1991-06-12June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 1
Page (1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 12, 1991, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. }tumphris, 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, ¥. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 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.
Public.
There were none.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
First, Mr. Bowie asked that the Board consider Item No. 11.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-90-102. Centel (deferred from April 17, 1991).
Mr. Bowie explained that the applicant was present at the meeting, and
this would mean that he would not have to wait until that item was brought up
later. Mr. Bowie noted, however, that the request for a deferral was not in
writing.
Mr. St. John suggested that the item be deferred to the July 10 day
meeting. Mr. Bain moved that the Centel request be deferred to the July 10
day meeting. 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.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.7, and to accept the
remaining items on the consent agenda as information. (Discussion of individ-
ual items will be shown with that item.) 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. Approval requested of an Advanced Allocation Agreement with
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department. The following letter dated May 29,
1991, was received from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive:
"The Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association approved an
advanced allocation to the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company,
Inc., for the construction of a fire station on six acres of land
donated by the owners of Glenmore Farms. The agreement has the
following conditions.
It provides a 15-year payback of $33,600 annually on the
$504,000 advance.
The County of Albemarle is to be 50 percent co-owner of the
land.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (2)
In the event that East Rivanna no longer exists, the agreement
stipulates that their interest in the land plus ail appurte-
nances thereto shall be conveyed at no cost so long as the
County shall use this property for fire fighting purposes.
Other matters that may interest you are as follows:
175
The County's Site Review Committee has approved the site; East
Rivanna has designed, taken bids on the station and are ready
to proceed immediately. A copy of the agreement is on file in
the County Executive's Office. These funds will be available
after reimbursements in July, 1991 occur.
Staff recommends that you take official action to authorize the
Chairman to sign the deed and agreement and to authorize the
Director of Finance to make the advance of funds."
Mrs. Humphris asked why the County is not 100 percent owner of the land
instead of 50 percent co-owner. Mr. Tucker responded that this was the agree-
ment reached with the Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company. He said that as long as
the Fire Company is in business, the County will be the co-owner of the
property. He went on to say that only in the event that the Fire Company
ceases to exist would the County become the full owner.
Mrs. Humphris then questioned the Service Agreement in which it states
that East Rivanna will convey "all Appurtenances thereto and improvements
thereon," and asked if these appurtenances would be conveyed to the County at
no cost. Mr. Tucker indicated that the appurtenances would be conveyed to
the County at no cost.
Mr. St. John explained that this agreement authorizes certain things be
done. He said that when the Fire Company ceases to exist, the transfer of
property will have to be done by deed. He went on to say that when the deed
is drawn up, the sentence stating that, "so long as the County uses this
property for fire fighting purposes," will be omitted. He indicated that he
would not go into the reasons for this omission at this meeting, but since the
item was being discussed, he thought that he should mention it. Mr. Tucker
inquired if Mr. St. John meant that the omission would be done as part of the
deed process. Mr. St. John answered, "yes." He then explained that the
County could not be bound to give the property to an unknown or unidentified
person at the time the County decided not to use it for fire fighting pur-
poses. He said that the County would have to dispose of it, as it does with
other properties.
By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the Chairman to sign the
deed and the folloiwng service agreement, and authorized the Director of
Finance to make the advance of funds:
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS SERVICE AGPRRMENT made this 16th day of May, 1991, by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ("County"), and the EAST
RIVANNA VOLUNTRRR FIRE COMPANY, INC. ("East Rivanna);
For and in consideration of matters set out herein and the
operation by East Rivanna of a volunteer fire company which will fight
fires and protect property and human life from loss and damage by fire
during the period of this agreement and the construction by East
Rivanna of a new fire station on property described herein for use
during the period of this agreement, the County shall advance to East
Rivanna the sum of FIVE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($504,000.00),
which shall be advanced from the County's fire fund as needed during
construction of the new fire station.
Thereafter, beginning July, 1992 through July, 2006, $33,600.00
will be withheld from the County's annual contribution to East Rivanna
so that by July, 2006 a total of $504,000.00 shall have been withheld
from the County's annual contribution to East Rivanna.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 176
Page (3)
East Rivanna agrees that the County shall be a 50 percent
co-owner of the land upon which the fire station is to be constructed,
described in Exhibit A (on file) attached hereto. If at any time East
Rivanna is no longer in the business of providing fire fighting
services, East Rivanna covenants that it will convey all its interest
in the land described in Exhibit A hereto, including all appurtenances
thereto and improvements thereon, to the County at no cost to the
County so long as the County, or its assigns, will use this property
for fire fighting purposes.
(Note: The deed will be set out in the minutes when it is received.)
Item 5.2. Request from the Engineering Department for a transfer of
appropriation in the Storm Water Fund, re: several storm dmainage projects.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following appropriation
request to transfer funds from Windham/Jarman Gap to the King George and
Solomon Road projects:
FISCAL YEAR: 1990/91
FUND: STORMWATER
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
TRANSFER OF FUNDING FROM WINDHAM/
JARMAN GAP TO KING GEORGE AND SOLOMON
ROAD PROJECTS
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1910041047800975
1910041042800975
1910041050800975
KING GEORGE
SOLOMON ROAD
W1NDHAM/JARMAN GAP
TOTAL
$8,160.00
2,290.00
(10~450.00)
$ o.oo
Item 5.3. County/City Fire Service Contract, Review. The following
memorandum dated June 6, 1991, was received from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
County Executive:
"Background: The County has purchased fire service from the City
for over 30 years. In the beginning, there were only two volunteer
companies in the County, at Scottsville and Crozet. The City
service was limited to the Charlottesville and Ivy Magisterial
Districts, which had a five cents fire service tax at that time.
In the mid-sixties as the County began to urbanize and grow, the
service was extended to the entire County. In 1962, the County
purchased the first fire engine to be assigned at the City fire
house. Today, the County owns two pumpers used by the City for
fire suppression in both the City and County.
In 1979, the first official contract was signed which required the
City to provide the staffing of one engine consisting of three
lieutenants and eight fire fighters for County service. This
contract also provided that the County pay 17 percent of other City
budget costs plus 30 percent of the dispatching costs. This
contract ran from 1979 to 1986 and annual costs rose from $197,764
to $345,060.
In 1986, the City and County negotiated the current contract. The
County requested the Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association
fire chiefs to provide their needs of supplemental support and from
that information the current contract was created. The contract
cost for the first year (FY 87-88) was $370,000 and increased
$25,000 per year plus Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the next three
years. The contract is costing the County $537,595 in FY 91-92.
Basically, the current contract requires the City to respond as
designated by the volunteer chiefs. Other services include dis-
patching of all volunteer companies, aerial ladder service upon
special requests and utilization of the air utility vehicle. Since
1979, the contracts have allowed the use of the County engines to
be at the discretion of the City Fire Chief.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (4)
Other Pertinent Data: Attached is additional data (on file).
These attachments show the type of responses for the first quarter
of calendar year 1991. As you can see, a large number of the
responses are for medical assistance and vehicle accidents. In
order to reduce these calls, the County Police are being trained as
First Responders and the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Associa-
tion has recently asked the City to only respond to 'life threaten-
ing' medical assists during the day. Both of these changes should
reduce the number of responses by the City as well as the volunteer
companies.
Summary and Recommendation: Due to the increased number of re-
sponses, the City staff has suggested that the contract be renego-
tiated for FY 92-93. If after reviewing the contract, the attach-
ments and our discussion on June 12, you feel it appropriate to
renegotiate the contract, staff recommends we officially notify the
City by certified mail as required by the current contract prior to
July 30 of the County's desire to review the current contract."
177
Mr. Bowerman stated that he had reviewed the information pertaining to
the County/City Fire Service Contract review provided by Mr. Tucker. He added
that he had asked for additional information for the year 1989-90, but after
reviewing this information, plus the existing contract, he feels that the
agreement is working satisfactorily to the benefit of both the City and the
County. At this time, it is his opinion that it is not necessary to review
this information further and he accepts Mr. Tucker's report.
Item 5.4. Resolution requesting Funding Assistance for Walnut Creek Park
Landscaping Grant. The following memorandum dated June 6, 1991, from Mr.
Patrick K. Mullaney, Director, Parks & Recreation, was received:
"We are rather hastily preparing a grant application for the 'America
the Beautiful' grant program, which is administered by the Virginia
Department of Forestry.
This program was authorized by the 'America the Beautiful Act of 1990'
to provide for the planting and care of trees in cities, towns and
communities across the nation.
In the grant application we are requesting assistance in the amount of
$2100 for landscaping the parking lot and beach area at Walnut Creek
Park. The total cost of landscaping at the site is $4200. The County
will be responsible for providing matching funds. The matching funds
will come from the Walnut Creek budget or, if necessary, another
existing Parks and Recreation source.
Two requirements for the grant application are that we must provide a
resolution from the governing body and a waiver releasing the Virginia
Department of Forestry from liability. Enclosed is a resolution that
covers both requirements.
We received information on the grant program from the state recreation
office in late May and our application must be postmarked by June 15.
Therefore, if we are to make application, this will require the
Board's attention at their meeting on June 12."
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution
for funding assistance on landscaping at Walnut Creek Park:
FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR WALNUT CREEK PARK LANDSCAPING
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
WHEREAS, the "America the Beautiful Act of 1990" authorized
a five year initiative to provide for the planting and care of
trees in cities, towns and communities across the nation; and
WHE~, this initiative has resulted in the allocation of
$175,000 in matching funds to Virginia in 1991 to be administered
by the Virginia Department of Forestry for urban and community
forestry projects; and
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (5)
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires funding assistance
in the amount of $2,100 for tree planting at Walnut Creek Park;
and
WHEREAS, funding necessary in addition to the Virginia
Department of Forestry share to complete the project will be
provided by the County of Albemarle;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Albemarle that the County Executive is hereby
authorized to cause such information or materials as may be
necessary to be provided to the Virginia Department of Forestry
and to enter into such agreements as may be necessary to permit
formulation, approval and funding of the Walnut Creek Park
Landscaping Project;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the County of Albemarle hereby
releases the Virginia Department of Forestry from any liability
associated with contractors, volunteers or local government
employees working on this project.
178
Item 5.5. PACC Draft Minutes and Entrance Corridor Guidelines Resolu-
tion. Attached to a memorandum dated June 6, 1991, Mr. Tucker provided the
Board with a copy of the draft minutes of the May 30, 1991, Planning and
Coordination Council (PACC) meeting. In his memorandum, Mr. Tucker states
that the PACC Technical Committee prepared a resolution at the May 30 meeting
which proposes that the PACC Technical Committee be designated the regional
coordinating body for Entrance Corridor Guidelines. After discussing the
matter, PACC agreed to have each governing body consider the resolution and
make that designation rather than leaving it to the responsibility of PACC.
PACC thought that since the County is the only governmental agency which has
entrance corridor legislation, it would be more appropriate for this designa-
tion to come from the governing bodies. Mr. Tucker recommends that this Board
request the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to review the resolution for
their concurrence.
Mrs. Humphris called attention to Page Two of the PACC Draft Minutes
where it was requested that the City Council and the Board of Supervisors
provide their other members and the Planning Commission members a copy of the
land use planning initiatives memorandum. She asked if this Board had re-
ceived the memorandum. Mr. Tucker replied, "no."
Mrs. Humphris referred to the resolution and asked what the implications
are of designating the PACC-Tech as the regional body responsible for review-
ing and coordinating the entrance corridor guidelines for the City, County and
University in relation to the County's ARB. Mr. Tucker responded that the ARB
will be working on the criteria. At this time the County is the only entity
which has an ARB and an Entrance Corridor Ordinance. He said that the City
will be adopting an ordinance soon, but it will be somewhat different from the
County's. He indicated that when PACC-Tech was first discussing this situa-
tion, it was felt that a regional body should be overseeing the City's and the
County's criteria. He noted that the entire purpose for having PACC-Tech
oversee the criteria established by the two entities was to make sure that the
criteria was coordinated as much as possible. Mr. Tucker feels, however, that
instead of PACC making that decision, the governing body should be responsible
for it. He added that prior to the Board making this decision, it might be
appropriate for the ARB to examine the criteria. Mr. St. John said this
criteria would only be recommended by PACC.
Mrs. Humphris was concerned that this might compromise the authority of
the ARB. Mr. Tucker agreed and indicated this was the reason he had wanted
the ARB to be comfortable with the criteria before action was taken by this
Board.
Mr. Bowie pointed out that on the second page, second paragraph of the
PACC minutes, the motion was to approve the criteria, but he was uncomfortable
with doing that because he did not understand how it would affect the ARB.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (6)
179
Mr. Bain referred again to the PACC minutes relating to the transporta-
tion situation where it states that there should not be a level of government
between the County and the City. He asked specifically what the conversation
was about in that particular paragraph. Mr. Bowie answered that in 1984 it
was the stated intent in the General Assembly to have a level of government
between counties and the state. If coordination of transportation is done, it
should not be construed as a level of government between the county or city
and the state. He noted that it is a coordinating activity only, and is not
intended to be regulatory.
Mr. St. John said the paragraph should indicate that the level of govern-
ment between counties and cities is one issue, and between counties, cities
and the state is another. He indicated that this has been the Subject~ of
legislative discussion for years. Mr. Bowie said that the sentence should
read that there needs to be a level of government between the counties and
cities and the State.
There being no other discussion on this item, the Board agreed to forward
the resolution to the ARB for review.
Item 5.6. Request for resolution approving street name signs to identify
streets in Hickory Ridge Subdivision, Sections 1 and 2: Pelham Road/State
Route 665 and Pelham Road/Martingale Lane. (In a letter dated June 13, 1990,
Mr. Michael D. Lyster, General Manager for Hickory Ridge Ltd., requested
street signs for Sections 1 and 2 in Hickory Ridge Subdivision. Hickory Ridge
Ltd. agreed to pay for the cost and shipping of these signs, and to include
the signs in the future road maintenance agreement for the subdivision.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution
for street sign names:
WHEREAS a request has been received for a street sign to
identify the following roads in Hickory Ridge Subdivision:
Pelham Road (State Route 1070) at its intersection with
State Route 665.
Pelham Road (State Route 1070) and Martingale Lane (State
Route 1071) at its intersection.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through
the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards
set by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested
to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs.
Item 5.7. Request for resolution approving street name signs to identify
the following roads: South Pantops Drive/Riverbend Drive and South Pantops
Drive/State Farm Boulevard. (In a letter dated March 14, 1984, Mr. James M.
Hill, Jr., Administrative Assistant with Virgina Land Company, requested
street name signs for the development on Pantops. Virginia Land agreed to pay
for the signs and shipping, plus install the signs.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS a request has been received for a street sign to
identify the following roads:
South Pantops Drive (State Route 1140) and Riverbend Drive
(State Route 1116) at its intersection.
South Pantops Drive (State Route 1140) and State Farm
Boulevard (State Route 1117) at its intersection.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through
the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards
set by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation;
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (7)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested
to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs.
180
Item 5.8. Letter dated May 29, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident
Engineer, forwarding a copy of the "Current Projects-Construction Schedule,"
was received as information.
Mr. Bain asked if Route 660 was still on schedule for completion in
November. Mr. Roosevelt answered "yes."
Item 5.9. Copy of letter dated May 30, 1991, from Ms. A. G. Tucker,
Assistant Resident Engineer, addressed to Mr. Stuart Harper, re: "gth Annual
Women's Four Miler Road Race Permit for Route 601," was received for informa-
tion.
Item 5.10. Letter dated May 31, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident
Engineer, Re: Improvement of Route 250 between Locust Avenue in Charlottes-
ville and Interstate Route 64, was received as information. (In his letter,
Mr. Roosevelt states that the improvement of Route 250 between Locust Avenue
in Charlottesville and 1-64 is scheduled to begin in late June. Recognizing
the impact this construction will have upon traffic and businesses in that
part of the City and County, the Department has scheduled an information
meeting to advise the public of its construction and traffic management plans.
The meeting will be held at the Burnley-Moran School Auditorium on Monday,
June 10, 1991, at 7:30 p.m.)
Item 5.11. Copy of letter dated May 28, 1991, from Ms. Amelia M. Patter-
son, Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Ronald Hancock, entitled "Official
Determination of Number of Parcels (Section 10.3.1), Tax Map 40A, Parcel 22,
and Well Lot," was received as information.
Item 5.12. Copy of Audit for Year Ended June 30, 1990, from The Honor-
able Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albe-
marle, from the Auditor of Public Accounts, Commonwealth of Virginia, was
received as information.
Item 5.13. Memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive,
dated May 31, 1991, entitled "State Compensation Board's Funding Reduction of
the Sheriff's Office," was received as follows.
"The Sheriff has recently been informed of reductions in State
funding by the State Compensation Board for FY 91-92. These result
in the following reduction of State projected revenues when com-
pared to FY 90-91.
Elimination of all Overtime - $ 5,000
37 percent Reduction of Auto Expenses - 15,000
50 percent Reduction of Office Expenses - 3,000
Total Loss $23,000
During the past four months, there has been 61 hours overtime in
the Circuit Court, 35 hours in Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court and 34 hours in transporting mental patients. The mileage is
dictated by the number of papers served which has increased from
16,500 in 1988 to an estimated 25,000 in 1991. The work load is
increasing while State funding is being reduced by the Compensation
Board. The Sheriff estimates that the increased activity will
generate additional local fees which should offset approximately
$3000 of the loss in State revenue.
Staff met with Sheriff Hawkins on May 10 and discussed the above
unfortunate circumstances. Staff encouraged the Sheriff to proceed
June 12, 19gl (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (8)
on with his job in as conservative a manner as possible and that
Staff would review the actual results at mid-year. No official
action by the Board of Supervisors is recommended at this time."
181
Item 5.14. Letter dated June 4, 1991, from Mr. Lawrence ~. Framme, III,
Secretary of Economic Development, addressed to The Honorable F. R. Bowie,
stating that the Commonwealth is offering the County of Albemarle a Community
Improvement Grant in the amount of $500,000, was received as follows:
"June 4, 1991
The Honorable F. R. Bowie
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Chairman Bowie:
It gives me great pleasure to announce that the Commonwealth is
offering the County of Albemarle a Community Improvement Grant in
the amount of $500,000 for its Community Development Block Grant
project.
Your application was among the thirty-five that rated high enough
to receive a grant offer. The Department of Housing and Community
Development soon will be in touch with you or your designee to
begin contract negotiations and to verify the contents of your
application.
I am pleased that the Commonwealth can be of assistance in meeting
your cox~unity development needs.
Sincerely yours,
(SIGNED) Lawrence H. Framme, III"
Item 5.15. Memorandum from Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Develop-
ment, dated May 27, 1991, entitled "Release of 1990 '~ensus Information," was
received as information.
Mr. Bowie commented that he hoped to use this information at a School
Board meeting.
Item 5.16. Letter dated May 15, 1991, from Mr. J. S. Hodge, Chief Engi-
neer, Virginia Department of Transportation, addressed to Mr. Robert W.Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, enclosing a copy of "Revised Policy--Installation of
Street Name Signs", along with copy of Mr. Tucker's letter dated May 31, 1991,
back to Mr. Hodge, were received as follows:
"May 15, 1991
Revised Policy --Installation of
Street Name Signs
Mr. Robert W. Tucker
County Executive
Albemarle County
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-5596
Dear Mr. Tucker:
It has been the policy of the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) to install and maintain street name signs on state-maintained
roads when requested to do so by the counties, if the signs were
furnished to the Department. Until recently, however, there were a
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (9)
limited number of counties where street names were in use and for
which signing had bean provided.
With an increasing number of localities implementing, or proposing
to implement, Enhanced-911 emergency communication systems which
require street addresses for all residences and businesses, the
demand for the installation of street name signs has placed a
significant burden on local VDOT maintenance facilities. Because
of limited Department funds available for this purpose in some
areas, or due to scheduling problems that would result in unaccept-
able delays, many counties have elected to assume responsibility
for street name sign installation and maintenance.
The Department recognizes the need for this type of signing, but
also recognizes its own limitations of personnel and funding for
the installation and proper maintenance of such signs. According-
ly, the Department has revised its policy and will no longer
install or maintain street name signs as a routine activity. Under
the new policy, these signs will be allowed on street and roads
maintained by VDOT, but must be installed and maintained by the
counties and/or towns. A copy of the revised policy is enclosed
for your ready reference.
Standards for the fabrication and erection of street name signs on
state highways have also been developed to assure uniformity
throughout the State. A copy of the new standards is enclosed for
your use. These standards reflect the needs of the increasing
number of older drivers using today's highway system. One of the
major problems cited by senior citizens is the size of street name
signs and the difficulty of locating an intersection in time to
execute a safe turning maneuver. To alleviate this problem, larger
letters and signs are specified for use on major roads. On local
secondary roads and subdivision streets, smaller letters and signs
are acceptable within the minimum standards outlined. These
standards will apply to all new or replacement street name signs
installed on state-maintained roads within counties or towns. The
primary intent of these standards is to provide better signing over
the long term as the percentage of older drivers increases.
Therefore, existing signs may remain in place until usual replace-
ment is necessary due to age, knockdown, vandalism, etc.
182
As a further measure to reduce 'sign clutter' at intersections, all
new street name signs installed in accordance with the revised
policy must contain space to accommodate a decal to be furnished
and installed by VDOT personnel. This decal will be used to
identify the route number used by the State for that road or street
and will replace the standard route number panels now installed
separately. Details are outlined in the new standards.
Please note that the new policy and standards apply only to new
sign installations. Existing signs shall be replaced with those
meeting the new standards only when replacement is necessary due to
other reasons. Ongoing commitments to install signs furnished by
others under the former policy will be honored.
The Department of Transportation is prepared to work with you, the
Board of Supervisors, town managers, developers, and others in-
volved with street naming programs to assure a smooth transition in
the implementation of the new policy and standards. Please feel
free to contact the VDOT district administrator or the resident
engineer in your area if you wish to discuss details of the policy
as it applies to your current program.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED) J. S. Hodge
Chief Engineer"
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (10)
Maintenance Division Policy Manual
183
REVISED POLICY
Section 10.133 - ROAD AND STREET NAME SIGNS
It is the policy of the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT), to allow the installation of road or street name signs by
local governments on the Primary and Secondary road systems main-
tainedrby VDOT.
This policy is intended to provide Positive guidance in considera-
tion of local governments; implementation of uniform road and
street naming programs. With the emergence of "Enhanced 911"
emergency communications systems and the increased use of street
addresses for postal delivery service, it is considered that such
road and street naming progrmmm are a necessary public service.
COUNTY/TOWN RESPONSIBILITIES: In order to be allowed to install
road or street name signs on highways maintained by VDOT, the
county/town shall agree to:
Establish a uniform street and road naming program to provide
for continuity.
Provide all necessary signs, posts, and related hardware in
accordance with established YDOT standards and install, or
provide for the installation of, such signs and posts in
accordance with established standards. Any signs or posts of
special design must be approved by the Department prior to
installation.
Maintain and replace all street name signs and/or posts within
the county/town, including those previously installed by VDOT,
when necessary due to deterioration, vandalism, knock-down,
etc.
YDOT RESPONSIBILITIES: To implement this policy, VDOT shall:
Formulate specifications and standards for the fabrication and
erection of road and street name signs.
Allow the county/town to install road or street name signs in
accordance with these specifications and standards, relative
to their established road and street naming programs, on VDOT
right of way.
At its option, fabricate and install, in accordance with
established standards, decals indicating the route number
associated with the road or street named on the sign in the
space provided on each sign.
STREET NAME SIGNS
SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS
PART I
Primary Routes and Collector Secondary Roads:
Street name signs for use on Primary routes and collector Secondary
roads shall have a minimum height of nine inches, a minimum width
of 30 inches and a maximum width of 48 inches. Widths greater than
48 inches may be allowed in special cases upon approval of the VDOT
district traffic engineer.
The letter size and type shall conform to the FHWA "Standard
Alphabets for Highway Signs", Series C, upper case. The standard
letter height shall be six inches for the street name. The stand-
ard letter height of the suffix and prefix (if any) shall be three
inches. Non-standard letter heights may be allowed in special
cases upon approval of the VDOT district traffic engineer.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (11)
184
Spacing between letters within a street name should conform to the
spacing dimensions shown in the Virginia Supplement to the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways unless
this will result in a sign width greater than 48 inches. In such
cases, the space between letters may be reduced proportionately to
a minimum of one-half inch at the closest point between two adjoin-
ing letters. If further reduction is required, Series B letters
may be used.
The normal spacing between words shall be the width of the letter
"H" in the same series and height used in the words.
If block numbers are used, they shall be of the same letter series
and height of the suffix and placed directly above the suffix.
Ail street name signs shall be fabricated with high intensity
reflectorized sign sheeting. Sign text and numerals shall be white
and the background shall be either green or blue. The background
color shall be uniform throughout the county/town.
On Primary routes and collector Secondary roads, street name signs
should be placed at least on diagonally opposite corners so that
they will'be on the far right side of the intersection for traffic
on the major street. Signs naming both streets should be erected
at each location with their faces mounted parallel to the streets
they name. Street name signs shall be placed in a manner that will
allow them to be plainly seen by approaching motorists and not
interfere with or block the motorists view of other signs.
A blank space at least 2.50 inches high and 12 inches wide shall be
provided in the lower right hand corner of the sign to accommodate
a decal containing the appropriate route number. The Virginia
Department of Transportation will be responsible for the fabrica-
tion and installation of the decal, which shall be white with a
black legend consisting of two-inch letters/numerals and may be
non-reflectorized.
PART II
Local Secondary Roads and Subdivision Streets:
Street name signs for use on local Secondary roads and subdivision
streets shall have a minimum height of six inches, a minimum width
of 24 inches and a maximum width of 42 inches. Widths greater than
42 inches may be allowed in special cases upon approval of the VDOT
District Traffic Engineer.
The letter size and type shall conform to the FHWA "Standard
Alphabets for Highway Signs", Series C, upper case. The standard
letter height shall be four inches for the street name. The
standard letter height of the suffix and prefix (if any) shall be
two inches. Non-standard letter heights may be allowed in special
cases upon approval of the VDOT district traffia engineer.
Spacing between letters within a street name should conform to the
spacing dimensions shown in the Virginia Supplement to the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways unless
this will result in a sign width greater than 42 inches. In such
cases, the space between letters may be reduced proportionately to
a minimum of one-half inch at the closest point between two adjoin-
ing letters. If further reduction is required, Series B letters
may be used.
The normal spacing between words shall be the width of the letter
"H" in the same series and height used in the words.
If block numbers are used, they shall be of the same letter series
and height of the suffix and placed directly above the suffix.
Ail street n=mm signs shall be fabricated with high intensity
reflectorized sign sheeting. Sign text and numerals shall be white
and the background shall be either green or blue. The background
color shall be uniform throughout the county/town.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (12)
On local Secondary roads and subdivision streets, at least one
street name sign should be mounted at each intersection. Signs
naming both streets should be erected at each location with their
faces mounted parallel to the streets they name.
A blank space at least 1.25 inches high and eight inches wide shall
be provided in the lower right hand corner of the sign to accommo-
date a decal containing the appropriate route number. The Virginia
Department of Transportation will be responsible for the fabrica-
tion and installation of the decal, which shall be white with a
black legend consisting of one-inch letters/numerals and may be
non-reflectorized.
185
"May 31, 1991
Jack S. Hodge
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401E Broad St
Richmond, VA 23219
VDoT Maintenance Division Policy Manual -
Draft Revision Section 10.133 - Road and Street Name
Signs (Rev. 3-12-91)
Dear Mr. Hodge:
I have just recently received the revision to your Road and Street
Name Sign Policy relating to local government having to assume the
responsibility of maintenance and installation of street signs on
primary and secondary roads. As I understand the policy this is a
result of localities providing for Enhanced 911 systems throughout
the state and the concern of VDoT having to absorb increased
expense for the maintenance and cost of street name signs in place
of state route number signs. This change in policy will undoubtedly
be a tremendous burden on localities for maintenance of signs that
they have never assumed or been responsible for previously.
While I can understand there will be some added costs to replacing,
in case of damage, a street name sign in lieu of the state route
number sign, the majority of that cost will be in actual labor and
installation, an expense which is already a part of VDoT's budget
and responsibility today. The only added expense will be the added
cost of a street name sign versus a route number sign. Also, there
is the factor of inefficiencies created by this policy. The
revised policy will require two different work crews, i.e., one
crew from the state to repair a traffic control sign and a separate
crew from the locality to repair the road or street name sign.
This will not, I am afraid, make a lot of sense to the citizens of
the Commonwealth.
To abdicate responsibility for installation and maintenance of all
street named signs to that of the locality will, as I mentioned
earlier, be a financial hardship for localities who are attempting
to provide the E-911 program as a public service to their citizens.
