from 11 to nine to enable more
equitable representation and decrease the Board's size.
The revised Regional Agreement adds the operating budget (for fiscal
year 1992/1993) of the Northside Branch to the shared costs of Central
and Gordon Avenue. Albemarle County has supported Central and Gordon
Avenue inside the City limits for many years. This arrangement will
be closely monitored.
Flexibility in regional reference costs were added to enable monitor-
ing of direct use of regional reference resources by Louisa, Greene
and Nelson County residents.
Average circulation figures over two years used to calculate regional
costs for each jurisdiction. This softens impact of abrupt disloca-
tions or changes in circulation patterns, for example, a new branch
opening.
Changes the fiscal agent fee from one percent to two percent to more
accurately reflect actual costs; allows accrual of interest to each
library fund.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
92
Eliminates Regional Budget Committee, allows progress through each
jurisdiction's normal budget process.
Creates a Library Equipment Fund from Fines and Fees to be used for
maintenance, replacement and purchase of equipment.
Authorizes a year-end fund balance not to exceed five percent of total
operating budget.
Adds annual reporting to each jurisdiction.
Requests Library Capital Fund to be funded by annual budget alloca-
tions.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 2:51 p.m.)
Mr. Bowie asked what is meant by authorizing a five percent fund balance.
Does that mean that the Library would automatically get to keep the fund
balance if they can save the money. Mr. Tucker said "yes", that is the
request. The Library Board was looking at the ability to maintain some of
that fund balance for needs in its operating budget. Those needs would be
identified in the operating budget and the Board would see those needs.
Anything above that reserve fund would be allocated back to the participating
jurisdictions based on the percentage of funds appropriated to meet the needs.
Mr. Bowie said no other agency has an automatic provision to keep a percentage
of their fund balance. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 2:54 p.m.)
If there is a fund balance they can make the request to the Board. Mr. Bain
agreed. He asked if there is something specific which led to this request.
Ms. Donna Selle, Director of the Library, said the general consensus of
the Library Board was that it is very difficult when they have to deal with
five jurisdictions and to explain the request for use of carry-over funds and
for new operating expenses particularly with the dramatic increase in the
Library's overall budget in the last four years. It is not unusual to have
this small amount of carryover. The reserve is not intended to go over the
five percent. Quite frankly she does not see the necessity to come back to
Albemarle County for use of $2000 which is the request sometimes. Mr. Bowie
responded that there are a dozen agencies that operate in five different
counties and to just say each can keep five percent of the money it saves
takes away from the ability of this Board and other county boards to fund the
next year. If an agency has a good program, the Board has always approved
giving them the fund balance, but he does not like to give it away in advance.
Ms. Selle said no other regional library system in the entire state has
to do this. She knows this Board likes being unique. She feels like she is
always "barefoot and pregnant" and has to come and "beg the big guys". She
and her staff have been prudent and, in years past, the library went out and
spent money on things that her staff does not. She does not think that is the
way to run a library. This is an important management tool. It is an act of
trust that is given to the Library Board and administration and she thinks
they have proven that they are prudent managers of money. It is a one time
allowance to build up to five percent. It is not on a continuing basis. It
is just until they get to the five percent. It is capped at five percent.
They are not asking for a gigantic accrual to continue going.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks Ms. Selle is sincere and they are doing a
careful job of managing their money. She thinks there comes a time when the
Board has to trust and realize that the Board can always "jerk the chain" if
it does not. She would not like to stand in the shoes of the Library Board
and be beholden every year to five jurisdictions for a relatively small amount
of money. It is not worth the time and effort of these professional people.
She then referred to Section 4(a) and asked what the language means: "Regio-
nal reference costs, may be determined on actual use for the prior fiscal
year, with a minimum of one percent of the regional reference costs." Ms.
Selle said Albemarle and Charlottesville use 99 percent of the regional
reference section. It is the backup reference service for the entire region.
Every year a survey is done. The number of reference questions referred to
Central from all of the branches is known. An annual survey to determine the
number of people from all jurisdictions actually using the service either by
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
93
phone or walk-in to the Central Library is made, The rural juriSdictions,
primarily Louisa, Greene and Nelson, will be allowed to maintain at least a
one percent availability fee. If the actual use does not reach one percent of
the total use of the regional reference service, they still have to pay at
least one percent of the total regional reference costs to retain that avail-
ability. It is an availability charge to the smaller jurisdictions. Mrs.
Humphris said it seems to her that the sentence is not complete. The comma
after "costs" needs to be deleted. The language should read: "
... with a
minimum of one percent of the regional reference costs paid by each juris-
diction''. She noted the following typographical error in Section 6 the word
"givern'' should be "goVern". In Section 13 "tas" should be "as"
14 "onr" should be "one". · In Section
Mr. Bain referred to Section 4 and asked why the agreement is changing
from "previous calendar lyear,, to "previous two fiscal years". Ms. Selle said
that every statistic gathered from the jurisdictions is based on a fiscal
year. The State Library reports and the National Library reports are all part
of a nationwide data basle. The jurisdictions felt it caused confusion when
dealing with the budget ito not be on a fiscal year basis. Ms. Selle said it
is a record-keeping issue' Mr. Bain said the figures will be a closer repre-
sentation of what is acthally happening on a regional basis.
Mr. Bain asked the ~eason for Section 12 which states "The Regional
Library has the authorit~ to establish a capital fund to be funded by annual
budget allocations." Mr. Tucker said the current agreement has no provision
fOr any funds other than operating or general funds. The Library Board was
advised that if it created this fund it had to be specifically provided for in
the agreement. It will allow the Library Board to have a fund for smaller
capital projects that are not major projects which normally go through the CIP
process. Ms. Selle said if a project is not listed in the agreement, the
Library Board could not have it; the Board would have to fund the project
before it could go into effect.
Mrs. Humphris referred to Section 5 and the language aboUt the share of
the costs for all of the recordkeeping and asked the reason for the stipula-
tion, "The fiscal agent shall be paid an annual sum equal to two percent of
the annual operating budget .... " Mr. Tucker said two percent is consistent
with what is charged in other regional agencies, One percent is not adequate
to cover the administrative costs of the fiscal agent. The same is done with
the Jail. Mrs. Humphris asked if the budget doubleS if the cost of the
recordkeeping doubles. Ms. Selle replied "yes" because the work is labor-
intensive and as the budget grows, more people are required so the higher the
costs. The COunty staff was insistent that they do not accrue any interest to
the balances during the year. Also the Library will charge the City a one
percent fee. The City will pay the Library fund balances which they did not
formerly do.
Mr. Bain said he is happy to see that the Northside Branch Library is
being treated as a regional library. He hopes the Other jurisdictions agree
with that stipUlation.
.Mr. Bowie asked if any of the other jurisdictions have acted on the
agreement. Ms. Selle replied "yes", Louisa. It is on City Council's agenda
for May 20.
Ms. Selle commented that tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., the Central Library will
hit one million circulation.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Hu~hris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
the revised Regional Library Agree~_nt and to authorize the Chairman to sign
same, 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. '
Ms. Selle showed the Board a plan of what the Northside Library is to
look like when it is completed in five years. The Library Board will be going
out to bid the week of May 13, They are currently writing grants and will be
undertaking all kinds of fundraising efforts to fund tables, chairs, etc., for
the library.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
(The agreement, as signed, is set out below:)
94
AMENDED AGREEMENT
JEFFERSON-MADISON REGIONAL LIBRARY
1991
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albe-
marle, Louisa, Nelson and Greene have heretofore established, pursuant
to law and subject to the provisions of an agreement among the city
and counties dated August 11, 1972, a regional library system known as
the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library; and
W]IEREAS, that agreement was modified by a further agreement
executed by the city and the counties in 1974; and
WHEREAS, the parties to that contract now desire further to amend
the agreement for operation of the library system;
NOW, TIIERRFO~, in consideration of the mutual promises in this
agreement, the city and counties hereby agree as follows:
1. The management and control of the Regional Library shall
continue to be vested in the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board
creaned and appointed by the governing bodies of the city and counties
pursuant to Chapter 2, Title 42.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amend-
ed. The Board shall have all of the powers vested in such boards by
law. Charlottesville shall appoint three (3) members to the Board;
Albemarle, three (3) members; Louisa, one (1) member; Nelson, one (1)
member; and Greene, one (1) member. Each jurisdiction is authorized
to appoint one alternate member who may attend all meetings but may
vote only in the absence of the principal member. The members cur-
rently serving on the Board are confirmed and shall continue in office
for the terms for which they have been appointed.
