1990-03-14March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 234
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 14, 1990, at 9:00 a.m., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., F. R. Bowie,
David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mr. Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. ¥. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:04 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. Consent Agenda. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at
9:05 a.m.) Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
approve Item 4.6 on the consent agenda and to accept the remaining items as
information, except Item 4.1 to be held for discussion under "Other Highway
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.
Item 4.1. Letter dated February 23, 1990, from Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr.,
State Location and Design Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation,
stating that the Commonwealth Transportation Board, at its February 15, 1990,
meeting approved the location and major design features of the Route 250 East
Project (from St. Clair Avenue in the City of Charlottesville to Interstate
Route 64), received as information.
Mr. Bowie asked that this item be removed from the consent agenda for
~discussion under Other Highway Matters.
Item 4.2. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for February 27, 1990,
received as information.
Item 4.3. County Executive's Financial Report for January, 1990, re-
ceived as follows:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT
FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1989 TO JANUARY 31, 1990
GENERAL FUND
REVENUES
1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS
TOTAL
47,205,381 35,366,365 11,839,016 74.92%
4,071,669 1,942,019 2,129,650 47.70%
182,370 20,947 161,423 11.49%
886~595 886~595 0 + 100.00%
52,346,015 38,215,926 14,130,089 - 73.01%
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
235
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
.EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION 3,281,497 1,985,550 1,295,947 + 60.51%
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 1,190,246 682,599 507,647 + 57.35%
PUBLIC SAFETY 4,970,880 3,372,088 1,598,792 + 67.84%
PUBLIC WORKS 1,878,248 1,189,906 688,342 + 63.35%
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 3,291,121 2,015,218 1,275,903 + 61.23%
EDUCATION 27,003,594 15,713,008 11,290,586 + 58.19%
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL 1,860,606 1,187,699 672,907 + 63.83%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,425,255 804,761 620,494 + 56.46%
TRANSFERS 4,104,946 2,425,577 1,679,369 + 59.09%
NONDEPARTMENTAL 3~339~622 2~680~381 659~241 + 80.26%
TOTAL 52,346,015 32,056,787 20,289,228 + 61.24%
SCHOOL FUND
1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
504,313 388,224 116,089 - 76.98%
17,793,385 8,883,907 8,909,478 - 49.93%
357,600 0 357,600 - 0.00%
27~331~258 15~706~664 11~624,594 - 57.47%
45,986,556 24,978,795 21,007,761 54.32%
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
INSTRUCTION
ADMIN., ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES OPERATION & MAINT
FACILITIES
TOTAL
35,926,619 17,275,018 18,651,601 + 48.08%
1,632,075 1,058,676 573,399 + 64.87%
4,071,242 2,537,813 1,533,429 + 62.34%
3,883,929 2,284,688 1,599,241 + 58.82%
472~691 376~916 95~775 + 79.74%
45,986,556 23,533~111 22,453,445 + 51.17%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
REVENUES
1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
NONREVENUE RECEIPTS
FUND BALANCE
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
383,000 183,758 199,242 - 47.98%
527,040 0 527,040 - 0.00%
12,069,583 3,374,015 8,695,568 - 27.95%
4,317,667 4,317,667 0 - 100.00%
1,431~570 1~421~070 10~500 - 99.27%
18,728,860 9,296,510 9,432,350 - 49.64%
EXPENDITURES
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
EDUCATION
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TRANSFERS
TOTAL
251,594 226,840 24,754 + 90.16%
29,908 0 29,908 + 0.00%
619,795 305~284 314,511 + 49.26%
2,223,089 350~504 1,872,585 + 15.77%
12,843,116 11,183,635 1,659,481 + 87.08%
2,010,555 650,480 1,360,075 + 32.35%
216,495 110,824 105,671 + 51.19%
534~308 0 534~308 + 0.00%
18,728,860 12,827;567 5,901,293 + 68.49%
OTHER FUNDS
REVENUES
1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT
CDBG-AHIP
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT
FOOD SERVICES
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
0 4,084 (4,084)+ 0.00%
30,299 23,089 7,210 - 76.20%
0 542~282 (542,282)+ 0.00%
0 157~178 (157,178)+ 0.00%
0 24,013 (24,013)+ 0.00%
0 108,486 (108,486)+ 0.00%
0 69,597 (69,597)+ 0.00%
1,470,530 590,108 880,422 - 40.13%
510,628 208,380 302,248 - 40.81%
51,893 3~833 48,060 - 7.39%
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
MIGRANT EDUCATION 49,000 12,281
MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS 89,200 5,660
SLIAG PROGRAM 0 3,933
CBIP SEVERE 419,823 780
E. D. PROGRAM 557,501 1,913
COMMUNITY EDUCATION 683,960 194,061
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 0 198,769
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 5,798
JOINT SECURITY 2,193,225 1,264~978
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 0 268,442
JOINT DISPATCH FUND 717,862 4971477
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 152,230 21~092
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 852,331 28~930
VISITOR CENTER FUND 67,735 39~512
DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,670~037 985~577
TOTAL 10,526,254 5,260,253
236
36,719 - 25.06%
83,540 - 6.35%
(3,933)+ 0.00%
419,043 0.19%
555,588 0.34%
489,899 - 28.37%
(198,769)+ 0.00%
4,202 57.98%
928,247 57.68%
(268,442)+ 0.00%
220,385 - 69.30%
131,138 - 13.86%
823,401 - 3.39%
28,223 - 58.33%
1~684~460 - 36.91%
5,266,001 - 49.97%
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 5,951
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 30,299 18,077
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0 480,621
CDBG-AHIP 0 157,178
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 56,115
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0 400,000
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 48,001
FOOD SERVICES 1,470,530 673,867
CHAPTER I 510,628 235,053
CHAPTER II 51,893 26,670
MIGRANT EDUCATION 49,000 25~371
MISC. SCHOOL CHANTS 89,200 37~114
SLIAG 0 9,881
CBIP SEVERE 419,823 204,233
E D PROGRAM 557,501 214,263
COMMUNITY EDUCATION 683,960 265,519
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 0 240,042
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 0
JOINT SECURITY FUND 2,193,225 1,301,861
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 0 992,905
JOINT DISPATCH FUND 717,862 416,303
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 152,230 54,228
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 852,331 6,587
VISITOR CENTER FUND 67,735 39,512
DEBT SERVICE FUND 2~670,037 1~643~062
TOTAL 10,526,254 7,552,414
(5,951)- 0.00%
12,222 + 59.66%
(480,621)- 0.00%
(157,178)- 0.00%
(56,115)- 0.00%
(400,000)- 0.0O%
(48,001)- 0.00%
796,663 + 45'.82%
275,575 + 46.03%
25,223 + 51.39%
23,629 + 51.78%
52,086 + 41.61%
(9,881)- 0.00%
215,590 + 48.65%
343,238 + 38.43%
418,441 + 38.82%
(240,042)- 0.00%
10,000 + 0.00%
891,364 + 59.36%
(992,905)- 0.00%
301,559 + 57.99%
98,002 + 35.62%
845,744 + 0.77%
28,223 + 58.33%
1~026~975 + 61.54%
2,973,840 + 71.75%
Mrs. Humphris asked why the Juanise Dyer Fund still shows a cash balance
and asked if there was not supposed to be some disposition of the money. Mr.
Agnor said there is supposed to be disposition of the money, but he does not
know when. He will provide a status report on the fund.
Item 4.4. Copy of the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board's Annual Report for 1989, received as information.
Item 4.5. Arbor Crest Monthly Bond Report for December, 1989 and Janu-
ary, 1990, received as information.
Item 4.6. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of February, 1990,
approved as presented by the above recorded vote.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: September 6(A), September 6(N),
September 20(N), October 11, October 18(A), October 18(N), November i(N),
November 8, November 15(A), December 6(A), December 6(N), 1989.
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
237
Mr. Way had read the minutes of September 20(N) (pages 12 through 20,
ending' at Item 14), October 11 (pages 29 through the end), October 18(N)
(pages 1 through 7, ending at Item 7) and November 15(A), 1989, and found them
to be correct with some minor typographical errors.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of October 18(A) and December 6(N)
(pages 1 through 9, ending at Item 6), 1989, and found them all to be in
order.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of November i(N), November 8 (pages 14 at
No. 9 through 26, ending at No. 19) and found them all to be in order.
Mr. Bowie said yesterday he was informed by the Clerk that there are only
two sets of minutes for the year 1989 remaining to be done, and the Board is
currently up-to-date on minutes for 1990. As soon as all of the minutes on
the reading list are read, individual Board members would have about one set
of minutes every six weeks to read. He encouraged the Board members with
minutes on the reading list to read them as soon as possible.
There being no further discussion, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highways Matters: 1990-1996 Six Year Secondary Road
Plan, and 1990-91 Budget. Deferred from March 7, 1990 for adoption.