I understand the state's need to reduce expenses, but localities
are faced with the same sort of revenue shortfalls, perhaps on a
smaller scale, but nonetheless just as great of an impact on a per
capita basis as that faced by the state.
I would appreciate your reconsideration of this revision to policy
and request that you ask your resident engineers discuss the matter
with their respective residency governing bodies for additional
input on this matter."
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident, Engineer, VDoT, suggested that the Board
discuss Items 5.6 and 5.7 as they relate to Item 5.16 on the Consent Agenda.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 186
Page (13)
Mr. Tucker stated that the purpose of his letter was to ask for reconsi-
deration of the policy because the County was given no notice before the
policy was enacted. He believes that the State has made some progress in the
past, particularly in subdivision road policies, where there has been input on
the residency level on changes, suggestions or improvements to policies. He
had hoped that this would be a standard procedure, but he received a letter'
from Mr. Hodge saying that this policy already existed. It was his intent to
explain from the County's perspective the problems that the policy would
entail as well as to ask for reconsideration. He feels that other localities
will feel the same way.
Mr. Bain pointed out that Mr. Hodge mentioned in his letter that many
counties have elected to assume responsibility for the installation and nmmlng
of street signs. Mr. Roosevelt replied that Fairfax County has maintained its
own street name signs for more than 20 years. He believes that Prince William
County has had the same situation since before the 911 system was introduced
in Virginia. Beyond that, he cannot say whether there are other counties that
have volunteered to maintain their own signs.
Mr. Bowie stated that there are two issues involved because it has
already been established that this County will proceed with the Enhanced 911
system. He said that streets signs are needed, but there is a debate as to
who will pay for them. He noted that VDoT has indicated that it will not pay
for the signs now, so it appears that the County will have to pay the costs.
He stated that the County might want to argue the issue, but he does not
understand what this has to do with Items 5.6 and 5.7.
Mr. Roosevelt said he wanted to make sure that. the Board understood that
once counties have been notified by this letter from Mr. Hodge, VDoT's mainte-
nance of existing and new street signs ceases. Also, the new standard will
allow space on the street name signs for VDoT to place a route number. He
said that if this Board is prepared to install and maintain the signs, he
recommends that action be continued with Agenda Items 5.6 and 5.7. He noted,
however, that he is referring to new street name signs and not the old signs.
Mr. Bowie commented that if the County needs the street signs, he does
not know what difference it makes.
Mrs. Humphris asked what can be done. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the
only thing that can be done is to submit a letter for consideration and to
continue in the same direction in which this Board has already started to
move. He did not want these agenda items approved without this Board recog-
nizing what its action for passive approval would involve.
Mrs. Humphris noted that she did not consider this as passive approval.
She thought that there was no appeal except for what Mr. Tucker had written in
his letter. She believed that this was the best that could be done. She
asked Mr. Roosevelt to tell the Board if there is more that can be done.
Mr. Bowie felt it might be a good idea to wait for an answer from Mr.
Tucker's letter.
Mr. Tucker explained that he did not think it was necessary to delay
the street naming requests because it was already known that the Highway
Department would not pay for new signs. He added that the developer now pays
for new street signs in subdivisions. Future maintenance, repair or replace-
ment has always been the responsibility of the Highway Department. He noted
that the new regulation indicates that future maintenance, repair or replace-
ment will be the County's responsibility.
Mrs. Humphris asked which County department would handle this responsi-
bility. Mr. Tucker explained that the staff is trying to work out a solution.
He pointed out that there is nothing budgeted for next year for anything of
this nature. His concern is that there will have to be a County crew and a
Highway Department crew involved whenever there is an accident. He said the
County would have to repair the street signs when there has been an accident,
and if traffic signs are involved in the accident, then the traffic signs will
be the responsibility of the Highway Department. He stated that one of the
alternatives that will be considered is to have a contract with the State to
have traffic control signs and street name signs repaired. He noted, however,
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (14)
187
that he had not talked with Mr. Roosevelt about this alternative. (Mr. St.
John left at 9:24 a.m.) Mrs. Humphris stated that this does not sound like an
economical move because it involves two separate work forces for one incident.
Item 5.17. Memorandum from Mr. Taylor Williams dated June 7, 1991,
entitled "Gypsy Moth Damage Tour," was received as information. (Mr. Williams
notes that a tour has been arranged for the morning of June 20, 1991.)
Agenda Item No. 6. Sam's Wholesale Club Rezoning (ZMA-89-23), Clarifi-
cation of Intent as it Relates to Site Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"The property to accommodate the Sam's Wholesale Club site was
rezoned by the Board of Supervisors from R-15 Residential and CO
Commercial Office to HC Highway Commercial (proffered) on December
19, 1990, after a recommendation for denial by the Planning Comm~s-
sion. (The Board minutes from that meeting are enclosed as Attach-
ment B.) The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the
preliminary site plan with conditions and subject to their review
of the final plan. (Please note that the Planning Commission did
not approve the entire parking area of Sam's due to developmental
concerns of the parking as it relates to drainage Attachment C.
Staff is requesting the Board's input before completing review of
the final site plan as to its legislative intent in the approval of
the rezoning. One of the main issues identified by the staff in
the review of the rezoning and the preliminary site plan is the
construction of 254 parking spaces above the minimum Zoning Ordi-
nance requirements. This parking area will occasion encroachment
on critical slopes and construction activity in close proximity to
the Rivanna River. In presentation of the rezoning proposal to the
Board of Supervisors, the concept plan for development did not
indicate such encroachment. Further, the Board accepted the
following proffer:
Upon demand of Albemarle County, River Heights Associates
would also provide an easement sufficient for a pathway along
its Rivanna River frontage on Tax Map 4, Parcel 68D.
An erosion control plan is currently under review by the Engineer-
ing Department. As proposed, the plan would require the removal of
approximately 17,000 square feet of mature deciduous trees in the
flood plain of the River in order to provide a suitable site for
the temporary sediment basin (see Attachment A). The Zoning
Administrator has determined this work does not require a special.
use permit. The toe of the fill slope necessary to allow the
northern bay of 184 parking spaces is located at the edge of the
flood plain. The Engineering Department has commented that they
can approve the drainage plans and calculations with minor revi-
sions and the erosion control measures can function as proposed but
will rely heavily on the work performed and the quality control
measures implemented in the field. (As an example, on the Walmart
site immediately to the south of Sam's, a stop work order was
issued due to lack of erosion control measures and clearing which
took place beyond approved limits.) The cleared area will be
required to be restored as a part of the erosion control plan.
The disturbance in the Rivanna River flood plain and immediately
uphill from the River that is necessitated by the parking area for
Sam's raises two questions related to the rezoning for this devel-
opment:
Is this activity consistent with what the Board of Supervisors
anticipated in approving the rezoning? The minutes from the
Board's meeting indicate concern for any activity which would
encroach upon the steep slopes and flood plain of the Rivanna
River.
June 12, 1991 (Regular DaY Meeting)
Page (15)
188
2
Will this activity detrimentally affect the proffered easement
for a pathway along the Rivanna River? This easement was
intended to be incorporated into the ultimate Rivanna Greenway
system. Although it is unknown at this time whether a func-
tional pathway can be constructed in this area, the Rivar~
greenway also will serve the purpose of a preserved natural
buffer along the Rivanna River. Whilethe applicant will be
required to restore this area at such time as erosion control
measures may be terminated, it will not be in mature hardwoods
as currently exist.
Staff has spoken with the County Attorney who believes these
questions are of significant consideration as they relate to the
Board of Supervisors' original rezoning action.
In summary, staff is presenting this information to the Board to
note impacts of the proposed extent of development which, may not
have been fully anticipated during the review of the rezoning. In
turn, staff is requesting clarification regarding the Board's
review and approval of this rezoning and the consistency of the
proposed site plan and its erosion control measures with that
action."
Mr. Cilimberg showed the Board various submittals and the current grading
plans. One plan shows the building location and parking area and the area of
expected drainage pipe which would have discharge into the flood plain of the
Rivanna River at the bottom of the hill below Sam's. He also presented a plan
showing the area to be served by this particular development and the critical
slopes that would be affected.
In approving this rezoning, Mr. Cilimberg stated that there was a point
made in the discussion about how this development would impact the flood plain
of the Rivanna River and the slope leading down to the River from the develop-
ment's location. He noted that minutes from the Board meeting have been
provided to remind Board members what occurred at the meeting. He pointed out
the proffer on Page Two of his memo that was made at the time of this rezon-
lng. He said that this proffer provides for an easement along the Rivanna
River below the Sam's development site for the County at such time as the
County would want to pursue a greenway development system.
Mr. Cilimberg said he wants to be sure this plan meets the intent of the
rezoning since the actual plan is going through the approval stages with the
administrative staff. He said the Planning Commission approved a preliminary
plan for this site, however, the final drainage plans or the limits of clear-
ing that would occur for drainage and erosion control measures were not
presented to the Commission which did recognize the Board's approval of the
conceptual plan which included the parking area. Although the Commission did
not endorse the parking area, it felt that the amount of parking had been
accepted by the Board in its rezoning action. The Commission felt the final
plan needed to come back to the Commission so it could see the engineering for
the fill activity in relation to the parking area and how drainage was being
handled. He stated that the staff has been working with the applicant since
the preliminary plan was filed in developing the approvals of the final
drainage and erosion control grading plan. He said that the staff needs to
get this Board's clarification and intent on an area of clearing that will be
necessary to provide for erosion control facilities next to the RivannaRiver.
He pointed out on a map the area that needs to be cleared and said that a
detention basin will be established in the flood plain. He noted that for
this detention basin to be established, it will require the movement back and
forth of construction vehicles and the clearing of the area of trees. He
pointed out that the mature hardwoods that are currently there will have to be
removed from the site. He stated, however, that this will not require a
special use permit because of the temporary nature of the operation. He said
that once the construction activity has been completed and the erosion control
permit has been satisfied, this basin will then be filled in and the whole
area replanted with trees for future growth and maturity along the banks of
the River.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (16)
189
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned two concerns of the staff. One concern is that
this would require clearing and disturbance in an area that seemed, from this
Board's discussion of the rezoning, to be a problem because the area went all
the way down to the River. The second concern was that it will temporarily
disturb an area that the County may want for its easement through the green-
way. He indicated that the staff has talked with both the applicant and the
County Attorney. Staff wonders if this activity is consistent with what the
Board anticipated in approving the rezoning, and will this activity detrimen-
tally affect the property easement for a pathway along the Rivanna River. The
staff does not know what the alternative would be from an engineering stand-
point if the plan does not meet the intent of the rezoning. He mentioned that
there are 254 actual parking spaces, many of which are located northward from
the central point of the site. He said that Sam's feels that this area is
needed to provide suitable parking. He mentioned that parking does exceed
Zoning Ordinance requirements, and it may be that some or all of that parking
could be removed which would not necessitate this extent of activity on the
site. He said, however, that this is not a known fact, and he is unsure if
Sam's would be willing to remove this parking. He noted that the Commission
did address this matter at its meeting and accepted the parking as shown, but
the Commission wanted to see the required engineering for that parking acti-
vity. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this will necessitate approximately 80
feet of fill along the slope side going down to the Rivanna River from the
parking area.
Mr. Bowie asked if the activity would detrimentally affect the property
easement, and if the greenway plan can be carried out if this activity takes
place. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the effect of the activity would be that
there would be a removal of mature trees, but ultimately there would be
replacement with young trees. He said the easement will not be of any value
to the County until all of this activity is completed, but it would certainly
delay getting the easement and doing construction in that location for some
time. He went on to say that the purpose of the greenway is to provide a
green natural area. He pointed out that if this activity takes place, there
would not be mature hardwoods any longer in that particular part of the
greenway, but restoration would be with much younger hardwoods.
Mr. Bain said he did not remember if the Board was told that to have the
proper drainage for the parking area, all of this activity was going to be
necessary. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff also did not know at that time. He
said that the staff called attention to the fact that this would be necessary
because there was an extensive fill area involved. He added that it was
unknown at that time how the drainage or erosion control would be ultimately
handled. He reiterated that this plan had not been completed when the rezon-
lng took place. The plan at that time showed the pipe outfall at the edge of
the flood plain. It did not show any clearing or any location of a sedimenta-
tion basin because work had not been undertaken at that t~me by the appli-
cant's engineer.
Mr. St. John said it seems to him that the Zoning Administrator, the
Planning Department and the Commission have got to decide whether this latest
plan violates the terms of the original zoning. He remarked that. theoreti-
cally that is not a question for the Board; it is for the administrative staff
to decide during the subdivision or site plan process. The question now is
whether this is a departure from what the Board thought it was approving. The
staff needs the Board's feeling about the matter because the staff does not
want the Board members to read about the issue in the paper or see that it is
happening after the fact.
Mr. Bain remarked that representation was made by the Engineer that these
things were not going to happen. Mr. St. John asked to which engineer Mr.
Bain is referring. Mr. Bain replied that he was speaking about Mr. Tom
Muncaster, the applicant's engineer, and. not the County Engineer. Mr. St.
John indicated that the County Engineer had a lot of trouble with the whole
concept.
Mr. Bain stated that Mr. Muncaster said that, "construction consisting of
sound engineering design practices on this site will not create the deleteri-
ous effects possible by construction on steeply sloping land." He thinks,
however, that this plan is "deleterious," and he considers this to be misrep-
resentation. Mr. St. John commented that this is why the plan is before the
Board.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (17)
190
Mr. Bowie said he does not think it was misrepresentation, but his
impression was that there would be a buffer zone as it was designed as part of
the greenway plan. He added that nowhere in the discussions did he get the
impression that the area would be clear cut and bulldozed.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that when the Board discussed the matter on
December 19, 1990, there was no indication of detrimental effect, although
some Board members expressed strong feelings about this possibility because of
the steep slopes. She mentioned that a question was raised as to how the
drainage would be handled. She called attention to the minutes of the Plan-
ning Commission's meeting on March 19, 1991, and all of the questions that the
County Engineer had relating to the fact that engineering had not supported
the proposal in the first place and that the additional parking was not
included. She thinks that it would be easier to design something that would
work. She said that there were a number of comments acknowledging that there
is a big problem that will be difficult to handle. She added that this Board
did not know that, and even though some Board members suspected it, they were
told that it was not so.
Mr. Tucker agreed that the Engineering Department had suspected there
would be some impact. He pointed out the difference in the contours of the
two plans. He noted that grading is shown and a large amount of grading
cannot be done without impacting the vegetation. He added that while it might
not have been brought out and discussed, it is easy to see what kind of
changes in grading were going to occur. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the feeling
of the County Engineer at that time was that there would have to be distur-
bance down to the outfall of the pipe, which would necessitate the clearing of
the area to some degree. He pointed out the fill area and the location of the
pipe. He went on to say that the establishment of the sedimentation basin and
the clearing further down into the flood plain was not known at that time and
was not discussed. He said that it was obvious from the plan that there was
going to be grading down slope, and it was recognized. Mr. Cilimberg added
that the plan is being brought back to this Board because the additional
clearing of the landhas posed a concern for the staff.
Mr. Bowie asked if the parking area was presented to this Board. Mr.
Cilimberg and Mr. Tucker indicated that it was brought before the. Board.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that it is also clear in the March minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting that Mr. Moring confirmed "that approval of a
preliminary site plan does not guarantee that the proposal will be physically
workable." She said that he also noted "that this was a difficult site and
that the erosion control issue might control the ultimate design of the site
and thus the final site plan could look different." She thinks that the final
site plan looks a lot different. Mr. Cilimberg stated that, from an engineer-
ing standpoint, it is his understanding that the drainage plan now submitted
will probably be or has been approved for the permanent drainage facilities.
He said that the pipe will go down to the River and discharge into rip rap
next to the River. Secondly, he pointed out that the report on Page Two
states that "the erosion control measures can function as proposed but will
rely heavily on the work performed and the quality control measures implement-
ed in the field." He said it does look as though the grading plan for the
erosion control measures can be approved, but it is obviously going to rely on
the people who are doing the work to keep to the approved plan. He stated
that from a technical standpoint the engineering aspects look as though they
would be approved. Mrs. Humphris asked if these are the same people for whom
the stop work order had to be issued. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he did not
know.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the plan that the Board approved showed the
discharge in the rip rap before it reached the Rivanna River, and the implica-
tion was that there would be no disturbance next to the River. He pointed out
that this plan shows the pipe extended to the River. He asked if there is
another soil erosion measure that can be taken other than to create this basin
in this location on this site. Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Bowerman if his
question included the proposed parking. Mr. BoWerman replied that he would
like to know if another soil erosion measure could be taken first with the
proposed parking and then in any other way. Mr. Cil~mherg responded that he
would have to refer to Mr. Charlie Steinman of the County Engineering Depart-
ment. He also said that Mr. Muncaster might want to speak to this issue as
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (18)
191
well before the applicant outlines other measures. He does not know the
extent of the alternatives that are possible for this plan or for anything
that would reduce the parking area. He said that this has been discussed with
the applicant and Mr. Muncaster.
Mr. Bowerman then directed his question to Mr. Steinman and asked if
there was any other measure that could be taken for soil erosion control. Mr.
Steinman replied that there are other measures that can be taken, but they are
troublesome in terms of maintenance. He noted that the best temporary erosion
control measure is a silt basin because it tends not to require so much daily
vigilance on the part of the inspectors of the facility and, secondly, on the
part of the contractor to daily maintain the facility. In this instance, he
believes that the best way is to have a silt trap. Mr. Bowerman asked if the
basin has to be located in the proposed area and not up on the slope. Mr.
Steinman answered that the basin has to be located on the lowest point of the
site. He said that it might be possible to put in several small traps, but
the addition of each trap multiplies the maintenance responsibilities and the
inspection responsibilities. He said, however, that to his knowledge smaller
traps have not been investigated.
Mr. St. John stated that it would be useful to know what factors came to
light which justify the decision that the first plan would not work and
required the new plan. He said that obviously some facts were discovered or
something came to pass to cause that decision to be made. Mr. Stei~mnn
replied that he thought the extension of the pipe down to the River is what
required the new plan. He believes that the Engineering Department recommend-
ed that to the applicant for the simple reason that it confines the area of
turbulent water flow. He said that just because the pipe ends at a certain
point, it does not mean that the disturbance will also end there. He noted
that if the pipe is not extended to the River, a 20-foot easement would have
to be cleared between the pipe end down to the River and substantial amounts
of rip-rap placed in that area. He went on to say that he feels there is no
reason to do this because it is best to keep those sorts of flow in a pipe and
keep the area of turbulent flow near the water's edge to a minimum. He said
that extension of the pipe would serve two purposes because it would solve a
maintenance problem and would also save the County the problem of building a
bridge in the future because a bridge would have to be constructed across the
drainage way at such time as the greenway is put in. He said this plan would
send the drainage underground and confine the area of possible maintenance to
an area along the bank.
Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Steinman is referring to the second plan. Mr.
Stei~m~n replied, "yes." He added that in either situation a 20-foot easement
would have to be dedicated and cleared in order to accomplish construction.
Mr. Bowie then asked if the issue before the Board is to clarify which
plan was approved. Mr. St. John explained that the issue before the Board is
to determine if this Board feels that the current plan is a substantial
departure from what was presented to this Board and approved originally.
Next, Mr. Bowie asked Mr. St. John about his earlier statement as to what
decisions needed to be made and by whom. Mr. St. 3ohn answered that a deci-
sion has to be made by the staff and the Zoning Administrator. This Board
also needs to make a decision as to whether this plan was approved in the
rezoning request, and, if not, the project cannot be done unless the applicant
seeks an amendment to the rezoning. He said, on the other hand, this Board
could determine that this plan is a change in detail but within the original
concept of the rezoning.
Mr. Bain said he thought Mr. St. John had said it was the Zoning Admini-
strator's decision to determine what was approved by this Board when this plan
was accepted. Mr. St. John agreed that Mr. Bain was correct. He said,
though, that this is an important issue. Nobody wants to see something happen
after the fact and feel that it was not a part of the approval, without having
a chance to address the issue before it happens. He said the Zoning Admini-
strator is present at the meeting for the purpose of hearing what this Board
is saying about the matter.
Mr. Tucker explained that the intent of the staff is to inform the Board
and to make sure that the Board understands that there will be an impact on
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (19)
192
the flood plain. It is also necessary that Board members recognize that there
is a change in the plan. He noted that although the staff has recommended the
additional pipe, there is a change in what this Board approved in the original
rezoning request. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes the question of the pipe is
of less significance than the area of clearing and the establishment of the
sediment basin, because the basin will be temporary. He said the Zoning
Administrator has already indicated that the area where the sediment basin
will be located would have to be refilled and replanted at the conclusion of
construction. He said this was the most significant issue, and the staff
wanted the Board to be aware of it.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Cilimberg is referring to the destruction of
17,000 square feet of mature deciduous hardwood trees. Mr. St. John stated
that the 17,000 square feet of mature trees is in the flood plain.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that some of the disturbance would be in the flood
plain, but he asked Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, if some of the 17,000
square feet is beyond the flood plain. Mr. Keeler replied that he thinks that
some of the 17,000 square feet is beyond the flood plain. He stated that the
site plan presented by the applicant was not consistent with the plan that
this Board saw during the rezoning nor was it consistent with the preliminary
site plan that the Planning Commission reviewed. He said the applicant did
not want to go to a lot of additional expense with that question hanging. He
added that the staff recognizes that it is a question made directly to this
Board rather than the Planning Commission. He went on to say that the origi-
nal motion was to take this matter to the Commission, not for approval, but to
ask if this activity could be done in the flood plain. He stated that the
staff then recognized that it was more a question for this Board as to its
intent at the time of the original rezoning. He remarked that complicating
the matter was the greenway easement that was not included when the Planning
Commission reviewed the request. He pointed out that Mr. Bobby Shaw, Zoning
Inspector, had said that, in his opinion, the area of clearing is likely to be
greater than what is shown on the plan.
Mr. Bowie said his concern at the time of the rezoning was for the
protection of the greenway. He believes that the first plan did that, but
this new plan does not.
Mr. Bain called attention to Proffer 5A which states, "Discharge storm-
water to a rip-rap channel, flat and wide enough to prevent any scouring or
erosion as approved by the Engineering Department." He stated that if this
new plan does this, then he thinks that this Board is committed to the plan.
He asked if this plan meets the terms of Proffer 5A. Mr. St. John stated that
this would mean that the Engineering Department has the authority to approve
whatever it wants to, whether the plan conforms or not, and. the Engineering
Department could approve a totally different site plan if it is sound. He
said that he does not think that this is the intent of those statements.
Mr. Bowie remarked that he had noticed a couple of things in the Board's
minutes which he wanted to point out. He called attention to Mr. Bowerman's
comments about the greenway and the considerable benefits to the County. He
said that now he is not sure even if this plan is carried through, that there
will be a greenway. Mr. Bowie then noted that Mr. Bain had stated in the same
minutes that he would not support a future request impacting the River itself.
He said that it is obvious that this Board did not want the River or the
greenway impacted. He said, though, becaus, e of Proffer 5A, he is not sure
what can be done. Mr. St. John stated that the question of the legal courses
available is not before the Board. He said that this should be left up to the
County's legal staff. He added that the only question before this Board is
whether this is within the rezoning request that was approved earlier, or
whether this is an entirely different request.
Mr. Bowie said this matter could probably be handled with a motion, and
Mr. St. John agreed. Mr. Way asked Mr. St. 3ohn the consequences if this
Board believes that this is different from the rezoning request. Mr. Cilim-
berg responded that it would be the staff's decision to direct the applicant
that he could not disturb the area and build the basin for erosion control
that is currently shown in the final site plan.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (20)
193
Mr. St. John stated that the applicant would have to do something more in
keeping with the first plan, and if the Engineering Department said that the
plan will not work as far as the environment is concerned~ then the additional
parking area cannot be built. He said that the applicant may challenge this
decision and this could become a court case. He added that what the staff
needs is this Board's decision as to whether this issue is a deviation from
the original rezoning issue.
Mr. Bain stated that he knows what the Engineering Department is saying.
Rip-rap could be used all the way to the River, but the Engineering Department
has determined that this is not a good idea because a bridge will have to
eventually be built when the greenway is constructed. Mr. Cilimberg commented
that within two years, if this project is completed, there will be a drainage
pipe that discharges into the rip-rap at the River. He noted, too, that the
pipe will be underground. He said, secondly, that there will be the discon-
tinuance of the erosion control basin that will be in place during construc-
tion. He said that this basin will then be filled and the area that goes down
to the River that is cleared and disturbed during construction will be restored
with new plantings of trees. He added that this is what the staff will
require. He went on to say that this will be the end result when this con-
struction project is complete and the bonds have been released.
Mr. St. John asked if trees would have to be cleared if there is a
rip-rap channel. Mr. Cilimberg answered that there will be a 20-foot clear-
ance along the rip-rap channel, according to Mr. Steinman. Mr. St. 3ohn asked
why there is a basin needed for the new plan, but no basin was needed for the
first plan. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the applicant had not reached the
point with the first plan where the engineers know how to handle the problem
of erosion control. Mr. St. 3ohn wondered if now it is known that a basin
will be needed for either plan. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the applicant
has reduced some of the parking that was originally shown on the conceptual
plan to make the plan work better from an engineering standpoint. He said
that obviously now it is known that a basin would have been needed for the
other plan as well. He noted, however, that the basin was not presented
during the rezoning. Mr. St. John said then that it is the issue of the basin
that was unknown at the time of the rezoning.
Mr. Perkins commented that the discharge pipe is just to collect the
water from the parking area. He said that when this water is piped down the
hill, it will pick up tremendous velocity, which will cause erosion. He added
that rip-rap will have to be put there to slow down the velocity of the water.
He thinks that now the scope is changed so that something will have to be done
to control the erosion problems that will be on the slopes that are to the
sides of the parking lots. He asked where the erosion basin will be located.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that there is an area of actual drainage that is shown
and the basin will be established in the low spot in the flood plain.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any development of this site would have required
drainage improvements and soil erosion control. Mr. Cilimberg answered that
this is true. Mr. Bowerman stated that the scope and how the project is
handled will dictate how much drainage and erosion control is needed. He
said, though, that if this site is developed, the natural drainage puts some
sort of drainage structure in that location. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that most
development concepts would have included a drainage facility located in the
area.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that h~s point is that when he looked at the first
plan and saw where the pipe stopped, he was aware that some sort of soil
erosion measure was going to have to be taken. He went on to say that, as far
as long term measures are concerned, the drainage will be piped into the River
and the pipe will be underground so that in 10 or 15 years there will be no
physical sign of disturbance other than the fact that the trees will be
smaller in that location. He said that with the second plan, rather than what
was envisioned in the first plan with the rip-rap channel to slow the velocity
down, the project would be quite substantial and would require a bridge~ It
seems to him that implicit in the rezoning approval was some sort of soil
erosion measure of this nature. He believes that it was probably unrealistic
to consider any development of this site without some drainage structure
there. He said that if over a period of time the structure over time is
invisible, it would seem that this would probably be the best way to approach
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (21)
194
it. He added that no matter what this Board does, one of the temporary
measures would require a detention basin in that location for soil erosion.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that the second plan does require a detention basin in
that particular location.
Mr. Bain reminded Board members that Mr. Cilimberg had said that any
permanent plan would require a detention basin, but not necessarily temporary
plans.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he had heard the County Engineer state that
any other measure would be more likely to fail, and that this device would be
more effective in preventing soil from reaching the Rivannm River than any
other measure. He thinks that in looking at alternatives, this Board would
want the most effective measure possible. His only question involves the fact
that he did not know that basins could be built in a flood plain. He asked if
it would all disappear if the basin was filled with silt and the River flood-
ed. Mr. Steinman replied that he thinks that the small, amount of silt that
will wash out of the basin is the least of the worries. Mr. Cilimberg re-
marked that it has not been investigated as to what erosion control measures
would be necessary if the parking area was lessened.
Mrs. Humphris asked how many years it wo~]d take for the new trees to get
to be the size of the mature trees that are located there now. Mr. Perkins
answered that he would guess that the mature trees that are there now are
between 50 to 75 years old. Mrs. Humphris said she feels this is not an
insignificant matter because of the large area of trees that is involved. She
said the question is whether or not this Board was told about the clearing and
the erosion control measures. She added that is the question that this Board
has to answer, and she reiterated that this plan was not presented to the
Board.
Mr. Bowerman replied that the Board was not told specifically about these
erosion control measures, but this Board approved the first plan. He thinks
the second plan is a reasonable approach to accomplish the first plan. He
said that if this is the case, wouldn't this plan be of substantial importance
to the first approval. He thinks that the second plan has less parking on it
than the first one in order to accomplish something closer to the original
approval than the plan would have had if it had not been modified.
Mr. Bain asked how much less parking is shown on the second plan. Mr.