2. The Library Board shall provide and regulate library services
to the residents of the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of
Albemarle, Louisa, Nelson and Greene on as equitable a basis as is
practicable, consistent with the wishes of the governing bodies of
those jurisdictions.
3. Ail costs of operating the Regional Library shall be consi-
dered to fall into one of three categories defined as follows:
(a) Regional costs shall include all costs of providing
reference services, book purchasing, cataloging and automation servi-
ces, financial management, branch coordination and related expenses,
and the fair rental value of space required in the Central Library,
201 East Market Street, Charlottesville, Virginia, to provide the
foregoing regional services.
(b) Charlottesville-Albemarle costs shall include all costs
of providing facilities to house the collections at the Central
Library and the Gordon Avenue and Northside branches, which shall be
deemed local collections jointly serving those two jurisdictions, and
the compensation and related expenses for personnel who work in those
three facilities, except those personnel working in the Central
Library who are engaged primarily in rendering the services described
in subparagraph (a) above.
(c) Local costs shall include all costs of housing local
book collections in all branches of the library other than the Central
Library and the Gordon Avenue and Northside branches, and compensation
and related expenses for personnel who work in such other branches.
4. The costs described above shall be determined and allocated
among the participating jurisdictions as follows:
(a) Regional costs shall be determined by the Library
Board. Each jurisdiction shall pay a percentage of the regional costs
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
95
equal to its percentage of the Regional Library system's total circu-
lation. The percentages to be used in any fiscal year shall be deter-
mined by the circulation figures for the previous two fiscal years.
Regional reference costs may be determined on actual use for the prior
fiscal year, with a minimum of one percent of the regional reference
costs paid by each jurisdiction.
(b) Charlottesville-Albemarle costs shall likewise be
determined by the Regional Library Board. These costs shall be
allocated between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County in
direct proportion to their respective shares of the total circulation
at the Central Library and the Gordon Avenue and Northside branches.
The circulation figures shall be determined in the same manner as
those used to allocate regional costs.
(c) Local costs shall be determined by the Regional Library
Board, and paid by the jurisdiction for which they are incurred. The
type of facility to be used to house a local collection shall be
determined by the governing body of the city or county in which that
collection exists. However, the Regional Library Board may refuse to
permit local collections to be housed in facilities it determines to
be inadequate to provide minimal protection to the collections.
(d) Bookmobile, Books-By-Mail and other extension services
shall be contracted separately by each jurisdiction with the Regional
Library Board upon such terms and conditions as the Board and the
contracting jurisdiction find mutually agreeable.
5. The Regional Library Board shall designate one of the parti-
cipating jurisdictions as the fiscal agent of the regional library
system. The fiscal agent shall act as the system's accounting and
disbursing office, maintaining personnel, payroll records, purchasing
accounts and monthly statements, and contracting for annual audits.
All fund balances shall be invested and earnings accrued to each fund.
Each jurisdiction shall pay its share of the costs, determined as
provided above, to the fiscal agent on a quarterly basis. The fiscal
agent shall be paid an annual sum equal to two percent of the annual
operating budget of the Regional Library Board system for the services
rendered.
6. The Regional Library Board shall determine hours and places
of library service and determine all policies in accordance with state
statutes and the State Library regulations. The Regional Library
Board's policies, formulated on recommendation of its members and the
Director, shall govern the selection, emphasis and distribution of
library books, periodicals, records and other library materials, the
provisions of supplementary services to schools and other institu-
tions, the use of public meeting rooms, and every other question of
service, policies or expenditures within the limits of annual appro-
priations. Regulations concerning all services, including branch
libraries and bookmobiles, shall be promulgated by the Regional
Library Board.
7. Ail library employees, whether engaged in local or regional
cost activities, shall receive compensation and benefits established
by the pay and classification plan adopted by the Regional Library
Board.
8. The Regional Library Board will submit its annual budget
request by January 15 of each year and each jurisdiction will consider
the Regional Library budget as part of the normal budget process.
9. Gifts of money, books, or other useful donations may be
accepted by the Regional Library Board for general use in the library
system, or for particular use in the library branch or jurisdiction
designated by the donor.
10. The Regional Library will retain all fines and fees in a
separate equipment fund to be used for maintenance, replacement and
purchase of equipment.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
11. The Regional Library will retain a year end fund balance not
to exceed five percent of the total annual operating budget.
The Regional Library Board will report annually to each
jurisdiction regarding the statistics of use, status of programs and
summarizing of activities of the fiscal year.
The Regional Library Board will, after each year's audit,
return to each jurisdiction its share of any carry-over funds in
excess of those amounts necessary to fund the reserve fund. The
return of such funds to each locality will be pro-rated on the same
basis in which they contributed the costs. The Board may formally
request uses for these returned carry-over funds.
12. The Regional Library Board has the authority to establish a
capital fund to be funded by annual budget allocations.
13. In the event any participating jurisdiction determines to
dissolve this agreement as provided by Code of Virginia, § 42.1-42, as
amended, the distribution or allocation of buildings, books, furnish-
ings and equipment shall be negotiated by a joint committee appointed
by all the participating jurisdictions. However, any library books or
other media permanently assigned to any particular local collection at
the time that negotiation for dissolution begins shall remain in the
jurisdiction responsible for that local collection for its use or
disposal.
14. This agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts,
any one of which need not contain the signatures of more than one
party, but all of such counterparts taken together shall constitute
one and the same agreement. This agreement shall be in force and
effect upon its approval by all participating jurisdictions.
Agenda Item No. 21. Meals Tax Referendum Report.
Mr. Tucker sun~narized the following memorandum dated April 20, 1991:
"At your April 10 meeting, you requested staff to provide additional
information regarding the logistics of a meals tax referendum for
discussion on May 8. Basically, the Code of Virginia indicates that a
referendum on the meals tax can only be held at the November 5 general
election if an order is entered by the Court at least 60 days prior to
the date of the election. The order must be approved by the Secretary
of the State Electoral Board prior to submission to the Court which
normally takes another month. Your official action requesting the
County Attorney to notify the State Electoral Board and prepare the
court order should be made no later than your last meeting in June.
If a meals tax referendum is approved, then a tax ordinance could be
adopted effective January 1, 1992. Based on a four percent tax rate,
the estimated revenue would be $0.4 million for four months of FY
91-92 and $1.4 million each fiscal year thereafter. The annual
revenue equates to 3.7¢ on the real estate tax rate or 57.7¢ on the
personal property tax rate.
Staff encourages you to make a decision regarding a meals tax referen-
dum as soon as possible. If the decision is to place the question on
the ballot in November, every effort should made to inform the public
on this matter prior to the November 5 General Election."
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is the suggestion that if the meals tax
passes the Board will roll back the tax rates. Mr. Tucker said although that
is correct, he is not advocating such a position.
Mr. Bain commented that State law allows a tax of up to five percent, so
the referendum could be set for that much. Mr. Bowie said if the Board is
going to enact such an ordinance, it should go for the five percent. Why have
two referendums? The Board does not have to enact the five percent, but it
might as well get the authority.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Bain said he does not think the General Assembly is going to give the
authority to enact this tax without a referendum. He thinks those Board
members not running for reelection should go out and get the community groups
involved. The Board is a lot further along in getting this approved than in
1978. He thinks this is an ideal time.
Mr. Bowie said he would prefer not to take a pro or con position right
now. He would like to wait and see the outcome of the joint meeting with the
School Board later this afternoon. The Board then requested an update on the
estimated figures at the June 12 meeting.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks a meals tax needs to be tied to a project or a
tax rate reduction.
There was no other discussion.
Agenda Item No. 22. Elderly/Handicapped Tax Relief, Discussion.
(Due to the time and noting that Mayor Raymon Thacker was present, the
Chairman suggested discussing this item following the public hearing on
redistricting tonight at 7:00 p.m.. The Board members agreed.)
Agenda Item No. 23. Scottsville Annexation Proposal, Discussion.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated May 2, 1991:
"Staff was requested at your April 10 meeting to review the fiscal
impact and ramifications of an annexation by the Town of Scottsville.