For the Board's information, Mr. Bowie said he met with Mr. Dan
Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, earlier this week to discuss the Proffit
Road bridge project. The main concern of the residents is that Proffit Road
not become a bypass. He suggested moving priority #31 (Route 649, Proffit
bridge project) to priority #50A and delete in its entirety priority #40
(Route 649, Proffit spot improvements) from this Six Year Plan. This action
would not jeopardize the Six Year Plan and would allow the County time to see
what plans the Cox~onwealth Transportation Board has for Route 29 North.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to move
priority #31 (Route 649, Proffit bridge project) to priority #50A and to
delete in its entirety priority #40 (Route 649, Proffit spot improvements)
from the Six Year Secondary Road Plan.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department has several options that it can
undertake in response to this contemplated action by the Board. As he stated
at the public hearing, the bridge projects listed in the priority list are the
minimum that the Department will accept. Leaving the Route 649 bridge project
in the priority list, but dropping it down below the point where it can be
funded, still puts the Plan in jeopardy as far as being approved by the
Department; however, since the project is still in the Plan, if something
should happen within the next couple of years, the Department could move the
bridge project up on the priority list and work on it. He has no personal
problem recommending the action the Board is taking, but a final decision on
approval of the plan rests at a higher management level.
Roll was then 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. Way asked how far pavement is proposed for Route 737 (priority #12).
Mr. Roosevelt said pavement is proposed from the west intersection of Route 6
back to the second bridge from that intersection. Mr. Way asked why the
entire road is not being paved. Mr. Roosevelt saSd this is as far as the
citizens were able to obtain right-of-way. When work begins on the project,
if any additional right-of-way is obtained, paving will continue the length of
the row.
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
23~
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Highway Department has plans for any improve-
ments at the intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Route 29 North, prior to
final decisions about Route 29. Mr. Roosevelt replied no. Mr. Bowerman asked
if any improvements are planned for after the completion of Berkmar Drive
Extended. Mr. Roosevelt replied no, but if a traffic problem is determined at
that location, the Highway Department would respond to it. Mr. Bowerman said
confusion is created at that intersection because left turning traffic cannot
be separated from through traffic leaving the Rio Hills Shopping Center. He
thinks that an advanced left turn signal coming out of Woodbrook should be
considered. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department has looked at the intersection
since the shopping center opened and the signals have been timed to accommo-
date the traffic. The Department will continue to monitor the situation, but
it is his opinion that the cost of any improvements at that intersection would
have to come from Primary Funds.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
the 1990-1996 Six Year Secondary Road Plan, as amended and modified at this
meeting today. 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.
SIX YEAR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1990-96
ROUTE LOCATION
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
ESTIMATED COST
627
From: 0.5 Miles South
Route 727
To: Route 708
0627-002-229, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
$ 1,056,000
674
From: Route 810
To: 0.25 Miles West
Route 673
0674-002-231; N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
$ 360,000
674 At Doyle's River
662
From: 0.15 Miles West
Route 660
To: 1.0 Miles West
Route 660
0674-002-231, B654
Bridge Project
0662-002-230, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
$ 62,000
$ 273,000
785
From: 0.2 Miles North
Route 649
To: 1.40 Miles North
Route 649
0785-002-203, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
$ 508,000
County Wide ~1)
Pipe Installations, New Signs,
Preliminary Engineering,
Seeding, Rural Additions and
Incidental Improvements
$ 1,080,000
625 At James River (2)
Operation of Hatton Ferry
$ 60,000
County Wide (3)
Apply Plant Mix to Surface
Treated Roads
$ 716,500
676
692
From: Route 614
To: 0.05 Miles North
Route 1645 (3)
From: Route 29
To: Route 635 (3)
New Plant Mix
New Plant Mix
$ 80,000
$ 235,000
852
From: Route 866
To: Route 1454 (3)
New Plant Mix
$ 15,000
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
1113 From: Route 631
To: Route 1114 (3)
New Plant Mix
729 From: Route 250
To: Route 53 (3)
New Plant Mix
631
At Intersection of
Route 659 (4)
0631-002-219, C504
Improve Sight Distance and
Left Turn Lane
631
654
At Intersection of
Agnese Street (5)
At Intersection of
Route 656 (6)
0631-002-219, C503
Improve Sight Distance
0654-002-220, C501
Construct Right Turn Lane
631
At Intersection of
Route 768 (7)
0631-002-219, C501
Construct Left and Right
Turn Lanes
656
From: Route 654
To: Route 743 (8)
0656-002-221, C501
Construct Left and Right
Turn Lanes
620
Buck Island Creek (9)
0620-002-243, C501
Bridge Project
708
From: 0.05 Miles East
Route 631
To: 0.05 Miles West
Route 631 (10)
0708-002-241, C501
Spot Safety Improvements
654
From: Route 1406
To: Route 656 (11)
0654-002-242, C501
Widen to Four Lane Divided
Roadway
631
From: Route 781
To: Route 708 (12)
0631-002-222, C501
Approaches to Two Drainage
Structures
631
At Branch of
Biscuit Run (12)
0631-002-222, B651
Widen Bridge
631
At Branch of
Biscuit Run (12)
0631-002-222, B651
Replace Bridge With Pipe
631
From: NCL
Charlottesville
To: Southern
Railroad (13)
0631-002-128, C502
Four Lanes on New
Alignment
631
Bridge Over
Meadow Creek (13)
0631-002-128, B612
New Structure, No Structure #
New Location
671
At Moormans River (14)
0671-002-191, C501
Approaches to Bridge at
Moormans River at Millington
671
Bridge over
Moormans River (14)
0671-002-191, B646
Structure #6056
631
From: Route 1103
To: 1.0 Miles
South of
Route 780 (15)
0631-002-224, C501
Relocate Along a New
Alignment
631
From: 0.30 Miles East
Route 29
To: Route 650 (16)
0631-002-128, C503
Widen to Four Lane
Divided on Existing Right of
Way
239
$ 8,500
$ 145,000
$ 284,000
$ 81,600
$ 227,000
$ 465,100
$ 286,000
$ 326,000
$ 280,000
$ 600,000
$ 199,700
$ 32,200
$ 7,500
$ 5,350,000
$ 500,000
$ 360,000
$ 400,000
$ 4,760,606
$ 2,226,000
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
601 At Buck Mountain
Creek (17)
0601-002-225, B653
Bridge Over Buck Mountain
Creek Structure #6003
660
At South Fork of
the Rivanna River (18)
0660-002-187, C501
Approaches to Bridge
Over the South Fork
Rivanna River
660
At South Fork Of
the Rivanna River (18)
0660-002-187, B644
Bridge Over the South Fork
Rivanna River Structure #6120
678
From: Route 250
To: Route 678 (19)
0678-002-223, C501
Reconstruct on New Alignment
743
From: Route 657
To: Route 631 (21)
0743-002-153, C502
Widen to Four Lane
Curb & Gutter
631 From: Route 743
To: Route 29 (22)
0631-002-185, C501
Widen to Four Lane
Curb & Gutter
810
From: Route 1211
To: 0.15 Miles South
Route 1211 (24)
0810-002-240, M501
Improve Vertical Sight
Distance
729
At Intersection of
Route 250 (25)
0729-002-239, N501
Improve Intersection
691
From: 0.40 Miles East
Route 240
To: Route 240 (26)
0691-002-234, C501
Two Lane Roadway on
New Location
743
From: 0.1 Miles North
Route 606
To: Route 606 (27)
0743-002-235, C501
Spot Safety Improvements
866
From: Route 1455
To: Route 743 (28)
0866-002-236, C501
Four Lane Roadway on New
Location
601
From: Route 250
To: 0.1 Miles
Northwest of
Route 250 (29)
0601-002-237, C501
Spot Safety Improvements
649
From: Route 29
To: Route 606 (30)
0649-002-158, C501
Widen to Four Lanes
743
At North Fork of
the Rivanna River (31)
0743-002- C
Approaches to Bridge
Over the North Fork
Rivanna River
743
At North Fork of
the Rivanna River (31)
0743-002- B
Bridge Over North Fork
Rivanna River
Structure ~6104
677
At CSX Rail Road (32)
0677-002- C
Approaches to Bridge
Over the CSX Rail Road
677
At CSX Rail Road (32)
0677-002- B
Bridge Over CSX Rail Road
Structure #6066
601
From: Route 250 0601-002- C
To: Route 29 Bypass (34) Widen to Four Lanes
240
$ 350,000
$ 508,000
$ 640,000
$ 500,100
$ 1,725,000
$ 2,200,000
$ 100,000
$ 200,000
$ 190,000
$ 325,000
$ 640,000
$ 210,000
$ 900,000
$ 530,000
$ 720,000
$ 400,000
$ 400,000
$ 800,000
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
691
From: Route 240
To: Route 684 (35)
0691-002- C
Widen and Improve
Alignment
682
From: Route 250
To: 1.70 Miles South
Route 787 (36)
0682-002-P33, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
610
From: Route 20
To: 2.30 Miles East
Route 20 (36)
0610-002 N
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
712
From: Route 29
To: Route 692 (36)
0712-002-202, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
760
From: Route 29
To: Route 712 (36)
0760-002 N
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
637
From: Route 635
To: 0.55 Miles West
Route 682 (36)
0637-002 N
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
759
From: Route 616 0759-002 N
To: Fluvanna County (36)Grade, Drain, Stabilmze
Line and New Surface Treatment
688
From: Route 635
To: Dead End (36)
0688-002 N
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
708
From: 0.70 Miles West
Route 795
To: 0.28 Miles East
Route 620 (36)
O708-002 N
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
679
From: 0~15 Miles South
Route 738
To: 0.90 Miles South
Route 738 (36)
0679-002 N
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
605
From: Greene County
Line
To: 0.83 Miles East
County Line (36)
0605-002 N
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
667
From: 1.60 Miles North
Route 776
To: Route 776 (36)
O667-002 N
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
737