Steinman and Mr. Cilimberg replied that at least 26 parking spaces have been
removed from the original plan.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he finds that this is a reasonable plan.
Mrs. Humphris commented that this is not the question.
Mr. Bowie remarked that the Board has three choices. He said the Board
can find that the second plan is not in compliance with the first plan approved,
or it is in compliance, or it is not in compliance, but the Board will accept
the second plan. He feels that the Board should have known that because of
the steep slopes the water would have to go somewhere.
Mr. Tom Muncaster, representing the applicant, stated that temporary
erosion control measures are not usually shown on a conceptual plan and that
is why the temporary erosion control sediment basin is shown at the bottom of
the plan. He is sorry if this was misleading, but this was always envisioned
because of the fill going to the flood plain. Obviously, there had to be a
sediment basin. He pointed out the contours on the map and showed the Board
where the sediment basin would be located. He said this is a flat spot and is
where the basin needs to be situated. He added that thisis the only way to
get the storage volume necessary for the size of the site. He went on to say
that where the slopes are steeper, there would not be the storage volume
necessary to remove the sediment. As far as the pathway is concerned, he
noted that there are several large trees already down that will need to be
taken, out. He believes that this proposal witlmake it easier to put in
pathways after this is done than in its present condition.
Mr. perkins asked the size of the sediment basin. Mr. Muncaster replied
that the staff report indicated that 17,000 square feet would be disturbed in
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (22)
195
the flood plain, but he thinks that this is larger than the sediment basin.
Mr. Bowie said this disturbance would be temporary, and Mr. Muncaster agreed.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that he is concerned about the clearing and grading. He
does not know if it is necessary for the clearing and grading to go beyond the
slopes. He thinks that all that is necessary is to clear the area that will
be filled. Mr. Muncaster answered that part of the landscaping plan requires
plantings along the crest of some of the slopes. He rmmmrked that there will
have to be additional landscaping along this particular crest, and that is why
the clearing and grading is extended.
Mr. Perkins wondered if there will be a narrow strip removed from the
sedimentation basin to the River. Mr. Muncaster replied that the pipe will
have to be installed. He mentioned, again, that the sedimentation basin has
to be in the flat area before the land drops off to the River. He said that
it is not desirable to get close to the River with the basin because it would
be too difficult to work in that area.
Mr. Bowermmumade a motion that the concept that has been presented to
the Board is substantially imaccordance with whathad originallybeenap-
proved.
The motion was not seconded, so Mr. Bowie asked if any Board member
wanted to make a motion that the concept was not in accordance with what was
originally approved or that the concept is not in accord but is accepted.
Mr. Bowerman reiterated that he does not see any difference in the two
plans.
Mrs. Humphris commented that the reason she has been so quiet in the
discussions is because she was the only one voting against the plan in the
beginning. Mr. St. John cautioned Board members against using this proceeding
as a subconscious means to think that this plan should not have been approved
in the beginning or that the additional parking should not have been allowed.
Without the additional parking, there would not need to be so much grading
done. He said it would be a temptation to use this proceeding to change a
decision that has already been made. He emphasized that this is not why this
matter was brought back to the Board.
Mr. Bowie said the thought had never entered his mind to use this proceed-
ing to change a decision. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the Board consider
this matter as being or not being consistent with the intent of the original
rezoning action proffers. Mr. St. John stated that he believes the three
options mentioned by Mr. Bowie are the three options that the Board should
consider.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded byMr. Perking, to find
that the grading plan dated June 12, 1991, showing the l~m{ts of clearing as
drawn by Tom Muncaster and initialed RET, and presented to the Board on the
same date, is not in accordance with the intent of tbe original rezoning, but
that the plan is acceptable.
Mr. Bowie stated that he would support the motion. He asked if it could
be stated in the motion that the Board is restating its concerns about the
greenway and the protection of the River.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the Engineering Department should take note
that the Board has concerns about the earth-disturbing activity that will take
place in the flood plain, and the Board wants the limits of grading to he kept
at a minimum and the restoration work to be done completely.
Mr. Perkins commented that he believes the sedimentation pond might be
needed longer than a year or so after construction is completed. He thinks
that if the sedimentation pond is kept there and cleaned often, it might serve
as a better catch than the rip-rap. He did not know what would be done with
the area after the sedimentation pond is finished, but he thinks that it is
worthwhile to keep the sedimentation pond in place for an extended period of
time. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this would have to be addressed by the
Engineering Department.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (23)
196
Mr. Steinman stated that there will be less pipe installed than was shown
on the first plan. He said that this pipe would discharge into the sedimenta-
tion trap and the trap would discharge into some temporary piping to the
River. He said that this will involve a different design because the trap
would have to be designed to handle stormwater from the developed site whereas
now with the current erosion control guidelines, the trap is sized to handle
an anticipated amount of sediment from the pavement. He said that if the
Board begins to think of the structure as a permanent structure, the limits of
disturbance will have to be expanded considerably because the structure will
have to handle substantially different flows of water. Mr. Bowerman asked if
a stormwater detention device is required in this type of situation, Mr.
Steinman replied, "no." He said that the site discharges directly to the
Rivanna River and the detention is in the pond.
Mr. Bain said that he will support the motion. He mentioned, however,
that he would like for the staff to recognize the detrimental effect on the
greenway. He went on to say that the Board has been informed that the area of
disturbance will be refilled and should not affect the pathway construction.
He said that whatever can be done to insure that there will be no detrimental
effect on the greenway needs to be done.
Mr. Bowie agreed. He said that if the staff should see that the project
is not proceeding as expected, the matter should be brought back to the Board
immediately.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerma,, Bowie, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Bowie said he does think the proposed plan is the best solution at
this time. Mr. St. John pointed out that the pipe will carry a discharge from
a big parking lot straight into the River without going through any swale or
rip-rap filter. He wondered if this kind of outfall requires a permit from
the State Water Control Board. He said that there will be heavy metals and
oil, etc., from the parking lot going directly into the River. He added that
this is, of course, future business.
Mr. Bowie said that this is a question which needs to be resolved.
(The Board recessed at 10:21 a.m. and reconvened at 10:36 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters:
Milliken's Letter of April 19, 1991.
Draft Response to Secretary
Mrs. Humphris asked that the matter concerning the response to Secretary
Milliken's letter be deferred for discussion during Executive Session.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer
discussion on the response to Secretary Milliken's letter to Executive Session
for discussion of potential litigation. 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. 7b. Other Related Highway Matters from Consent Agenda of
June 5, 1991: 1) Memorandum dated May 23, 1991, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commis-
sioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, forwarding copy of "Tentative
1991-92 Construction Allocations and Six-Year Improvement Program" for the
Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, as well as Public Transit,
Ports and Airports, including an update of the Six-Year Improvement Program
through 1996-97, and 2) Memorandum from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Execu-
tive, dated May 23, 1991, entitled "Proposed CATS Projects and Funding."
Mr. Bowie suggested that Agenda Item 7b(2) also be deferred to discussion
during the Executive Session.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 2[97
Page (24)
Regarding Agenda Item 7b(1) Mrs. Humphris said that in the Primary System
Improvements Program involving the Route 29 projects there is an amount for
~lanning a right-of-way crossing. She wondered if there is anything included
for a grade-separated interchange. Mr. Roosevelt responded that there is no
money there for an interchange. She asked if the money for the grade-
separated interchanges had been planned. Mr. Roosevelt answered "no."
Next, Mrs. Humphris stated that in comparing the 1990-91 rights-of-way
estimated costs on the same stretch of road to 1991-92, the rights-of-way
estimated costs have been reduced by approximately $4.0 million. She asked
when this reduction was made. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he was not aware of
this difference until it was just mentioned. He would guess, however, that
the rights-of-way costs have been reduced on the first two sections of road
from Hydraulic to Rio to north of the South Fork based upon development of
plans over that period of time with more accurate estimates of the needs of
rights-of-way. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that there was approximately $5.0
million difference in the amounts of money for the two years. Mr. Roosevelt
agreed that it was a lot of difference. Mrs. Humphris said that she thought
that the costs of the rights-of-way were estimated based on the actual asses-
sed property value. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the plans are incomplete, and
the earlier that the preliminary engineering process is done, the rougher the
estimates are and the more the figures are inflated. Mrs. Humphris then
wondered if this could possibly mean that less rights-of-way are needed for
the improvements on Route 29 than was originally thought. Mr. Roosevelt
replied that he could not answer for certain, but he would guess that this is
true.
Mrs. Humphris asked what happens to the money that is estimated if it is
not used in the Six Year Plan. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the money would
be redistributed throughout the Six Year Plan. Mrs. Humphris asked if the
money has already been redistributed. Mr. Roosevelt answered that, as far as
he knows, it has been redistributed. He said that this plan will distribute
all of the money that is available for the Culpeper Construction District over
the next six years. Mrs. Humphris wondered if a significant change such as
the $5.0 million that was thought to be needed for this project could be kept
in the same project and applied to the right-of-way for the interchange. Mr.
Roosevelt answered that this could certainly be done, but it doesn't appear
that it was done. He thinks that the money was redistributed to other pro-
jects. He said that this is the tentative proposal and there is another
public hearing at two different sites on this plan before it will be final and
adopted by the Transportation Board. He added that any allocations could be
changed and projects could be added or removed from this plan based on what
the Transportation Board hears at the public hearings. Mrs. Humphris asked if
this Board will have to go to the public hearing to make a presentation or can
it be done by letter. Mr. Roosevelt replied that the Board can send a letter.
Mrs. Humphris next wondered what the letter "M" means under Source of
Funds on Page 46 as it refers to the Meadowcreek Parkway. Mr. Roosevelt
answered that he does not know. He said that he had also noticed an "F"
listed on an item.
Mrs. Humphris then asked about the City and County allocations for Route
250 East. She said that the original 1991-92 construction allocation was
$14.862 million but the contract was for $10.100 million. She wondered what
happens to the difference in the amount of money. (Mr. St. John left the
meeting at 10:46 a.m.) Mr. Roosevelt answered that part of money will be used
to pay for construction engineering, such as inspections, and part of it will
be used for construction overruns, such as work orders. He does not antici-
pate that these two items will add up to $4.0 million, but if there is money
left over at the end of the project, it will be transferred to other construc-
tion projects within the Culpeper District. He related this action to the way
projects are handled in the Secondary System in Albemarle County, where money
is allocated for a project, and when there is money left over at the end of
the project, it is transferred to another ongoing project in the Secondary
System within Albemarle County. He said that primary funds are allocated to
construction districts and can be transferred anywhere within the construction
district, but they have to be used within that construction district.
Mrs. Humphris then suggested to the Board that since the right-of-way
estimated costs on the Route 29 North improvement project have been reduced in
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (25) iL 9 8
the plan by $4.891 million, she would like for this Board to suggest to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board that the money be applied to proceeding with
rights-of-way for those interchanges which are essential to the plan.
Mr. Bain stated that he concurs with Mrs. Humphris. He noted that the
CATS plan shows grade separations which have the Board members' support. He
added that the first part of the Six Year Plan showed right-of-way acquisi-
tion. He said, though, that this plan does not show anything similar for the
entire Six Year period.
Mr. Bowie suggested that after the Executive Session the Board take
action on Mrs. Humphris' request.
Mr. Bain commented that the overall picture concerns him. He said that
transportation needs are known, and a lot of money has been spent for these
needs in this area. He is concerned that funding for some projects is includ-
ed, but it is not included for others.
Mrs. Humphris agreed that to include funds for a road that might never be
built and not to include funds for a road that is essential to the whole
County is ridiculous.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Highway Matters: Public Hearing - 1991-92 Secondary
Roads Budget. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 28 and June 4, 1991.)
Mr. Bowie stated that Mr. Roosevelt had distributed to the Board members
a final draft of the 1991-92 Secondary Roads Budget.
Mr. Roosevelt explained that he has not added or deleted any projects
from the original list that was presented to this Board last month, and an
agreement was reached to take these projects to public hearing. He has
rearranged some of the projects under the regular projects column in order to
put them in priority order, and he has added, on the left hand side of the
column, a recommendation from the Department as to the priority order that
should be placed on these projects. He stated that the Code of Virginia
indicates that the Board's function is to present a list of projects to be
included in the budget in priority order, so he has tried to give the Board a
recommendation for the priority order that might be considered. He also has
modified the amounts for each project slightly because since the May meeting,
he has received final allocation figures. He went on to say that at the May
meeting he had given the Board estimated allocations which were $2.336
million. The final figure is $2.316 million, which is approximately $20,000
less than the estimated figure, so he had to modify the figures to absorb the
$20,000. He said that these are basically the only differences between the
list that had been agreed upon for the public hearing and the one that was
distributed today.
There were no questions for Mr. Roosevelt, so Mr. Bowie opened the public
hearing. He asked if there was anyone present who would like to comment on
the 1991-92 Secondary Roads Budget. No one wished to speak, so the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie called attention to the bridge and approaches over the Moormans
River. He said that the figures had changed, but the total seems to be the
same. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the difference was that the latest estimate
showed that the approaches were going to be less money and the bridge was
going to be more money than was originally planned. He said that the alloca-
tions go into the specific section of that project. He noted that one section
is the C501 project which is the designation for the road, and one section is
B646 which is the designation for the bridge. He went on to say that it is
all the same project, but for accounting purposes, the money was separated
into different sections. He said that the only reason that the figures were
changed was to get the allocations to match the latest estimates for the road
and the bridge.
Mr. Perkins asked the status for getting the necessary easements for the
Moormans River project. Mr. Roosevelt replied that the project has been
delayed for a month pending the outcome of the Virginia Outdoor Foundation's
findings. He said that the easement problem has not yet been resolved.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (26) ~_9 9
Mr. Perkins mentioned Item Four showed $20,000 for fertilizing and
seeding. He has noticed where this has been done on road banks, and he thinks
that a lot of times it is a waste. He said that he knows there are spots that
will need to have something done, but he has seen fertilizer put on rock
cliffs in hopes that grass will grow, and it will not work. He noted that
last year fertilizer was put on Route 6, and he has seen other places where it
was done this year, and it looks to him as though it is a waste of money in
many cases. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the money that is shown in this
budget is supposed to be used only on projects that have been completed in the
recent past. He said that the projects may have been finished during the last
three or four years where grass stabilization did not occur on the banks along
a certain project and they have to be reseeded. He added that the seeding of
banks along a primary system are not financed out of this budget, and banks
that have not been reconstructed for many years are not supposed to be financed
from this budget either. He said that this financing should come from mainte-
nance funds. He went on to say that this money should be used for seeding
banks that are either reconstructed this year or were reconstructed during the
past couple of years. He added that he would pass on Mr. Perkins' concerns to
the people in charge of the environmental section in Culpeper, but he would
like to think that some of these areas that are being seeded are being seeded
with maintenance money. He went on to say that this would ease people's minds
that the construction funds are not going for seeding. He does not think that
the places where there are steep or rock slopes are being seeded using this
construction money.
Motion was then offered by Humphris, seconded by Way, to adopt the
following 1991-92 Secondary Roads Budget. 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.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SECONDARY IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
1991-92
INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION
ROUTE
PROJECT/ITEM
AMOUNT
County Wide
County Wide
Route 625
Route 852
Route 1113
Traffic Services
Fertilizer & Seeding
Hatton Ferry
From Rte. 866 to Rte. 1454 - Plant Mix
From Rte. 631 to Rte. 1114 - Plant Mix
SUBTOTAL
$30,000
20,000
10,000
17,000
7,500
$84,500
ROUTE/PROJECT
REGULAR PROJECTS
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
0654-002-242,C501
0671-002-191,C501
0671-002-191,B646
063i-002-224,C502
0729-002-239,C501
0866-002-236,G501
0810-002-246,M501
Barracks Road from Rte. 1406 to Rte. 656
Bridge and approaches over Moormans River
Bridge and approaches over Moormans River
1.3 mi. S. Rte. 64 to 0.1 mi. S. Rte. 64
Int. Rte 250 near Shadwell
Greenbrier Drive Extension
Spot Improvement at Crozet School
SUBTOTAL
$376,000
155,000
378.000
708,668
42,410
68,348
18~000
$1,746,426
ROUTE/PROJECT
UNPAVED ROADS
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
0627-002-231,N501
0682-002-P33,N501
From Rte. 727 to Rte. 708 $ 494,287
From Rte. 250 to 1.7 mi. S. Rte. 787 11,422
SUBTOTAL $ 505,709
GRAND TOTAL $2,336,635
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (27)
200
Agenda Item No. 7d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Perkins stated that he knew that Mr. Roosevelt had received a letter
from Ms. Betty Clayton at Mechum's River about the sight distance coming from
her driveway. He said that he knows this has been a problem for a long time,
and it is a bad section of road. He said that there is probably nothing that
be done as faras grading, etc., but he thinks that the existing vegeta-
tion could be cut back, not only for the Clayton's benefit but for the benefit
of everybody who travels that road. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at
11:01 a.m.) Mr. Roosevelt responded that a copy of the same letter was sent
to the District Office, and the District Administrator is having his staff
lOok into the matter. He added that he would keep Mr. Perkins apprised of the
situation.
Mr. Way asked for a copy of the results of the traffic count taken on
Route 628.
Mr. Way mentioned a letter from Mr'. Nathan Coleman concerning the Mill
Creek Subdivision speed limit. Mr. Roosevelt answered that he has responded
to the letter and has sent a copy to Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 8. Wallace Forloines Proposal to Donate Property to the
County for Recreational Purposes.
The following memorandum dated June 5, 1991, addressed to Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, was received from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development:
"As we have previously discussed, attached (on file) is an offer from
Dr. Wallace Forloines to donate land and cash to the County for
recreational purposes. A map is attached (on file) for location
reference. Dr. Forloines has verbally indicated his primary interest
is providing the land for a golf course, although other recreational
uses are listed.
Mr. Gene German, Director of the City's Department of Parks and
Recreation, Mr. Pat Mullaney and myself visited the site on State
Route 600 and found it to have good potential for an 18-hole golf
course and/or other recreational uses. As you can see from Mr.
German's letter (copy on file), the City will not be able to partici-
pate in such a project as a joint City/County effort. Mr. Mullaney
has identified a need for additional golf holes in the area and has
provided some analysis of cost.
Dr. Forloines plans to subdivide up to ten lots from the existing
tract, with the residue to be later donated. Dr. Forloines is asking
if the County wants to participate in planning for the road and lot
layout in combination with a preliminary golf course plan. This
combined planning provides an opportunity for the lots and road to be
located to best allow for a future golf course or other recreational
development.
I understand that the Board of Supervisors cannot obligate a future
Board to accepting this donation or the construction of a golf course
or other recreational facilities. However, if the current Board is
interested in this proposal, it may want to participate with Dr.
Forloines in the overall planning of the site. According to Mr.
Mullaney, the cost of recreational planning in conjunction with lot
layout would range from $2000 (general recreation) to as much as $7000
(golf course preliminary plan). Dr. Forloines indicates a willingness
to share in these additional costs. If the Board does not choose to
participate, Dr. Forloines will proceed with his subdivision exclusive
of any golf course/recreational planning."
Mr. Tucker stated that the County has received an offer from Dr. Wallace
Forloines to donate approximately 165 acres of land to the County for recrea-
tional purposes, and in addition to that, he is donating $500,000 to be used
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (28)
2O
for these types of purposes. He briefly summarized the details as outlined in
the above letter from Mr. Cilimberg. He noted that Dr. Forloines is present
at the meeting and will answer any questions that the Board members might
have. He went on to say that if the Board finds that this is an offer that
can be supported, the staff would suggest that negotiations begin with Dr.
Forloines to look at the issue of joint planning in the preliminary plan for
his subdivision and any future disposition of the property.
Mr. Way wondered how close this property is to the property already owned
by the County at Preddy's Creek. Mr. Tucker answered that this property is
fairly close to the Preddy's Creek property.
Mr. Bowie noted that the property could be used for purposes other than a
golf course. Mr. Tucker indicated that Dr. Forloines feels very strongly
about the golf course and may want to speak to that.
Mr. Bowie commented that acceptance of the donation of land is unrelated
to the proposed subdivision review. He said that the subdivision plans would
have to go through the regular review cycle. Mr. Tucker agreed.
At this time, Dr. Forloines addressed the Board and stated that he was
going to develop ten, two-acre lots separately and give the County 165 acres
of land. He said that he is willing to give $700,000 to $800,000 to encourage
the construction of a golf course. He went on to say that if the County did
not commit to the golf course within a certain period of time, such as five
years, he would take back the cash donation and give it to some other charity.
He would, however, give the County the land for recreational purposes. He
personally feels that a study is not necessary. He thinks that the County
will be best served if the Board instructed him to try to get a State main-
tained road into this land, and then the ten lots would be served with a
private road. He will keep the lots all separate where they will have no
impact on the 165 acres of land. He is interested in this project turning out
well, and would not do anything detrimental to the project. He said, however,
if the County wants to study it, he will pay half of the cost of the study.
Mr. Bowie remarked that this is a most generous offer.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she thinks the Board is speechless because she
cannot remember anybody ever making such a generous offer in Albemarle County
before.
Mr. Bowie said that he certainly wants to accept this generous offer.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Cilimberg to point out the right-of-way through the
property. Mr. Cilimberg did so. He said that he and Mr. Mullaney had walked
with Dr. Forloines over Parcel 38 of the property. He went on to say that one
of the questions that arose when the potential subdivision was considered was
the issue of obtaining 50 feet of right-of-way necessary and the necessary cut
and fill activity adjacent to the road. He said that it would be inherent to
have a public road, and this matter will have to be addressed with Dr.
Forloines during the subdivision process. He remarked that the road exists as
a driveway.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded byMr. Way, to accept
l)r. Forloines offer of approximately 165 acres to be used for recreational
purposes and to direct the staff to work with l)r. Forloines in the preliminary
planning of his subdivision as it relates to the use of the proposed property
for donation for recreational purposes.
Mr. Bain said that depending on the initial planning of the property, the
matter would, at some point, be brought back to the Board in terms of how the
property will be used relating to recreational activities. Mr. Tucker agreed
and he said that the staff wants to look further at the golf course idea
because it could be a revenue generator. He added that there will be some
additional costs involved in the development of a golf course, however. Mr.
Bowie stated that with its proximity to Preddy's Creek, he feels the property
might be developed into an outstanding complex.
Mrs. Humphris commented that not only could the property be an outstand-
ing recreational area and a source of pride for the County, but she also feels
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (29)
202
that Dr. Forloines has set an example that this County has not seen since Mr.
McIntire was so generous to this locality. She thinks that it is a wonderful
example set for a marvelous use of resources for the benefit of so many
people.
Mr. Bowie thanked Dr. Forloines for his offer.
Roll was then called and the motion carried bythe following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Aspden Preliminary Plat. (Property describ-
ed as Tax Map 51, Parcel 2, consists of a total of 97 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas, and is located on the west side of Route 231 approximately one and
three-quarter miles north of Route 615 in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
This property is not in a designated growth area.)
This appeal was brought to the Board in the following letter dated
April 22, 1991, from Mr. J. Thomas Gale, Roudabush, Gale & Assoc.:
"April 22, 1991
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
ATTN: Ms. Neher
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
22901
RE: Aspden Preliminary Plat
Dear Ms. Neher:
On behalf of N. Lawrence Aspden, III, I hereby appeal the Planning
Commission's decision on his preliminary plat.
To the extent that the subdivision ordinance does not support allowing
the existing private road to remain private, with very minor work
necessary to satisfy the current County private road standards, the
applicant believes he has a case that merits special consideration.
Only one additional lot is being asked for bringing the total number
of users for the private road to three. A state road would require
completely ripping up the old road and starting over even though the
existing vertical alignment of the existing road is withinYDOT's
vertical alignment guidelines.
The Planning staff based their recommendation for denial of this
subdivision on Section 18-36(b)(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance which
states the Planning Commission may approve a private road provided
that it is demonstrated to their reasonable satisfaction that:
'Approval of such roads will alleviate a clearly demonstrable
danger of significant degradation to the environment of the site
or adjacent properties which would be occasioned by the construc-
tion of public roads in the same alignments. For the purposes of
this provision, in addition to such other factors as the commis-
sion may consider, "significant degradation" shall mean an
increase of thirty (30%) percent in the total volume of grading
for construction of a public road as compared to a private road.'
I feel this section of the ordinance implies, but should obviously
state more clearly for the benefit of future applicants, that the
private vs. state road issue should apply when there is no road in
existence and a road is being 'planned.' (Not if an existing road is
in place, and is very close to County private road standards.)
Granted, if the applicant had constructed his farm road subsequent to
the newly adopted Section 18-36(b)(1) previously cited and thsn wanted
a private road, I could see reason for denial. But the road in
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (30)
203
question has been in place for over 20 years and the applicant should
not be penalized just because an environmental impact for a conversion
to the state road does not exist.
Finally, what is the County's motivation in requiring public roads? I
believe it stems from a large number of complaints that the County
received from lot owners who purchased lots in County-approved private
road subdivisions. In spite of maintenance agreements which were
required for past private road subdivision approvals, too many purcha-
sers failed to understand what they were getting into. For this
reason, I support the County's reversal of allowing private roads
without discretion and particularly when these subdivisions contain a
large number of lots. However, I feel the County has over-reacted and
made it excessively difficult to have private roads in subdivisions
involving a relatively small number of lots.
Several years ago, despite a strongly advocated public road policy,
this subdivision would have been easily approved because it involves
only a few lots with lengthy private road frontages. I feel special
consideration should continue to take place for these type of situa-
tions.
On behalf of the applicant, I appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
J. Thomas Gale, L.S."
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, presented the following staff report:
"Proposal: The applicant is proposing to create two lots averaging
30.2 acres from a parcel served by an existing easement. The proposed
lots and the existing parcel would be served by a private road. Zoned
RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to create two lots (Parcels
A-3 and A-4 on Attachment E [on file]) from a 60.48 acre parcel which
shares an access easement with an existing 37.20 acre parcel (Parcel
A-2) which was approved as an administrative plat in February, 1990.
Parcel A-2 is developed with one dwelling unit and the 60.48 acres
constituting Parcels A-3 and A-4 are vacant. The applicant is re-
questing a private road to serve these three lots in the alignment of
the existing gravel driveway which is approximately one-half mile in
length. The justification, included as Attachment C (on file), is
based on the '... inordinate length the applicant would need to
improve and the present condition of the road being very close to the
existing County private road standard.'
Section 18-36(b)(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance states the Planning
Commission may approve a private road provided it is demonstrated to
their reasonable satisfaction that: 'Approval of such roads will
alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to
the environment of the site or adjacent properties which would be
occasioned by the construction of public roads in the same alignments.
For the purposes of this provision, in addition to such other factors
as the commission may consider, 'significant degradation' shall mean
an increase of thirty (30) percent in the total volume of grading for
construction of a public road as compared to a private road.'
The applicant's justification states, 'Further I feel it could easily
be argued that the amount of disturbance of a state road would be in
excess of 30 percent over that of a private road since upgrading to
the private standard would only require some minor widening and some
additional stone whereas a state road would most likely require
removing the existing stone, minor grading and reapplication of the
required base stone before paving'
Staff and the Engineering Department cannot support the private road
request as the applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence that
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (31)
204
quantitatively demonstrates increases in earthwork occasioned by the
construction of a public road rather than a private road. It appears,
after field inspections by staff and the Engineering Department, that
it may be possible to construct a state road without significant
amounts of cut or fill in the proposed alignment. 'However, without
providing road plans or profiles for a comparative analysis of the
public vs. private road designs, staff cannot determine if the public
road would result in a 30 percent increase in the total volume of
grading for its construction. The Engineering Department's comments
are enclosed as Attachment D (on file).
Regarding the applicant's request to allow Parcel A-4 a separate
entrance onto Route 231, staff refers the Commission to Section
18-36(f) which states: 'Any lot fronting on any such road shall enter
only onto such road and shall have no immediate access onto any public
street, except in such case in which the subdivider in accordance with
Section 18-36(h) of this chapter demonstrates to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Commission that due to existing development,
topography, or other physical consideration as distinguished from a
special privilege or convenience, alternative access would alleviate a
clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the environ-
ment of the site or adjacent properties.'
Staff concurs with the applicant that Parcel A-4, with over 1000 feet
of state road frontage, has good sight distance. However, staff must
recommend denial of this waiver request as it is not based on 'exist-
ing development, topography, or other physical consideration.' It
appears the request is made for 'special privilege or convenience' in
that it would result in only two lots utilizing the easement which
does not require compliance with the private road design standards
outlined in Table I of Section 18-36(e).
In order to obtain approval of this proposed subdivision, staff
opinion is the applicant must: a) agree to construct a public road,
or, b) demonstrate the private road would result in 30 percent less
grading than a public road.