In order to collect data, the County Assessor and one member of his
staff met with Mayor Raymon Thacker and Councilman Tom Bruce. From
this meeting, a map (copy attached) was developed with two delinea-
tions entitled Option 1 and Option 2. Some facts of these two sug-
gested boundaries are as follows:
Option 1
The area of the town physically located in Albemarle County would
expand from 106 acres to 1851 acres;
This area would add 147 residences, 87 vacant lots, six mobile
homes, 25 businesses, one industry (Uniroyal), 11 churches, a
public housing facility, the water filter plant, two recreational
projects, all of the Albemarle County Service Authority facili-
ties at Scottsville, and all of the remaining flood levee cur-
rently located in the County;
This area includes several properties owned by the County such as
the library, the recreation center, and the Totier Creek Reser-
voir;
o
o
o
o
This area includes an Agricultural Forestral District and consi-
derable acreage under the County's Land Use Tax program;
This area includes one of the major industries in the County;
The boundary bisects several properties;
The number of school children would increase from 43 to 87; and
Based upon the 1989 gross receipts of $9.4 million in this area,
the resulting loss to the County from the Business License tax
would be $26,231.
Option 2
This option would increase the area of the town in Albemarle
County from 106 acres to 470 acres;
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
98
It would add 65 residences, 25 vacant lots, one mobile home, 23
businesses, one industry (UnirOyal), one church, a public housing
facility, and the remainder of the levee;
This smaller area would also include the library and the County
recreation center;
o The number of school children would increase from 43 to 66; and
Based upon $8.8 million in gross receipts for 1989, the resulting
tax loss to the County would be $22,548 from the Business License
tax.
Summary: Staff has made many assumptions in this analysis, but based
on the best information available to date, the Department of Finance
made their best estimate of loss of revenue. No effort has been made
to analyze the cost of preparing documents for presentation to the
Commission on Local Government if required or for the Courts. Staff
believes the area would probably require a physical boundary survey
which coUld be costly.
Option 1 would probably have a significant impact in magisterial
districts Since it could transfer approximately 400 people to the
town. There are 31,572 people currently registered to vote in the
County or 46 percent of the County's population. Using this same
percentage and the transfer of 400 people, the registered voters in
Scottsville could go from the current 95 voters in the Town of Scotts-
ville to 279 in Option 1.
Staff Recommendation: Currently, the Grayson Commission is addressing
the question of annexation in the State of Virginia. Staff recommends
all action be deferred pending the outcome of the Commission's find-
ings. In the meantime, staff recommends the Town of Scottsville
review the possibility of bringing its business and professional
license fees, auto decals, building permit fees, and utility tax rate
up to the level currently charged by the County, which could provide
the adequate revenues to meet the current service needs of the town."
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
ESTIMATE OF REVENUE LOSS FOR SCOTTSVILLE ANNEXATION
OPTION #1
BASIS COUNT RATE TAX
UTILITY TAX
RESIDENTIAL # RESIDENCES 147 4/MO $7,056
COMMERCIAL AVG BILL 27 6,312
INDUSTRIAL AVG BILL 1 4,080
BUSINESS LICENSES GROSS RECEIPTS 27 26,231
SALES TAX # STUDENTS 67 11,890
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY GROSS RENTS 2,512
VEHICLE LICENSE PER VEHICLE 348 $22.50 7~830
TOTAL $~5,911
OPTION #2
BASIS COUNT RATE TAX
UTILITY TAX
RESIDENTIAL # RESIDENCES 65 4/MO $3,120
COMMERCIAL AVG BILL 24 6,012
INDUSTRIAL AVG BILL 1 4,080
BUSINESS LICENSES GROSS RECEIPTS 22,548
SALES TAX # STUDENTS 23 4,082
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY GROSS RENTS 2,512
VEHICLE LICENSE PER VEHICLE 178 $22.50 4~005
TOTAL $46,359
Mr. Tucker apologized to the Mayor as he did not receive this report
until late yesterday afternoon.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
99
Mayor Raymon Thacker of the Town of Scottsville, said this is his 26th
year as Mayor of the Town of Scottsville. He is 81 years old and should be at
home enjoying retirement instead of working hard for the Town. He is dedi-
cated to preserving one of the oldest and historic towns in the state and the
mother of Albemarle County because it was the original county seat founded in
1744 and incorporated in 1818. He was upset when Monday afternoon he received
a copy of the Daily Progress and he saw that someone had given this informa-
tion to the press before he had received it. Late yesterday afternoon he got
a letter from the County Executive with the report notifying him that the
Board would be considering the information today. He has not had the oppor-
tunity to discuss this with any of the Council members, the town attorney or
to thoroughly review the information. He asks the Board to defer discussion
on this item until a later date. He listened to a program last night on the
television and the man asked the question "What was a politician?" The
response was "It is a pinhead dressed in a striped suit." Mr. Grayson has
been introducing legislation in the General Assembly for the last 15 to 20
years. Every time about annexation and every time he has been shot down. He
thinks the General Assembly decided to give him the job known as the Grayson
Commission to keep him out of their hair and he is sure that whatever Mr.
Grayson comes up with will be shot down again. He does not believe that
anything will even come from that Commission before 1994. He feels that this
report needs more study by the Town Council because they would have to deter-
mine how much extra income and what they would have to spend on accepting this
area, if the Board agreed to the annexation.
Mr. Bowie said a motion to defer this until the June or July day meeting
to allow the Town Council time to disseminate the information would be appro-
priate.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer
discussion on the Scottsville ammexation proposal until July 10.
Mayor Thacker said when the Town officials discussed this with Counny
staff, they did not include Uniroyal as part of the annexation. He notices
that both options include Uniroyal. They did not ask for that to be included.
Mr. Bowie suggested that staff work more closely with the Town of
Scottsville.
There being no other 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.
(Note: The Board agreed to take up the remaining items [#24, #25 and
#26] following the 7:00 p.m. hearing on redistricting tonight.)
At 3:26 p.m., the Board recessed and then reconvened at 3:39 p.m. in
Meeting Room 5 for the Joint Meeting with the School Board.
Agenda Item No. 27. Joint Meeting with School Board to discuss Long
Range Planning.
All of the Board of Supervisor members were present. The following
School Board members were present: Messrs. Richard A. Bagby, William W.
Finley, Clifford W. Haury, Charles S. Martin, Mrs. Patricia L. Moore and Mr.
Roger G. Ward. Mrs. Sharon Wood was absent. Staff members present were:
Superintendent, Dr. Robert W. Paskel; Assistant Superintendent for Instruc-
tion, Dr. John J. EngliSh; and County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
At 3:40 p.m., Mr. Bowie called the meeting of the Board of Supervisors
back to order, and Mr. Charles Martin called the meeting of the School Board
to order.
At the suggestion of Mr. Way, everyone present at the meeting introduced
themselves to the School Superintendent, who was present at his first joint
meeting.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
100
Mr. Haury said in addition to himself, the Oversight Committee for the
Albemarle County Schools Long Range Plan includes: Messrs. Keith Rittenhouse,
Joseph Dougherty, Anderson Hord, Roger D. Wood, and Mrs. Patricia Moore. He
presented the Preliminary Report on Middle and High Schools prepared by the
Committee. The Committee is presenting this information for use in the
formation of the Capital Improvements Program to be completed in July of this
year. He emphasized that the report is preliminary. The Committee has met 16
times since November, 1990. Before discussing the report, he distributed and
discussed the following Summary of Enrollments:
"Division-Wide Enrollment Pro~ections:
Where we were:
1988-1998
Where we are:
1990-2000
May 1991
May 1988 Elementary 1718 1938
Middle 1363 995
High 970 1432
4051 4365
Planning Dept. Est. 100
The enrollment projections show system wide growth from the 1990
actual enrollment of 10,144 to the year 2000 projection of 14,509 for
a total increase of 4365.
These 4365 children represent a 43 percent increase in the next
decade. That percent matches the ten-year projection made for the
last report in May 1989.
This update confirms that the growth rate for the Albemarle County
Schools has not diminished in the two-year period since the original
projections were made."
Mr. Haury said the recommendation in the original Long Range Plan for
middle and high schools to take no action and monitor enrollment growth is no
longer an option; the lead time needed for construction, the enrollment
projections, and the schools' current capacities make it necessary to take
action. Whichever path is taken in solving the problem, the County will have
the expense of this enrollment growth. Whether the solution is new construc-
tion, additions, redistricting or the use of trailers, there are significant
recurring operational expenses that will accompany enrollment growth. The
growth of 43 percent in ten years will be tough to handle unless the County
looks at financing along with enrollment statistics.