From: Route 6
To: 0.28 Miles West
Route 726 (36)
0737-002 N
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
711
From: Route 29
To: Route 712 (36)
0711-002 N
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
643
From: 1.50 Miles East
Route 29
To: 0.80 Miles West
Route 649 (36)
0643-002 N
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
606
From: 0.15 Miles North
Route 850
To: 1.89 Miles North
Route 850 (36)
0606-002 N
Grade, Drain, Stabilize
and New Surface Treatment
241
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,050,000
$ 825,000
$ 267,000
$ 400,000
$ 800,000
$ 250,000
$ 355,000
$ 650,000
$ 400,000
$ 300,000
$ 400,000
$ 350,000
$ 350,000
$ 300,000
$ 800,000
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page g)
726 From: Route 795
To: Route 1302 (37)
631
From: Route 706
To: 1.60 Miles South
Route 708 (39)
242
0726-002 C $ 500,000
Spot Improvements
0631-002 C $ 750,000
Spot Improvements
708 From: Route 20 0708-002 C $ 525,000
To: Route 29 (40) Spot Improvements
From: 1.35 Miles South
Route 64
To: Route 706 (41)
0631-002 C $ 295,000
Spot Improvements
631
810 At Moormans River (42) 0810-002 B $ 350,000
Bridge Over Moormans
River, Structure #6125
781 From: SCL 0781-002 C $ 150,000
Charlottesville Spot Improvements
To: Route 631 (44)
From: Route 29
To: Route 712 (45)
0692-002 C $ 400,000
Spot Improvements
692
712 At Ammonett Branch (47) 0712-002 B $ 180,000
Bridge at Ammonett Branch
Structure #6088
637 At Ivy Creek (48) 0637-002 B $ 215,000
Bridge at Ivy Creek
Structure #6039
649 At Southern Rail(49) 0649-002-151, C501 $ 300,000
Road Approaches to Bridge Over
Southern Rail Road
649 At Southern Rail 0649-002-151, B630 $ 500,000
Road (49) Bridge Over Southern Rail
Road, Structure #6049
600 At Mechunk Creek(50) 0600-002 C $ 410,000
Approaches to Bridge Over
Mechunk Creek
600 At Mechunk Creek (50) 0600-002 B $ 90,000
Bridge Over Mechunk Creek
Structure #6001
627 At Batlinger Creek (51) 0627-002 C $ 120,000
Approaches to Bridge Over
Ballinger Creek
627 At Ballinger Creek (51) 0627-002 B $ 180,000
Bridge Over Ballinger Creek
Structure #6024
667 At Piney Creek (52) 0667-002 C $ 150,000
Approaches to Bridge Over
Piney Creek
667 At Piney Creek (52) 0667-002 B $ 100,000
Bridge Over Piney Creek
Structure #6056
Mr. Roosevelt asked that the Board designate Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Deputy County Executive, to sign the Six Year Secondary Road Plan on behalf of
the County. There was no objection to this suggestion from the Board.
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
243
Agenda Item No. 6b. Statement for Highway Commission Preallocation
Hearing on the Interstate and Primary Systems.
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following report dated March 8, 1990, on the
Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan:
"On April 9, 1990, the Virginia Department of Transportation will
conduct its annual preallocation hearing in Culpeper for improvements
to the interstate and primary system for the Culpeper District. For
your information, all roads with route numbers below 600 are primary
roads (i.e., Route 29, Route 240).
The Six Year Primary Road Plan process is different from the Secondary
Road Plan in that while a specific amount of funds are set aside for
secondary road projects in the County, funds for primary road projects
are allocated for each district, and all road projects proposed within
all localities of the district compete for those funds. The locali-
ties in the Culpeper District include Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier,
Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, and Rappahannock Counties.
The purpose of this review process by the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors is to determine the recommendations for County
projects to be included in the primary plan for the District. You
will find following this report a copy of the projects listed for the
urban and primary system for the Culpeper District in the existing Six
Year Primary Road Plan.
The staff submits the following recommendations for projects to be
considered by the Board in their comments for the VDOT public hearing:
The County should continue to support the planning process for
improvements to the north-south capacity of Route 29 North and/or
construction of an alternative facility. This project is consi-
dered a high priority.
Continue to support the widening and reconstruction of Free
Bridge and Route 250 East to the Interstate Route 64 interchange.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board has supported Road Plans
for Route 250. Construction is scheduled to begin in the spring
of 1991. Staff has not received final plans to date. Once
received, staff will review the plans for consistency with County
recommendations.
Recommend that the Department begin closipg crossovers on Route
29 North as generally recommended in the Route 29 North Corridor
Study,' adopted by the Board on May 10, 1979 and reaffirmed by
the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on November 8, 1989. The
original study recommended closing a total of eighteen crossovers
from the City corporate limits to the County line. To date, four
crossovers have been closed. Staff recommended in its report to
the Board on November 8 that one crossover identified for closure
in the corridor study, between Camelot and Briarwood, be left
open to serve future development of Briarwood. Attachment 1 is
the staff's recox~ended priority for crossover closings. En-
closed is a map showing the general location of crossovers along
Route 29 North as well as the staff's analysis of the corridor
study endorsed by the Board on November 8, 1989. The priorities
for crossover closings were based on the following criteria:
Adequacy of sight distance
Adequacy of crossover spacing
Vertical curvature/grade at crossover
ADT on Route 29 at crossover
Location in growth area.
Seven of the remaining fourteen crossovers recommended for
closure are located between Hydraulic Road and Airport Road, a
section of the road currently scheduled in the Six Year Primary
Road for reconstruction in 1993-94. One, Maupin's Store, is to
be closed by the Forest Lakes' developer. The remaining six
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
244
crossovers would be closed as part of the Route 29 reconstruction
project. The Board should decide whether to recommend closure of
these crossovers now, or delay these to the time of Route 29
reconstruction.
In conjunction with the crossover closing, the Board should also
recommend that the remaining crossovers be upgraded (turn lane
construction) to meet the anticipated demand.
In response to previous requests by the County to study Route 20
South and Route 240, VDOT has undertaken an assessment of im-
provement needs on both routes. The Culpeper District Adminis-
trators' office has requested the devel6pment of functional plans
for both Route 20 and Route 240. Thesefplans will provide a
general alignment for the necessary improvements to meet minimum
state standards. These plans have not been completed due to
delays in obtaining aerial photographs for the alignments. The
plans should be complete this spring.
Attachment 2 is the YDOT assessment of improvement needs.
Generally, it calls for improving the alignment to an adequate
two lane road, 24 foot wide road from Route 6 to Glendower. It
also calls for reconstruction of the segment from Route 712 to
Route 53 to a four-lane, divided road.
For Route 240, it calls for improving the alignment to an ade-
quate two-lane road, 24 feet wide from Route 250 West northward
to Route 810 and then eastward to Route 250 East. This would
include improvements to the railroad underpass just south of
Route 810.
The County should continue to support the planning process for
improvements to these roads, and recommend completion of func-
tional plans. Upon completion of the fUnctional plans, County
staff should review impact of proposed improvements, particularly
as regards their impact to the Route 20 alignment which is
designated as a State Scenic Byway and County Scenic Highway.
Continue to recommend the construction of an interchange on
Interstate Route 64 at Avon Street.
Recommend the widening of Route 250 West from Emmet Street to
Route 637 in Ivy. The Charlottesville Area Transportation Study
(CATS) recommends that Route 250 be widened to a four-lane
divided road from the Route 29/250 Bypass to Route 677, and four-
lane undivided from Route 677 to Route 637. The Plan also calls
for Route 250 Business (Ivy Road) to be widened to four lanes
with a flush median (center turn lane) between the Bypass and
Emmet Street. The final design of the improvements in this area
is important as a gateway to the County, City, and University and
should reflect the design priorities as outlined in the Compre-
hensive Plan and the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. This
segment is the highest priority of the Route 250 West improve-
ments.
These improvements are recommended as Phase II improvements in
CATS. While currently not considered a high priority by the
County, strong consideration should be given for the inclusion of
these projects in the Six Year Primary Plan for ultimate funding
and construction. All projects in the County recommended as
Phase I improvements in CATS are already programmed for develop-
ment in either the Six Year Primary or Secondary Road Plan.
Recommend that a systematic study be conducted of Route 250 East
from the Interstate Route 64 interchange to the Fluvanna County
line, with particular attention given to the segment from the
interchange to the Rivanna Village. Due to the potential for
increased growth in this area and the designation of the Rivanna
Village that would be served by this road, there will be increas-
ing traffic demands on Route 250. This study should provide
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
recommendations for road improvements that will be needed to
maintain an adequate level of service.
245
Attachment I
Recommended priority for crossover closings:
2.*
3.*
4.