In summary, staff recommends denial of this preliminary plat as the
applicant has not adequately demonstrated the proposed private road
will alleviate significant degradation to the environment of the site
as required by Section 18-36(b)(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the private road
request and preliminary plat as submitted, staff has prepared the
following conditions of approval:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The final plat shall not be signed nor be submitted for signature
until the following conditions are met:
Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage
plans and calculations;
Department of Engineering approval of private road and
drainage plans and calculations;
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-
way improvements to include a commercial entrance and
removal of the island within the right-of-way;
e. Staff approval of an amended road maintenance agreement;
2, Administrative approval of the final plat."
Mr. Keeler said that the planning Commission, at its meeting on April 9,
1991, recommended denial of the Aspdenpreliminary plat. Mr. Keeler also
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (32)
205
commented that there are still three division rights to be allocated. Mr.
Bowie asked if the three division rights were in addition to the three lots.
Mr. Keeler answered, "yes." He then described where each of the lots would be
located. Mr. Bowie asked the maximum number of lots. Mr. Keeler answered
that the maximum number of lots would be six or seven.
Mr. Keeler said that since the Commission's action, the Planning Commis-
sion's Private Road Committee has recommended a substantial change to the
ordinance. He went on to say that one aspect of the change is that justifi-
cation for private roads is in terms of a 30 percent increase in volume of
grading for a public road as opposed to a private road. He said that current-
ly private roads in rural areas are allowed solely for environmental reasons.
He added that the Committee recommended that the Engineering Department's
analysis in the future also give consideration to the actual volume of grading
and to the surface area of disturbance. He noted that the Highway Department
will require that the entire right-of-way be cleared, but a County private
does not require that much clearance. He said that the reason for the
recommendation as to the total volume of grading is because there could be a
road in an area of steep topography, and it could have a 30 percent
difference in the volume of grade whereas there could be an extremely long
road, and it might not have a 30 percent differential, but there could be five
times the volume of grading. He noted that this recommendation has not been
included as an ordinance provision, and he does not know how the Commission on
a case-by-case basis would evaluate the situation. He thinks the applicant
will present statements that while the vertical alignment is suitable for a
public road, it is his opinion that the existing road would have to be torn up
to install a public road. Mr. Keeler added, however, that there were no
calculations presented to the Engineering Department for that department to
analyze.
Mr. St. John said it is within the Board's authority to grant this
request. It is not something that is mandated one way or another by the
ordinance. Mr. Keeler said that Mr. St. John is correct.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board could allow a private road with a condition
that if additional development rights are used, the road would be evaluated
and upgraded to a state maintained road. Mr. Keeler answered, "yes."
Mr. Perkins asked if this lot could be denied additional access. Mr. St.
John replied, "yes." He went on to say that the Highway Department cannot
deny that lot access to a public road, but that is not a land use decision.
He said the Subdivision Ordinance states that a lot which fronts on both a
public road and an internal road must exit via the internal road. That is to
minimize the number of entrances onto public roads.
Mr. Keeler said Section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance relates to
this situation. In order to allow the requested access, this provision would
have to be waived. He went on to say that this has been done on other occa-
sions.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and Mr. James Cox, Attorney with
Michie Hamlett, spoke for the applicant, Mr. Aspden. He noted that Mr. Aspden
and Mr. Tom Gale, Roudabush, Gale and Associates, were also present at the
meeting. Mr. Cox said that this is a private road that is in superior condi-
tion and has been maintained that way for 20 years. This road is the subject
of a County-approved road maintenance agreement that was put into effect last
year. From an environmental, safety and economic standpoint, it does not make
sense for this particular subdivision to use another access. He is not
referring to any future subdivision and thinks that if someone wanted to exer-
cise another division right later, that could be discussed at that time.
Access on this private road for this one additional lot does not harm the
public. He believes the main concern is the environmental impact to the area.
He said the grading is one thing that the Planning Commission has focused on,
but to put in a public road would mean destroying the existing road and
putting in a public road along that same line. He does not think that this
makes sense from the standpoint of promoting sensitivity toward the natural
characteristics of the environment as set forth in the ordinance. He believes
this is a unique situation. Two 30-acre lots are being created, and he thinks
the preferable way to do this is to have access onto the private road as
opposed to accessing directly onto Route 231. As an alternate if the Board
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (33)
206
does not see fit to allow this access, he requested the Board to waive the
requirement that the front lot have access to the private road and instead
have direct access to State Route 231.
Mr. Bowie asked why information was not provided to the Engineering
Department when it was requested. Mr. Cox answered that in this situation
there is a private road in very good condition which was built on a particu-
larly good grade. He does not think the figures will show the correct picture
involving the 30 percent level of upset because the property is so well
graded. He said this level of grading would be the major concern of the
Highway Department. He said another concern is that the natural conditions
will be upset, if the road is torn up and another one established. He went on
to say that the applicant did not think that there was a need to furnish
environmental information because they did not think this part of the appli-
cation was an issue. He understood that the focus was on the 30 percent level
of grading, but because the road is in good condition and will be maintained
in good condition, it is difficult to show the 30 percent figure. He thinks
the applicant is being penalized because it is a good private road.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the applicant was going to demonstrate that these
significant increases in earthwork would be required. Mr. Cox replied that
the applicant was unable to show the correct information as far as grading is
concerned, however, he believes it is possible to show what would have to be
disturbed in order to install a public road. He said this is not his area of
expertise, but Mr. Gale would be able to answer the question. Next, Mrs.
Humphris asked why this information was not supplied to the Engineering
Department. Mr. Cox answered that the Engineering Department was focusing on
the 30 percent grading situation. He said that because the existing road
would not require that grading level, the applicant could not show it. That
is why the applicant is focusing on the disturbance to the environment.
Mr. Bowie asked if the applicant's reasons for not providing the Engi-
neering Department with the information was because the 30 percent differen-
tial could not be proven because the road is already there. However, the road
would have to be torn out for another road to be constructed. Mr. Cox agreed
with Mr. Bowie.
Mr. Gale spoke next. He said that he did not submit calculations because
he has not actually designed a state standard road yet. If he did design it,
the vertical alignment would probably stay the same. He wrote a letter to
comment on the process. He said that pavement cannot be overlayed over the
existing roadway. He reiterated the fact that the whole road would have to be
torn up and a new road constructed. He said that he asked the Engineering
Department to do an inspection, and nobody has challenged the fact that it is
a good road., and it is in good condition. He noted that some minor work would
probably have to be done to bring it up to the private road standards. He
thinks that, at the Planning Commission meeting, he convinced the Commission
that the disturbance for the state road would be greater than 30 percent, but
that degradation was not discussed. He said that with this in mind it seemed
obvious that calculations were bogus, and for that reason he felt that they
were not necessary. He pointed out, again, that the private road. would have
to be torn up before a state road could be put into place.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the statement in the staff report that "It
appears after field inspections by staff and the Engineering Department, that
it may be possible to construct a state road without significant amounts of
cut or fill in the proposed alignment." Mr. Gale said that he totally agrees
with this statement. He added that there will not be significant amounts of
cut or fill, but the existing road would have to be taken out, taken down
below subgrade, and grading done. Mrs. Humphris asked if this grading would
be done within the existing right-of-way. Mr. Gale answered that private road
standards call for a road 14 feet wide while the minimum requirement for a
state road is 18 feet. This road would have to be widened by four feet and
the shoulders reworked. He said there would not be any significant change in
the vertical alignment. However, the problem is that the road that is already
there would have to be taken up, and that is disturbance. He went on to say
that the ordinance refers to grading and 30 percent degradation. He does not
know if this disturbance would be classified as grading.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 434)
205
Mr. Way wondered why the existing road would have to be removed. Mr.
Gale pointed out that to comply with all the State standards, it is not a
practical matter to try to upgrade the road that is already there. He said
that it is easier to take out the existing road and start all over again.
Mrs. Humphris asked how Mr. Gale would interpret the total volume of
grading for construction of a public road as compared to the existing road.
Mr. Gale answered that logically he would consider whether or not there was 30
percent disturbance. He believes grading could be considered as disturbance,
but he could understand someone saying grading is not disturbance. He believes
that this is a "gray" area in the ordinance. Mrs. Humphris said she feels the
intent of the ordinance needs to be considered and not its actual wording.
Mr. Gale replied that it is up to this Board to decide what needs to be
considered. He thinks an argument could be made relating to the 30 percent
issue. He noted that when he appeared before the Planning Commission, he
tried to not focus on the 30 percent disturbance. He believes that there are
a number of good reasons to keep the existing road. He pointed out that the
lots are large, and there is over a half a mile of road that would have to be
brought up to state standards to allow for a private road. He thought that
was the issue, and he is sorry that so much focus has been put on the 30
percent disturbance.
Mr. Bowie asked if most of the debate about the 30 percent issue occurs
when there is the question of whether to build a private road or to build a
state road, since that is when the differences in grading appear.
Mr. Bain remarked that some money has to be spent to justify those plans.
It is his feeling that the essence of the whole matter is how much money
should be spent for these plans. Mr. Bowie agreed, and said it is particu-
larly hard to justify the money for plans if the road is already there. Mr.
Gale stated that he chose to make his points by letter as opposed to having
plans so that he could explain the process.
Mr. Larry Aspden, the applicant, spoke next. He said that he has owned
the property for over 20 years and has run a very successful thoroughbred
breeding operation there for a long time. On the average week for 15 to 20
years there have been about 30 to 40 big trucks bringing horses in and out of
the property. He stated that the road is fixed on each side to carry all of
the drainage water to the existing creek at the bottom of the hill and there
is a concrete bridge. He added that the road comes close to meeting private
road standards, and there would be very little work that would need to be
done. He stated that it is his intention to preserve the property. He went
on to say that he does not want to cut the property in lots and does not want
a state road constructed there. He only wants to sell these two parcels which
would be easier than selling the whole 60 acres.
There was no one else who wished to speak, so Mr. Bowie closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Bowie said he could not support direct access onto Route 231, should
there be a motion to that effect. He believes that all of these lots should
use the internal road. He further stated that there are other things that
have to be considered besides the amount of grading, such as the characteris-
tics of the area and the road. He thinks that it is a good private road that
will serve the three lots. He asked questions about the development rights
because if there was an attempt to put in seven lots he would say that there
would have to be a state road constructed. He went on to say that he would
like to support the appeal because he believes that it is better for the area,
and it does not make sense to tear out that road because of an arbitrary
ordinance and require the building of a state road. Further, he does not
believe that state roads are of necessary benefit when there are large private
areas. He added that it makes sense to leave it as a private road and to
leave the three lots on the private road. However, should any further devel-
opment take place then the matter would have to be reconsidered. He also
feels that, since there are three lots involved, there should be some sort of
maintenance agreement between the three lots to maintain the road. He sai~
that this is his position. He reiterated that it makes no sense to him to
tear out this road so that a public road can be built as long as there is no
further development, and there is a road maintenance agreement.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (35)
2O
Mr. Bain said some of the Subdivision Ordinance has been quoted in the
staff report. He added that the issue is interpretation of language as far as
grading is concerned. He agrees with Mr. Bowie that it does not make sense to
do what the ordinance requires, but he does not want to set a precedent by
waiving such issues. He wondered if this Board has the power to waive this
particular requirement. Mr. St. John answered that this question has already
been asked of Mr. Keeler. He went on to quOte Section 18-36(b) which relates
to variations and exceptions because of unusual size, topography, shape,
location or other unusual conditions. He noted that the ordinance states that
there will be "strict application of the provisions of this chapter" for the
whole Subdivision Ordinance. He added that if application of the provisions
results in hardship, the requirement may be varied "subject to the approval of
the Board of Supervisors to permit subdivision consistent with the spirit of
this chapter and provided any such variance shall not be detrimental to public
safety, health and general welfare." He said that this is a general waiver
provision applicable to any provision. He went on to say that Mr. Keeler
could refer to more specific waiver provisions as to private roads.
Mr. Keeler commented that he may have confused the Board. There is
language that allows approval of a private road, and it is not a waiver. He
suggested that there should be some environmental findings in that regard. He
pointed out a tract of land to Board members and said that the waiver would be
involved in allowing this tract of land to have direct access to Route 231.
Mr. Keeler stated that the language he is referring to which would allow
this private road is Section 18-36(b)(1). He quoted, "For the purposes of
this provision, in addition to such other factors as the commission may
consider, 'significant degradation' shall mean an increase of thirty (30)
percent in the total volume of grading for construction of a public road as
compared to a private road."
Mr. Bowie remarked that this section relates to the construction of one
or the other. Mr. Keeler agreed. Mr. Bowie said that if one road is there,
or if it has to be torn up, one way there will be virtually no grading but the
other way there will be considerable grading. Mr. Keeler replied that at this
point it is not known how much grading will have to be done. He said that
some work will be involved to meet the private road standards, and there will
be work involved to meet the public road standards. He added that this
information has not yet been submitted. He said that the applicant is asking
that the 30 percent grade not be considered, and the applicant wants consider-
ation of some other factors. He then gave an example of a driveway being
lined with 100 year old maples. He said that the grading percentage would not
be at issue, but neither the people involved nor the other neighbors would
want the trees to be taken down. He believes that this is what is meant by
the language, "in addition to such other factors that the commission may
consider." He does think the intent is that it be an environmental consid-
eration.
Mr. Way stated that it is a very attractive country road approaching
these large acres, and it certainly makes a difference as to what would happen
if it becomes a public road. He said that if it becomes a public road, then
it becomes probably a massive, ugly road. He imagines that the neighbors
would rather not see such a thing happen.
Mrs Humphris said that the Board needs to get back to Mr. Bain's question
as to whether or not a precedent would be set. Mr. Keeler answered that there
would be a precedent set in any case where there is an existing driveway that
is very close to the private road standards. He noted that one thing that
does not set a precedent is when somebody builds a driveway today and then
comes to the Board tomorrow and says that he already has a private road. He
pointed out that this is why he informed the Board at the beginning of the
presentation that the road was constructed 20 years or more ago. He said that
the Board will have to be on its guard when someone does a two-lot division
and builds a road for three to five lots. That same person may then come back
to the Board and say that the road is already there and request the Board to
set aside its determination as to whether or not it should be a public or
private road. He added that this is not the case in this situation.
Mrs. Humphris stated that her two questions are what is environmentally
best, and she wonders about the problem of precedence. She feels comfortable
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
page (36)
20¢
that the status quo with the lot to be served at the present time is environ-
mentally best, but she is still concerned about the precedent and would like
for any motion to be framed in a way that protects the Board.
Mr. Bain commented that the staff has said that it still may be possible
to construct a state road. He understands what Mr. Keeler is saying in
reference to the amendments of the ordinance as they deal with the environ-
mental impact, etc., and the volume of grading for construction. He is
concerned about the statement that funds don't have to be spent for a profile
of the plans for an analysis of the project, even though Mr. Gale said that he
thought he could accomplish the same thing with a letter. He said that this
is the thing that concerns him about setting a precedent, and the fact that
the applicant does not have to give the Board this information is what is
bothering him.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would be easier for the staff to recommend
circumstances that point out justification for the applicant's position.
Mr. Bowie asked about the letter sent by Mr. Gale. Mr. Gale then refer-
enced the following letter dated March 18, 1991, addressed to Mr. Rich Tarbell
of the Planning Department:
"On behalf of Mr. Aspden, I am asking that the issue of a state versus
private road be decided by the Planning Commission with the justifica-
tion being the inordinate length the applicant would need to improve
and the present condition of the road being very close to the existing
County private road standard. Further, I feel it could easily be
argued that the amount of disturbance of a state road would be in
excess of 30 percent over that of a private road since upgrading to
the private standard would only require some minor widening and some
additional stone whereas a state road would most likely require
removing the existing stone, minor grading and reapplication of the
required base stone before paving.
As an alternative, I am asking that a waiver be allowed such that
Parcel A4 may have a separate entrance onto State Route 20 and not be
required to access from the existing private road. This would allow
only two users on the private road and not require any further upgrad-
ing of the private road. I feel this is a reasonable request since
Parcel A4 has over 1000 feet of road frontage with good sight distance
available."
Mr. Gate added that as far as the disturbance is concerned, it seems
overwhelmingly obvious that he did not need to go through calculations. He
added that if he had thought that it was a marginal situation, he would not
have sent a letter. He would have, instead, submitted calculations.. He can
understand that the Planning and Engineering Departments need something to
analyze. He made a judgment that what he gave those departments, in this
particular case, was the only thing that was necessary. He is frustrated that
he never heard anything from the Planning Commission, and the Commissioners
seemed to agree with his argument that, in terms of percentages, there was no
argument at all. He added that this is why it is unclear to him why this
Board is saying that he did not submit necessary information.
Mrs. Humphris answered that the staff is telling Board members that they
do not want the Board to suddenly remove support for the Subdivision Ordinance
provisions. She does not feel comfortable doing this, either.
Mr. Bowie did not think that the 30 percent grading had anything to do
with the issue. He said that upgrading to the private road standards would
only require some minor widening and some additional stone. He can accept
that. He said that upgrading the road to state standards would require
significant work. He added that his question is whether or not the statement
in the letter can be used for justification.
Mr. St. John called attention to the staff report and said that it is
inconsistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. He read from the report as
follows: "In order to obtain approval of this proposed subdivision, staff
opinion is that the applicant must: a) agree to construct a public road, or,
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (37)
21
b) demonstrate the private road would result in 30 percent less grading than a
public road." He said that a person does not have to build a public road nor
meet the 30 percent standard. He pointed out that the language in the ordi-
nance states "other factors." He said that the Commission and Board can
consider other factors to justify the granting of a private road. He added
that this statement in the staff report is wrong.
Mr. Keeler remarked that he is not sure that the statement in the staff
report is wrong. He said that it has to be understood that this is in re-
sponse to the applicant's position. He said that it is obvious the amount
of grading that will be involved, but'staff is saying that there is some
grading involved to meet the private road standards too, and the comparison
should be made.
Mr. St. John stated that Mrs. Humphris is apparently looking at that
paragraph and saying that the applicant has not made the demonstration that
this paragraph says is required. This requirement is that there either has to
be a public road built or there must be a demonstration that the private road
will result in 30 percent less grading. He said that she is saying that this
has not been shown.
Mrs. Humphris disagreed. She said that is not what she is saying. Mr.
Keeler agreed with Mrs. Humphris that this is not what he is saying either.
He believes that the statement is in response to the applicant's presentation.
He said that the letter of March 18 does not address any other consideration
except the length of the road and the present condition of the road and does
not set forth any other environmental concerns.
Mr. St. John remarked that he is not talking about what caused the
statement to appear at this meeting or what it is in response to. He said
that if the statement is taken by itself, it is not correct, because there are
other factors and grounds involved. In response to Mr. Bain's question, Mr.
St. John said. that there are other factors that the Board can consider and
articulate to justify this private road. He said the statement has either got
to be correct or incorrect. He asked which it is. As he reads the ordinance,
Mr. St. John said that it plainly states that there are other factors that can
be considered in addition to the 30 percent grading. Mr. Keeler agreed that
he has said this three or four times already.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the Commission can consider those factors
but nothing has come back after the Commission's hearing of this issue that
shows other factors that the Commission can consider. He said that the staff
did not have this information, so it was not in the staff report. He pointed
out that the wording is that, "the Commission may consider other factors." He
went on to say that there has to be some sort of staff review line to go from,
and the line deals with the 30 percent degradation.
Mr. Way said he thinks that for aesthetic and practical reasons it makes
sense to have a private road. Me then offered motion to approve the private
road request and Aspden Preliminary Plat (SUB-91-016) subject to the following
conditions:
The final plat shall not be signed nor be submitted for signature
until the following conditions are met:
Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage
plans and calculations;
Department of Engineering approval of private road and
drainage plans and calculations;
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit;
¥irginiaDepartment of Transportation approval of right-of-
way improvements to include a commercial entrance and
removal of the island within the right-of-way;
e. Staff approval of an amended road maintenance agreement;
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (38)
21]
Mr. Keeler said that the conditions are fine, but he pointed out Condi-
tion Number Two which is the administrative approval of the final plat. He
said that this would be out of the ordinary because for the Commission to
grant administrative approval for the final plat the applicant is required at
the time of the Commission's review to have Health Department approval in h~d
- and the Engineering Department's preliminary approval of a road plan. He does
not believe that any road plans were submitted. He said that the staff has no
problem with Condition Number Two being left as a condition of approval.
Mr. Way stated that his motion includes those two conditions, and with a
third condition added as follows: "If additional lots are created, the issue
of upgrading of the road is to be reconsidered."
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. He thinks that this appeal is best for
the landowner and best from the environmental standpoint. He does not think
that it will hurt the County in any way.
Mr. Bowerman said that he does not have a problem with granting an
appeal. It is clear in his mind that an application for a fourth, fifth,
sixth or seventh lot is in no way distinguishable from this application. He
noted that the arguments for the approval of three lots on a private road will
be exactly the same as for four, five, six or seven lots. He added that it
will be very difficult in the future not to allow this same thing to continue
up to seven lots. He said that Mr. Bowie had mentioned his concerns relating
to seven lots, and Mr. Bowerman does not see any way to distinguish three lots
from seven lots under the argument that has been presented today, when paving
versus graveling, etc., is concerned.
Mr. Bowie agreed and said that the volume could make a difference also.
Mr. Bain wanted to make sure that there was no waiver involved, because
approval of this request will have both tracts of land accessing onto the
private road. Mr. Way agreed that Mr. Bain was correct.
Mr. Bowie wondered if the conditions should include the stipulation that
all lots must use the internal road.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she still does not understand the answer to
Mr. Bain's question of where this leaves the Board legally involving the
precedent or what will occur in the future. She agrees that this is probably
the best thing to do at this time, given the number of lots that will be using
this road. She is, however, uncomfortable with the fact that there is not a
firm foundation for this decision.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that in the ten years he was a member of the
Planning Commission he never heard this argument. He thinks that it will
happen again, because in many cases a private road exists. This argument
could also have been used in the past for justification for maintenance of a
private road versus a state road.
Mr. Way said he hopes the Board's decision on this particular issue will
give the Planning Commission some direction on rewriting this provision of the
ordinance.
Mr. Bain stated that Mr. Keeler had made a point that this road has been
established for 20 years and it was not a road that was built to subvert the
Private Road Ordinance. He thinks that this is a key part of this discussion,
but he is still not happy with the issue that he, himself, raised. He will
support the motion, however.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks that consideration has to be given to how long
the road has been there.
Mr. Bain said that he is really concerned about the aspect of the prece-
dent that is being set and the guidance to staff. He thinks that the calcula-
tions could have been done without a lot of expense that could clearly demon-
strate what the applicant had in mind. He thinks that all Board members agree
that this has not been done.
Mrs. Humphris agreed with Mr. Bain. She said that although she would
like to support the request, she cannot do it because she thinks that it will
lead to future problems.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (39) 23_
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The final plat shall not be signed nor be submitted for signature
until the following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage
plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of private road and
drainage plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-
way improvements to include a commercial entrance and
removal of the island within the right-of-way;
e. Staff approval of an amended road maintenance agreement;
2. Administrative approval of the final plat;
3. If additional lots are created, the issue of upgrading of the
road is to be reconsidered.
(Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 12:01 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Appeal: First Virginia Bank Central, Architectural
Review Board Action on Signage (ARB-91-23).
Mr. Bowie noted the following letter received from the applicant:
"June 11, 1991
Lettie Neher, Clerk
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Re: First Virginia Bank - Central
Hearing on Signs for U.S. Route 29/Proffit Road Branch
Dear Ms. Neher:
As counsel for First Virginia Bank - Central, I am writing to request
that the above-referenced matter be withdrawn from the Board of
Supervisors' itinerary for tomorrow, June 12, 1991, at 10:30 a.m. Our
appearance before the Board of Zoning Appeals this afternoon, and the
decision rendered by that Board, makes unnecessary an appearance
before the Board of Supervisors.
I thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
(SIGNED)
Cheri A. Lewis"
Mr. Bowie asked the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Tucker
replied that the variances requested were approved by the BZA. He said that
the appeal will still have to be continued to the Architectural Review Board.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (40)
21
Mr. Bain commented that the County does not have a sign ordinance that
has any meaning. He does not think the Entrance Corridor regulations will
work without this kind of process. This Board has a right to appeal the BZA's
decision, but he thinks that this Board would be hard pressed to do that in
this kind of situation becaume of all the other things that have happened
relating to the Sign Ordinance. He thinks that under court rulings this Board
can appeal one request individually and not another for whatever reason deemed
appropriate, and the applicant will still have to demonstrate a hardship. He
cannot imagine that the applicant was able to do it in this case. He said
that this matter could still be considered by the Board because the BZA just
acted yesterday. He added that he feels the problem this Board has in support-
ing an appeal is that the Board has been letting some of the issues get by,
but now there is an entrance corridor to consider. He thinks that this is a
real important difference.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Way, to delete
this appeal fr~m the Board's agenda without prejudice, at the request of the
applicant.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Bain asked that this matter be placed on next week's agenda for
consideration of an appeal of the BZA's decision. Mr. Bowie asked that the
Board be provided a copy of the BZA minutes concerning this request.
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 12:02 p.m., and Mr. Bain left at the same
time.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Pilot Curbside Recycling Program. (moved to Item
1aa).
Agenda Item No. 12a. Watterson Farm - Request for Service Area Designa-
tion for Fire Service Only.
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"Background: In February, representatives of Watterson Farms (a rural
areas subdivision) requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area to
provide public water. Staff recommended public water service not be
made available due to inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan
objective and strategies for provision of public utilities and past
actions of the Board of Supervisors to limit utility service outside
designated growth areas. The Board of Supervisors denied the request
for a public hearing, supporting staff recommendations. The applicant
then requested consideration of designation to provide fire service
only through fire hydrant(s). The Board asked staff to investigate
the possibility of installing a fire hydrant in this area (and the
associated policy considerations) and report back.
Two options appear to exist for providing fire service in this circum-
stance:
Locate one or more fire hydrants on road(s) where existing water
lines currently cross the road(s)--this would potentially replace
dry hydrant need or pond withdrawal need in the rural areas where
public water lines exist.
e
Extend new water line(s) along residential street(s) from exist-
ing lines and provide standard fire service (all residences
within 400 feet of a hydrant). Residential connections would be
restricted--water line(s) would be for hydrant(s) only. Repre-
sentatives of Watterson Farms are requesting this design.
June 12, lg91 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (41)
21
Issues: Several issues arise regarding these fire service options.
The first is the requirement and need for fire service. The applicant
has stated that Virginia Code Section 56-261 establishes a legal
requirement to provide fire protection service. The applicant feels
their request will improve fire protection and reduce insurance rates
for residents.
Mr. Jay Schlothauer (Building Inspections Department) has indicated
that hydrants should either be located to meet ISO standards (all
residences within 400 feet of a hydrant) or not at all. Fire
hydrant(s) at locations where existing water lines cross roads, but
not meeting ISO standards, would not likely result in an insurance
break and could create a false sense of security for homeowners. Mr.
John Jones (Building Inspections Department) said that hydrants will
only make a real difference in firefighting if response time for the
responding stations is within five minutes and firefighting personnel
are adequately trained. Watterson Farms currently has a 15 to 20
minute response time from its responding station (Crozet). County
experience is that rural areas subdivision fires are typically con-
fined to one structure and do not spread to adjacent structures due to
typical spacing of homes.
Also worthy of consideration are areas of similar circumstance where
water lines currently exist in the rural areas. These include:
1. Ivy area (same water line as adjacent to Watterson Farms);
West side of Route 678 between Locust Hill and Meriwether Lewis
School;
3. In Scottsville along Route 726 between filter plant and Town;
U. S. 29 North--West of U. S. 29 between South Rivanna River and
Hollymead and east of U.S. 29, north of Hollymead;
5. In the future--Route 250 East (out to Village of Rivanna).
Existing and future development in these areas may be expected to
request the fire service only jurisdictional area designation.
Installation, maintenmnce and assessment also need to be addressed.
The applicant proposes to pay for installation of the system and
dedicate it to the Albemarle County Service Authority for their
maintenance with a mutually agreed upon service charge. The ACSA will
need to develop a schedule of connection and service fees. Mr. Bill
Brent (ACSA) indicates that fire service only provides no physical
link with the customer for billing (as water service does through a
residential meter). There is no way to equitably cut off service to
individual residences short of a lien on property if service is not
paid for. Further, will situations arise where abutting properties
may benefit from fire protection, but be unwilling to pay for the
protection? This may necessitate that the County assess properties or
areas on ACSA's behalf to cover fire service.
Finally, policy implications of this service designation must be
considered. The Comprehensive Plan, as previously stated, does not
support public water service in the rural areas. Extension of water
lines to provide standard fire service brings water lines to the
frontage of many residences. This increases the potential for future
jurisdictional area designation requests for full public water ser-
vice. Is fire service a 'foot in the door' to full service? Future
Boards of Supervisors would have to deal with such requests.