Referring to the enrollment projections for 1990-2000, Mr. Bowerman said
if these children were alive two years ago when the first study was done, why
is there such a big discrepancy in determining where the children would be in
ten years, whether middle or high school. Mr. Haury responded that he is not
sure. He thinks the Committee may have made the assumption that the children
would enter at the middle school level instead of the high school level. He
was surprised that projections for elementary school are still high. He would
have thought that the elementary population would have trailed off. Also, for
high school, little things mean a lot. They redistricted one elementary
district, Cale Elementary School to Western Albemarle High School and that
redistricting, because of the growth in Cale, will cause Western Albemarle to
grow at a tremendous rate, just because Cale has grown far beyond projections.
Mr. Haury then summarized the following preliminary report:
"Planning Assumptions: In reviewing the enrollment projection and the
recommendations of the original long range plan, the Oversight Commit-
tee, in March, 1991, asked the School Board to give school size
guidelines to assist the committee in its work. The Albemarle County
School Board discussed, voted on and approved the following:
Capacity Elementary Middle High
Effective (90%) 540 '"675 1350
Rated (100%) 600 750 1500
Maximum (110%) 660 825 1650
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
101
The planning assumptions served two purposes: 1) the guidelines would
appear in the Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan which is
scheduled for a public hearing this spring; and 2) the guidelines
would assist the Oversight Committee in planning future schools.
MIDDLE SCHOOL DISCUSSION:
The Oversight Committee examined the guidelines and found that in the
case of the middle schools, Burley and Walton had lower and higher
rated capacities respectively:
Capacity Burley Walton
Effective (90%) 563 720
Rated (100%) 625 800
Maximum (110%) 688 880
The remaining two middle schools, Henley and Jouett, have a rated
capacity of 750 students exactly.
Middle School Enrollments and Capacities: The revised projections for
enrollment show middle schools growing from 2316 students in 1991/1992
to 3238 in 2000/2001. That represents a growth of 912 pupils, or 39.4
percent over that period. The committee found that three middle
schools will exceed their rated capacity by 1995/1996: Burley, Henley
and 3ouett. That year, 1995/1996, Walton remained 138 pupils under
effective capacity based on the current effective capacity of 720.
Finally, the projections indicate that in 2000/2001, total enrollments
in middle school exceeds the maximum capacity of all four combined
(3228 students/3218 maximum capacity).
MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAVEL TIME:
The average travel time for the middle schools bus routes is 48
minutes, one way. If the 'urban area' routes (shortest - 18 minutes;
longest - 38 minutes) are not included, the 'rural area' middle school
routes average 60 minutes, one way (shortest - 22 minutes; longest -
117 minutes). Approximately 42 percent of the middle school students
are on the bus for the entire route time, and 70 percent are on the
bus for at least half of the route time.
MIDDLE SCHOOL INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM:
Albemarle County Middle Schools are organized into instructional
teaching teams that work with a clearly identified group of students
so that the needs of every student are well-known by a group of tea-
chers. When middle school enrollments exceed the 800 student level,
students are usually scheduled into single subject, departmentalized
classes (as in high schools) because it becomes unlikely that the
changing individual needs of preadolescent students can be identified
and accommodated in a large school. The risks of experiencing aliena-
tion and academic failure are increased in large, impersonal institu-
tions.
Analysis:
1. Burley Middle School: A significant factor in the discussion for
Burley was the feeder pattern for the new Agnor-Hurt Elementary
School. The majority of students in the proposed district already
attend Burley. The Oversight Committee will recommend as of Fall
1992, the inclusion of Agnor-Hurt Elementary to the Burley feeder
pattern. There was a discussion of the growth in the area of Rio Road
East, specifically Dunlora, that would impact both Agnor-Hurt and
Burley. Because of the development, the Committee observed that
Burley could, in fact, exceed its rated capacity of 625 before the
95/96 school year. Second, the school was not in a good location for
expansion. Its location in the city of Charlottesville and its
current configuration are factors that work against any addition
there. Moreover, additional capacity at Burley would not solve the
problems that Henley and Jouett Middle Schools will face, because of
transportation routes and travel times involved in getting students
there.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
102
2. Walton Middle School: The Oversight Committee discussed at length
the feeder pattern and the district for Walton Middle School. The
following factors were the most important elements in the proceedings:
1) Transportation times; 2) Transportation routes and the need for
additional buses and drivers; 3) The effect of enlargement of Walton
Middle School district on the two adjacent districts Burley Middle
School and Henley Middle School; 4) The number of students in the
areas adjacent to Walton Middle School; and 5) Planned and current
development that impact Walton Middle School.
Burley Zone: The Committee requested that the Transportation Depart-
ment gather the route information, travel time, and number of students
for the area currently in Burley Middle School district south of Route
250 to the Fluvanna County line. This area, north and east of the
Rivanna River, contains Stone Robinson Elementary School and the
proposed development of Glenmore which the Committee understood had a
proffer of land as a site for an elementary school. The discussion
centered around the feasibility of placing this area in the Walton
Middle School district to build current and future enrollments.
The transportation department reported back to the committee that the
current middle school population residing in that area was 35; that
another bus and route would be required to take these students to
Walton; and that the travel time would be approximately one hour
twenty minutes. Given the travel time, the increased cost for the
route, bus and driver, and the fact that the students transferred come
from Burley, which is not yet overcrowded, the committee felt that
this change would not represent a major factor in addressing the
middle school problem.
The Transportation Department pointed out that the route to Burley
Middle School was shorter, much more direct, and involved full bus
runs. The Transportation Department also provided information that if
the Walton Middle School district line were to run west on Route 250
past the 1-64 junction down to Route 20 North, the change would
involve more children. Concerns were discussed concerning the current
left turn at the junction of Riverbend Drive and Rou~e 250 at rush
time, the total travel time to Walton, the time frame for VDoT im-
provements of this area, and the distance north on Route 20 North, the
Walton Middle School district would run.
Henley Zone: The committee then discussed the possibility of taking
the eastern portion of the Henley Middle School district south of
Interstate 64 to the intersection of Routes 708 and 637. Factors in
this case were that the 1990 redistricting attempted to make transit
in this area move to the west to Henley and WAHS for economy of routes
and buses. The number of students redistricted would be small, the
redistricting would cos5 at least a bus to implement, the redistrict-
ing would also bus children farther than their current route to
Henley, and increase travel time.
In summary, the committee concluded that no redistricting could
accomplish the filling of Walton Middle School without lengthy bus
rides, increased operational costs for transportation in buses, routes
and drivers, and disruption of the feeder-patterns, including some
combined runs where students from Henley and WAHS, and Burley and AHS
ride the same bus. Furthermore, the Albemarle County Planning Depart-
ment has projected growth to continue in Willow Lake, Mill Creek, and
adjacent areas. This growth, partially unaccounted for in the projec-
tions should be monitored carefully for the next two years for its
effect on Walton Middle School.
3. Henley Middle School: Henley will exceed its effective capacity
in 1991/1992, its rated capacity in 1993/1994, and its maximum capaci-
ty in 1994/1995. The committee noted that Henley already utilizes
trailers to accommodate its team schedule, and that the instructional
program, with electives, does result in small class sizes in certain
rooms. The committee also discussed the fact that Henley, along with
Brownsville Elementary, had capital improvement repairs necessary in
the near future - deteriorating mortar in the brickwork, as well as an
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
103
aging }IVAC system. The committee discussed the feasibility of con-
structing six classrooms at Henley at the same time as the repairs
are made. That would add (6 x 25), or 150 seats to the school.
However, there appeared two major considerations: 1) Henley Middle
School would exceed the capacity guidelines established by the School
Board; 2) Construction at Henley does not solve the geographic and
population issue of the growth in the Route 29 North corridor; and 3)
This addition would require increasing the size of the library,
cafeteria, and possibly administrative area.
Since one adjacent district--Jouett--will exceed its capacity in a
short period, and since the other adjacent district--Walton--involves
significant costs in time, bus routes, and double runs, no redistrict-
ings were proposed.
4. Jouett Middle School: Jouett will exceed its effective capacity
in 1991/1992, its rated capacity in 1994/1995, and it's maximum capa-
city in 1995/1996. The Committee noted that enrollments at Jouett
will be directly effected by continued development of the Forest Lakes
area and other potential developments. Since the two adjacent middle
schools--Henley and Burley--will experience enrollment growth in
excess of their capacities, no redistricting solutions appeared
possible.