5.*
6.*
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.*
13.*
Dominion Drive, #9
Better Living Furniture, #16
Kegler's, #15
South of Rivanna Industrial Park, #33
South of Holly Memorial Gardens, #26
North of Route 643 Crossover, #21
Fabrics Unlimited, #35
Near County Line, #45
North of Route 763 Crossover, #41
North of Route 763 Crossover, #42
North of Route 763 Crossover, #43
North of Route 643 Crossover, #~0
Crossover at Maupin's Store #27-
Notes:
*Crossovers along section of Route 29 north to be reconstructed
(Hydraulic Road to Airport Road).
1
To be closed by developer as part of Forest Lakes development
requirements.
The following letter dated February 5, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, addressed to Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, was receiCed:
"In 1988 Albemarle County requested Department consideration of
improvements along Route 20 and Route 240. This request was made at
the annual primary road needs hearing held in Culpeper. As a result
of that request the Department undertook an assessment of the improve-
ment needs on both routes. This assessment was completed in February
1989. I ha~e recently learned that the County was not advised of
these findings and I am forwarding a copy of the report to you for
your information. I request that you advise other county officials as
you deem appropriate.
As a result of this report the District Administrator's office has
requested the development of functional plans for both Route 20 and
Route 240. These plans have not yet been developed due primarily to
delays in obtaining aerial photographs. Flying both routes had to be
delayed until such time as the leaves were off the trees. I am
advised that work is proceeding on these functional plans and we will
be in further touch with you concerning them. once something solid is
available.
Mr. Perkins asked the status of the Route 240 improvements. Mr.
Roosevelt said the Department is in the process of purchasing right-of-way and
has scheduled the project for advertisement in April, 1990.
Mr. Bain asked if aerial photographs of Route 20 and Route 240 have been
completed. Mr. Roosevelt replied yes, which is the first step in preparing
the functional plans.
Regarding comment #6, Mr. Perkins asked why it would not be better for
the Highway Department to build a five-lane road with a center turn lane for
both directions. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not know if one roadway plan is
better than another roadway plan. He thinks it is too early to say and the
Board should not accept the functional as a final plan.
Mr. Bain asked if a grade-separated interchange has been considered at
Flordon. Mr. Roosevelt said although planning has not gotten that far, there
is not enough traffic to warrant an interchange-type intersection. For that
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
246
type intersection, traffic volumes need to be around 30,000 on both roads and
he does not think this traffic will ever be at that point. Also a difference
between Route 250 and Route 29 is that Route 29 is an arterial road that is
expected to carry traffic passing through the area whereas in the Route 250
West corridor, Interstate 64 serves that function. Route 250 is more of a
major collector road for local traffic and with those conditions the road is
expected to have some stop lights and controlling access, rather than inter-
change-type systems.
Mr. Bowie said the Board needs to decide who will attend the hearing. Mr
Bowie said he will go. Mr. Bain said he also is willing to attend the hear-
ing. He thinks that it is important that some Board members attend and that
staff draft a statement for the Board's review. Mr. Bowie said there should
be a written report that can be handed to the Commissioners at the meeting and
a short statement to read. Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman also stated they
would attend the meeting.
Mr. Bowie asked that staff prioritize the most important issues for the
statement. Also that extra emphasis be placed on recommendations #1 and #2
outlined above. Also that staff prepare a more comprehensive written report
that it can leave with the Commissioners. Mr. Way suggested that along with
the written report, backup material to support recommendation #5 be included
with the statement that Avon Street Extended (Route 742) is fast becoming a
major industrial area and there is need for access to Ir64. The consensus of
the Board was to have the draft statement prepared for its review on March 21.
There was no further discussion at this time~
Agenda Item No. 6c. Report: Extension of Commonwealth Drive to Green-
brier Drive.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated March 8, 1990:
"Late last year, bids for the reconstruction of Peyton Drive came in
well over our Capital Improvement Program (CiP) estimate ($243,000 CIP
estimate versus $349,289 low bid). We then recommended that staff
develop a preliminary design and detailed estimate for extending
Commonwealth Drive to Greenbrier Drive. Our recent estimate for
construction and land acquisition is $348,700.
This recent cost estimate may prove to be 'soft' due to the consider-
able imported fill material needed for construction and the right-of-
way acquisition costs. Staff however recommends that the Board
authorize the Engineering Department to develop a detailed design
contract for the Commonwealth Drive Extension for Virginia Department
of Transportation's review and approval, which staff believes to be
the best alternative.
With only $177,800 remaining in this project's account, a shifting of
priorities in the CIP or another CIP review cycle may be necessary
before adequate funding for the project could be appropriated. With
Board concurrence, we will develop final design drawings and further
investigate funding alternatives."
Mr. Bowerman asked when construction of this project is contemplated.
Mr. Agnor replied Fall, 1990 with completion in Spring, 1991. Mr. Bowerman
asked if the regional stormwater detention plan calls for a detention basin in
that area between Peyton and Commonwealth Drives. Mr. Agnor replied yes. Mr.
Bowerman asked what the acquisition of right-of-way through this parcel of
property does to the development of that parcel and is there any implication
as to future County involvement in that detention basin. Mr. Agnor said he
does not know specifically. Acquisition of right-of-way was intended to
acquire sufficient property for the basin, but there were no plans for County
involvement in the construction of the basin until some contributions were
received fro~ developers. It was his understanding that the detention basin
would have to be redesigned to accommodate this proposal. Mr. Bowerman asked
that he be made aware of the design plans for the stormwater detention basin
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
247
so that he can be prepared to discuss the project with the Board at the
appropriate time.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to authorize
the Engineering Department to develop a detailed design plan for the Common-
wealth Drive Extension for Virginia Department of Transportation's review and
approval. 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. 6d. Board's Position On Route 631 (Old Lynchburg
Road/Stagecoach Road) Reconstruction Project.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, presented the following
report dated March 14, 1990: ~
"In regard to the Route 631 (Fifth Street Extended) reconstruction
project, the Planning Department supports the project and road plans
as presented at the public hearing on March 8, 1990, with the follow-
ing comments:
Ail crossovers should be designed with left turn lanes in both
directions to facilitate all turning movements, including neces-
sary u-turns.
Sidewalks should be constructed of concrete along sections of
road with an urban design (curb and gutter). Asphalt pathways
should be used along sections of road with a rural design (shoul-
der and ditch construction).
Improve the overall visual quality of the new alignment by:
maintaining significant vegetation along the alignment and/or
providing street trees and other landscaping; locating utility
transmission lines underground where possible or otherwise
consolidating aboveground lines on a single set of poles; and,
using aesthetically pleasing appurtenant structures including
mast/arm signal and street light poles.
Reconsideration should be given to proposed entrances to several
existing homes at the northern end of the project. Plans indi-
cate three driveways to have grades in excess of twenty percent.
Such access will be difficult for homeowners to use and would
create a potential traffic hazard along this segment of road."
Mr. Roosevelt said the crossover that serves the existing Stagecoach Road
would also serve Oak Hill Road and Oak Hill Trailer Park. That direction
would have a left turn lane. The other direction, which would enter into what
is now vacant property, does not have a left turning lane.
Mr. Way said he received a phone call from a resident this morning who
stated that the plans do not allow a break in the median strip at Pinehurst
Court. Mr. Roosevelt said that is correct, no crossover is proposed at that
location. There is a crossover at the next street intersection towards
Interstate 64 which is the reason there is no crossover at Pinehurst.
Mrs. Hnmphris asked the purpose of the brand new road proposed. Mr.
Roosevelt responded the purpose of the road is to serve all of the high
density in that area and to connect Route 780 back to the new roadway. Mrs.
Humphris said she has received several calls from constituents who say they
view this new road as a move on the part of the county to open up that land
for development. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff had a lot of discussion on that
issue and that is not the intent of the new road.
Mrs. Humphris asked what influence the Highway Department has over
placing utilities underground, having aesthetically pleasing street lights and
placing the lights on single poles. Mr. Roosevelt said it all depends on who
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
248
is willing to pay for the costs. If someone is willing to pay for the addi-
tional costs, over and above the normal relocation costs to the utility,
whether Virginia Power, Centel, or whomever, he thinks the utility companies
are willing to do whatever the Highway Department asks them to do. In the
past, the Department has not been willing to spend the money for the extra
costs for underground utilities. Those costs are usually three times more
than the costs for aboveground. If the County is willing through the Highway
Department to pay for the costs, the utility companies have no problem doing
so. Mrs. Humphris asked who coordinates everything with the companies. Mr.
Roosevelt said the Highway Department does through utility field inspections.
Once the plans are approved, the Department holds a utility field inspection
with each of the utilities that are in conflict with the project. It is
discussed with these utilities where the conflicts are and generally where the
facilities can be located so as to be out of conflict with the project. That
would be the point to discuss something other than normal relocation. He does
not think the Department will be receptive to these additional costs unless
there is someone else willing to pay for them. Mrs. Humphris asked what
additional costs are involved in aesthetically pleasing poles or street
lights. Mr. Roosevelt said it is his understanding that the mast/arm poles
cost more than the wire. Mrs. Humphris asked about maintenance of the poles.
Mr. Roosevelt said the mast/arm poles are also more expensive to maintain.