Recon~nendation: Location of one or more fire hydrants on road(s)
where existing water lines currently cross the road(s) seems to have
limited benefit to insurance rating and general firefighting capabili-
ty. Due to current firefighting response time, Watterson Farms may
only marginally benefit from fire hydrants, even if provided to meet
ISO standards. This, of course, could change with improved response
time. Two primary concerns arise for fire service only -- (1) how to
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (42)
equitably and effectively assess for service, and (2) increased
potential for future requests for full water service, which is in
contrast to the Comprehensive Plan.
For the above reasons, staff would not recommend establishing a fire
service only jurisdictional area."
21
(Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 12:05 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that Mr. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle
County Service Authority, is present and will be able to help with the discus-
sion about the request. He said the staff has cited Watterson Farms as the
initial request for this type of designation and will use this as the example
for points pro and con regarding this type of service.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if there is a possibility that under any condi-
tions in the future, any of these lots could be redivided. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that he does not believe that these lots could be divided again. He
went on to say that there can be no further division without Planning Commis-
sion approval. He said that there is one dwelling unit per lot, and most of
the lots are approximately two acres. He said that some are slightly larger.
He added that he cannot remember if all of the development rights were uti-
lized on this project, but he believes they have been.
Addressing the Board, Mr. Dennis Rooker, representing the applicant,
stated that he has utilized 23 out of the 26 sites and has no intention of
increasing that number. He added that the applicant is willing to meet all of
the conditions that the ACSA has set forth. He noted that the May 21, 1991,
letter from Mr. Brent, which was provided to the Board, indicates the require-
ments that must be met to construct the water facilities in accordance with
ACSA standards and to then dedicate them to ACSA. He said that another
requirement is to develop a schedule of connection and service fees for
providing this service. He thinks that there are benefits to be achieved by
providing this kind of service, not only on this property, but in the County
generally. He went on to say that there are some public safety and emergency
service needs that are not being met, and the applicant perceives this to be
of great benefit to his property. He said that despite what Mr. Cilimberg had
stated in the staff report concerning insurance rating information, the
applicant's insurance people believe that this situation will have a substan-
tial impact on insurance rates. He noted that this service will provide added
revenue to the ACSA with no expenditure of funds. He said that this service
will be paid for by the applicant at the time it is dedicated to the County.
He went on to say that there will be an ACSA rate established for maintaining
the lines, and this will be paid on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Rooker said that one of the problems that Mr. Cilimberg mentioned in
the staff report was the ongoing administration. He remarked that the appli-
cant would perceive that a contract be signed between the ACSA and the Home-
owners' Association which would require the Association to pay the fees. He
went on to say that there could be a security deposit of perhaps three months
advanced monthly fees. If the applicant did not pay the service fee, then the
service would be cut off. He said that the service is designed so that the
ACSA could shut off the entire line at its discretion. He added that the~
problem that there would not be a way to shut off individual hydrants will not
arise because there will be a single contract for this system which will mean
that a single monthly fee will be paid to the Authority. He noted that in the
applicant's meetings with Mr. Brent and Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Brent indicated
that he did not think that this would be a problem and Mr. Brent's letter so
indicates.
Mr. Rooker thinks that providing this service would be a benefit to the
County in terms of revenues to the Service Authority, and it is unique in that
it does not take any capacity out of the system. He said that the County gets
revenues but no capacity is lost, and no expenditure is made. He remarked
that the County has periodically gotten requests from various parties seeking
some sort of water service, and frequently they have been turned down in the
past. He thinks that part of the reason they have been denied is that there
has been no intermediate level of service. He said that there are applicants
who feel as though it would be important to have better fire service to their
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (43)
216
properties because they may be building expensive homes. He added that these
applicants are willing, as well as this applicant, to pay for a system, to
dedicate it to the Authority and to pay the fees for the system. He went on
to say that if this does not take away from the capacity of the system, it
does not seem to be a logical reason to deny the request. He said that he has
drafted some language which he thinks could go into a resolution that would
help take care of that problem. He stated that if the authorization and the
service are frmmmd in this way, it will completely alleviate the problems that
Mr. Cilimberg has raised. He said that Mr. Cilimberg raised two problems and
one problem is the ongoing administration, such as a free rider who gets use
of one of the hydrants. He noted that the applicant is installing the service
at his expense, and if someone who did not pay ongoing service was able to use
one of the hydrants, he believes that this would be the applicant's problem
and not the County's or the Service Authority's. He said that the service
should only be provided where there can be a single contract for the service
for whatever system is being operated, and that is best done between the
Homeowners' Association and the Service Authority.
Mr. Rooker commented that he does not think that there will be a flood of
applications for this kind of service. He said that there may be one or two
requests a year for additions to the service area boundaries, but that is for
full service. He cannot imagine that there will be a significant number of
people who will be willing to build a system at their expense, dedicate it to
the ACSA and pay ongoing maintenance fees for fire service only. He does not
think that this Board or future Boards would be compelled to grant any appli-
cations for full service, because the application should be considered on its
merits. He remarked that the idea that because these lines are there, that
future residents could ask for full service can be dealt with by saying that
this particular area has been considered, and it was decided that the area
would have fire service only. He feels that this is within the Board's
discretion.
Mr. Rooker then noted the map provided by Mr. Cilimberg and pointed out
on another map that Ivy Creek presently has full service water. He stated
that the property in consideration has a twelve inch main which bisects the
property. He went on to say that it is in cases such as this one, where for
policy reasons it is decided not to provide full service, that it makes sense
to have an intermediate level of service that will be paid for by the appli-
cant and will generate fees for the Service Authority. He would like for the
Board to grant this request. He thinks that it makes legal sense, governmen-
tal sense and common sense. In terms of what Mr. Cilimberg said about the
property owners asking for full service later, Mr. Rooker said that it is a
difficult situation. He stated that if the Board did not grant the request
for full service and asked the applicant to look into an intermediate level of
service, the applicant may come back later and ask for full service. He said
that one of the reasons the staff has given for not recommending the service
is that people may ask for full service. He asked if anyone had questions
that he might answer.
Mr. Steve Driver, the Engineer who has been overseeing most of the Ivy
Creek construction plans and contract documents, said that he was present to
answer any technical questions with respect to the water line design.
Mr. Bowie then asked Mr. Brent if he wanted to add anything. Mr. Brent
stated that Mr. Cilimberg has covered all of the points that he had raised and
had informed the Board of the position of the Board of Directors. He stated
that he had some comments to make about some of the remarks that were made at
this meeting. He does not believe that the Service Authority Would be inte-
rested in entering into a contract with some third party organization, such as
the Homeowners' Association for providing service. He said that if it comes
to the point where this Board is considering this type of service, the con-
tract should be with the individual property owner and the Authority. He
believes that the best way to handle this type of situation is to have a
covenant obligating the property owners to pay the fees which are established
by the authority. He also commented that throughout the correspondence there
is reference to mutually agreed upon service charges. He noted that the
Service Authority does not negotiate the rates. He said that the rates are
set in a public arena, and he would not want to offer any false hopes that the
rates could be negotiated. He added that the rates would be set by the Board
of Directors.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (44)
217
Mr. Rooker stated that originally the applicant had asked for full
service and he would like to convert this application to full service, if the
Board would consider that.
Mr. Bowie answered that the Board has already considered full service for
the applicant, and the discussion today is as a result of that consideration.
Mrs. Humphris referred to Mr. Brent's comments about the unwillingness of
the Authority to enter into a contract agreement with the Homeowners' Associa-
tion. She asked how this would affect the application. Mr. Rooker replied
that the applicant is willing to enter into whatever contractual relationship
is necessary for the Service Authority to provide the service. Mrs. Humphris
then asked if it was possible to have that as part of the deed of the land.
Mr. Rooker responded that the individual lots could be bound with covenants
and the individual lot owner could sign an agreement. He believes that the
Homeowners' Association could still be used as a conduit to funnel the payment
fee. He said that he does not view this as a problem. Mr. Brent agreed that
the Homeowner's Association could be used in this manner.
Mrs. Humphris next wondered how this would work. Mr. Rooker replied that
there would be a contract with the Service Authority that would be signed by
each of the owners of the property to bind each of the individual lots, which
would make provisions to pay the fees and to support the maintenance to the
system. Mrs. Humphris asked if this would mean that the developer would pay
for the system and then as the lots are sold, each property owner would have
to sign up for the service. Mr. Rooker answered that there would be an
agreement filed that would already bind each of these lots' before they were
sold. He added that the Homeowners' Association would require those lots to
contribute to the payment of the service fee to the Authority.
Mr. Bowie asked if this is how it would be done if the request is ap-
proved. Mr. Rooker indicated that this is true.
Mr. Brent stated that the Authority does not care who writes the check,
but the relationship should be between the Authority and the property owner
rather than the Authority and an Association.
Mr. Bowie said he understood and asked if Board members had further
questions.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she knows there have been previous problems
with private wells, and public water has had to be provided. She asked what
criteria has to be met before public water is provided. Mr. Cilimberg replied
that matters such as the one Mrs. Humphris describes have always been brought
to the Board as a service area request when the problem is perceived to be a
health and safety matter.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it has to be a proven health and safety problem in
order for the matter to be brought to this Board to render a decision to move
from private well systems to public water. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the
health and safety criteria is what the staff has used, and this criteria
agrees with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowie stated that he has always wondered, when there are already
established water lines, why there cannot be an occasional hydrant so that the
fire department does not have to go so far for water. He said that it never
entered his mind to take individual subdivisions and build individual water
lines around them. He said that this request indicates that if a person has a
lot of money, then these lines can be available, and if a person is poor, you
cannot have the water lines. He stated that there are some subdivisions that
will soon be on a water line, or maybe they already are. He added that some
of these subdivisions do not have a Homeowners' Association and cannot afford
to pay for the water. He said that he will, however, accept the staff's
recommendations.
Mr. Bain commented that the Board had asked the staff to look at the
question and the staff has done so. He thinks that if the water line is
extended, then full service should be provided. He will also accept the
staff's recommendations.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (45)
218
Mr. Bowerman concurred with Mr. Bain. He said that he thought, as stated
by Mr. Bowie, that where service already exists, it would be good to be able
to put in hydrants for the benefit of the adjacent people. He would think
that it would be a good policy to put in periodic hydrants wherever there are
distribution lines. He does not see that addressing the issue in the way that
the applicant has presented his case would serve the public interest, but
periodic fire hydrants would serve the public interest. He said that he does
not think there should be a fee for fire hydrant service.
Mr. Bowie agreed, and said that he thought the County should put in fire
hydrants at no charge.
Mrs. Humphris stated that it was her understanding that if the Board ap-
proves the service, that advantage would be taken of the line across the
property.
Mr. Way stated that he does not agree with the other Board members. He
said that the applicant's plan makes perfect sense because he is willing to
pay for the service himself to better protect his property. He added that a
system has been worked out that will be cooperative with the Service Authori-
ty, and he sees no problem with it.
Mr. Perkins commented that he thinks there is a definite need for fire
hydrants when there is five minutes or more response time, even though the
staff report indicated that there is not. He has talked with a number of
firemen who are really concerned about the subdivisions that do not have any
water close by. He said he believes that as a part of subdivisions, particu-
larly rural subdivisions, there should be a pond, etc., where water could be
drawn. He added that conditions could get so bad with high winds, etc., where
several houses could be lost, because the tanker truck had to go a long
distance to get water.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the staff has always relied on building inspec-
tors to make comments in that regard, and the staff has thought, also, that
this might be a logical position. He said, however, that the comments from
the building inspectors indicated that having water close by was not that
important.
Mr. Perkins remarked that he feels that having water close by is particu-
larly important in the wooded subdivisions because he has seen fire jump three
or four hundred feet.
Mrs. Humphris stated that on Page 13 of the March 13 Board minutes it
states that, "Mr. Bowie said that he would like to know how a fire protection
only service area can be established at an existing main." She commented that
the Board then considered tapping on to the line that runs across the proper-
ty. She said, however, that what the Board is discussing now is entirely
different. She noted that the Board's discussion has jumped from this proper-
ty to County-wide needs. She added that the Board has not thought about,
looked at, or studied this situation. She went on to say that this idea might
need to be pursued, but the Board is dealing with something that is going
beyond the intent of this application.
Mr. Bowie replied that the Board had asked for a County-wide review on
safety, and then the Board received a specific request from a subdivision. He
said that there needs to be a motion to either approve or deny the request for
Watterson Farms.
Mr. Cilimberg called attention to the first of the two options listed in
the staff report. He thought that this option addressed the Board's original
idea concerning fire service in the rural area. He noted that the staff had
received comments from the building inspectors concerning this option, and the
inspectors would like to carry this idea further. He said that the inspectors
would like some more input on the matter so that it can be determined if fire
hydrants will provide a good substitute for the dry hydrant or the pond
situation.
Mr. Bain stated that he would like to have the matter examined further.
He still believes that, for this particular piece of property, where the
waterline crosses the road, a hydrant could be placed. He said that there
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (46)
219
could be problems doing this, but he thinks that this particular problem
should be addressed.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Rooker if his client would be interested in that
aspect. Mr. Rooker indicated that his client is interested.
Motion was then offered byMr. Bain, seconded byMr. Bower-mu, to deny
the request for service area designation for fire service only to Watterson
Farm. 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.
Mr. Bain then suggested that the staff explore the possibility of locat-
ing one or more fire hydrants on roads where existing water lines currently
cross roads. This would potentially replace dry hydrant need or pond with-
drawal need in the Rural Area where public water lines exist. The staff does
not need to be site specific.
Mr. Bowie stated that the Board needs to know what can be done relative
to fire protection, and whether it really needs to be done.
Mr. Tucker commented that the staff already has some work done on the
question, but some further information is still needed such as costs and loca-
tions.
Not Docketed: At 12:37 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by
Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn into executive session for discussion of personnel
and legal matters.
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.
The Board reconvened into open session at 2:14 p.m., and motion was
offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following
certification:
CERTIFICATION OF EXEC~MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEKEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerm~,, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins
and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSE~]T DURING VOTE: None.
ABSE~IT DURING MEETING: None.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (47)
220
Agenda Item No. 13a. Appropriation: Annual Appropriation Ordinance for
1991-92, Adoption of.
Mr. Tucker presented to the Board for its approval the Appropriation
Ordinance for the FY 91-92 operating budget of $85,541,376. He noted that
this amount is approximately $115,300 less than the budget approved by the
Board in April, due to a reduction in the School Fund of approximately
$108,500 which had been Albemarle Countyts anticipated share of the Governor's
return proposal plus a $6,800 reduction in General Government's transfer to
the Personnel Department due to a Reduction in Force (RIF) in that department.
He mentioned other minor adjustments which amounted to $19,356, and he said
that this amount has been shifted into the Board's Contingency Account because
Board members had mentioned that they would like a contingency fund.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the
following Appropriation Ordinance for the year ending June 30, 1992. 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.
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1992
AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1992; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions
with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal
all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances
inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1992:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, AND OTHER REFUNDS
the sum of sixty-seven thousand five hundred dollars and no cents ($67,500) is
appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Refunds and Abatements
$ 67,500
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND
SUPPORT the sum of three million six hundred eighty thousand one hundred
twenty-two dollars and no cents ($3,680,122) is appropriated from the General
Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Board of Supervisors $ 306,836
2. County Executive 367,523
3. Elections 127,235
4. Finance 1,689,479
5. Information Services 784,241
6. Legal Services 191,472
7. Personnel 213,336
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT the sum
of one million six hundred fifty-nine thousand four hundred sixty-two dollars
and no cents ($1,659,462) is appropriated from the General Fund to be appor-
tioned as follows:
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (48)
221
1. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program $ 275,430
2. Extension Service 82,726
3. Community Action Agency 36,085
4. Housing 154,535
5. Planning 648,615
6. Planning District Commission 45,485
7. Route 29 Bus Service 31,491
8. Soil and Water Conservation 20,283
9. Watershed Management 41,575
10. Zoning 313,542
11. Gypsy Moth Program 9,695
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN SERVICES the sum of
three million seven hundred ninety-six thousand four hundred fifty-eight
dollars and no cents ($3,796,458) is appropriated from the General Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Central Virginia Child Development Association $ 7,340
2. Region Ten Community Services 197,000
3. District Home 31,200
4. Health Department 496,000
5. Jefferson Area Board on Aging 89,350
6. Jefferson Area United Transportation 140,340
7. Legal Aid Society 10,405
8. Madison House 3,785
9. Outreach Counseling 21,430
10. Piedmont Virginia Community College 6,600
11. Family Services 5,100
12. Shelter for Help in Emergency 32,135
13. Sexual Assault Resource Agency 12,500
14. Virginia Public Assistance 2,454,340
15. Employment Service Program 58,157
16. Energy Assistance Program 17,505
17. Medicaid/UVA Program 152,806
18. United Way Scholarship Program 40,250
19. AIDS Support Group 5,000
20. Children & Youth Commission 15,215
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of the Function of JUDICIAL the sum of one
million two hundred twenty-nine thousand six hundred twelve dollars and no
cents ($1,229,612) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Circuit Court
2. Clerk of Circuit Court
3. Commonwealth's Attorney
4. General District Court
5. Juvenile Court
6. Magistrate
7. Sheriff
53,280
394,875
293,619
9,990
36,542
4,265
437,041
Paragraph Six
For the current expenses of the Function of PARKS, RECREATION AND CUL-
TURE, the sum of two million four hundred fifteen thousand four hundred
sixty-two dollars and no cents ($2,415,462) is appropriated from the General
Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Library
2. Literacy Volunteers
3. Parks & Recreation
4. Piedmont Council of the Arts
5. Rivanna Park
6. Virginia Discovery Museum
7. Visitor's Bureau
1,376,405
9,200
846,760
5,000
82,175
20,000
75,922
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (49)
222
Paragraph Seven
For the current expenses of the Function of PUBLIC SAFETY the sum of five
i
million nine hundred forty-seven thousand one hundred one dollars ($5,947,101)
_ is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Ambulance, Rescue Squads $ 121,385
2. Community Attention Home 50,200
3. Correction and Detention (Jail) 107,225
4. Emergency Medical Communications Equipment 240
5. Emergency Medical Services Council 12,035
6. Fire Department 537,595
7. Forest Fire Extinction Service 13,595
8. Inspections 612,375
9. Emergency Operations Center (911) 364,303
10. 3uvenile Detention Home 45,509
11. Offender Aid and Restoration 32,140
12. Police Department 3,586,704
13. SPCA Contract 14,010
14. Volunteer Fire Departnnents 415,920
15. Fire/Rescue Volunteer Coordinator 33,865
Paragraph Eight
For the current expenses of the Function of PUBLIC WORKS the sum of one
million five hundred eighteen thousand seven hundred dollars and no cents
($1,518,700) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Engineering $ 550,483
2. Refuse (Landfills) 100,000
3. Staff Services 860,217
4. CAC3 Grant 8,000
Paragraph Nine
For the current expenses of the function of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum of
one million dollars and no cents ($1,000,000) is appropriated from the General
Fund and transferred to:
1. Capital Improvements Fund
$ 1,000,000
Paragraph Ten
For the current expenses of the Annual Payment to the City of Charlot-
tesville, pursuant to the REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT between the City and the
County dated February 17, 1982, payable in January, 1992, in the amount of
three million two hundred seventy-seven thousand three hundred fifty dollars
and no cents ($3,277,350) is appropriated from the General Fund as follows:
1. Revenue Sharing Agreement
$ 3,277,350
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
$ 24,591~767
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
$ 20,588,177
3,844,690
158,900
$ 24,591~767
SECTION II REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
That the following s,,mm of money be and the smmm hereby are appropriated
for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1992:
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (50)
223
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the REGULAR SCHOOL FUND the sum of fifty-one
million six hundred fifty-five thousand eight hundred ninety-three dollars and
no cents ($51,655,893) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned
as follows:
1. Instruction $ 40,523,128
2. Administration, Attendance & Health 1,634,952
3. Pupil Transportation Services 4,479,949
4. Facilities Operation/Maintenance 4,809,292
5. Facilities Construction/Modification 208,572
SUMMARY
Total Regular School Funds for Fiscal
Year Ending June 30, 1992
$ 51,655,893
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (LocalRevenues)
Revenue from Local Sources (School Fund Balance)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Miscellaneous Revenue
Total SCHOOL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
$ 31,463,182
-0-
19,345,812
431,314
415,585
51,655,893
SECTION III - Other School Funds
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1992:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the function of SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM the sum
of one million five hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred twenty-four
dollars and no cents ($1,599,924) is appropriated from the Cafeteria
Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias $ 1,599,924
SUMMARY
Total CAFETERIA OPERATIONS appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
1,599,924
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from Refunds and Rebates
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
1,113,714
41,704
3,500
441,006
$ 1,599,924
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS, the sum
of three hundred sixty-nine thousand nine hundred dollars and no cents
($369,900) is appropriated from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Textbooks $ 369,900
SUMMARY
Total TEXTBOOK RENTALS appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
369,900
11 I
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (51)
224
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (School Fund) $
Revenue from Carry-Over Funds
Revenue from Other Sources (Interest)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992 $
184,000
140,000
8,400
37,500
369~900
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of the McINTIRE TRUST FUND the
sum of ten thousand dollars and no cents ($10,000) is appropriated from the
McIntire Trust Fund as follows:
1. Payment to County Schools
$ 10,000
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
$ 10,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from investments per trust
Total McINTLRE TRUST FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
10,000
10,000
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of the function of DEBT SERVICE the sum of four
million three hundred twenty-nine thousand five hundred eighteen dollars and
no cents ($4,329,518) is appropriated from the Debt Service Fund as follows:
1. Debt Service Payments
$ 4,479,518
SUMMARY
Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
$ 4,479,518
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources (Trans from Gen Fd)
Total DEBT SERVICE resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
4,479,518
4,479,518
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of PREP PROGRAM the sum of one million one
hundred fifty-four thousand four hundred fifty-two dollars and no cents
($1,154,452) is appropriated from the PREP Program Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. E.D. Program $ 625,916
2. C.B.I.P. Severe 528,536
SUMMARY
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition and Fees
Total PREP PROGRAM FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
$ 1,154,452
1,154,452
1,154,452
Paragraph Six
For the current expenses of FEDERAL PROGRAMS the sum of seven hundred
fifty-five thousand one hundred sixty dollars and no cents ($755,160) is
appropriated from the Federal Programs Fund to be apportioned as follows:
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (52)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Chapter I
Chapter II
Migrant Education
Title II
Drug Education Grant
Education of Legalized Aliens
225
540,795
57,870
66,000
13,660
53,835
23,000
SUMMARY
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
$ 755~160
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
755,160
~ 755,160
Paragraph Seven
For the current expenses of COMMUNITY EDUCATION the sum of seven hundred
sixty-one thousand nine hundred twenty-four dollars and no cents ($761,924) is
appropriated from the Community Education Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Community Education
$ 761,924
SUMMARY
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
761~924
To be provided as follows:
Revenues from Tuition and Fees
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
761,924
761,924
Paragraph Eight
For the current expenses of SUMMER SCHOOL the sum of one hundred sixty-
two thousand eight hundred thirty-eight dollars and no cents ($162,838) is
appropriated from the Sun~ner School Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Summer School $ 162,838
SUMMARY
Total SLIMMER SCHOOL appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
$ 162~838
To be provided as follows:
Revenues from Tuition
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Total SUMMER SCHOOL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
136,038
26,800
$ 162,838
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I THROUGH III IN THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1992:
RECAPITULATION
Section I
Section II
Section III
General Fund
School Fund
Other School Funds
GRAND TOTAL
$ 24,591,767
51,655,893
9,293,716
$ 85,541~376
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized
to transfer to other ftmds from the General Fund, from time to time as monies
become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made
to these funds from the General Fund for the period covered by this appropri.a-
tion ordinance.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (53)
226
SECTION IV
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sec-
tions I through III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and
provisions hereinbefore set forth in connection with said terms and those set
forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro-
priations made out of the General Fund, the School Fund, the Cafeteria Fund,'
'the McIntire Trust Fund, the Textbook Rental Fund, the Debt Service Fund, Prep
Program Fund, Federal Programs Fund, Community Education Fund, Summer School
Fund, are declared to be maximum., conditional and proportionate appropria-
tions--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the
amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate
revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appro-
priations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full.
Otherwise~ the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such
proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is
to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal
year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare not
included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as
submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency
under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the
Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being
first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures
which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or make transfers
between specific items of appropriation without the consent of the Director of
Finance being first obtained.
Paragraph Three
Ail balances of appropriations payable out of the General Fund of the
County treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth. (30th) day of June,
1992, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be lapsed into
the County treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations
which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal year,
beginning July 1, 1992. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed
to be applicable to the School Fund, Capital Improvements Fund, Cafeteria
Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust Fund, Debt Service Fund, Prep
Program Fund, Federal Programs Fund, Community Education Fund or Summer School
Fund, but any balance available in these funds shall be used in financing the
proposed expenditures of these funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
1992.
Paragraph Four
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual
services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or
individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by
requisition to the Purchasing Agent; provided, however, no requisition for
contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, eXpress--and
membership fees and subscriptions shall be required; and provided further that
no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract
on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be
approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or indi-
vidual and the Purchasing Agent, who shall be responsible for securing such
competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the contracting
department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required
fOr such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action
of the Board of Supervisors.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (54) 2 2 7
Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures pre-
scribed in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered
obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any~
warrants in payment of such obligations.
Paragraph Five
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by
any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the
Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on
account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automo-
biles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate
as that established by the Commonwealth of Virginia for its employees and
shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Six
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on formS and according
to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Seven
Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions
of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Eight
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and
ninety-one.
Agenda Item No. 13b. Capital Improvements Program, Appropriations for
1991-92.
Mr. Tucker explained that the Board is in receipt of a list of approved
capital projects for FY 1991-92. He noted that the total appropriation for
CIP projects is $11,297,667 which is approximately $5.6 million lower than
what this Board approved last December. He said that this reduction reflects
the approvals made in April and May of approx~mmtely $5.7 million in the
current fiscal year to begin the Urban Elementary School, the Burley Middle
School and the Brownsville Elementary }IVAC project as well as removal of the
underground storage tanks and various repaving projects. He said that this
amount also reflects the addition of $150,000 to the Berkmar Drive Extension
project. He gave the Board a handout which corrected information that had
been previously given related to Parks and Recreation and Utilities Improve-
ments. He said the information first given to the Board listed projects for
these two categories for FY 1992-93 instead of FY 1991-92. He said that the
totals are the same, but the projects are different. He recommended approval
of the Capital Improvements Program appropriations for 1991-92.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Lickinghole Creek project is still proceeding.
Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." He said that information would be given to the
Board soon on this project.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the
following resolution approving the appropriations for the Capital Improvements
Program for 1991-92. 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.
Capital Improvements Program
July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992
Board of Supervisors - Appropriation
II I
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (55)
PROJECTS:
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
Administration, Courts
1) County Office Building - PBX Replacement
2) Health Department - Clinic Wing
3) Health Department - Minor Repairs
4) Juvenile and Domestic Court - Repair/Painting
Sub-Total
Education 5) Albemarle High School
6) Albemarle High School
Phase I
Demolition Vocational Wing
Sub-Total
Fire/Rescue and Safety
7) Volunteer Fire Departments - Advanced Allocation
8) E-911 Building Locator System
Sub-Total
Highways and Transportation
9) Revenue Sharing Projects
10) Sidewalk - Hydraulic Road
11) Avon Street/Rt. 20 Connection, Engineering & Planning
12) Berkmar Drive Extension
13) Commonwealth Drive
14) Timberwood Parkway, Engineering & Planning
Sub-Total
Libraries
15) Central Library - Roof and Electrical Repairs
16) Gordon Avenue - HVAC Replacement
17) Bookmobile Replacement
18) Northside Branch
Sub-Total
Miscellaneous
19) Computer Upgrade
VII. Parks and Recreation
20) Greenwood CC - Baseball Field Fencing
21) Crozet Park Building and Grounds Improvements
22) Chris Greene Lake Beach Shelter
23) Beaver Creek Parking Expansion/Safety Improvements
24) Outdoor Recreation Improvements/Various Schools
25) Rivanna Five Senses Trail
26) Whitewood Road Master Plan
27) Murray Elementary Outdoor Recreation Improvements
Sub-Total
VIII. Utilities Tn~,rovements
28) Berkeley Storm Sewer Improvement
29) Keene Landfill Closure
30) Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin
Sub-Total
TOTAL JULY 1, 1991 JUN~ 30, 1992
RESOURCES:
228
$ 160,000
10,000
4,000
15,000
$ 189,ooo
$ 3,509,540
308,600
$ 3,818,140
$ 250,000
1,279~506
$ 1,529,506
747,500
8,585
70,700
950,000
287,668
75~000
2,139,453
$ 35,685
22,500
75,000
300,000
$ 433,185
$ 85~900
$ 7,500
12,200
18,000
20,000
30,000
25,000
10,000
35,000
$ 157,700
$ 79,401
1,000,000
1,865,382
$ 2,944,783
$11,297,667
1) General Fund Appropriation $ 1,000,000
2) Rescue Squad Repayment 23,000
3) Sale of McIntire School 55,000
4) Sale of Fourth Street Property 50,000
5) E-911 Centel Reimbursement 1,279,500
6) CIP Fund Balance 863,700
7) Interest Earnings 800,000
8) Bond Proceeds 7,226,467
TOTAL $11,297,667
Agenda Item No. 13c. Appropriation: Children and Youth Commission.