.Summary: In light of the discussion about the four middle schools,
the committee then discussed the construction of a new middle school,
on the Hollymead School site, as a solution that would encompass
enrollment reductions for Henley, Jouett, and Burley Middle School
respectively. A new middle school could end the split feeder pattern
for Broadus Wood School by placing the entire district in the new
school. Second, the new middle school could contain all of Hollymead
School. Third, the new middle school could relieve pressure on Burley
Middle School by allowing the transfer of some Agnor-Hunt elementary
students to Jouett.
Possible Solutions:
o
Build a new middle school at the Hollymead site with an effective
capacity of 675, a rated capacity of 750, and a maximum capacity
of 825. Planning should commence as soon as possible. The
project should appear in the next cycle in the Albemarle County
Capital Improvements five-year plan. (Long-term solution)
Build six classrooms at Henley, and increase its rated capacity
to 900. For construction economics, schedule this in conjunction
with capital repairs for mortar and }IVAC replacement. Planning
should commence as soon as possible, and appear in the next cycle
in the capital improvements plan. (Note: This solution sizes
the school above the School Board guidelines. Also, this solu-
tion may require the addition of space in the library, cafeteria,
gymnasium, and administrative areas. Finally, this solution
would require a review of the roads on-site at the school to
establish whether they are adequate to handle the increased
traffic and number of buses.)
Build six classrooms at Jouett, and increase'its rated capacity
to 900. (Note: This solution sizes the school above the School
Board guidelines. Also, this solution may require the addition
of space in the library, cafeteria, gymnasium, and administrative
areas. Finally, this solution would require a review of the
roads on-site at the school to establish whether they are ade-
quate to handle the increased traffic and number of buses.)
(Short-term solution)
Year-round school.
HIGH SCHOOL DISCUSSION
High School Enrollments and Capacities: The revised enrollment
· projections show division enrollment growing from 2583 students in
1991/1992 to 3956 students in 2001/2002. The total increase is 1373
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
104
pupils. This represents a 53 percent increase in high school popula-
tion, exclusive of Murray High School. The committee points out that
those enrollment projections are based on students currently in the
system. The margin of error, therefore, is small.
To demonstrate the scale of the growth, the predicted enrollment for
Charlottesville High School for Fall 1991 is 1088. Thus county growth
will result a gain in high school population greater than the enroll-
ment at Charlottesville High School.
To demonstrate the impact, if the enrollment growth were divided
between the two high schools, the figures are:
AHS WAHS
2001 1974 1982
1991 .7598 985
376 pupils 997 pupils = 1373 total
Thus, AHS will grow 23.5 percent, while WAHS will grow 101.2 percent
over the next decade. Needless to say, these circumsnances present
the school division with difficult decisions.
High School Travel Time: The average ride time for high school bus
routes, is 57 minutes, one way. If the 'urban area' routes (shortest
- 15 minutes; longest 44 minutes, one way (shortest 49 minutes,
longest - 117 minutes). Approximately 42 percent of the students are
on the bus for the entire route time, and 73 percent are on the bus
for at least half of the route time.
1. Albemarle High School: The renovations currently scheduled for
AHS will increase the school's rated capacity by 120 students, to a
total of 1745. However, the school will exceed its effective capacity
by 1996/1997, its rated capacity the next year, 1997/1998, and its
maximum capacity in 1999/2000. Since the enrollment at that time will
be 1982, AHS would be over rated capacity by 229 students, or ten
classrooms. Any additional classroom construction would push AHS well
beyond the School Board guideline of 1500 pupils. Construction of ten
classrooms would provide a margin of 21 seats to cover growth.
2. Western Albemarle High School: Rapid enrollment growth is pro-
jected for WAHS. By 1995/1996 school year, WAHS will be two students
over its maximum capacity of 1430 students. Sizing WAHS to the School
Board guidelines would increase its capacity by 200 students, to 1500,
which translates to eight additional classrooms. However, that
construction would cover growth only for one year. To accommodate the
projection for 2000/2001, at 1982 students, WAHS would need 28 class-
rooms (25 pupils x 28 classrooms = 700 seats). At that point, capa-
city at WAHS would be:
WAHS (with 28 additional classes)
Effective 1800
Rated 2000
Maximum 2200
This addition would place the capacities at WAHS well in excess of the
School Board guidelines. Also, that construction would provide a
margin of only 18 seats, at rated capacity, beyond the enrollment
projection.
Summary: After reviewing the high school information, the Committee
then discussed the feasibility of a new high school as a solution to
the growth problems.
Factors in the discussion were: 1) Attendance zone; 2) Major high-
way/artery siting; 3) Transportation patterns from border to center;
and 4) School population percentages, based on elementary enrollments,
to divide the population for the three high schools.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
105
Additions to AHS and WAHS
Albemarle High School: In reviewing the possibility of additions at
AHS beyond those currently scheduled, the committee recognized a range
of issues associated with expansion. As documented in the mosn recent
site analyses, they would include:
-Restrictive site caused by variable topography and terrain
-Potential difficulty with land disturbance in the watershed
-Effect of increased water and sewer usage based on student
enrollment growth
-Parking
-Bus access, both to AHS and to the other schools
-Ancillary space needs caused by expansion and required by the
state, which include library, cafeteria, gymnasium, administra-
tive offices, and the like.
Finally the committee concluded that additions were no more than a
short-term solution to the problem.
Western Albemarle High School: In the case of WAHS, the committee
does not support an addition without an extensive feasibility study of
the site. Although WAHS has 75 acres total on site, a number of
important considerations have been identified. They are:
-Restrictive site, based on topography and terrain
-Effect on the watershed
-Distance from the population growth center, which involves
student travel time, number of buses, number of routes, fuel and
maintenance costs which would be operational, that is, recurring
each year
-Parking
-Bus access, considering the current feeder road and entrance
-Ancillary space needs caused by the expansion and required by
the state such as library, cafeteria, gymnasium, administrative
offices, etc.
Once again, the committee also thought that additions at WAHS may be a
possible short term solution.
Charlottesville High School Capacity Inquiry: In February 1991, the
chair of the Oversight Committee met with Superintendent Joseph R.
McGeehan, Charlottesville Public Schools, to discuss the enrollment
data for the city, and to inquire about classroom space at Charlottes-
ville High School. After consultation with his principal, W. T.
Lewis, Dr. McGeehan sent the Oversight Committee the Charlottesville
projections, along with the letter. Dr. McGeehan's analysis is that
there is space for approximately 400 students at CHS.
In conversations, Dr. McGeehan observed that on the topic of City-
County cooperation, there were three levels of possible discussion:
Cooperation on small, consolidated classes that either division
might not otherwise have. (Examples: advanced physics, chemis-
try, or languages like Japanese, Russian).
Discussion of the economy of consolidation in areas like Adult
Education, night high school, along the lines of a cooperative
summer program.
o
Discussion of potential space at CHS, which involves many issues
such as transportation, VHSL class ranking, athletic participa-
tion, staffing, etc.
Superintendent McGeehan concluded that he would not engage in any
study of the space at CHS without the concurrence of the Charlottes-
ville School Board, City Council, and School Administration and
without concurrence of the counterpart bodies in the county, and
without a mutually-agreed set of planning assumptions.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
106
Possible Solutions:
Build a new high school, effective capacity 1350, rated 1500,
maximum 1650, students could come from the general area extending
from the Stony Point District, through Stone Robinson, Cale, Red
Hill, Yancey, Scottsville in the south. Planning should commence
as soon as possible. The project should appear in the next cycle
in the Albemarle County Capital Improvements five-year plan dated
1991-1992.
o
Build ten additional classrooms at AHS in a new phase two con-
struction plan, which would make effective capacity at 1795,
rated 1995, and maximum 2195. (Note: This solution would size
the high school above School Board guidelines.)
Build 28 Classrooms at WAHS, which will move effective capacity
to 1800, rated capacity to 2000, maximum to 2200. This construc-
tion would accommodate a total rated capacity of 3995, with a
projected enrollment of 3956, for a margin of 39 seats. (Note:
This solution would size the high school above School Board
guidelines.)
3. Year-round school.
4. Short-term cooperation with Charlottesville School System."
Dr. English reported that some counties in Virginia experiencing rapid
growth had instituted year-round school while they built more schools.