Mrs. Humphris said since this is a major four-lane road in what is mostly a
rural area, it would seem that everyone should cooperate to make this as
aesthetically pleasing as possible. In her opinion that third recommendation
in Mr. Benish's letter is not strong enough and something beyond that needs to
be done. Mr. Roosevelt said the discussion of traffic signal poles at this
time is academic. There are no traffic signals planned with this project and
none that he sees necessary at this time. As far as the utilities are con-
cerned, if the Board wants to make an impression, it must be willing to put up
the money.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks there are two issues here, i.e. reconstruction
of this road and possibly changing policy for the entire County. He suggests
that staff work with the Highway Department to develop cost figures and meet
with the utility companies to see how much they are willing to participate in
the costs. Mr. Cilimberg said last week he met with a representative of
Virginia Power concerning underground utilities. The representative indicated
that Virginia Power would be willing to work with the County and the Highway
Department on projects and to look at the kind of poles being used. Mr.
Roosevelt said he has no problem with including County staff in the utility
field inspection process and allowing them to discuss the Board's concerns and
get the utility companies response. Mr. Bowie suggested that when this issue
is discussed with the utility companies it include all roads in the County.
Mr. Bain asked if the Planning Commission made any comments concerning
the project. Mr. Benish replied that the Commission has not reviewed the
plans.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Department, by policy, wants a statement or a
position of the Board before the plans go to the Transportation Commission.
Whenever the Board's position is received, the Transportation Commission will
review it.
Mr. Bain said before the Board takes a position, he would like to receive
Planning Commission comments on the project. Mr. Bowie asked that this item
be added to the Commission's agenda of March 20 and sent back to the Board for
further discussion on March 21. He also asked that extra emphasis be placed
on comment #3.
There was no further discussion at this time.
Agenda Item No. 6e. Request to Set Posted Speed Limits on West Leigh
SubdiviSion Roads.
Mr. Agnor said a request has been received from Mr. Frank Haynes, a
resident of West Leigh Subdivision, requesting that the County establish speed
limits for roads in WeSt Leigh. Since these roads are privately maintained,
but dedicated to the public, the County would have to pass an ordinance based
upon an engineering and traffic investigation in order to establish speed
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
249
limits, and for the speed limits to have the force of law. He recommends that
the Board direct the Engineering Department to conduct the necessary study and
that staff draft an ordinance for public hearing.
Mr. Bowie commented that the request does not appear to come from a
homeowner's association. Mr. Agnor said his understanding is that Mr. Haynes
is a representative of the homeowner's association.
Mrs. Humphris said this would get the Board into establishing a policy
and setting a precedent. She asked what obligation this would put the County
in for policing private roads. Mr. Agnor said he is sure a positive action by
the Board would bring forth requests for periodic radar surveillance and
enforcement of speed laws in subdivisions.
Mrs. Humphris asked what is meant by these roads being private, but
dedicated to public use. Mr. Bain said a number of subdivisions were devel-
oped prior to zoning and some prior to the County having a Subdivision Ordi-
nance. There is some legal difference between thOse dedicated to public use.
Before 1977, private roads were not necessarily done this way in terms of
dedication. He would like to get the County Attorney's legal opinion on the
issue.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to get the County Attorney's opinion on the
difference between private roads created before 1977 and those private roads
created after 1977. He also would like to know how many roads in the County
could be affected by this proposed ordinance. He has problems with this
request. This will require police officers, and no studies have been done to
determine what the costs would be. He does not think a policy should be
adopted unless every citizen in the subdivision agrees with the change. Mr.
Bain said he agrees with Mr. Bowie and would like.to know if there is a
homeowner's association in West Leigh which supports the proposal.
Mrs. Humphris agreed that there is a need for additional information.
Mr. Bain then offered motion that the request to set posted speed limits
in West Leigh Subdivision be deferred until April 11 to receive additional
information including a position from the West Leigh Homeowner's Association,
how many roads in the county could be affected by this proposed ordinance, how
much it would cost the county to enforce the ordinance and the County Attor-
ney's legal opinion on private roads. 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.
Agenda Item No. 6f. Other Highway Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from
the Public and Board.
Mr. Bain asked about the light installed at the intersection of Ivy Road
and Route 250 West. Mr. Roosevelt said signals are placed at a location based
on warrants. The primary warrant is a comparison~of the volumes on the main
street versus the volume on the side streets. In this case, there must be,
and was, at least 500 cars per hour for an eight-hour period during the day on
the main street (Route 250) while during those same eight hours there are 105
vehicles on the side street, per hour, approaching the intersection. The
Highway Department has also approved a signal at the intersection of Route 250
and the Farmington County Club entrance. That signal should be installed
within the next six months. Ail of the signals that the Department maintains
have detectors under the pavement and most of them "rest" on green when there
is no traffic on the side streets. For example, at night if there is no
traffic on Route 601, the signal could stay on green on Route 250 for hours.
Mr. Bain asked if the signal would be flashing after certain hours rather than
remaining on green. Mr. Roosevelt responded no, the Department, by policy,
does not put any signals that it maintains on flash, although the City does.
Normally, where the Department has traffic signals, the speeds are such that
it does not feel it is good to have the signal operate as a normal signal part
of the day and then switch at some hour to flashing and then back to a normal
operation. The Department feels that it causes problems when switching over
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
250
because of the speeds of the traffic on the roadway and trying to react to the
signal-. The Department also feels that flashing signals breed disregard for
the signal if it is only working part of the time.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 10:20 a.m.)
Mr. Perkins handed to Mr. Roosevelt a letter from the Crozet Community
Association expressing a desire to have guard rails installed along Route 240
west of Lickinghole Creek.
Mr. Way asked if a stop sign could be posted at the intersection of Route
726, and the road near the corner of Lindsay Dorrier's residence.
Regarding Item 4.1, from the Consent Agenda, Mr. Bowie asked if all of
the points in the letter are improvement items and none of the work is a major
change. Mr. Roosevelt said that is correct.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Rivanna Park: Gate Permit.
Mr. Agnor said the Parks and Recreation Department operates gates at
County parks to restrict access to the parks after dark. It is planned to
operate the Rivanna Park similarly. To install a gate at the Rivanna Park, a
permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation is required because the
State road that serves the park ends at the parking lot inside the park rather
than at the entrance. Board approval to apply for the permit is required. He
requests that the Board authorize the Chairman's signature on the permit
application.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to authorize the
Chairman to sign a permit application to operate a gate at the entrance to the
Rivanna Park. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following record-
ed vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SPECIAL PERMIT
Permission is hereby granted to the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to construct a gate or other barrier across and to block
and close Route 1421 in Albemarle County. Route 1421 is to be blocked
for the purpose of providing security for RiVanna Park and its facili-
ties in Albemarle County.
The permission hereunder granted being Subject to the following
terms, conditions and restrictions:
The gate, gates, or other barrier are to be erected in
accordance with plans or sketches submitted to and approved
by the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of
Transportation. The said gate, gates or barrier is to be
located as approved by said Resident Engineer, and the
construction of same is to be u~der the supervision and
direction of the said Resident Engineer.
The gate, gates or barrier is to be locked when closed, and
keys to same are to be furnished to the said Resident
Engineer. Albemarle County Board will be responsible for
other interested parties having access When the gates are
closed. (Law enforcement, fire and life saving personnel.)
The said gate or gates are to include reflectors and/or
reflectorized signs to indicate the road is blocked, as well
as a sign indicating hours the Park will be open to the
Public.
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
251
Operation of the gate or gates, and the closing and opening
of same, is to be entirely by personnel of Albemarle County.
The Virginia Department of Transportation Board shall not be
responsible for any damage liability arising from or out of
the exercise of the privileges herein granted or from any
operations in connection therewith.
This Permit is not transferable, and shall be revocable by
the Virginia Department of Transportation Board upon 30 days
notice.
This Permit shall be revocable without prior notice upon
breach by the Permittee of any of the terms thereof.
This Permit shall not be construed as a grant of permanent
interest or easement, or as an abandonment of use of title
to the said road, or any part thereof, anything herein
contained to the contrary notwithstanding.
Immediately upon the revocation, cancellation or expiration
of this Permit, the Permittee shall remove from the premises
of the Virginia Department all structures, facilities and
other appurtenances installed or erected by it or used by it
under the terms of this Permit, and shall restore the
premises to a condition satisfactory to the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation Board.
10. This Permit may be cancelled at the request of the Permittee
upon 60 days notice subject to the~terms 9 supra.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Rivanna Park: City/County Agreement.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandums, dated March 2, 1990:
"The Rivanna Park Committee in conjunction with the City and County
staff recommends the current Rivanna Park agreement be revised prior
to the completion of the park and the opening, which is scheduled for
March 24, 1990.
The following is the summary of the changes recommended:
Section II. PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT and Section III. APPROPRIATIONS need
to be revised due to the higher than expected development cost. Also
the completion date needs to be changed. The revised wording will
indicate that the facilities originally planned will be developed as
funding allows and generally will progress in the order originally
agreed to.