Mr. Tucker recalled that last October when the County entered into an
agreement with the City of Charlottesville to contribute to the Commission
for Children and Youth, the County agreed to fund in this fiscal year the
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (56)
229
operating costs to match State funding for this program. He said that these
funds have never been appropriated, and he is asking the Board to approve
that appropriation for this current fiscal year to cover the seven months of
operational costs. He noted that the total amount of the appropriation is
$5,075. He indicated that this amount will be transferred from the General
Fund balance to cover that expense. He pointed out that next year's expense
for those operating costs are already covered in next year's budget.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt
the following resolution approving the appropriation. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 90/91
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
Funding of Children and Youth Commission
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION ~MOUNT
1100059000560160 Children & Youth Commission $5,075.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100051000501000
General Fund Balance
$5,075.00
of.
Agenda Item No. 14. Fee SChedules (Development Ordinances), Discussion
Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum dated June 6, 1991:
"Staff has completed a review of our development ordinances' fee
schedule for your review and adoption. Meetings with local citizen
groups and the development community were productive and their sugges-
tions have been incorporated into the schedule.
Please note that we have provided you with varying rates of fee
recovery for your consideration. Staff has recommended a recovery
rate of 50 percent which is generally the rate used in the past.
While the majority of the recommended fees show an increase, when
consistently applying the 50 percent recovery rate, several show a
reduction. Some localities, as you know, are attempting to recover
total costs for these services, which from a revenue perspective may
be prudent at this time. If total recovery cost is ultimately the
Board's goal, I would suggest that you stage the increase over a 12 -
18 month period since the 50 percent cost recovery increases purposed
are in many cases significant. This would allow our local economy a
chance to improve before imposing 100 percent of our service costs.
As an incentive to encourage low-moderate cost housing in the County,
I am recommending that you consider waiving all development activity
fees for those proposals which provide low-moderate cost housing.
Staff will develop criteria for determining which projects would be
eligible for such waiver if you concur with this recommendation."
Mr. Tucker commented that the Inspections Department attempts to recover
100 percent so that the department can be self-sustaining.
Mr. Bowie wondered if the Board accepts this recommendation, if the staff
would bring information to the Board with information as to what is considered
low cost and what would have to be done to qualify for the waiver. Mr. Tucker
answered, "yes." He said that this would probably change annually because the
range of costs change with the economy.
Mr. Bowie stated that in comparing Albemarle County to other jurisdic-
tions, it seems as though Albemarle County's fees are reasonable, even with
the proposed 50 percent rate. He added that even with the 100 percent recov-
ery costs, Albemarle County's rates are lower than other jurisdictions. Mr.
Tucker agreed that Albemarle County's rates are lower than some localities.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (57)
230
He pointed out that in Northern Virginia there will be much higher expenses
and their review time might be much more extensive than Albemarle County's.
He thinks, however, that Albemarle County's are reasonable. He went on to say
that even with the 50 percent cost recovery there is, in many cases on the
larger plans and projects that are reviewed, considerably higher costs
involved than the fee being charged.
Mr. Bowie pointed out that he sees a difference between someone building
a subdivision for profit and someone who wants to build a back porch. He
stated that the homeowner is just trying to improve his or her home, and Mr.
Bowie is not sure whether or not the 50 percent cost recovery rate is too much
for the homeowner. He went on to say that when someone is building for profit
the 100 percent recovery cost rate might be applicable. He asked if this fee
schedule differentiates between the homeowner and the person building for
profit. Mr. Tucker answered that this fee schedule does not take this into
consideration. He said that this schedule is consistent with regard to the 50
percent recovery rate. He added that the staff could consider this question.
He related specifically to Mr. Bowie's example of someone building a porch
onto his or her home. He said that this person would probably only have to
get a building permit, and the County already attempts to recover 100 percent
through the fees for the cost of that review. He went on to say that if Mr.
Bowie is talking about fees as they relate to planned review such as subdivi-
sions, zoning, engineering, etc., then the staff will have to consider the
matter. He thinks that the staff will have to look into inspection fees which
are not now differentiated. Mr. Bowie stated that he would like to get a
report from staff on this matter at a later time.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that on Page Two of the memorandum from Mrs.
Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, it is indicated that the Blue Ridge
Homebuilders suggested two levels of fees for site plans and rezoning requests
depending on whether it was a small project or a large project. She asked Mr.
Tucker to inform the Board of the discussion of this matter. Mr. Tucker
replied that it might be best if Mrs. Patterson brought out the points of this
discussion.
Mrs. Patterson stated that the point was made that if somebody was doing
a very small project, that person should not be subjected to the same fees as
a full-scale, full-review project. She said that, to a certain extent, this
is covered through a special provision for site plan waivers which relate to
site plans that do not have to go through a full review. She added that in
trying to address this situation, it is necessary to break down, at least on
site plans, the distinction between residential and nonresidential projects.
She said it is possible to have base fees for residential and nonresidential
projects with an additional fee of $10 per unit for residential projects and
$10 per 1000 square feet for nonresidential projects. She went on to say that
a lot of localities have done this type of thing to address the scale of the
project rather than to have just a straight fee for site plans.
Mr. Perkins asked if relaxing fees on low or moderate cost housing would
affect projects such as the Lickinghole Creek project and sedimentation ponds.
Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." He suggested that, regardless of the location, if
a project meets the criteria, once the criteria has been developed, then that
project would be waived.
Mr.. Bowie said he would like for the staff to bring back to the Board
some information on the waiving of development activity fees for those propo-
sals which provide for low-moderate cost housing. He also stated that the
staff should probably consider Mrs. Humphris' statement about the Blue Ridge
Homebuilders' position, and consideration ne~ds to be given to distinguishing
between fees for a small project versus a larger, for-profit project. He said
that he would like for the staff to specifically address these issues. He
added that he has no problem with this fee schedule, except that he feels the
rates are low.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that the matter of waiving development activity
fees for low-moderate cost housing proposals has already been incorporated
into the fee schedule. He said that criteria will have to be brought back to
the Board.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (58)
231
Mr. Bowerman wondered how much money would be involved if fees are raised
50 percent and then doubled on what is currently collected. He asked how much
revenue is coming from fees for the Planning and Zoning Departments. Mr.
Tucker replied that he does not have that figure with him. Mrs. Patterson
stated that for the current fiscal year, through May 30, they have taken in
approximately $20,000 in site plan fees.
Mr. Bowerman then asked if there is a dollar amount for all the fees that
are being considered at this meeting. Mr. Tucker said that information can be
given to the Board as to the revenues which would be generated for 100 per-
cent, 75 percent and 50 percent recovery rates.
Mr. Bowie stated that the current economic climate will probably change,
but it will not change overnight. He noted that most things do pay for
themselves, such as park fees, etc.
Mr. Bain wondered if the goal is to be 100 percent or 50 percent recovery.
Mr. Bowie replied that it is the recommendation of the staff for a 50 percent
cost recovery and if 100 percent is desired, then he feels the increase should
be spread over 18 months. He then noted the second recommendation relating to
the waiver of the low-moderate cost housing development activity fees, once
criteria is available. He said that these are the two basic decisions that
this Board needs to make.
Mr. Bowerman recalled the point that Mr. Bowie made concerning a homeown-
er who wants to add an attachment to his or her house. He said that he did
not understand the response. Mr. Bowie explained that a person who wants to
add something to a home is only required to get a building permit. He went on
to say that, as far as the fee schedule is concerned, he would like to consid-
er the 100 percent recovery rate over 18 months. Mr. Tucker stated that the
goal is to increase this fee schedule eventually to 100 percent over the
stages of time mentioned in his memorandum.
Mr. Bowie suggested that inspection fees be considered when an individual
is going to fix his house. He said that this would give a break to the
property owners, especially if the County has a 100 percent recovery rate,
eventually. Mr. Tucker indicated that this could be done.
Mr. Bain said the staff is recommending the 50 percent recovery rate.
Mr. Bowie answered that the Board can choose whether to have a recovery rate
of 75 percent or 100 percent.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he had always thought that services should pay
for themselves.
Mr. Bain said he would like information as to the actual dollar amount
that would be received on an annual basis at the different percentage levels.
He added that the Board has discussed this matter before at some length and
there were certain things that the Board felt should have a 100 percent
recovery rate and there were certain things that the Board did not feel should
have a 100 percent recovery.
Mr. Bowie reiterated that the staff is recommending a 50 percent recovery
at the present time. He suggested that the Board accept this percentage and
ask for more information next month on the other percentages. He noted,
however, that even if the 100 percent recovery rate is approved, Albemarle
County will still be below most of the other jurisdictions' fee schedules.
Mr. Bain agreed that Albemarle County is below some of the other juris-
dictions' fee schedules, but not in all cases. He does not see a consensus
with the other jurisdictions, and Albemarle County would not have to agree
with these jurisdictions' fee schedules, anyway. Mr. Tucker concurred that
the fee schedules vary according to the jurisdiction.
Mrs. Humphris commented that the information on the other jurisdictions
is interesting and helpful, but she does not think that it should be a deci-
sion-making factor for Albemarle County. Mr. Tucker said he thought the
information would be helpful because the Board might decide to consider this
matter again in a year or so. He noted, again, the staff's recommendation of
starting with a 50 percent recovery rate with the 75 and 100 percent rates
being staged over a 12 to 18 month period.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (59)
232
Mr. Bowerman commented that the Board comes into contact with the general
public most often on mobile home permits and home occupations when they are
appealed. He pointed out that for administrative approval, they are nominal
cost items, and these applications would not in any way be limited. He said
that Mr. Tucker might want to point out items that are quite a bit larger in
scope. Mr. Tucker replied that the Board might not want to increase Compre-
hensive Plan amendments, for example, to 100 percent recovery because this is
a general public benefit and does not affect development or profit.
Mr. Perkins discussed the fee for the creation of an Agricultural/
Forestal District. The staff is recommending a fee charge of $150 but the
cost is $290, and the current cost is $50. He feared that if the fee is
increased significantly, it may keep people from creating these districts.
Mr. Bain agreed and said it might be feasible to expect extensive pro-
jects relating to commercial or planned development to pay 100 percent of the
fee recovery. He added that he is unsure about other projects being required
to pay the full amount.
Mr. Tucker said staff can look again at those issues that were mentioned
today and bring back a recommendation on fees related to those types of issues
such as large developments, etc. He mentioned that he had the same thought as
Mr. Perkins about the Agricultural/Forestal District fee because that sort of
district needs to be encouraged. He said that the Board might not want to
have a fee at all for Agricultural/Forestal Districts, or the fee could be
left at $50, so that these districts will not be discouraged..
Mr. Bowie asked if the Board members wanted to approve the 50 percent fee
recovery schedule at this time. Mr. Bowerman said he thought it was not
necessary to approve two schedules. He thinks that it should be kept as
simple as possible. Mr. Tucker agreed. He said that he would rather for the
Board not to enact a schedule and then have to change it in a few months.
Mr. Bowie said that if the fee schedule is raised to 50 percent recovery
across the board, then it would also raise such items as the Agricultural./
Forestal districts. He suggested that the staff bring back rationale per
individual item to the August day meeting, instead of a straight 50 percent
cost recovery.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer
taking any action on this item until August 14, 1991. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Pay/Classification Plan, Adoption of.
Mr. Tucker recalled that in January of this year at a joint meeting of
the School Board and the Board of Supervisors, the 1990-91 Pay and Classifi-
cation Study was presented for review prior to the final, budgeting process.
Staff indicated at that time that each position would have a final review with
the appropriate department head or employee. This review has now been. com-
pleted, and the staff is recommending that this pay and classification plan be
adopted. He went on to explain that funding for this plan has been incorpo-
rated in the FY 91-92 budget. He noted that there are two phases of the plan,
and Phase I will be implemented on July 1, 1991. This will bring reclassified
personnel within one pay grade of their recommended range. The second phase
will be implemented on January 1, 1992, which will bring the reclassified
personnel to their recommended pay grade. He stated that the School Board
approved its Pay and Classification Study earlier this week.
Mr. Bowie asked if the plan has been through all of the appeals and
adjustments. Mr. Tucker responded, "yes." He said that this Board encouraged.
that the reviews be done on a more timely basis. He added that with this
plan, reviews will be done on an ongoing basis within the normal budgetary
process so that there will only be a few positions to consider on an ann~,m]
basis. He stated that in the future there will not be a bombardment of
massive reclassifications every three years. He noted that where there is an
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (60) 2 3 3
appeal or a need, there will be a staff member available who can handle the
situation, and necessary changes will be brought back to this Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Tucker feels that some of the pay classi-
fications may need to be revised every year. Mr. Tucker answered that this
plan allows for the staff to take care of the problems as they occur rather
than waiting. He said that 12 months ago the staff realized that some pay
classifications were incorrect, but the changes could not be implemented
because the staff wanted to do the entire study rather than have a piecemeal
situation. He noted that in six months the staff was supposed to do the
three-year update. Now, he believes the plan can be studied on an annual
basis and requests for changes can he brought back to the Board at budget time
for review. He said that this will be less of an impact on the budget.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
adopt the Albemarle County 1990-1991 Pay and Classification Study Final
Recommendations, dated June 7, 1991, as presented. 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.
(The Recommendations are set out in full below:)
ALB~iMARLE COUNTY
1990-1991 PAY AND CLASSIFICATION STUDY
FINAL REC0b~iENDATIONS
Reco~nended
PayKrade
Position
Recommended
PayKrade
Position
Administration
Clerical/Administrative / Other
37 Deputy County Executive
Asst. County Exec./Dir. of Dev.
Director of Finance
32 Director of Planning/Development
Director of Engineering
30 Director of Inspections
33 Director of Social Services
Director of Information Services
Director of Parks and Recreation
30 Director of Operations Center
Zoning Administrator
Chief of Police
30 Deputy Director of Finance
29 Deputy Dir. of Social Services
29 Deputy Director of Information Svcs.
27 Deputy Dir. of Parks and Recreation
26 Deputy Dir. of Inspections
28 Chief of Planning
28 Chief of Conmmmity Development
Deputy Zoning Adm~ruistrator
27 Division Chief - Staff Services
30 Police Captain
28 Manager of Info. Svcs. Development
28 Manager of Info. Svcs. Support
27 Executive Assistant
Engineering
28 Civil Engineer II
23 Civil Engineer I
Capital Projects Coordinator
Erosion Control Enforcement Officer
20 Engineering Inspector II
18 Engineering Inspector I
Engineering Inspector III
Engineering Aide
21 Clerk, Bd. of Supervisors
15 Deputy Clerk, Bd. of Supervisors
18 Executive Secretary
17 Administrative Secretary II
16 Administrative Secretary I
15 Recording Secy. - Planning Comm.
Secretar~3
Office Assistant III
11 Office Assistant II
9 Office Assistant I
12 Courier II
Reproduction Equipment Operator
16 Assistant Registrar
Water Resources Manager
21 Management Analyst II
19 Management Analyst I
21 Fire/Rescue Vol. Svcs. Coordinator
18 Legal Services Assistant
Information Services
23 Computer Operations Supervisor
26 System~ Programmer
26 Support Team, Sr. Pgmr/Analyst
23 Support Team, Pgrm/Analyst
26 Sr. Pgmr/Analyst
Pgmr/Analyst
Computer Operator
11 Data Entry Operator
16 Programmer
Finance
28 Chief Accountant
29 County Assessor
25 Deputy County Assessor
26 Purchasing Agent
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (61)
Inspection
21 Plans Reviewer
19 Fire Prevention Officer
18 Fire Prevention Inspector
20 Commercial Insp. Br. Chief
19 Commercial Inspector
19 Residential Insp. Br. Chief
18 Residential Inspector II
16 Residential Inspector I
13 Inspection Documentationist
Emergency Operations Center
Operations Manager
20 Communication Supervisor
17 Conm~anications Officer
Emergency Services Coordinator
Communications Training Supervisor
Staff Services
16 Custodial Supervisor
9 Custodian
16 Sr. Maintem~nce Mechanic
15 Maintenance Mechanic
11 General Maintenance Helper
Parks and Recreation
ZO Program Supervisor
15 Parks Forem~n
22 Superintendent of Parks
Senior Groundskeepar
11 Groundskeeper
Police
Police Lieutenant
Police Sergeant
Victim Witness Coordinator
19 Police Officer
17 Animal Control Officer
13 Deputy Anim~ Control Officer
11 Police Records Clerk
17 Office Manger, Police
Cmdr. Admin/strative Svcs. Div.
8 Property Clerk
26 Division Manager, Collections
21 Sr. Business License Examiner
17 Business License Examiner
Appraiser III
20 Appraiser II
17 Appraiser I
20 Accountant
18 Account Technician
15 Account Clerk III
12 Account Clerk II
9 Account Clerk I
17 Real Estate Tfr. Technician
11 Real Estate Clerk II
9 Real Estate Clerk I
22 Tax Supervisor
18 Tax Technician
16 Tax Clerk Ill
13 Tax Clerk II
11 Tax Clerk I
21 Fiscal Assistant
Planning
23 Senior Planner
20 Planner
20 Information Resource Planner
15 Planning Technician
13 Planning Aide
Social Services
26 Social Worker Supervisor
22 Senior Social Worker
20 Social Worker
12 Sr. Social Services Aide
10 Social Services Aide
20 Office Manager, Social Services
Eligibility Supervisor
18 Sr. Eligibility Worker
16 Eligibility Worker
15 Food Stamp Issuance Clerk
24 Housing Assistant
16 Housing Inspector
Zoning
18 Zoning Inspector II
16 Zoning Inspector I
19 Zoning Assistant
234
Agenda Item No. 16. Meals Tax and/or Bond Referendum, Discussion. Due
to the lateness of the hour, this item was skipped.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. This was item was skipped tempo-
rarily.
Agenda Item No. 19. Work Session: Pilot Curbside Recycling Program.
Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum dated May 29, 1991:
"Attached (on file) is a memorandum from Mr. Peter J. Parsons, Recy-
cling Coordinator fo~ the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA). This
memorandum details a pilot curbside recycling program for Albemarle
County residents recently proposed to the RSWA Board of Directors.
The pilot program, as proposed, would, offer the collection of
recyclables by private haulers in the County to approximately 1000
residents. Since the City of Charlottesville has its own curbside
June 12, 1991.(Regular Day Meeting)
Page (62)
235
recycling program, funding for this particular curbside program would
be the responsibility of the County.
The pilot program would require roll-off containers to be placed at
the Ivy Landfill into which bagged, co-mingled recyclables would be
placed by the private hauler. Once the roll-off container is filled,
the container will be transported to a sorting facility at which the
various aluminum, glass, steel cans, and plastic recyclables are
separated. Costs involved in the pilot program include the tipping
fee at the sorting facility, the container rental, and transportation
costs. Some added minor costs would be the printing of educational
material to be distributed by the private haulers to participating
County residents.
This pilot program is designed to answer questions regarding curbside
recycling in the County. We hope to determine, for example, whether
residents are willing to pay for recycling services; will voluntary
recycling work or must it be mandated.; whether bagged, co-m~ngled
recycling is cost effective; will haulers in the County be able to
retrofit existing vehicles to accommodate the collection of
recyclables. Many other questions hopefully can be answered through.
this project as well.
The monthly cost for a six month pilot program is approximately $812.
This equates to about $48 per ton for the various transportation and
sorting costs of the recyclables. The collection costs would be paid
by the participating haulers or their customers. This $48 per ton for
the program does not compare favorably to our current landfill tip fee
disposal cost of $32 per ton. I point this out to show that recycling
is more costly than land filling the waste. The only profitable
market for recyclables currently is aluminum, all other recyclable
materials must be transported to the various vendors at our costs and
they generate no revenue at present.
Staff is recommending your approval of this pilot program for curbside
recycling in the County as funding is available in the FY 91-92
budget. Please note, however, that this recycling program, while only
a pilot, will more than likely be readily acceptable to most County
residents and a continuation of this program is, in my opinion,
inevitable."
Mr. Tucker said he believes this program will not only continue, but he
thinks that it will expand. He said that costs involved are more than the
landfill tip fee. The public is demanding it to some extent, and there is a
mandate that indicates that ten percent recycling has to be done by the end of
this year. He said that this ten percent recycling goal will be met by the
City and the County, but by 1993 there will have to be 15 percent recycling
and by 1995 there will have to be 25 percent recycling. He said that the
earlier the County starts the recycling program, the more questions will be
answered, and it can be determined what will work best for Albemarle County.
He noted that it is not an easy task, and he commended the haulers because
they have been great to work with. He said that the haulers are anxious to do
something, themselves. He said that if the collections are not controlled,
the situation is a lot more difficult. He mentioned, again, that he. is
thankful that the haulers are willing to work with the County staff because
they are a key part of the plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the capital costs are included in the $32 a ton for
the current landfill tip fee. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." Next, Mr. Bowerman
asked if the capital, costs could be subtracted from the $48 per ton for any
ongoing project because the life of the landfill is being extended. He said
that capital costs that are related to the landfill itself could be deleted,
however, there are other costs involved such as container costs and transpor-
tation costs of the container to get to the sorting facility. He noted that
anything that cannot be accepted as recyclable has to go back to the landfill,
and a tip fee paid. He said that all of these costs together make up the $48.
He went on to say that if there was more revenue generation from the recycla-
bles, it would make the costs per ton lower.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (63)
236
Mr. Bain said that in reality the life of the landfill is being extended.
Mr. Tucker agreed.
Mr. Bowerman clarified the discussion by saying that even if the direct
costs of recycling were reduced to $32, and the tip fee was $32, the recycling
tonnage would still, be further ahead than on the landfill tonnage because of
the saving on future costs. Mr. Tucker agreed.
Mr. Bowerman said that he wanted to make sure that he understood what was
being presented to the Board.
Mr. Perkins said he assumes that co-mingling means that all of the
materials, such as aluminum and glass, etc., are mixed together. He wonders
if consideration has been given to having the materials separated in indivi-
dual homes since this would help the people who pick up the materials, because
separating materials apparently is a tremendous cost.
Mr. Tucker explained that the haulers are going to have to figure out
whether to make two trips or how they can pick up everything in one trip by
picking up refuse and then recyclables. He said that the City of
Charlottesville currently separates at the curb. He added that the City has
to have a truck with separate containers so the cans, aluminum and glass can
be separated into the different sections. He said that this means that the
hauler would not have to have so much infrastructure. This is another reason
for a pilot program so these types of things can be considered. He pointed
out, however, that from what the staff found and the costs involved, it is
much more economical to co-mingle than it is to separate materials at the
curb. He said that he understands Mr. Perkins is suggesting that the resi-
dents separate the materials. He noted that there will still have to be a
hauler who is capable of handling the materials in whatever vehicle he is
using.
Mr. Bain said that with a Materials Recovery Facility (MI~), all materi-
als are put into a container and are separated at the site. He indicated that
the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Board is starting to develop a RFP for a MRF
system. He said that surrounding localities have given some positive feedback
that they would like to participate in this study.
Mrs. Humphris wondered why Albemarle County is having a pilot recycling,
curbside program given the fact that this type of program is being done all
over the country. There is already a lot of knowledge and informmtion on this
subject in the County. Mr. Tucker answered that what might work in one
community does not always compare favorably to another community. He said
that staff does not believe the City's recycling program is the best approach
because it is more costly to separate at the curb, so something different is
recommended. He thinks that it would be unfortunate if the County started a
program without testing it and without trying to work out the problems. He
said that the haulers also have to be a part of the program, and it would be
bad if they retrofitted their vehicles to handle recyclables in one fashion
and then found out that it would not work. He knows the haulers are concerned
about even beginning the pilot program, because they may invest something in
the pilot program that will not work for Albemarle County.
Mr. Bowie stated that it is already known that recycling works where it
is made convenient, and it does not work if there has to be any particular
work on the part of the individual. He asked if this program is to determine
how the haulers are going to handle it, and how the recyclables will be
transported to and from the dump. Mr. Tucker replied that this pilot program
will help answer the haulers' questions, and it will help the County under-
stand how recyclables can be handled at the landfill more efficiently. He
said that by the time the pilot program is over, the County may know more
about the MRF study and how that might be added as a part of the entire
equation for the community. He added that the City may learn something from
the MRF study as well in terms of whether the City will continue to collect
recyclables in the current manner or if the co-mingled type of system might be
considered. He thinks that most areas find that the co-mingled recyclables is
the easiest way to handle recycling, because the resident does not separate
the materials. He went on to say that if people are encouraged to take part
in the program, it is much easier to have two separations, which is the refuse
(garbage) and the recyclables in two containers rather than having four
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (64)
237
different containers plus the refuse. He said that people respond to this
type of situation better, and that is why co-mingling is being tested here.
He thinks that this is more appropriate for Albemarle County.
Mr. Bowie asked if the staff's recommendation is to get the program going
so that details can be worked out. Mr. Tucker replied, "yes." He said that
there will be minor costs for educational materials, because an educational
program is important for the people who are going to be a part of it. This
educational program would inform people as to how things should be recycled
and when recyclables should be put out.
Mr. Bain inquired if the 1,000 people who will be a part of the program
will be in the same area. Mr. Tucker responded that he is hoping to have a
mixture of residents involved. He suspects that there may be some differences
between the rural and urban areas. He said that there will be a mix of where
these progrmmm will be initiated as well as the number of haulers that are
willing to participate. He does not think that. every hauler would be inter-
ested in participating in the program. He said that a lot of these details
have not been worked out, because, first, it was necessary to see if the Board
was receptive to the pilot program. He noted that there is still a lot of
work left to be done, and the program will not begin on July 1. Mr. Tucker
pointed out that there were some people at the meeting from the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority, and they might have something to add.
Mr. Bowie commented that he had taken some of his unsolicited mail by the
Authority's 10th Street Center, and the system worked sufficiently.
Mr. Tucker then introduced Mr. Lyn Walker, who is the new Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority Director.
Mr. Bain inquired if the Authority's responsibilities such as keeping
records and answering questions have been coordinated with the haulers'
responsibilities. Mr. Tucker replied that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
would manage the program. He said that the Authority has done most of the
work and has been involved initially. He said that the County would provide
the funds for the pilot program, but the entire recycling effort is the
Authority's responsibility.
Mrs. Humphris read from Mr. Tucker's memo which stated that the staff is
recommending approval of the recycling pilot program as funding is available.
She asked if funding is currently available. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes."
Mr. Bain stated that he has a lot of questions, and he is sure that the
haulers and everybody else also have questions. He said that this program is
something that has to be done.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority is prepared to
handle the pilot program. Mr. Parsons answered, "yes". ~
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve the expenditure of $812/month as operating costs for a pilot curbside
recycling program in the County.
Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs, Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Work Session: Solid Waste Management Plan, Draft
(deferred from June 5, 1991).
Mr. William D. Middleton, Chairman, Regional Solid Waste Task Force, was
present. Hebegan by discussing the "Financial Analysis" of the Plan. He
emphasized the cost estimates that have been developed in the Solid Waste
Management Plan are only the theoretical costs. These costs were developed
using cost models and are based on a lot of assumptions. First of all, the
actual cost of any landfill site is going to be dependent upon the cost of the
land, which may vary from the assumptions made in the model. Costs may also
vary due to the amount of work that is required to prepare the site, because
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (65)
238
it can be an easy site to make ready as a landfill or it can be a difficult
site. He thinks that the numbers illUStrate that even for a very small
landfill the cost is very high. He used the example of 10,000 tons per year
which projected to approximately $98 per ton. He believes that this illu-
strates that there are a lot of fixed costs per landfill that do not vary in
direct proportion to the tonnage, so it makes a small landfill very expensive.