Because of the disruption to families and wear on buses and buildings, year-
round school was abandoned by these counties. Buena Vista did institute a
summer quarter which has been done for a couple of years. In 1992 they will
essentially have year-round school. '
Mr. A1 Reaser, Director of Building Services, prepared a preliminary
estimate for the cost of adding classrooms to Henley and Jouett for a total of
$5,000,000. Mr. Way asked if this figure includes the cost of increasing the
size of the cafeteria, etc. Mr. Reaser replied the figure includes increasing
the size of the library and administrative areas. The cafeterias and gymnasi-
ums will not have to be expanded.
Mr. Bowie asked if there were any figures for the cost of adding on to
the high schools. Mr. Haury replied "no". They would want to be careful and
look at a feasibility study for WAHS to see if it is possible because the
topography is a problem.
Mr. Haury said one of the citizen members on the Committee worked up a
percentage based on elementary enrollments for the year 1995 and set those
percentages out. If the County wished to construct a third high school using
the combination of percentages, they would run the district from the Stony
Point district in the north through Stone Robinson down to Scottsville, Yancey
and over to Red Hill and incorporate Cale. Looking at siting of a high
school a high school should be located along a major highway like the inter-
section of Route 250/Interstate-64, Route 20/I-64 or Fifth Street/I-64 because
that kind of location could serve about 30 percent of that population based on
the elementary districts.
Mr. Bowie asked if action on these issues is needed by July for the
schools to be built according to the recommendations of the Long Range Plan.
Mr. Tucker replied that is correct. Mr. Bowie commented that there has been
no recommendation from the School Board. Mr. Tucker said the purpose of this
report was to provide the School Board and Board of Supervisors information
before both start reviewing the CIP. Mr. Martin said the School Board will
discuss the issues and make a recommendation in June. Mr. Bowie said the
costs of the options will be needed in order to make a decision. Mr. Bowie
commented that this was an excellent presentation. Mr. Martin said the School
Board would appreciate the thoughts of the Board of Supervisors in this
process before the School Board begin its deliberations.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
107
Mr. Perkins thinks that expanding existing schools will be the cheapest
option; in the last eight to ten years, more expensive options have been
chosen. In the 1977 Comprehensive Plan, there were 13,000+ students and there
was extra caPacity in the schools. He understands that the standards have
changed on both the State and the County level, and not as many children are
in a classroom. Mrs. Humphris asked whether renovations would make it imposSi
ble to continue instruction in the school during that period. Dr. English
said schools have experienced construction on the grounds during the school
year. While the noise and dirt causes disruption, school children cope well.
Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, said there are some costs involved that
address safety issues. For example, Albemarle High School would require a
covered walkway to access part of the sidewalk. The Code requires that
certain egresses from the building be maintained. Mrs. Humphris asked if the
same would apply to middle schools. Ms. Higgins replied "Yes", when any
building is modified and is still being used. Mrs. Humphris asked if that
cost would be built into the estimate. Ms. Higgins replied that because it is
a temporary structure, the cost may not be included.
Mr. Bagby said the School Board strongly believes that 600 and 750 are
appropriate limits for elementary and middle schools, and 1500 is the limit
for a high school. While the economic issue is an important one, a larger
student population can cause serious management problems. Mr. Bain agreed
that 900 students in a middle school is a concern. Mrs. Humphris felt that a
less expensive alternative could result in serious problems in the future.
Mr. Way expressed concern about the timing; a decision will be difficult
to reach by July. He noted it may be necessary to have a general obligation
bond issue on the ballot to allow voters to make the decision. Mr. Martin
said the School Board got to this point because two years ago they adopted the
Long Range Plan; last year the Plan was modified; this year they formed the
Oversight Committee to make sure the recox~endations were still on the right
track. They were surprised at the numbers. Two years ago a new high school
was put into the Plan, but it was not thought it would happen in the near
future. Now, two years later, it needs to be put in the CIP. Mrs. Humphris
asked if it is possible to have a special referendum on a bond issue before
the November general election. Mr. Bowie said it is possible, but would be
expensive. He said building a new middle school and a new high school would
double the County's debt; he would not vote to take that action without a vote
of agreement by the citizens. He estimated that debt service alone would
require an increase in the tax rate of 13 cents for real property. He thinks
such a decision should be made by the voters. He suggests that staff get the
necessary information back to the Board in July so that this issue can go on
the November ballot. Mr. Way said a referendum should not be on the ballot in
November unless all the information is available.
Mr. Bain was surprised that there is only a capacity of 400 available at
Charlottesville High School. He thought it would seat 3000, and they have
only 1000 students there now. He knows that standards have changed in the
intervening years, but that is a huge drop. He asked that cooperation with
Charlottesville for a short-range solution be pursued. In Mr. Bowie's
opinion, even if the County has to go through the Virginia Public School
Authority, it should go to the voters before doubling the debt. Mr. Bain said
he is not convinced that a referendum is required. If a new high school can
be delayed by an alternative such as cooperation with Charlottesville, that
should be pursued. Mr. Martin thinks that a new middle school should be put
in the CIP and other options for a high school considered. He said the
options will be reviewed by the School Board quickly.
Mr. Bowie and Mr. Bain agreed that the Oversight Committee had done an
excellent job in making this information available. Mr. Bagby agreed. Mr.
Haury said the cooperative effort of the Planning Department, County Executive
and School Division was important in preparing the report. He thinks the
School Division should try to solve population projections by using the County
Planning staff.
At this time, the Board discussed Item 5.21 from the consent agenda; a
memorandum dated May 3, 1991, from Dr. John J. English, Assistant Superinten-
dent for Instruction, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re:
CA-TEC budget information and direction.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
108
Mr. Way said he did not understand the memorandum. Mr. Bowie said he
believes CA-TEC may be moving in a direction other than a vocational training
school. The Board does not understand the answers it is getting or the
comments being made by outside groups. The Board believes that the funding
necessary was provided to CA-TEC. Mr. Ward said there has been a lot of
erroneous information given out; the CA-TEC Board did not vote to go in a
different direction. They received a long range plan with a lot of good
recommendations and ideas and they did not vote to go in any direction. He
agreed that the memo was confusing and suggested the School Board discuss the
matter and make a specific recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at a
later date. He is confused and he is a member of the CA-TEC Board. Mr. Bowie
said it would be helpful if the School Board would inform the Board of Super-
visors how money for CA-TEC would be spent before the appropriation is made.
Mr. Martin said the School Board will discuss the matter on May 13 when the
budget is finalized. Mrs. Humphris suggested that everything that has been
said to this point be cancelled, and both Boards start anew. Mrs. Moore felt
the School Board should discuss the long range plan for CA-TEC.
Mr. Bain said his questions concern the long-term goal. Mr. Ward sugges-
ted that after the School Board meeting on May 13, information concerning the
1991-92 budget, how funds will be spent, and what is mandated for CA-TEC be
made available to the Board. He suggested that in three to six months a long
range plan approved by the Joint Committee of CA-TEC and the School Board be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bowie said that is the information
the Board wants.
Agenda Item No. 28. Recess. At 5:00 p.m., Mr. Bowie called a recess for
the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Martin adjourned the School Board meeting.
The Board reconvened at 7:06 p.m., with all Board members present.
Agenda Item No. 29. Public Hearing: Redistricting. To receive testi-
mony from any interested person concerning redistricting of the magisterial
districts of Albemarle County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 23
and April 30, 1991.)
Mr. Tucker said several months ago the Board appointed a staff committee
to start working on the redistricting occasioned by the 1990 Census. The
committee consisted of staff from the County Executive's office, Planning
Department, the Registrar and the Deputy County Attorney. Staff has held
numerous meetings and two public forums, and this Board has held one public
forum. Tonight is the actual public hearing on redistricting of the magis-
terial districts.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the State Code
requires this review every ten years in conjunction with the census review.
The working staff committee developed a redistricting plan based on guidelines
provided by this Board. Those guidelines were to maintain existing magiste-
rial district boundaries or areas to the extent feasible, to provide a mix of
both urban and rural areas within each district and to maintain a total of six
magisterial districts. By law, each district must essentially be e~,m] in
population. Based on these guidelines the committee developed the proposed
magisterial district plan which is identified as Option lA. He then reviewed
the proposed changes to boundaries of magisterial district lines. He noted
two additional minor changes that the committee is recommending to the Scotts-
ville and Samuel Miller Districts.