Section IV. ALLOCATION OF COSTS needs to be changed to reflect that
the City and County will share equally in the funding for the facili-
ties originally planned for Phase I regardless of when development
actually occurs. In the original agreement, the County was to pay a
proportionally higher share beginning with the development that occurs
in 90-91. Also the year when operating cost will be allocated accord-
ing to park usage needs to be changed to allow for two seasons of
operations. Finally, this section needs to be amended to eliminate
the attendant to monitor usage and collect a non-resident fee. The
Committee did not feel that this would be cost effective. If crowd
control becomes a problem, the Committee may recommend an entrance fee
for all park users at a later date."
Mr. Bowie said the first sentence in Section VIII, Night Lighting and
Softball, reads: "Night lighting is not proposed in any of the three develop-
ment stages for any competitive sport facility. He suggested that the sen-
tence be cut off at "stages" by putting a period there and deleting the
remainder of the sentence to make it clear that there will not be night
activities in the park. Mrs. Humphris said in light of the tremendous amount
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
252
of discussion concerning night lighting, the above sentence seems to her to be
a weak statement. She felt it was the intent of the County that there would
be no night lighting, period. She then suggested that the current sentence be
deleted in its entirety and add the following, "There shall be no night light-
ing in any of the three development stages."
Mr. Bain said there are a couple of typographical errors in the document.
In Section IV, Allocation of Costs, sixth sentence, first paragraph, change
the word "allocating" to "allocated". In Section XIII, Breach of Agreement,
sixth sentence, "circuit court of the City of the County" should be "circuit
court of the City or the County".
Mrs. Humphris said in Section II, Plan of Development, fifth sentence, it
lists "eight surface courts" and asked if it should not be "hard surfaced
courts". Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreations, said the
correct wording should be "eight tennis courts".
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to amend
the Rivanna Park City/County agreement as recommended by the staff and by the
Board.
Mr. Bain asked where the funding schedule is with regards to the City and
County's Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Mullaney said the original amounts
requested for Phases I and II have been kept. The Park Co~nittee is proposing
to complete Phase I during the Phase II process. From Phase I they were
unable to complete four picnic shelters, the maintenance building, some
grading and some landscaping. The Committee will try to complete the picnic
shelters and landscaping and will decide whether the maintenance building
should have priority over something the public can use. During 1990-91, funds
for Phase II should complete Phase I. It will take a number of years to
develop the total master plan, if it is decided to develop the entire plan.
As it is, the park is functional and both the City and County are currently
satisfied with the project.
There being no further comments, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(NOTE: The amended agreement will be included in the minutes after
approval by the City of Charlottesville.)
(At 10:33 a.m., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at
10:48 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to amend and reenact
Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article I, In General, Sec. 12.1, to
reference amended sections of the Code of Virginia. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on February 27 and March 6, 1990.)
Mr. Agnor said this amendment is to update the County Code to reference
the change in Code of Virginia Section 46.1 to Section 46.2.
The public hearing was opened. There being no one present to speak
regarding this ordinance amendment, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the
following ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and
Traffic, Article I, In General, Sec. 12.1 to reference amended sections of the
Code of Virginia. 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.
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
253
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC, Article I, In General
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Sec. 12.1, Adoption of state law, Article I, In
General, Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of
Albemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 12-1. Adoptionof state law.
Pursuant to the authority of section 46.2 of the Code of Vir-
ginia, as amended, all of the provisions and requirements of the laws
of the state contained in Title 46.2 and Article 2 of Chapter 7 of
Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, as in force on April 13, 1988, and
as amended in the future, except those provisions and requirements the
violation of which constitutes a felony, and except those provisions
and requirements which by their very nature can have no application to
or within the county, are hereby adopted and incorporated in this
chapter by reference and made applicable within the county. Refer-
ences to "highways of the state" contained in such provisions and
requirements hereby adopted shall be deemed to refer to the streets,
highways and other public ways within the county. Such provisions and
requirements are hereby adopted, mutatis mutandis, and made a part of
this chapter as fully as though set forth at length herein, and it
shall be unlawful for any person, within the county, to violate or
fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any provision of Title 46.2 or
Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia which is
adopted by this section; provided, that in no event shall the penalty
imposed for the violation of any provision or requirement hereby
adopted exceed the penalty imposed for a similar offense under Title
46.2, or Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: A resolution in accordance with
Section 30-19.04 of the Code of Virginia to support a request from the Jordan
Development Corporation for real estate tax exemption for "the Meadowlands", a
30-unit low- and moderate-income elderly and handicapped housing development
to be constructed in 1990 adjacent to The Meadows near Crozet. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on February 27 and March 6, 1990.)
Mr. Agnor said the Board received a request from Jordan Development
Corporation to support the granting of tax exemption status to "the
Meadowlands". Jordan Development Corporation will present this request at the
next session of the Virginia General Assembly.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Nicholas Munger, attorney for Jordan
Development Corporation, said the seven specific points outlined in the
proposed ordinance are correct. He thinks this application does meet the
requirements of the Code of Virginia.
There being no further comments from the public concerning this request,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded byMr~.~B~e~-~anto adopt the
following resolution to support a request from Jordan Development Corporation
for real estate tax exemption for the Meadowlands. 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.
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
254
RESOLUTION
ENDORSING LEGISLATION TO GRANT A
TAX EXEMPTION FOR
PROPERTYOF THE JORDAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
KNOWN AS
"THE MEADOWLANDS"
WHEREAS, the Jordan Development Corporation has asked this Board
to endorse an amendment to Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia granting
"The Meadowlands" exemption from certain state and local taxes; and
WHEREAS, The Jordan Development Corporation is a non-profit
corporation organized to promote the improvement of housing for low
and moderate income elderly and handicapped persons; and
WHEREAS, this Board has considered, at a public hearing duly
advertised as required by Section 30-19.04 of the Virginia Code, held
on March 14, 1990, whether property of the Jordan Development Corpora-
tion known as "The Meadowlands" should be exempt from taxation; and
WHEREAS, this Board finds that the Jordan Development Corpora-
tion:
1)
Is exempt from federal taxation pursuant to Section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954;
2)
Holds no current license from the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board;
3)
Pays no compensation to any officer or director in excess of
reasonable allowance for services rendered;
4)
Does not distribute any part of its net earnings to any
individual. Property in question will be location of
housing project assisted by the federal government under
Sect. 202 of the Housing Act of 1959;
5) Provides services for the common good of the public;
6) Does not carry on any political activity;
7)
Has no rule, regulation, policy or practice discriminating
on the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or
national origin;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby endorses, supports and approves the
adoption of an amendment to Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia exempt-
ing property of the Jordan Development Corporation known as "The
Meadowlands" located in the County of Albemarle from state and local
taxation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board is directed to
convey certified copies of this resolution to the members of the
General Assembly representing Albemarle County.
Agenda Item No. 10. Southwest Mountains Area Natural Resource and
Historic Preservation Study, Presentation by Sherry Buttrick, Piedmont Envi-
ronmental Council.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick said she is present today hoping that the Board
members had read the Southwest Mountains Study and were filled with a new
appreciation of the area and its resources and wondering what the Board might
do to preserve the area. She is present to review with the Board recommenda-
tions for Albemarle County. First the study is based on the assumption and
hope that the landowners interests will be the major force behind the conser-
vation of the landscape preservation done by voluntary efforts. She then read
the recommendations (copy on file in Clerk's office) as outlined in the
report.
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
255
Ms. Buttrick said one of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan is
the establishment of a Historic Preservation Committee. She would urge the
formation of the committee as quickly as possible. She has heard from the
Planning Department that the formation is in the works. She hopes that the
committee will consider a local historic registry so that sites of local
importance can be made note of and that it give thought to historic district
zoning, which has been considered in the past but on which nothing has been
done. In summary, she urges the Board to keep supporting the agricultur-
al/forestal districts and conservation easements as it has in the past,
support the County scenic river and road designations, when a mountain side
ordinance comes before the Board enact an effective one, create the Historic
Preservation Cox~ittee and be brave when it has to and dare to protect the
long term best interests of the County even when there might be several vocal,
podium-beating folks with special interests trying to wrangle Board members
into doing something else.
Mr. Bowie asked the status of the Northeast Historic District. Ms.
Buttrick said the cause of delay is that the Department of Historic Resources
is "crying poor". The Department is saying it has no money to complete the
report which must be sent to its Board in order for historic designation to be
enacted. PEC is working with the Department now ~rying to speed things up but
it has been indicated that there will be another two year delay.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Historic Preservation Committee is to be
composed of citizens, Planning Commission members and Board members. Mr.
Agnor said he did not know but would find out. Mr. Bowie said if this is
going to be a Board appointed committee, then Board members would like some
input on the nominees rather than just receiving a list. There was no further
discussion at this time.
Agenda Item No. 11. Gypsy Moth Program, update on program by Taylor
Williams.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:06 a.m.) Mr. Taylor Williams said
as part of the National Environmental Policy Act, he is required to keep the
public informed about spraying. Public meetings are held where comments are
received and citizens are informed about proposed treatment of areas. After
the public meeting, the public comments are reviewed and then an environmental
assessment of the sites are taken. Letters are sent to the landowners of
property within or adjacent to the proposed spray blocks. The rights of
landowners who do not wish their property to be sprayed are respected. He
presented a map showing the spray block boundaries. Mr. Williams said 4261
acres are proposed for gypsy moth control by aerial spraying this spring in
the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. Mr. Williams then presented a slide
presentation, discussed the type of aerial spray used, and measures to keep
people from transporting gypsy moths across state lines.