He said that in the case of a 100,000 tons per year landfill, which he
believes is equivalent to the Ivy Landfill, there is a substantial economy of
scale and the cost comes down. He added that for three landfills at 45,000
tons per year, there would be fixed costs which would bring the cost per ton
up because each one would be handling a smaller tonnage. He went on to say
that when the situation is considered in a regional context, if there is one
landfill the size of Ivy, and three or four small landfills, the overall cost
would be higher than it would be for three medium sized landfills that could
handle approximately 45,000 tons. He stated that for a single, regional
landfill that would cover all of the counties and the City of Charlottesville,
the cost would go up because the distance would be so great that transfer
stations would be required and a transfer station now requires many of the
features applicable to a landfill in terms of management actions. He thinks
that this illustrates that the urbanized area of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County could continue to landfill at Ivy forever because it is close and there
is the economy of scale. He said that most of the solid waste in the region
is being generated in the urbanized area around Charlottesville. He went on
to say that the ultimate trade-off in the future will be when Ivy is no longer
available, and a site has to be found for a replacement. Mr. Middleton stated
that a replacement landfill would have to be sited as close to the source as
Ivy is now located for it to be economical. He went on to say that Ivy is
fine as long as it is available, but when Ivy is gone, what will replace it?
He wonders if the Ivy Landfill can be replaced at the same location or if the
capacity could be expanded or more property added. He noted that it is a real
dilemma for the rural counties because if they stay with individual opera-
tions, the unit costs will be very high. He said that perhaps it is a matter
of trading off lower costs for the rural counties and landfill sites for the
urbanized area. He mentioned one idea of serving the entire region with two
landfills. He suspects that the cost would run between $34 and $71 per ton,
and this illustrates that many of the economies of scale would be gained with
a 100,000 ton a year site.
Mr. Bowie stated that if the County has a landfill that is economical,
and if the County could keep this landfill forever, that is what should be
done. He said that there is no better way to do it. He wondered how the
regional system will work if the Ivy Landfill will last for ten years and some
of the surrounding counties' landfills will last for only two years. He noted
that it is not to Albemarle County's advantage to shorten the life of the Ivy
Landfill.
Mr. Bain commented that this is why the matter has to be considered now.
Ms. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director, Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission, stated that the regional approach is not being envisioned as
happening tomorrow. She thinks that it is important. She mentioned that the
regional approach will not happen the same way between two jurisdictions
either. She explained that when one landfill starts to fill up one area, this
area will begin talking to Albemarle County or Charlottesville through the
Authority. As requirements for testing and for monitoring are approached, all
of the localities may be interested in discussing a contract to either bid
this together or to see if the testing and treatment could be done in a
central facility thereby realizing those economies of scale. She added tha't
this system of waste management includes a lot of things, and there may be
parts of it contracted with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. She said that
Rivanna may enter into a contract with other jurisdictions to bid it out, and
the contract may not be as neat and tidy as it is now. She explained that
there would be different things done, and they would probably be done in a
different time frame over a period of 10 to 20 years. She went on to say that
it is hard to look at the costs and say that these are the costs that need to
be considered. She stated that the main issue is to try to keep the doors
open so that there is the opportunity to discuss this and so that the County
does not close its options. She thinks that it is important to keep the
options open.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (66)
239
Mr. Bowie agreed that he does not have a problem with Albemarle County
keeping its options open.
Ms. O'Brien stated that the Solid Waste Management Plan will happen in a
layered fashion. One of the first things that will happen is that Rivanna is
asking four localities for comments on the RFP and to participate in the RFP
for study of a MILF. She remarked that indications from these four counties is
that they are interested in doing this. She said that this is a start for a
good discussion, but Albemarle County may find out that this is not the
direction tb~at it wants to go. However, at least the plan will have been
considered. She added that if the plan is too expensive, then it will need to
be handled in another way. She said that the suggestion is not for the County
to get into a situation that will cost a lot of money, but instead the County
needs to look at this issue on a regional basis as different things are being
considered.
Mr. Bowie gave an example of a county that would have a full landfill
next year. He asked where that county would put its solid waste. Ms. O'Brien
answered that this is a real question for that example county. She said that
if she was in that county, she would call the Rivanna Authority and discuss
the problem. She said that the county and the Authority could examine what
each one had to offer, and could proceed in the best interest of each party.
She added that a mutually satisfactory conclusion might be reached. She went
on to say that she does not want to predict that conclusion, but she has some
thoughts on the subject, and believes that the options are fairly clear. If
she was running out of landfill space, she would have already called the
Authority.
Mr. Middleton commented, that the Regional Solid Waste Task Force has sent
representatives to public hearings in each of the jurisdictions. Mr. Middle-
ton was in Nelson County last evening, and he thinks, from the questions and
discussions that he heard at those meetings, that there is a clear under-
standing that there has to be something in every agreement for both parties.
He stated that a member of the public at Nelson County's meeting made the
comment that he hoped that there would not be an agreement that Nelson County
would be receiving everybody's solid waste. He believes that everybody
recognizes that bargains have to be made and there has to be something for all
parties for a reasonable solution to be reached.
Ms. O'Brien stated that she gave the same answer in a meeting in Greene
County last night when the question came up as to whether all of Charlottes-
ville's and Albemarle County's waste would be put in Greene County. She said
that someone at the meeting stated that there was an article in the newspaper
that there was going to be a landfill on Route 29. She said that she answered
that it must be somebody else's landfill.
Mr. Bain said he thinks that Charlottesville and Albemarle County have
more time than some of the other jurisdictions to study the matter. He said
that the majority of the waste is in Charlottesville and Albemarle, and if
there is a landfill somewhere else, there will be huge transportation costs
for Charlottesville and Albemarle as opposed to transporting most of the
garbage out of the immediate area. He went on to say that the question
Albemarle County will be faced with is whether or not to put something nearby
if the landfill is continued, or should the County go to the MRF system which
will extend the life of the landfill. He added that the front-end costs will
be huge, and there will have to be a way to make those costs agreeable to
everybody.
Ms. O'Brien stated that there will always be something to landfill. Mr.
Bain agreed. He said that instead of acquiring a huge landfill, if the MtLF
system is used, the landfill would be a lot smaller with a lot less require-
ments.
Ms. O'Brien remarked that ten years is not that long. Mr. Bain agreed.
He added that the County should look at the matter on a regional basis. He
thinks that each jurisdiction will be trying to decide which will financially
be the best system. If it can work, then it will be done regionally.
Mr. Bowie commented that this plan seems to lay the groundwork, without
committing anybody to anything, so that the jurisdictions can proceed jointly
and regioDm]ly to solve the problems.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (67)
240
Ms. O'Brien pointed out that there is nothing solid going on in the
region and plans will have to begin somewhere. She thinks that there will
have to be a lot of learning as to how to accomplish the best system, so that
a level of trust can be built and the different jurisdictions can work togeth-
er on something that is more concrete than what has been done in the past.
Mr. Bowie asked if official action needs to be taken on the draft plan.
Mr. Tucker replied, "yes." He believes that some action needs to be taken so
that the information can be tran.smitted to the State. Ms. O'Brien indicated
that technically an approval is not necessary. She said that the Task Force
was interested in what the County wanted to take out of the plan. She went on
to say that an approval would, however, be great.
Mr. Bowie remarked that a lot of hard work went into the Solid Waste
Management Plan and he thanked the Committee. He believes that the Plan will
be approved because he has not heard any negative comments from the Board. He
feels it is a good regional plan.
Mr. Bowerman gave an example of Greene and Nelson Counties running out of
landfill space and having a contract with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority to
start using the Ivy Landfill. He asked if this is solely at the discretion of
the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. Since Rivanna now owns the landfill, what
is the role of Charlottesville and. Albemarle?
Mr. St. John said that Charlottesville and Albemarle County have a
written agreement which says that before another jurisdiction can use the
landfill, Charlottesville, Albmmarle and the Authority have to agree to it.
He noted that underlying this regional Solid Waste Plan, there is a contractu-
al document between Charlottesville and Albemarle with respect to this land-
fill, and he believes that this is also true with any other landfill or
operation in which the Rivanna Authority would be engaged.
Mr. George Williams, Executive Director, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authori-
ty, said there are two mechanisms for control. He noted that there is a
provision in the contract that the Authority is to serve Charlottesville and
Albemarle County unless there is agreement between Charlottesville and Albe-
marle that another jurisdiction can be served.
Mr. B~wie pointed out that there is a provision in the agreement for
adding additional parties. Mr. Williams agreed that this flexibility is in
the contract. Mr. Bowie asked again if the issue would have to come back to
the Board of Supervisors and City Council before another jurisdiction could be
added. Mr. Williams replied, "yes." Mr. Bowie stated that theoretically if
some unnamed distant county wanted to put something in the Ivy Landfill, the
County and the City would have to agree to it. Therefore, it is expected that
the unnamed County would have to give something besides the $32 a ton.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the service has to be to everyone's mutual benefit.
Mr. Bowie agreed that it does have to be to everyone's benefit. He said that
it seems to him that is the only way it could be. Ms. O'Brien agreed and said
that all that is needed is the willingness on the part of the County and City
to keep channels open.
At this time, Mr. Bain moved that the Board approve the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District's Solid Waste Management Plan as presented. Mrs. Humphris
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.
Mr. Bowie thanked everyone for the hard work that was done on the Solid
Waste Management Plan.
At 3:25 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened in Rooms 5/6 at 3:35 p.m.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (68)
241
Agenda Item No. 20. Joint Meeting with School Board. Present at this
time were: Messrs. Richard A. Bagby, Willis~nFinley, Cliff Haury, Charles
Martin (arrived at 4:23 p.m.), Mrs. Patricia Moore, Mr. Roger Ward (arrived at
3:40 p.m.) and Mrs. Sharon Wood. Also present: Dr. R. Paskel, Superinten-
dent.
Item 20a. Albemarle High School Renovation Project.
Mrs. Wood, Vice-Chairman, said that at Monday night's School Board
meeting, it was decided to go ahead with the Albemmrle High School renovation
project but to leave out the parking lot at this time. She said that this was
done with the understanding that if any major adjustments are done to the
plans at all, then planning would have to start at the beginning again which
would delay the project. She added that none of the School Board members were
willing to delay the project. All of the School Board members feel that they
would like to keep as many of the pine trees as possible, but they understand,
too, that it may not be possible to keep the whole stand of pines without
delaying the project.
Mr. Bowie commented that a School Board member had asked him to make a
public statement which Mr. Bowie had already mmde privately. Mr. Bowie said
people have come before the Board of Supervisors and the School Board with
eloquent presentations, however, the School Board is in the same position as
any other developer. The School Board owns the land, the School Board is the
applicant, and the School Board is complying with the ordinances. He is not
sure what can be done about the situation but he thinks that there are com-
ments from some of the Supervisors.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that there seems to be some miscommunication. She
thinks that it is important to clarify that there has not been any drawing of
lines by people opposed to the improvements at Albemarle High School versus
environmentalists. Most of the people who have contacted the Supervisors have
been people who were trying to see if some things could be rearranged, changed
or improved to lessen the environmental impact because of the cutting of the
pine trees and to lessen the impact on the neighbors who live below some of
the planned improvements, most especially the baseball field. She thinks that
later a problem arose when it was discovered that there were to be lights on
the baseball field in spite of the fact that the Planning Commission felt that
lights would not be allowed. Even though all of the legal things were done,
it appears that the adjacent homeowners were not included in the process
because there is some intervening property that is owned by a neighborhood
association. Mrs. Humphris went on to say that there was not notification
given to the individual property owners who will be tremendously affected by
the changes that take place on the property. She added that this can be a
learning experience. Even one sentence inserted in a letter of notification
to the proper people can call attention to the fact that it is important that
the property owners pay attention to the situation, because it is likely to
have an impact on their property. She thinks that the County needs to go one
step beyond legal requirements at this point.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the School Board and administration committed to
the project as outlined in terms of physical location of the baseball field
and the playing fields. He wondered if the School Board has considered
rearranging any of these fields. Ms. Wood answered that the School Board had
asked some of the same questions at Monday's meeting. She said that Ms. Jo
Higgins, County Engineer, was at the meeting, and she indicated that several
other locations had been considered, but it would be impossible, at this
point, to move the baseball field.
Mr. Bowerman questioned, if it would be impossible to move the baseball
field. Mr. Bagby answered that it would be impossible to move the baseball
field within the budget constraints. He went on to say that the School Board
was also informed that if the baseball field had been changed and put in
another location, it would be out of the scope of the contract and would have
to be rebid. He said that the School Board's attorney advised that any major
revisions of the baseball field would require the contract to be rebid.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was no possibility of differentiating the
contract between construction and field work. Ms. Jo Higgins, Capital
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (69)
242
Projects Coordinator, replied that the option of swapping the baseball diamond
with the soccer field is within the scope of the project. She stated that it
would mean a change in the configuration of the grading, however, and there
would be a substantial cost impact to the project. She said that there was an
earlier site plan that did show the baseball diamond where the soccer field
is, but due to some interference with the pumping station, forced main and
utility constraints, the other configuration had to be considered. She went
on to say that there is an estimate available of the cost to switch some
practice fields, but it would be an impact to the project, it is not within
the current scope of the project, and the money is not available to do it.
Mr. Bowerman asked what would be the impact to the project. Ms. Higgins
responded that the cost is estimated at approximately $175,000. She noted,
however, that negotiations have not been done with the contractor, and the
contractor has not been given any requests or proposals. She said that the
estimate of what it would cost to move the pumping station, with the utility
interference and the grading differences, etc., is $175,000.
Mr. Bowermmn said it seems to him that if the baseball field was reloca-
ted closer to the parking area, it would draw away from the pumping station.
Also, if the two practice fields were laid end to end along and between where
the baseball field and the existing track and football field are shown, it
seems that it would fit the site better and pull some of the development away
from the adjacent neighborhoods. He asked if this h~d been considered. Ms.
Higgins described the configuration that she was speaking about which included.
the soccer field across the road that leads back to Jouett School. She
pointed out the baseball diamond, also.
Mr. Bowerman said he was talking about moving the baseball diamond to
where the practice fields are located because the same depth is not necessary.
He was thinking about the location of one of the fields on the other side of
Lamb's Road between the proposed soccer field and the Bus Maintenance Faci-
lity. He feels this would pull the impact away from the adjacent neighbor-
hoods. He does not know if it is within the scope of the plan, but it seems
to him that the baseball field makes an unnecessary protrusion. Mr. A1 Reaser
stated that moving the practice fields was considered but it was the high
school's desire to have those fields close to the school and to move the
baseball field to one of the other locations.
Mr. Bagby said that he had considered this option before but was told
that it would be prohibitively expensive because of the grading. Ms. Higgins
agreed. She said that whether they are called soccer fields or practice
fields, changing the fields to different locations would be a significant
amount of cost because of the pumping station, etc.
Mr. Bain inquired about the significant grading cost in the current
contract. Ms. Higgins replied that the baseball field involved critical slope
considerations when the field was designed. She noted that critical slopes
would have to be dealt with in more magnitude if rectangular fields were
designed.
Mrs. Moore said it was her understanding that the different options were
thrown out because they would cost more money. However, now she is hearing
that the baseball field was considered in another location but was moved
because of the desires of the High School. Mr. Reaser said that this was one
of the early options. He added that the two options that were considered were
to put the baseball field where it is now planned or on the other side of the
road.
Ms. Moore asked if there is anything that has not been considered that
could be a swap. Ms. Higgins responded that it would be of substantial cost
to swap the ball diamond for the soccer field.
Mr. Bain pointed out an area and asked why the practice fields could not
be put in a particular place. Mr. Reaser answered that the fields could not
be put there because Of a road that is already there.
Ms. Higgins said that if the baseball diamond's location is changed, it
would mean moving two other fields, and the higher usage for the school is on
the practice fields as opposed to the baseball diamond. She suggested that
Mr. Raines might want to address this matter.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (70)
243
Mr. William Raines, Principal, Albemarle High School, stated that the
football field is fenced so children will have to move in either direction
around the football field to get to the most functional fields for activities
other than baseball. He said that physical edudation classes will not be
using the baseball field. He noted that all of the playing fields are acces-
sible to the school, and they would not be accessible if they were moved to
the location of the baseball field.
Ms. Moore commented that the only thing that she is concerned about is
the baseball field, because she thinks that it will have a serious impact on
the Georgetown Green neighborhood. She added that when she looks at the
situation from an educational point of view, the needs of the school should be
accommodated. She said that when it was pointed out that the School Board
needs to be more of a developer, then the problems of buffer zones and neigh-
borhoods become apparent. Maybe the School Board does not have enough sensi-
tivity in that regard, but she wishes that there was some way that a compro-
mise could be reached even though there may be a little inconvenience to
Albemarle High School. She pointed out that the School Board has certainly
tried to provide the school with all of the needed fields for athletic events,
but, on the other hand, from a development point of view, she would like to
try to help those neighborhoods. She does believe that there is no more money
available.
Mrs. Wood remarked that in her opinion the main goal is the education of
the children and which option is best to reach this goal. She said that if
the two practice fields are moved to where the baseball field is located,
there will be a lot more activity on it year round than it would be just
during baseball season for home games at the high school.
Ms. Moore mentioned the baseball field lights. Mrs. Wood answered that
the lights are very intense on the field, but they are not similar to the
lights on the football field now, where they glow throughout the neighborhood.
She believes that by moving the baseball field 275 feet off of the property
line and still having some trees there and using the good neighbor lights,
then the School Board has tried to be as good a neighbor as possible and still
take into consideration the high school's needs.
Ms. Moore said that she does not believe that there is going to be a lot
of activity on the practice fields at night. Mrs. Wood reiterated that the
practice fields will be used for physical education classes during the day.
Ms. Moore said at least there will not be baseball and football games there at
night descending over the hill on the neighborhood. She pointed out that even
though the field has been moved 275 feet, it is still a stone's throw from the
neighborhood. She said that houses back up to the field, and some people are
concerned about the walkways where the people in Georgetown Green can walk to
games at the high school. She added that she feels their concerns. She has
tried to look at the situation as a developer, but she understands the confi-
guration when it is considered strictly for education purposes. She went on
to say that she believes that this is a real problem for the neighborhood.
Mr. Bowie explained that originally this matter was not on the agenda,
but there was enough public interest for it to be included. He asked what
consideration was given by the Board and the School administration to control
parking. He mentioned ideas such as car pooling and assigned spaces. He
asked again what consideration was given for reducing the need for parking so
that the trees could be left. Mrs. Wood asked Mr. Raines to respond to that
question. She said that the same question was brought up at the School Board
meeting, and Mr. Raines had given lots of consideration to the matter. She
asked Mr. Raines to discuss the numbers and the need for the parking area.
Mr. Raines stated that currently parking is allowed only for seniors and
students with special situations. He said that special situations might
include handicapped students who cannot walk to the bus or someone who is
going to PVCC during the day or leaving early in the day to go to work, etc.
He said that there are approximately 2000 people in Albemarle High School and
400 seniors have the privilege of driving plus 200 staff members, plus.
students with exceptions. He added that it is going to be hard to get by with
less than 600 parking spaces, and he believes that this is what a facility of
this size requires in terms of public parking. He feels that Albemarle High
School has got to have that kind of equity in order to accommodate people so
that it is a safe situation. He added that at this time it is very unsafe.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (71 )
244
Mrs. Wood said she also assumes that zoning regulations have to be met.
Mr. Bowie said he feels the Supervisors could exempt a specific site from
the parking regulations until a study was done. He added that if the parking
spaces were being included because that is what the regulations indicate, then
he believes that the Supervisors can bmndle the situation.
Mr. Bagby commented tb~t it gets complicated in the transition of build-
ing the high school and moving the bus drop-off point. It will take 99 of the
existing parking places away, and there needs to be an overflow parking area.
Ms. Higgins poSnted out the parking area on the plans and the 99 parking
spaces that were referred to by Mr. Bagby. She said that this parking lot is
in essence replacement parking and the 99 spaces will be lost until the whole
project is completed. She said that the parking lot is the first order of
business this summer so that it will be in place by the time school starts in
the fall.
Mr. Way said that the parking inconvenience for six months does not
concern him when it would mean a better situation after that time.
Ms. Higgins explained that when the project is finished, the school would
only get back the 99 parking spaces.
Mr. Bagby said the School Board asked about the possibility of putting
some islands and trees inside the parking lot to make it more environmentally
pleasing. Ms. Higgins indicated that this has been done. Mr. Bagby stated.
that the School Board had also requested a plan for border plantings between
Georgetown Green and the school district so that the Georgetown Green neighbor-
hood would be better shielded. He said the School Board would like to have
considerably more plantings than were originally planned.
Ms. Higgins said that there is a tentative proposal which would be an
amendment to the site plan to modify the parking lot. She pointed out on the
drawings the widest section of trees and showed the point where the trees are
the closest to the road. She went on to say that there is a way that the end
of the parking lot can be locked off which would mean relocating two islands
and increasing the size of one island for more of a substantial area to
replant some trees. She said tbmt the overall loss of parking would be 59
spaces. She added that this plan would provide for a significant stand of
trees in the area of the entrance so the trees would be in the line of vision
when entering the parking lot. She noted, however, that this plan would
require that the Planning Commission approve the site plan with less than the
required amount of pazking spaces. She said it may be possible to get back
some of the parking along the road next to the school, but she emphasized that
this parking was eliminated because of safety reasons, and the Planning
Commission supported eliminating these parking spaces. She pointed out where
15 parking spaces could be located. She said that due to fire hydrants and
entrances, it is not a very safe condition, and the spaces wouldhave to be
located on one side of the road. Overall, she stated that a site plan would
need to be approved for approximately 45 less parking spaces than zoning
requires.
Mr. Bain commented that he would support this proposal. He feels the
major impact is how it relates to Georgetown Green, and leaving the large
stand of pine trees, he thinks, is very important.
Mr. Bowie asked how much of a reduction in parking spaces this plan would
require. Ms. Higgins replied that it would mean 59 less parking spaces in the
parking lot. However, she went on to say that possibly 14 or 15 parking
spaces along the road that had previously been eliminated, could be added back
again. She pointed out that now it is a terrible situation because cars are
parked on both sides of the road, and people are walking back and forth in the
middle of the road. She noted that by taking out the loop road, there will
not be as much through traffic. She stated that if the Planning Commission
would approve this plan, approximately 45 spaces would be lost. She pointed
out that the School Board has not yet authorized or approved this plan. She
said that the Principal of Albemarle High School has indicated that the school
needs as much parking as it is possible to get. She reiterated that this is
just an option that she thought the two Boards might want to consider. She
went on to say that no one has seen this plan before today.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (72)
245
Mr. Bowie stated that taking away 45 spaces from the parking lot could be
a problem, as far as zoning regulations are concerned. Mr. Bain said that
would require a waiver by the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg agreed and
said that there is a section of the ordinance that could allow for a waiver,
and Mr. St. John has discussed this matter. He added that the school would
have some specific controls on parking and driving to school to differentiate
from the standard situation where any commercial or nonpublic entity might ask
for a waiver of parking requirements.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the County's joint venture with the City and the
University to seriously study traffic reduction strategies. She said there
has been much discussion on this and a report has been done. This group will
be embarking this summer on ideas as to how all three entities can actively
work together to reduce the one-person, one-car syndrome with which this area
and the rest of the country are afflicted. She stated that this could involve
eventually local ordinances which would put restrictions on how businesses and
industries are reached by transportation. These restrictions might involve
the amount of parking available and van and car pooling, etc. She believes
that this sort of thing needs to start "at home". She thinks that the County's
school system needs to be aware of it, and also that there has been discussion
of this type of requirement at the County Office Building. She went on to say
that when there were discussions about the Capital improvements Program that
involved parking for the additions in this area, restricting the amount of
parking and making it more difficult for one person to drive one car to work
were two of the topics discussed. She thinks that with the number of student
cars parking, it is a perfect place to start trying to help out the traffic
problem.
Mrs. Humphris referred to a sentence in the Planning Commission's minutes
on February 5. She read: "It was determined that fields would not be used
for night time baseball games." She pointed out that lighting is planned for
the baseball field even though it is close to Georgetown Green, and the light
pollution would be very difficult for those homeowners. She asked for someone
to tell her about that situation.
Mr. Cilimberg said he talked to Mr. Rittenhouse, Chairman of the Commis-
sion, as to his recollection of the meeting. Mr. Rittenhouse thought the
discussion centered around night time softball games or other ball games not~
related to school activities or Albemarle High School. teams. He said Mr.
Rittenhouse remembers that the discussion centered around the amount of usage
that would occur there that would require lights to be on. Mr. Rittenhouse
also recalled that there would be no night softball games not related to
school activity. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Rittenhouse did not remember that
there was a direct decision that there would be no lighting at the facility.
Me added that the staff will listen to the recording of the meeting to verify
this.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that the Board of Supervisors had disallowed the
lighting of the softball fields at Rivanna Park so that this kind of problem
would not be inflicted on the neighborhood. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning
Commission would not necessarily, unless the Commission saw a real health,
safety or welfare issue, have denied lighting. He said the ordinance can
control spillover lighting that can occur from a field such as this. He added
that this would have been the area in which the Planning Commission would have
most likely focused its attention.
Mr. Haury asked how many night games the Albemarle High School teams
play. Mr. Raines responded that there would be ten night games. Mr. Haury
clarified this by saying that Albemarle High's activity in baseball would
involve ten night contests. Mr. Raines responded that the ten night games
would involve the varsity team and perhaps some others. He mentioned that
Albemarle High School plays teams from counties such as Halifax, etc., and
unless these temmm leave school in the middle of the morning, them the games
cannot be played except at night. He noted that it does not look as though
the athletic district will get any better. He went on to say that for the
most part Albemarle High plays games at night, travels in the middle of the
afternoon, and gets back in the middle of the night.
Mr. Bagby stated that Ms. Higgins has indicated that with the types of
lighting that will be placed at the field, there will be no more light pollu-
tion on the baseball field when the lights are on then there presently is when
the lights are on at the football field.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (73) 2 4 6
Ms. Higgins pointed out that the lights on the football field are old,
inefficient and the bulbs are putting light in every direction. She noted
that the type of lighting that was specified for this project is good neighbor
shielded directed lighting. She said that some parking lots have these
lights, and the lights are seen in an area, but the spillover is an overall
improvement for adjacent property owners.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said that, as part of this project,
the football field lights are being replaced with good neighbor lights. He
stated that the County's ordinance has a spillover limitation of not more than
one-half foot candle at the property line. He mentioned that the staff has
been meeting with the people from Georgetown Green and the Education Depart-
ment. He briefly went over the measures that will be put in place. He stated
that the drainage from this property goes through a pipe, into a ditch, and
goes into Georgetown Green. He said that the parking area will be curbed with
storm sewer which will carry this drainage back around to the basin and
discharge it. In addition, Mr. Keeler stated that the Education Department
has agreed to do away with the current pipe and take whatever remaining
drainage there is to a pipe that will connect into the storm sewer system. He
added that his staff did not think that the Education representatives were
responsible for this, but they have agreed to do this. Secondly, after the
grading has occurred, Mr. Keeler said that the staff would walk the property
line to determine those locations where additional plantings would be neces-
sary to provide screening as required by the County's ordinance. In his
opinion, Mr. Keeler thinks that the plans show that the screening is fairly
thick. Mr. Keeler indicated that the third concern was whether or not the
basin will be fenced, and it will be fenced. The fourth concern Mr. Keeler
brought out was the issue of lighting, and he said that this is controlled by
the ordinance. He added that the ordinance requires that the lighting be
screened and directed away from adjoining residential areas, and there is a
maximum spillover requirement. He said that Georgetown Green, in regard to
lighting, is receiving the same protsction that any other residential district
in the County would receive from an adjoining developer. He pointed out that
the staff is obliged to review this plan just as intently as if it were a
private developer, and the staff has attempt, ed to do that. Mr. Keeler made
one more point by saying that the more parking that is taken away from the
school, the more likely there will be unauthorized parking in Georgetow~ Green
for football and baseball games, etc. He said that the two Boards might want
to consider this situation during their discuasions.
Mr~ Bain remarked that one of the things discussed at the Supervisors'
last meeting was the provision in the Comprehensive Plan as to public facili-
ties with the requirements such as parking and a number of things that the
Board felt needed to be in place for elementary, middle or high schools. He
noted that the County has owned the Albemarle High School property since 1950.
He said that this is a very large high school complex which has had difficul-
ties for years both because of topography and because of the number of stu-
dents that have been placed there. He does not see that this high school
complex will be moved anywhere. He thinks that the needs of the students for
physical activities are important. He also thinks that adjoining property
owners have to be accommodated. He does not think, however, that the educa-
tional requirements can be taken away, unless some of the programs are dele-
ted. This includes athletic fields and practi~e fields. He went on to say
that the school system has had these programs for years and maybe this is
something that needs some study. He thinks that efforts have been made, and
more efforts are being made now to protect Georgetown Green, and he thinks
that these efforts are being done adequately.