Mr. Bowie recognized the fine work that the committee did and then opened
the public hearing on Option lA.
Ms. Sandy Snook, President of the League of Women Voters, said as a
result of the League's study of the structure of County government in 1989-90,
they concluded that when redistricting occurred in 1991, the number of super-
visors should be increased to an odd number, either by adding a magisterial
district or by adding one to three at-large members. The League is disap-
pointed that this is not being proposed, but they do feel that the issue was
raised and discussed publicly early enough in the redistricting process to
allow for effective citizen input. They are pleased that the whole process
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
109
was more open this year than it was ten years ago, and they commend the Board
and its appointed redistricting committee for making that so. They are also
pleased: 1) that the six magisterial districts, as proposed, have a mix of
urban and rural residents, in so far as possible, and that natural geographic
boundaries and communities have been taken into account, and 2) that it is
proposed to increase the number of precincts and polling places. They hope
that the Board will follow the recommendation of the working committee that
the optimum size of a precinct be from 1500 to 2000 voters.
There being no other cox~ents, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie noted that the Board will hold a public hearing on voting
precincts on May 15, and at that time take action on both items.
Mr. Bain commented that he has talked with Mr. Perkins about one minor
adjustment in the Samuel Miller and White Hall Districts. He will discuss it
further with the Registrar, and at next week's Board meeting.
There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 24. Crozet Crossing Subdivision: Status Report.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, presented the following
status report dated May 2, 1991:
"This memorandum is to report to the County Executive and Board of
Supervisors on the status of the Crozet Crossing Subdivision. Issues
to be covered include:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Project Design and Site Development
Lickinghole Creek Detention Basin Contribution
CDBG Program Design
Establishment of Community Advisory Committee
Establishment of Applicant Selection Committee
Outreach and Marketing Efforts
Preparation of Candidate Purchases
Board Actions
Project Design and Site Development: The project will consist of
a total of 30 single-family detached units for sale. Typical
size of a unit is 1140 square feet, and will be site built. The
plan has been reviewed by the design committee. There are no
major revisions contemplated at this time. The cost of a unit is
anticipated to be $65,000 for a three bedroom house. Final cost
will not be determined until all approvals are received and bids
for construction are awarded. This project will be on approxi-
mately 14 acres of the total 40 acre site. The remaining portion
of the site is not proposed for development at this time.
The Board of Supervisors endorsed the Crozet Crossing project
with access to Cling Stone Lane limited to no more than 30
dwellings. Any further development of the residue property would
require an alternate access. An analysis was undertaken to
evaluate the feasibility of providing an access directly to
Orchard Drive at the southern end of the site.
It has been determined that it is technically feasible to con-
struct a road along Powell Creek to Orchard Drive. However,
there are two primary concerns which do not make the road fea-
sible at this time:
Cost of Construction - In order to avoid significant in-
crease to the cost of homes, the number of units and density.
of the development would have to be increased if this access
were used.
Timing of Necessary Approvals - Federal and state approvals
for activity within the flood plains, wetlands, and near an
eligible historic site would be necessary before a road
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
]-]_0
could be constructed in this location. The extended time
frame necessary to receive those approvals would jeopardize
the state funding already received for this project.
For these reasons, the project has been limited to 30 units with
access to Cling Stone Lane as endorsed by the Board.
The alternative access to Orchard Drive has been incorporated
into the development of the site. Further stream crossings
needed for this road were incorporated into the flood plain
analysis for the site development proposed. A future access from
the proposed development has been planned that would connect to
any future road with access to Orchard Drive.
A preliminary subdivision plat has been developed and submitted
to the Planning Department for review. A special use permit
request for crossing the flood plain of Powells Creek has also
been submitted. Both are in the normal review process. Tenta-
tive schedule for Planning Cox~ission review of the preliminary
plat and special use permit is May 21. Board of Supervisors'
review of the special use permit is tentatively scheduled for
June 19.
The development plan will be submitted to the Crozet Community
Advisory Committee for information and con~nent prior to review by
the Planning Commission.
Lickinghole Creek Detention Basin - This project lies within the
Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin drainage area.
Therefore, a cash contribution is a normal requirement as a
condition of approval for this site. Since any such site deve-
lopment cost will ultimately impact the total cost of the homes,
any reduction in these costs will lower the cost of the homes to
purchasers. The Board of Supervisors could waive the Lickinghole
Basin contribution for this project. In effect, this action
would constitute an additional County contribution to the Crozet
Crossing project since its contribution towards the basin's
construction would be absorbed by the County.
CDBG Program Desisn - Attached (on file) is a copy of the CDBG
Program Design required as part of the agreement between the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development and the
County in order to receive CDBG funds. 'Section VI, Application
Procedure and Selection,' has been modified to reflect the desire
of the Board to give priority to County residents or employees,
and also includes some modifications recommended by DHCD. Staff
requests that the Board of Supervisors take action to accept the
revised program design.
A Project Income Plan is also being developed by staff at this
time and will require future modification of the program design
when completed. The project income plan identifies how County
and CHF funds will be recovered over the life of this project.
It is intended that the $300,000 CDBG funds, $300,000 County
match, and $150,000 CR-F funds will be secured through a second
deed of trust. At the time of sale of homes by the initial
purchasers, the second deed of trust would be paid off from the
proceeds of the sale unless the homes are sold to qualifying
buyers. The $600,000 in County funds (County match and CDBG)
would return to a program that would further address housing
needs in the County. A draft of this plan will be forwarded to
the Board for review and approval when completed.
Crozet Community Advisory Committee - This committee has been
appointed by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. It
consists of: (1) the Board of Supervisors member from the White
Hall District; (2) the Planning Commissioner from the White Hall
District; (3) the President of the Crozet Citizens Committee;
and, (4) two representatives of the immediate surrounding neigh-
borhoods.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
111
Mrs. Humphris asked if costs for the Lickinghole Creek impoundment haVe
been projected. Mr. Benish said the cost is based on total impervious area
The purpose of this committee is to provide input and comments on
issues related to the design elements of the project. It is also
to provide a con~nunity source for accurate information on the
status of the project. It's first meeting is to be held on May 3
to present and discuss preliminary site plan and preliminary
house designs.
Establishment of Applicant Selection Committee The applicant
selection committee has been established. The Committee consists
of Theresa Tapscott, Director of AHIP, Joyce Dudek and Ann Paul
of CHF, David Benish, Chief of Community Development, and Nick
Munger, Attorney. The committee has had one organizational
meeting. The applicant review process has not begun at the
committee level to date.
Outreach and Marketing Efforts - As of April 1, 1991, there were
61 applications on file for Crozet Crossing. These were submit-
ted in response to newspaper advertisements, publicity generated
by the public hearings, other agency referrals, word of mouth,
and flyers sent to local major employers.
An analysis of the waiting list reveals the following statistics:
Thirty-six (59%) of the households have incomes that are 49%
of the area median or less.
Twenty-one (35%) of the households have incomes that range
from 50% to 69% of the area median.
Four (6%) of the households have incomes that range from 70%
to 80% of the area median.
0
The average number of people per household on the waiting
list is 3.19. This number, multiplied by 30 houses, sug-
gests that we will be able to serve approximately 95 people.
This exceeds the 80 people we are cox~itted to serve with
the grant resources.
Preparation of Candidate Purchases - As indicated in the Program
Design, preparing people for home ownership is viewed as critical
to the success of this project. The above analysis of the
waiting list emphasizes this point. This will be accomplished in
a formal way through the presentation of a series of seminars on
home ownership. These will be done in cooperation with Sovran
Mortgage Corporation. The decision to ask Sovran Mortgage to
work with us on this project was based in part on their experi-
ence with teaching similar seminars in the past.
Board Actions - Staff requests that the Board do the following:
1. APprove the revised CDBG Program Design attached (on file).
Determine whether a cash contribution for Lickinghole Basin
will be required as a condition of approval for this pro-
ject.''
Mr. Benish said the citizen advisory committee meeting has met once and
it was a constructive meeting. Some of the issues discussed were design of
the subdivision plat, screening of the units from the railroad tracks, recrea-
tion facilities and other design features.
Mr. Perkins said the committee was pleased with what it found, particu-
larly with the design of the houses. He also felt that the meeting produc-.
tive.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the deSign is attractive and simple.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
112
and that has not been finalized. The current estimate is $16,963, which
equates to $570 per unit. It is assumed that this is a cost the County will
have to pay at some time.