(Mr. St. John returned at 11:26 a.m.)
Mr. Bowerman asked if there are any health problems for humans associated
with severe infestations of gypsy moths. Mr. Williams replied if he handles a
lot of caterpillars or breathes a lot of the moth scales, a person can get
mild allergic reactions, but there are no serious health problems.
Mr. Bowie asked if there have been any objections to the spraying. Mr.
Williams said of the 700 letters sent out, there was one person who objected
to the spraying.
There was no further discussion at this time.
Agenda Item No. 12. Children and Youth Task Force Report by the Board's
Committee.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:36 a.m.)
The following memorandum dated March 8, 1990, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,
County Executive, was received:
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
256
"At a February 28 meeting between Board designated representatives,
Mr. Way and Mr. Bain, staff, and two members of the Children & Youth
Task Force, the subject of discussion was the number one recommenda-
tion of the Task Force Report, the formation of a County/City Children
& Youth Commission. It is this proposed planning and coordinating
body that the Task Force feels is essential for the successful imple-
mentation of many of the other recommendations: in the report.
The recommendation, in summary, proposes that the County and City form
a new Youth Gommission to oversee and make recommendations about
children and youth services in the community. The Commission would be
equally appointed by the County and City and would be staffed under
the direct supervision of either the County or City.
The need for such a Commission stems from the plethora of children and
youth agencies and organizations in the community and the dilemma for
decision makers in making informed decisions on the need for and
priority of these programs. Coming out of the meeting, was a shared
hope that given some backing and authority, the Commission could play
a valuable advisory role for the Board by providing information on
children and youth services and making program recommendations based
on an in-depth knowledge of community resources and activities.
To support such a body and take advantage of funding from the Depart-
ment of Corrections (DOC), which currently funds the Charlottesville
Youth Commission on a 75/25 matching basis, the County would need to
commit approximately $10,000 in local match dollars for an $80,000
overall operating budget (maximum state support). With the DOC funds
and City and County support, the Commission could begin their planning
and coordinating function, supported by at least two staff members.
It is also a shared hope that the Commission, once started, will be
able to solicit financial support for youth programs from other areas
of the community, i.e., Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, Junior League,
etc.
Based on the primary importance given to the formation of a joint
Children & Youth Commission by the Task Force and the discussion
between Board members and the Task Force representatives, th~ Board is
requested to:
Support the concept of a joint County/City Children & Youth
Commission;
Commit $10,000 as Albemarle's share of the required local match;
Grant permission for Mr. Way and Mr. Bain to pursue a discussion
with City officials on the formation of a joint Commission."
Mr. Way said the above memorandum clearly summarizes what took place at a
meeting on February 28 of various persons concerning the formation of a Youth
Commission. The purpose of the Youth Commission, at this time, is to look at
some of the recommendations from the Task Force Report and make recommenda-
tions to the Board and City Council. Also one of the functions of the Youth
Commission is to look at what services are presently being provided in the
community.
Mr. Bain said it is important to note that a Youth Commission could play
a valuable role for the Board and City Council. The first step is to get the
Commission formed and then have it oversee other activities and bring it
together. The Commission would then bring back the recommendations of the
Task Force to the Board and City Council.
Mr. Way said the Commission would serve as a sort of program review
con~nittee for the various social programs relating to children which are
presented to the Board and then make recommendations on those programs.
Mr. Bowie asked if the $10,000 is a one-time expense or a reoccurring
expenditure. Mr. Way replied reoccurring. Mr. Bowie asked if an equal share
has been requested from the Cit,y and if so, has City Council appropriated the
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
257
funds. Mr. Agnor said the same amount is being requested from the City.
Bain said no appropriation has been made because this request assumes the
Commission will be authorized to go forward.
Mr.
Mr. Bowie said he appreciates the efforts that have gone into this
report. He is still waiting, after two years, for a response to one simple
request. He has repeatedly asked for an inventory of every agency that
provides this type of services as to who is doing what and how much money the
County is giving the agency. A response that "we do not think there is any
duplication" is not adequate. He will not support a group providing just
another list no matter how much money is being leveraged. There are lists all
over the place. He would like to know if his request will be researched and
an answer become a priority. Mr. Bain said the committee has not gotten that
far and he does not think it will get that far unless there is a joint agree-
ment with the City. Again, formation of this Commission is step one. He
agrees that such a report is necessary.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the $80,000 is to support two full staff members,
and if so, who are they and where are they now. Mrs. Roxanne White said
presently there is one staff member with Youth Services who is paid from the
total grant. Also, the City presently receives and uses the $80,000 to
support one staff member and some counseling services to Project Soar.
Another assumption is that the Commission would no longer provide direct
services and that there would be at least two staff members to provide staff
for the Commission. It has not been determined who those staff members would
be or how this would really work. Mr. Bowie said it sounds like the Board
would be taking money away from providing services to support staff positions.
Mrs. White said that is dependent on whether the City will agree to that
suggestion.
Mrs. Humphris said she does not understand why there needs to be two
people right now in an advisory role to provide information on services and
make program recommendations. Mrs. White said there might be a need for only
one staff member and some of the other money could be used for things the
Commission wants to do. Since there is one staff member presently working for
the City, it was assumed that there would be another staff member to represent-
the County. The Commission would look at more than just funding programs. It
would take an overall look at children and youth services provided in the
schools, by non-profit organizations, County funded organizations, social
services, parks, etc. It is a coordination of all services provided for
children and youth. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the goal is excellent, but
she is leery of things that are so nebulous.
Mr. Bowie said too many times a task force is organized, develops another
list, then wants to hire a staff to develop another list. It does not make
sense to take money from services provided to go toward personnel costs.
Dr. Tom DeMaio said the County staff has a list of the agencies funded by
the County and the services those agencies provide. Mr. Bowie said he knows
about that list, but he wants to know if there is duplication among the
services proVided. Dr. DeMaio said Youth Services has produced a report on
coordination of services in the City and if Mr. Bowie would like, he would be
happy to get him a copy of the list and again look at the issue of duplication
and whether these services overlap. In that study, Youth Services determined
that it was difficult to get any kind of jurisdictions between the services
because funding comes not only from the localities, but from the state, the
federal government, and all this happens through different state agencies.
There is.no control over a system when everyone is trying to do similar jobs.
While the Task Force found that duplication was not a particular problem, it
also found that there was no way for a locality to control the development of
a system because there is no central leadership or Controlling-type body.
That is why this Task Force recommended a Youth Commission to handle getting
all of the agencies together under an umbrella organization, which presently
does not exist: to develop an interagency council so that people not only talk
directly to one organization, but also plan together. It is his hope that
services do not get cut out because of the need forltwo staff members. In
addition to the present duties of the director of Youth Services, the Task
Force hands a huge set of responsibilities to the staff of the Youth Commis-
sion. Duties include staff to monitor day care and child care issues brought
forth from a Child Care Coordinating Committee, staff to coordinate an inter-
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
258
agency council to provide leadership on the issue of children and youth
services. Also, duties would include the director 'and his/her assistant
carrying out functions assigned in the Task Force Report and would provide
someone for the Board and the Youth Commission to turn to. The present
- director of Youth Services is busy with city issues and the mandates of the
Department of Corrections which funds the present Youth Service Center in the
City.
Mr. Way said he thinks the Youth Commission is to become an organization
similar to the City's Social Development Commissio~ that will meet and
specifically deal with youth issues. The Commission will put considerable
effort on this Board from time to time for programs that they feel is neces-
sary. To be frank, he violently opposes a lot of recommendations in the Task
Force report. On the other hand, there are some recommendations he favors.
He thinks this is a way for the Board to .get information on what types of
services are needed in Albemarle County and this will be an organization to
help coordinate all these various services.
Mr. Bowie said he is concerned that the Board is creating another organ-
ization that will say what it wants and not what is needed. He thinks the key
issue would be who is on the Commission. Such a Commission should not be
composed of people who make their living in child care services.
Mr. Bain said he agrees and that was discussed' by the Committee. He
thinks the appointments will be significant, but it~is something the Board
would have control over.
Mr. Bowerman said, from what he has heard, there has been confusion at
budget time as to requests and the possible overlap, in services. He sees this
Commission as an opportunity to coordinate those activities. The Board might
not entertain a request unless it goes through this Commission. He is mindful
of the concerns raised by Mr. Bowie, but has no problem supporting the crea-
tion of a Youth Commission.
Mrs. Humphris asked where the $10,000 would come from. Mr. Agnor said
the only available sources are the Board's Contingency account or the General
Fund Balance. He would assume this year's budget cycle is too far along to
insert this funding request. Mrs. Humphris asked when the grant funds would
become available and when the County would need to put up funds. Dr. DeMaio
said the grant funds have already been received by the City.
Mrs. Humphris said she supports the idea of a joint City/County Youth
Commission. It has been needed for a long time. If this moves forward she
will watch the Commission closely, because there have been too many times in
the past when this type of Commission did not do what it was set up to do.