Mr. Tucker suggested that it might be helpful if the Board went on record
supporting the waiver of the parking requirement for the Planning Commission's
benefit. He said that the Board might want to ask the staff to look again at
the possibility of Mr. Bowerman's suggestion in shifting the location of the
practice fields with the baseball field just to see what kind of costs are
involved. He thinks, however, that the Board is going to have to decide
whether or not it is willing to support additional funding for that because
any shifting of that baseball field is going to require additional funding.
He went on to say that if the supervisors are receptive to additional funding,
then it might be a solution.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (74)
247
Mr. Bowie asked if supporting the motion to reduce the parking spaces
would address the problem with the grove of trees. Mr. Tucker answered,
"yes." Ms. Higgins commented that it will. not save the entire grove of trees,
but it will save a lot of them. Mr. Bain said that it would save the trees
where they are important on the property.
Mr. Haury asked if this change in plan could be done with a change order
rather than rebidding the contract. Ms. Higgins answered, "yes." She said
that it would involve negotiations with the contractor to modify' the plan.
Mr. Haury then asked if moving the field would cause a rebidding of the
contract. Ms. Higgins replied that this gets into the magnitude of the costs
in relationship to the contracting. She said that there is an estimate that
had no input from the contractor that indicates a cost of approximately
$200,000 to switch two configurations. She mentioned that there are other
things involved. With some plans, the silt basin would bmve to be redesigned,
the critical slopes take on a different configuration, and there are erosion
control plans and extra engineering costs associate~. She said that it is not
as easy as changing the parking spaces. The staff can consider whatever the
two Boards tell them to consider. She reiterated that the fields could be
switched, but there is no money in the project to do that. She pointed out
that basically tentative approvals are in place and the plans have met all the
requirements that any developer would be subject to. She thinks the Planning
Department has met with everyone who wanted to come in, and she and represen-
tatives from the Schools Building Services Department, have done the same
thing. The staff has walked the site, and Ms. Higgins feels that things have
been done above and beyond what is required. She wanted the Boards to know
that the staff has not tried or thought of a different configuration since
there are budget constraints and the staff is trying to get the most for the
money. She added that the contractor has not been given the approval to cut
any trees yet. She said this was anticipated after the meeting today, and if
the staff can get an approval from the Board of Supervisors that the Planning
Commission will accept, such. as a reduction of 50 parking spaces from the
plan, a portion of the trees could be saved. She pointed out that it would
not be half of the trees. She said there is $10,000 in the budget for replant-
ing trees and constructing the buffer zone after the construction has been
done.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Raines to explain the drive-to-school policy at
the high school. Mr. Raines replied that there are 200 staff members and 175
parking spaces are reserved for them. He added that seniors can drive and
also students with special exceptions.
Mr. Bowerman asked if all of the seniors wanted to drive would they be
allowed to do so. Mr. Raines answered, "yes."
Mr. Bowerman asked why it is desirable to have seniors drive, from Mr.
Raines' point of view. Mr. Raines said that more seniors are involved in
extra-curricular activities, PVCC, UVa and CATEC classes. He said that
juniors and seniors are involved in activities such as going to work. He
pointed out that the school is already acknowledging these students so it is
not as necessary to have a whole list of exceptions as it would be if the rule
was that nobody could drive except students with exceptions. He emphasized
that most of these students who drive fit into the junior and senior category.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be possible to allow all seniors to drive
to school, but not every day. He wondered why it would not be possible to
have a traffic reduction strategy and not allow the privilege of driving to
school every day. He suggested that at least two days a week there could be a
car pool, and the students would make the arrangements and meet their obliga-
tions by riding with other people who have the same commitments. Mr. Raines
said this question of why the parking lot cannot be monitored in a better way
to make sure that people who are not supposed to drive don't drive. He added
that a staff member is already dedicated to being a parking lot attendant.
Another person would have to be dedicated to make sure that those people are
only driving on the days that they are supposed to be driving. It gets to
whether there is money and resources available to allow this kind of arrange-
ment to take place. He thinks that the main point is still being missed.
Albemarle High School is a public building which has a certain number of
people who should have a certain number of parking spaces. Although driving
is ecologically unsound and expensive, it is one of the things that people are
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (75)
248
accustomed to doing. Perhaps Mrs. Humphris is right, and maybe a different
life style should be considered. He emphasized, though, that it is not the
current life style.
Mr. Bowie rexmrked that life styles must change. Mr. Raines said he
understands that, but to say to a certain group of people that they must
change their life styles and they will be monitored to make sure that they do
change them, then there has to be a certain number of resources to make that
happen. He reiterated, that it will take some enforcement to make it happen.
Mr. St. John commented that he thinks it is questionable if people are
told that they cannot provide their own transportation. This is especially
true if the school system does not provide the transportation either and the
people must find someone else who is willing to take them to their obliga-
tions. He believes the school system would have to provide those people with
public transportation, if this regulation was imposed. He said that this
would mean an increase in buses, etc., so it would have a ripple effect.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that Mr. St. John's comments might be true, but
providing transportation might be part of a general traffic reduction program.
Mr. St. John emphasized that he does not believe that people can be told that
they cannot provide their own transportation unless transportation is provided
for them.
Mr. Bowie stated that this is not the issue. He said that the Supervi-
sors cannot tell the School Board what they can do about the parking lot at
the high school. He added that the issue here, which he supports, is whether
the Supervisors will waive the 45 parking places so that all of the trees will
not have to be removed. He said that at least then the School Board won't
have to cut the trees down unless it wants to because there is not a County
requirement that it be done. He added that a motion is needed, as Mr. Tucker
suggested, to notify the Planning Commission that the Supervisors would
support the reduction of 45 parking spaces. He said that he will support such
a motion. He went on to say that if the other Supervisors cannot support the
motion, then he thinks it is a dead issue.
Mr. Perkins asked if Dr. Ivan Login had made a presentation to the School
Board. School Board members indicated that Dr. Loginhad made such a presen-
tation. Mr. Perkins mentioned that his suggestion was to consider parking at
the church lot across the street. He asked if this arrangement has been
considered and if th~s would help the situation. Mrs. Wood answered that the
School Board has already been informed that there has been one student hit on
that road because there is so much traffic going to the homes located on that
road and to the other two schools. She would not want to take a chance on
children crossing that road.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to
recommend to the Planning Commission that they consider waiving 50 parking
spaces from the plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the intention of the motion was a straight reduc-
tion from a square foot area requirement for a building and the parking~places
that are required for that building. Mr. Bowie replied that this motion is
being made to allow some of the trees to remain, but how it will be done is up
to the School Board.
Mr. Bowerman commented that in the absence of knowing how the parking
requirements are going to be met, he is not going to support the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Bain said that he knows the School Board, Engineering Department and
staff have done a lot of work on this project. He realizes that Mr. Raines'
comments are true concerning the fact that the practice fields are the ones
that are used constantly and need to be close to the school. He said the
Greet and Jouett property was part of the original Albemarle High complex, and
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (76)
249
he wondered if it would be possible to move the baseball diamond to either the
Greer or Jouett property. He stated that the baseball diamond is not used
that much, and it would reduce the effect on the neighbors. He would like for
this to be considered to see if it would be feasible, if it has not already
been considered. (Mr. Martin arrived at 4:23 p.m.)
Ms. Higgins stated that if the whole purpose is to isolate this baseball
diamond from Georgetown Green, it can be isolated by changing these fields.
She said that the change in the scope of the work will have to be addressed,
but basically the estimate in hand is $175,000. Mr. Bain asked if there was
another piece of property other than the proposed field where the diamond
could be moved. Ms. Higgins asked if Mr. Bain was asking if there was another
piece of property shown on the site plan. Several Board members answered that
Mr. Bain was wondering if there was somewhere within the whole complex,
including the Jack Jouett Middle School and Greer Elementary School proper-
ties, where the ball diamond could be moved. Ms. Higgins answered that it is
not within the scope of this project to build a baseball field on some other
site. She said that the only alternative she could suggest is that the
baseball field not be built at all. She noted that this is an option too.
Mr. Bagby remarked that Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney, had
suggested that if the baseball field is put somewhere else, it is out of the
scope of the project. Mr. Bagby had some reservations about Mr. Bowlin.g's
statement, however. Ms. Higgins agreed. She said that there is no provision
in this contract for the field to be changed, and no contractor bid on this
field in some other place.
Mr. Bagby wondered if the field could be moved, but kept within the scope
of the project. He said that there has been a certain amount of money set
aside to build that field. He pointed out that there is a lot of land around
Albemarle High School. He said that he had asked the same thing at the School
Board meeting, and he would like to look at other alternatives. Mr. Bowie
said that he thought Mr. Bain was also interested in looking at other alterna-
tives. Mr. Bain agreed.
Mr. Bowie said he does not think the problem can be solved at today's
meeting. If anybody thinks that there is $200,000 available, then that person
does not understand the situation.
Mr. A1 Reaser, Director of Building Services, suggested that the baseball
diamond be removed from this project so that the scope of this project could
go forward, and then the baseball field could be rebid someplace else on the
Jouett site.
Mr. Ward wondered if the baseball field could be struck from the plan
without having to rebid the project.
Ms. Higgins spoke to the School Board and said that the contract has been
approved. The contractor has met with school system officials and has gone
over the phasing of the work. She said that if this field is deleted from the
contract now, there will not be the dollar for dollar value of constructing
this baseball field because there is no specific dollar amount for the base-
ball field that the School Board has seen. She added that the school system
will not get its money's worth if the baseball field is taken out of the
project. She said that it is the School Board's prerogative to delete the
baseball field or change anything else, but the credit won't be equal to what
it will cost to build it someplace else. She said that if the baseball field
is not built where it is already planned, it will cost more to build it
somewhere else. She went on to say that engineering and design, site plan
approval, etc., will cost more. She wanted it to be known that the field
cannot be built somewhere else without having a cost impact. She said that
she will do whatever is needed with the contractor to get what the Board
members want, but this plan is what she had thought they wanted.
Mrs. Wood commented that there is room at the Jouett and Greer complexes,
but the School Board has had some discussion about an addition at 3ouett
instead of building a new middle school. She said that if the baseball field
is put on the 3ouett site, it could pose a problem for the Jouett building
program.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (77)
250
Ms. Higgins said that this plan does not meet the requirements for the
field and playing areas that are in the comprehensive facility plan. She said
that it is a guideline, but it is not a requirement. She pointed out that
this plan is not even meeting the needs of the school because there is a
junior varsity program that goes to another field. She went on to say that if
the School Board does not want to build this baseball field, the decision can
be made, and it can be taken out of the project. She said that another
individual project would have to be planned to put it someplace else.
Mr. Martin asked if Ms. Higgins feels that the baseball field can be
taken out of the project without it being rebid. He said that it seemed to
him that this will change the scope of the contract by quite a few dollars,
and the people who are bidding might want to bid at the reduced dollar amount.
He said that if the school system reneges on the current contract, then the
contractor will be hurt. Ms. Higgins replied that the baseball field can be
taken out of the project, but the money will not be given back to the County
from the contractor. She went on to say that this money cannot be used to
build the field someplace else, because there will have to be more money
available to build the field. She said that the County will have lost the
amount of money that the contractor was going to use to build the baseball
field because the contractor will try to keep the profit that he was going to
make even if he does not build the field.
Mr. Bowie stated that he believes the Board members understand what Ms.
Higgins is saying. He does not think, however, that the problem can be
resolved this afternoon. He said that the Supervisors would like to get more
information back on the situation. He added that the Supervisors understand
that another plan is going to cost more and that there is not anymore money,
but some desires have been made known. He said that the parking spaces at the
high school have been reduced, and there have been a number of comments about
the night lighting and the impact around the neighborhood plus the need for
screening. He said that it could be that too much has already been done on
the project to change it. He reminded the School Board that the School Board
is the developer and owner, and this is the School Board's property. He said
that there has been a lot of public concern, and too much time has probably
been spent on it. He thinks that the Supervisors have done all that can be
done at this time which was to waive the ordinance requirement on the parking.
He said that this would allow the School Board to be able to have a freer
decision base.
Mrs. Humphris said it seems that where the basin will be located might
expose that hillside where the field house is located, since all the trees
will be removed from there. She wondered if there was any chance that som~
screening could be done. Ms. Higgins replied that this is what Mr. Keeler had
mentioned earlier in the meeting. She said that when the construction is
done, the silt basin is the first order of business and has to be in place
because of the watershed requirements for silt retention. She said that
before final approval is received from the Planning Department, the intention
is to walk the property line and see what the most advantageous way to shield
this basin would be. She noted that specific money has been set aside in the
budget for replanting. She also noted that some of the area is already
heavily foliated and there is an overhead power line easement that will need
to be considered. She believes that ultimately a request could be in separate
capital project for money to do some privacy fencing. She said that in the
winter leaves fall off of the trees, and the power line restricts the kinds of
trees that can be planted. She went on to say that as far as the site plan,
this area is not being disturbed. She said that this area was ther~ before
the high school project was addressed at all and it is an opportunity to point
out that it is ugly. She said that if approval for a privacy fence could be
given, that is fine, but money will be needed to do it.
Mrs. Moore wanted to know if the School Board will get back financially
ideas on how to switch the two practice fields with the baseball field. She
said she knows that it would cost $175,000 to switch the soccer field and the
baseballfield, but she would like to know how much it would cost to switch
the two practice fields with the baseball fields. Ms. Higgins wondered if
Mrs. Moore wanted this infOrmation even though she realizes that' it is because
of the students that the high school wants the fields where they are currently
located on the project. Mrs. Moore answered, "yes." Ms. Higgins answered
that it will be possible to get prices on anything that is requested. She
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (78)
251
reiterated that a contractor has already been hired and that the contractor
needs to begin on schedule. Mrs. Moore replied that she is not trying to
stall the project. She thought that the same procedure could be used that was
used to get the estimate to switch the soccer field and the baseball field.
Mr. Keeler stated that obviously there will not be a revised plan from
the Planning Commission. He wants to be clear that the staff is authorized to
tell the Commission that this change can be approved administratively and that
if the practice fields' location is swapped with the baseball field, that,
too, can be handled administratively. He does not know if having the other
two fields there in place of the baseball field will be more acceptable to
Georgetown Green. He said that the Supervisors could make that decision, now.
He went on to say that the deletion of a field can also be done adminis-
tratively. He said that the staff would like to be able to relocate the field
somewhere else administratively, too, with the Board's authority to waive the
critical slopes provision. His recollection was that one of the things
involved in siting the playing fields was the amount of critical slopes
involved.
Ms. Higgins mentioned that the high school is in the watershed area and
that the critical slopes have to be taken into consideration. She said that
the amount of earth that will have to be moved and the slopes that will have
to be put back will be another concern. She added that if the site plan could
not be approved, then the project would not go forward.
Mr. Haury stated that he is not sure that all of the School Board sup-
ports moving the fields.
Mr. Bowie commented that he had said an hour ago that the Board members
are discussing something that they cannot do anything about at this meeting.
Mr. Haury then said that he would support a motion, if it takes a motion,
to seek a variance for parking which would cause some reassignment of some
parking spaces and preservation of some trees. He would also support the
construction of whatever change order it takes to get this done so that the
project can begin on time. He does not support moving the fields.
Mr. Ward believes tPmt a piece of information is missing. He said that
Mr. Cilimberg had indicated that the Planning Commission may not approve this
variance for parking unless there is a reason.
Mr. Haury answered that he thought he heard that this is not a commercial
request, and since it is an educational issue, the School Board could seek
this variance.
Mr. Keeler indicated that this would not be an issue with the Planning
Commission. Mr. Bowie agreed and stated that the Supervisors have taken care
of the matter with their motion.
Mr. Martin remarked that he had missed part of the meeting, and he may
not have heard the whole discussion, but it is his opinion that the School
Board needs to make a decision this afternoon. He said that either a motion
can be put on the floor now, or the School Board can have a quick meeting
after this joint meeting. He thinks that the Supervisors would prefer for the
School Board to have its meeting after the joint meeting. Mr. Bowie agreed.
He said that Mr. Bain had made a suggestion and most of the Supervisors
support it, but he reiterated that this is a School Board matter. He said
that the Supervisors have already done what they needed to do.
Mr. Finley commented that Mrs. Moore had asked for information, and the
School Board cannot support a plan without information. Mr. Bowie replied
that this was his point. He told the School Board to try to get the necessary
information. Mr. Finley said he thought that Mrs. Moore was just asking for
information. He did not think that anything had been decided about changing
the contract. Mr. Bowie answered that nobody is changing anything. He said
that the request was for information.
Mr. Haury emphasized that he had heard that there was money attached to
the changes, and he also heard Mr. Bowie state that there is no extra money.
Mr. Haury commented that the School Board members can change the plans as much
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (79)
252
as they want to, but if the Supervisors will not appropriate $180,000, then
the School Board will be wasting its time.
Mr. Ward commented that the School Board needs to give its approval to
- the 45 parking spaces reduction. Several School Board members agreed.
At this time, Mr. Haury made the motion for the reduction of 45 parking
spaces on the Albemarle High School Renovation Project plan. Mr. Ward
seconded the motion. Roll was called,, and the motion carried unanimously by
the School Board.
Mr. Bagby asked Mr. Perkins how long the pine trees will last if three-
fourths of the grove is removed. Mr. Bagby's experience has been that pines
in his neighborhood die easily. He added that the pine trees are at least 30
years old'. He wondered if they would last another 20 years. Mr. Perkins
responded that pine trees can live to be 100 to 150 years old, but an ice
storm next winter could wipe them out.
Item 20b. Middle and High School Construction.
Mr. Bowie stated that he had asked for the 1990 census information to be
brought to this meeting. He said that he did not have a lot of time to spend
on it, but he wanted to comment that the population is four years older, there
are 50 percent more people who are 65 years and older, and the household size.
has decreased over the last few years. He added that there are smaller
families, an older population and a greater percentage of people over 65. He
wonders where all. of the children are comin~g from. He noted that the children
are not tracked the first six years of their lives, and if they don't show up
in school, it is not known what happens to them. He said that the census
figures cast some doubt on this projected growth over the next 10 to 20 years,
and don't support the projections.
Mr. Haury commented that what the census figures indicate is not neces-
sarily what happens with regard to the birth rate and who shows up in school.
He does not know how much of it can be associated with younger people moving
into the County. He said that the County has done a good job of controlling
everything, except having babies. He noted that approximately 900 children
have registered for kindergarten, and this is what the School Board is dealing
with year to year.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the staff has noted during a period of tracking
births that the kindergarten enrollment has grown from approximately 500 in
the 1970's to over 900 now. He said that there is a correlation when the
births are tracked five years later as to how many of those children show up
in schools, and that enrollment has increased. Mr. Bowie agreed, but he said
that he is not sure that rate will continue for the next ten years. Mr.
Cilimberg remarked that there will be updated population projections done by
the State based on the 1990 census information.
Mr. Bowie stated that the meals tax item will probably be on the agenda
next week. He does not think that there will be time for discussion at
today's meeting. He noted, that the middle school will cost three cents on the
real property tax for debt service which is $900,000 a year for 20 years. He
said that one way to pay for that school is to raise property taxes, and
another way is with a meals tax. His opinion is that he could justify a meals
tax, if it was only going to be used to reduce school debt. He pointed out
that the debt is almost as high as it was in the mid 1970's. He thinks that
it is time for a referendum on the subject. Secondly, he feels that the best
way to pay for the school is through a mem]m tax which would pay for the
middle school and reduce other school debts. (Mr. Way left at 4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Haury remarked that the Supervisors and the School Board members have
in front of them an update on cost projections for the new middle school. He
said that Mr. Reaser was responsible for this updated projection. He added
that this update has been done with the idea of looking at the Capital Im-
provements Program cycle. He pointed out Number 8 on the second page, and
described how the cost estimate of $78 per square foot was derived. This is
the figure being used for the estimate. He said that Mr. Reaser has worked on
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (80)
253
putting out the cost estimate for the building and the site and also including
connection fees, furnishings, equipment, contingency and assorted fees. He
estimates the total project will be $8.291 million.
Mr. Bain asked if this estimate is based on using the Hollymead site.
Mr. Haury agreed. He noted that there are hardwood and pine trees at Holly-
mead. He said that a diagrs~n is attached with the report and the trees are
shown. He added that this is a major concern because when a school is placed
on the property, it is better to know from the beginning how this type of
construction on the acreage available would affect the trees. He said that a
second consideration which the School Board has no control over is the siting
of a road somewhere in the neighborhood of the Hollymead School site. He
added that this would affect what is shown on the site. He went on to say
that this is a concern for the Long Range Planning Committee, the School Board
members, and the Supervisors. He added that there are 41.07 acres available.
The cost projection for land acquisition is $1,250,000, if the Hollymead site
is not used. He stated that the proposal is for construction on the site
without land acquisition costs.
Mr. Bowie said he appreciated Mr. Haury's comments on the pines and
hardwoods, but he believes that the problem with the high school renovation
project is that nobody knew about the tree situation until late in the pro-
cess. He thinks that with this much notice for the middle school construc-
tion, something can be worked out.
Mr. Bain wondered what the acreage requirement is for middle schools.
Mr. Reaser replied that the acreage requirements for middle schools is ten
acres plus one acre per 100 students, so this would indicate that there would
need to be 17 1/2 usable acres for this middle school. Mr. Bain thought that
more space was required for a middle school than for an elementary school.
Mr. Reaser responded that an elementary school requires five acres for the
school plus one acre per 100 students of usable acres.
Mr. Bain stated that there are 19 acres at the Agnor-Hurt Elementary
School and 20 acres at Crozet Elementary. He questions whether there will be
enough acreage for this middle school project. Mr. Haury said that the County
operates a middle and elementary school effectively on two other sites. He
said that it does cause some associated probleans, but a lot of money can be
saved on land acquisition. Mr. Reaser commented that where the school would
be located is where the oak and maple trees are marked on the drawing. He
said that it would be approximately a 25 foot cut.
Mr. Perkins asked if the plans for Walton, Jack Jouett and Henley Schools
could be used for this school. Ms. Higgins responded, "no." Mr. Perkins
wondered why not. Ms. Higgins replied that it would be possible to contact
architects and negotiate with them to reconstruct these plans. There is a
misconception that plans can be used over again because schools are designed
for specific sites. She added that another reason is that when a design is
bought, it is bought for a specific building, and the architect owns the plan.
She said that someone cannot take the plans and give them to someone else to
bid on. She said that it is possible to negotiate with the architects if the
County is locked into this architectural set of plans, but she does not know
if this would be beneficial. She reminded Board members that this is an old
set of plans.
Mr. Haury said that another factor negotiated into the design of the new
building is that of space. He said the plan is to use the space the way that
it is being used now. He gave an example by saying that if the State indi-
cates the band room has to have 50 slots, the County's middle school programs
are so big that 100 slots are necessary. He said the only thing that Mr.
Reaser did was to take what the middle schools are actually doing and build
that into the estimates on the cafeteria, gymnasium, band room, etc., which
would affect the design for plans for this kind of school.
Mr. Perkins asked if, when the architect is hired, he could visit the
other middle schools to see that this is the kind of building that is desired.
He said that everyone understands that there has to be modifications made to
fit the site. He added that inspections and requirements have changed since
the other buildings were built, but those blueprints would not be used anyway.
Mr. Bowie said that this might avoid another major mistake.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (81)
254
Ms. Higgins replied that it is always possible to indicate that it is
desirable to have something in the same character or that is similar to or has
a floor plan like another building. She said, however, that there could be
specific legal implications, if an architect thinks that someone is copying
his design. If the same school plan is going to be used over and over' again,
then the architect would have to be told that his design would be used to
build four schools. She added that the cost factor would be much greater now
to build one school, than it would have been to build four schools at the same
time by the same design.
Mr. Perkins suggested that the County hire its own architect. Ms.
Higgins said that is also a possibility.
Mrs. Humphris read from Mr. Reaser's memo that, "If a passive solar
design or ice storage is selected, additional costs will be experienced and
will need to be added to the budget." She thinks that the County should be
very interested in energy saving designs, and should realize that what might
be spent in design and construction costs will be saved many times over in
operational costs in the future. She hopes that everybody will realize that
the major cost in the operation of this school will be in the future.
Mr. Tucker commented that one area that will be considered is the logis-
tics in the Timberwood Parkway because that will be close to the proposed
school. He said that it will be convenient, but at the same time it needs to
be considered very closely.
Mr. Bowie wondered what kind of time frame is necessary in order to get
information back to the Supervisors. Mr. Reaser replied that if the school is
approved very quickly, it could be bid by January, 1993. He said that the
cost estimate was based on this date. Mr. Bowie said that thls is not his
question. His question was when the Supervisors would be able to look at the
impact of Timberwood Parkway.
Mr. Bowie asked what ice storage involves and why' it would be put into
schools. Mr. Reaser answered that ice is made at night in the off peak hours.
Ms. Higgins answered that there is a specific rate schedule that gives the
benefit for using power during the night when it is cheaper to buy it. She
said that it is much more beneficial on a yearly basis. She went on to say
that ice storage could be used as part of the criteria for architect selec-
tion. She stated that the architects could present the County with a cost
consideration with a capital investment versus the pay back.
Mr. Bagby stated that the County has had a tendency to put itself on a
tight schedule with the construction of these schools. He gave an example of
the renovation of Murray Elementary School. He said that it is going to be
tight if the school opens this fall for the students. He also said that it
would be good if this project could be moved forward so that there could be a
little leeway.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the Supervisors intend to make a decision next
week. Mr. Bowie agreed that the Supervisors have to make two decisions. One
decision involves the new middle school, and the other involves a meals tax.
Mr. Perkins said he understands that the School Board has looked at an
option of building a new middle school, but he would like to see some figures
on how much it would cost to add to the existing middle schools to increase
the classroom sizes, but not modifying the cafeterias, libraries, etc. He
thinks that this is something that has to be considered, because the Coun~M
may have to go with a less expensive option. Mr. Bain commented that if the
State requires that cafeterias and libraries be increased, then it will have
to be done, unless a waiver is granted.
Mrs. Moore said additions were considered, but by the time additions
would be completed, the school would probably be over capacity. She indicated
that if projections are true, by the year 2000 there will be 1000 more middle
school students than the County has now. She emphasized that additions would
not give the County any long term advantages. Mr. Perkins remarked that it
depends on how many classrooms are added. He said if the capacity is added
per school for 300 more students, it would be more than the capacity of the
new school at a 750 capacity. He said that the new school will not do the job
if there is going to be 1000 more middle school students.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (82)
255
Mr. Haury said there are two issues involved. He said that issue one is
where the children will be located. He feels strongly about the quality of
education, and if middle schools have more than a 750 capacity, then there are
problems. Mr. Perkins said he thinks Mr. Haury is missing the point. If a
bond referendum did not pass, what would happen then. He thinks that the
School Board had better have a second option. Mr. Haury stated that if extra
rooms were added at both Henley and Jouett, it would have cost approximately
$5.0 million because the size of the cafeterias and gymnasiums would have to
be increased. Mr. Perkins replied that he wanted to know the cost of adding
the extra classrooms, without adding onto the cafeterias and. gymnasiums. Mr.
Haury said that the cafeterias and gymnasiums would have to be enlarged.
Mr. Perkins said that at one time cafeterias could handle 800 students.
He does not know why this should have changed.
Mr. Bain explained that the State changes and increases regulations. Mr.
Perkins said that the Supervisors just made an exception this afternoon, so
maybe the State would do so.
Ms. Humphris stated that she does not think that it should be assumed
that there will be a bond referendum. She said that she personally feels that
from the information made available by the School Board, a new middle school
is needed, and it is needed where it is planned and when it is planned. She
feels comfortable voting on building this school as far as having to borrow
the money to do it, and she does not relish the idea of having to sell this
idea to the public in addition to having to sell the meals tax referendum
which is required. She said tPmt she and Mr. Bowerman becamm Board members
too late to be effective on the Agnor-Hurt school planning process from an
advisory point of view. She thinks that she has tried hard to get the idea
across that she is very interested in passive solar design or anything else
that can be done to make these schools energy and operationally efficient.
She would certainly want to make sure that anybody involved in the planning
process for a new school would understand it. She believes that this has got
to be the County's obligation in the future.
Mr. Bowie statedthat this school is not in the Capital Improvements
Program at this time, so it will take some kind of positive action by the
Board to include it. He added that the Supez-v-isors would decide what to do at
next week's meeting.
Item 20c. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were no other
matters discussed.
Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker recommended the appointment of Ms. Jo Higgins as Director of
Engineering effective June 13, 1991.
Motion to appoint Ms. Higgins was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by
Mr. Bain. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Mr. Tucker recommended the appointment of Mr. Richard E. Huff, II, as
Deputy County Executive, effective July 15, 1991.
Motion to appoint Mr. Huff was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr.
Bain. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
June 12, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page (83)
256
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.