Mr. Bain asked how it will ever be feasible to build another access road
for an additional 20 units. Mr. Perkins said the completed site plan shows
space for an additional ten to 15 lots which would help to pay for the addi-
tional access. Mr. Bowie said even if the cost of the road is prorated and
added to the cost of the 20 houses, the price of the house is still good. Mr.
Bain asked if there are any plans being made for this road, or will the Board
have to wait for another development to be planned before the road is consi-
dered. Mr. Benish said for the purposes of reviewing the special use permit
for crossing the flood plain, the engineers looked at the feasibility of
developing the second access from Orchard Drive. The impact on the flood
plain due to construction and future culvert crossings was included in the
design. Because of the time lag in trying for a development over the entire
site, the County is on the verge of losing a lot of money. The developers
decided to proceed with the 30 units that they know can done. They will look
to the future after this project is done. They have not precluded the possi-
bility of another road. The master plan shows all single family lots. As far
as planning for the residue development, access has been taken into account.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any action is needed by the Board at this time.
Mr. Benish said the developer would like to know as soon as possible if the
County will contribute to the Lickinghole Creek costs. That will be made a
condition of approval on the preliminary plat which goes before the Commission
on May 21.
There was no further discussion.
Mr. Bowie recognized Boy Scout Troop 79 from Crozet, present to observe
the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 22. Elderly/Handicapped Tax Relief, Discussion.
Mr. Tucker s,,mmmrized the following memorandum dated May 1, 1991:
"In response to a request from the Board at its April 17 meeting,
staff has investigated the feasibility of a tax deferral program for
Albemarle County. The following report includes information on
current enabling legislation, deferral programs in other Virginia
localities, and other possible alternatives for providing increased
tax relief for the elderly and handicapped.
CURRENT ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR TAX RELIBF: Although Albemarle
County has elected to have only a tax exemption program for the
elderly and disabled, current state legislation enables the County to
have either a tax exemption or a tax deferral program, or a combina-
tion program of exemptions and deferrals, based on certain income
guidelines. The local ordinance may specify a portion of the tax to
be deferred or exempted, or it may exempt or defer that portion of the
tax which represents the increase in tax liability since the year a
taxpayer reached the age of sixty-five or became disabled, or the year
such an ordinance became effective, whichever is later.
If a tax deferral program is utilized, the accumulated amount of taxes
deferred are paid to the county upon the sale of the dwelling or from
the estate of the deceased homeowner. The local ordinance may also
provide for yearly interest on the deferred amount up to eight per-
cent. The amount of deferred taxes and the accrued interest consti-
tutes a lien on the property.
TAX DEFERRAL PROGRAMS IN OTHER LOCALITIES: Within these broad legis-
lative guidelines, localities employ a wide variety of exemption/
deferral options to provide tax relief. Most have an exemption
program similar to Albemarle's, which ties the amount of tax relief to
a range of income levels. Two counties use a deferral program only;
eight counties use a combination exemption/deferral program.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
113
In a combination program, tax exemption is provided under a specified
income level, while above that level taxes are either 100 percent
deferred or deferred on a graduated basis. Loudoun County provides a
tax exemption for the amount by which the real estate tax exceeds two
percent of the gross combined income with a deferral program up to 100
percent for incomes under $40,000.
Staff does not recommend a tax deferral program for the same two
reasons that most other localities have chosen not to adopt deferrals
as part of their tax relief program. One reason is simply the admin-
istrative problems inherent in the administration of an ongoing
deferral program. Parcels must be continually tracked and flagged,
deferred taxes and interest computed, and measures taken to insure
that deferred taxes are not lost when properties are sold or inherit-
ed.
The second reason is the iow participation rate for deferral programs.
The City of Charlottesville, which provides a deferral option for
taxpayers with incomes between $15,000 and $18,000, reports no appli-
cations for tax deferrals. Loudoun County has two tax deferrals
compared to 500 exemptions; Prince William has 25 deferral applicants
compared to 600 exemptions; and Arlington County reports only 62
deferrals compared to 360 exemptions. Ail cite the unwillingness of
the majority of elderly homeowners to have a lien placed on their
property as the major reason for the iow participation rate. For
these two reasons, it seems more advantageous to the County and to
elderly taxpayers to continue with the exemption program.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: Although a tax deferral program is not recom-
mended for the reasons cited above, there are other alternatives
within the exemption program that could provide additional relief to
elderly and disabled county taxpayers on fixed incomes. One option is
to simply raise the qualifying income level for tax relief to $20,000,
which is 50 percent of median income or "Very Low Income" as defined
by HUD, or to the maximum allowable level of $30,000. A second option
is to raise the asset level from the current $65,000 to the maximum
allowable level of $75,000. A third option is to develop a matrix
that combines both higher income and asset levels. A fourth option
might consider an exemption based on the amount by which property
taxes exceed a fixed percentage of gross combined income, which is
similar to Loudoun County's program.
The only restraint in pursuing any one of these options is the amount
of revenue the County is willing to forego for an expanded tax relief
program and the equity issue of providing tax relief to one segment of
the community, i.e., the elderly and handicapped, while families at
comparable income levels are not afforded the same benefit. Staff has
begun developing cost projections for these various options, but would
like to defer any final recommendations until September. This will
allow staff to use 1990 census data, which should be available some-
time this summer, rather than basing cost projections on outdated 1980
census information.
If desired by the Board, staff will bring back cost projections on the
above tax exemption alternatives at the earliest meeting after the
census data becomes available."
Mr. Bowerman asked if anyone qualifies under the County's current plan.
Mr. Tucker said "yes"; he does not know the total number. Mr. Bowie said when
further information is sent to the Board on this item, he would like to know
how many people are currently taking advantage of the program and how many
would qualify if the limits were raised. He also would like to know many
people there are in the ages 20 - 30, who have children and mortgages, and who
make less than $30,000, so the Board can look at addressing the problem.
Mr. Bain noted receipt of a letter from the Care Manager at Jefferson
Area Board for Aging which relates to simplifying the process and simplifying
the current application form as a service to the people who are finding the
form too difficult.
May 8, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
114
Mr. Tucker said the staff sends out information about the program with
all tax notices so people are aware that the program is available. He thinks
a lot of the elderly are reluctant to take advantage because they do not
understand the application. Mr. Tucker said when new information is received
from the Census Bureau, staff will bring a report back to the Board in the
Fall.
There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 25. Appointment: GTE-GIS Road Naming Committee.
Mr. Bowerman said he has no name to recon~nend for appointment. Mr.
Tucker said the committee is ready to proceed.
Agenda Item No. 26. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Mr. Tucker said Ms. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director of the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission, will be hosting two committees in
Charlottesville in late May; the Murphy Committee that deals with Chesepeake
Bay initiatives, and the Burn Commission which deals with Transferable Deve-
lopment Rights. The committees will be holding public hearings. She is
planning to hold an evening gathering on May 30 or 31 and will invite all
local elected officials. Mr. Bowie said he is available on May 30. Mr.
Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris said they will be away.
Mr. Bain said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission annual
dinner will be held on Thursday, June 6 with James Wi Dyke, Jr., Secretary of
Education, being the keynote speaker. All Board members and School Board
members will be invited.
Mr. Perkins asked if anyone will be sponsoring another hazardous waste
collection day, and if so when and where it will be. Mr. Tucker said he
believes the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority will try to offer it this year.
The City and County did it last year. Mrs. Humphris said the last she heard
of that was that so little material was brought in and the cost per item was
so huge there was a question on whether it would be justified to do again.
Mr. Tucker said he will find out.
Mr. Perkins said the Audit Committee received proposals from five Certi-
fied Public Accounting firms to provide audit services beginning with the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1991. After analyzing the proposals, the gomm~t-
tee recommends that the County engage the firm of Robinson, Farmer, Cox,
Associates, as its independent auditors. He then offered motion, secondexlby
Hr. Bower~-, to appoint the firm of Robinson, Fa~mex, Cox Associates for a
five year contract as the County's Auditors beginning with the audit for
fiscal year 1990-91.
Mr. Bain asked if there was any reason the Committee did not continue
with the firm McGladrey & Pullen. Mr. Perkins said the need for change, trust
and low bid were taken into account. Mr. Bowie said most organizations
changes firms after five years to get a new perspective.
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. 30. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.