She thinks this will be an interesting endeavor.
Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with Mr. Bain~and Mr. Way meeting with
City representatives to discuss the concept of a Youth Commission. This is
the fourth time he has expressed his concerns, and he still has not received a
satisfactory answer. He is tired of funding commissions and not getting any
information.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
authorize Mr. Bain and Mr. Way to pursue discusSions with City officials on
the formation of a joint Youth Commission. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to support the
- concept of a joint County/City Children and Youth Commission. Mr. Bowie said
he will support the motion, but with the reservations he has stated. 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.
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
(Mr. St. John returned at 12:04 p.m.)
259
Agenda Item No. 13. Lunch. At 12:05 p.m., the Board recessed for lunch.
The Board reconvened at 1:30 P.M. with all Board members present.
Agenda Item No. 14. State Department of Forestry Headquarters site,
presen~'ation by Forestry Department's architect.
Mr. Craig Covey, architect for the Department iof Forestry, described
the site located at the northeast quadrant of Tax Map 91, Parcel 2, (Hillcrest
property) adjacent to Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) (north) and
Willow Lake Subdivision (east). He said this site has been chosen as the
result of efforts over the past month to find an alternate to the Blue Ridge
Hospital site on Route 20. Mr. Covey said the Headquarters building will be
located on 26 acres of a 176-acre tract presently owned by Hurt Investment
Company. The site would be accessed from the proposed Avon Street/Route 20
Connector Road. Water and sewer service is from existing facilities or
facilities to be completed in 1990 in accordance with the County's growth
plans. Mr. Covey said he would be happy to answer any questions about the
proposed site.
~r. Bowie asked if the site can be seen from Route 20. Mr. Covey said
the site slopes down hill from a ridge which is tree-lined. He said there
will also be a residential development in front of this site. He does not
think the buildings will be visible from Route 20.
Mr. Bain asked the height of the buildings above the ground. Mr. Covey
said the buildings are 29 feet high. However, due to the downhill slope, the
top of the buildings will barely be seen at ground level. He said these are
two-story buildings. One end of one building also has a "walk-out" basement.
Mrs. Humphris asked what the ASF building is. Mr. Covey said it is the
Administrative Support Facility. It is 37,000 square feet and contains the
electrial shop, fire-fighting supplies, and other State-wide operation needs
of the Division of Forestry. He said the Headquarters building will house the
State Police, the Virginia Alcohol and Beverage Control Board, and the Divi-
sion of Mineral Resources.
-Mrs. Humphris asked if there are plans for external fixtures such as
con~nunciations equipment or a helicopter pad. Mr. Covey said there have never
been any plans to have a helicopter pad. He said communication is required by
the Forestry Department. However, he feels there is sufficient antennae on
Carter's Mountain or another location so that the Division of Forestry will
not have to duplicate it.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there are plans for future expansion. Mr. Covey
said the requirements from the State call for planning a site with ample
provision for future additions.L He said there is ample room for expansion of
a building should that become the case. Mr. Covey pointed out that the growth
of the Division of Forestry is not within the headquarters facility, but
external to the building. He said he has made no provision for additional
buildings.
Mr. Covey pointed out that there is a wide buffer being provided around
the entire site about 100 to 150 feet from the property line. He said they
are trying to be sensitive to future needs.
Mr. Bain asked why the Fon~aine Avenue site already owned by the Univer-
sity of Virginia was not considered for this development. Mr. Covey said
prior to his firm being hired, ~n understanding between the University and the
Forestry Department precluded that site as a possibility. Among the 29 other
sites considered, the one being presented today is the best alternative.
Mr. Way said he visited this site and feels that Mr. Covey's description
of the buffer area is accurate.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Tandem School will use the new road. Mr. Covey
said he had met with their Board and is trying to work with them to determine
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
260
their needs. He feels it would be to their benefit to have access to this
public road. Currently, Tandem School has an easement for which they pay
maintenance fees. Mr. Covey said staff at Tandem-School is supportive of this
project.
Mr. Way pointed out that this site was originally considered for the Cale
Elementary School. He said it was not selected because of cost, but a school
use is not significantly different from this one in his opinion.
Mr. Bowie asked if staff has any concerns about adequate screening for
future housing development. Mr. Cilimberg said there will need to be an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to extend the ~ublic use designation from
Piedmont Community College to include this property. He said staff feels this
site is a reasonable compromise. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board will have an
opportunity to review an environmental impact statement just as with the
previous proposed site.
Mr. Covey thanked the Board for the opportunity to make this presentation
and said he anticipates favorable comments from Albemarle County regarding the
environmental impact statement.
Agenda Item No. 15b. Personnel Policy: Drug Free Workplace.
Mr. Agnor said that recipients of Federal funding are required to enact a
Drug Free Workplace policy in accordance with the D~rug Free Workplace Act of
1988. Such a written policy must state the intention to maintain a drug-free
workplace, inform employees of drug use dangers and the availability of
assistance, require employees to report convictions' of drug-related offenses
to the employer within five days, and impose sanctions on employees convicted
of such offenses. Mr. Agnor said the policy being proposed addresses alcohol
as well as drugs, and requires drug testing of applicants for safety related
positions as a condition of employment. He noted that these two features go
beyond the federal requirements. Mr. Agnor said this policy is being pre-
sented for information and discussion at this point,.
Mr. Agnor explained that Mrs. Carole Hastings, Director of Personnel and
Human Resources, is out of town. He said there have been several revisions to
the proposed policy based on recox~endations from employees and department
heads. The major change in the policy has been regarding screening of new
employees as a condition of employment. The initial draft contained this
requirement, while the present version limits screening new employees to
persons hired for safety-related positions. Mr. Agnor said it appears that
testing of safety related positions will be upheld in the courts, while a
requirement to test all applicants is likely to entail costly legal chal-
lenges. No other public employer in this area has a drug testing procedure
for all employees. He said Mrs. Hastings is working with school principals
and department heads to determine safety-related positions to be covered by
the screening procedure and will provide that list to the Board before approv-
al of the policy is requested.
Mr. WAy asked the cost of testing job applicants. Mr. Agnor said the
County already has an agreement with Martha Jefferson Hospital to provide
physical examinations. If drug testing is added, the cost will be $35 per
applicant. He said between 250 and 300 people are employed in a year, but he
does not know how many would be safety-related positions.
Mr. Bowerman asked if most of this policy is already in effect in the
Schools and in General Government. Mr. Agnor said there is only one new item,
and that is the screening of job applicants. The alcohol provision is already
a County policy. He said the purpose of the policY is to raise the awareness
of Albemarle County employees to the drug problem ekisitng in today's society.
He said Federal law requires that a drug policy be in force.
Mr. Agnor concluded by saying there were mixed reactions by the employee
groups reviewing the proposed policy. He said there was strong sentiment in
favor of the policy, especially for safety-related activities, although it was
not unanimous. Mr. Agnor said that although drug testing is being done in the
private sector, staff feels that the courts are more likely to recognize the
validity of testing for public safety positions. This policy is limited to
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
261
that category as a compromise. He said the Board is being asked to add to
existing County policy a provision for the testing of job applicants for
safety related positions.
Mr. Bain asked the County Attorney if the regulations referred to in Mr.
Agnor's memo are actually contained in the Act itself. Mr. St. John said they
are. He said this policy satisfies the requirements of that Act. He further
stated that he feels the testing of applicants for safety-related positions is
defensible in the courts.
Mr. Agnor said a listing of those positions to which testing would apply
is being drafted and will be submitted to the Board. Mrs. Humphris asked if
this category includes drivers of automobiles. Mr. Agnor said it does not
include automobiles.
Mr. Perkins asked if part-time employees for the Parks and Recreation
Department who are in safety-related positions are included. Mr. Agnor said
they are. It was noted that the policy should specifically state that part-
time employees are included.
Mr. St. John noted that safety-related positions include law enforcement
officers. Mr. Agnor said police officers and bus drivers are already required
by State law to have physical examinations. The drug test will simply be
added to this physical examination.
Mr. Bowie said the question has come up as toiwhat the County's recourse
is should an applicant fail the drug test twice. Mr. St. John said there is
no action required on the part of the County because there is no probable
cause of a crime being committed.
Mr. John Baldino from the Virginia Education Association, addressed the
Board. He objects to the proposed policy because it goes beyond the Federal
requirements. He thinks there is confusion about the policy because there
have been five different drafts circulated. He does not think any one group
of employees has seen all five drafts. He would like to see all employees
review the last draft and have some time for input, He is disturbed by the
tone of the policy which he feels is negative, punitive and implies guilt by
association. He said the assumption is that County employees are on drugs.
He does not want to see drugs in the schools, but he feels that drug education
programs are needed for employees and students. He suggested that the County
study the University's policy with regard to referral to the Employee Assis-
tance Program (EAP). Referral to the EAP should be the first choice. If the
problem is too severe, the employee may be dismissed. Under the County's
proposed policy, the employee may seek EAP help on ,a voluntary basis only. If
he is "caught", he is dismissed; not offered a program for help. Mr. Baldino
stated further that there is no need to adopt a policy such as this one
because so much of this policy already exists. He,said employees are confused
as to why this policy is needed. One alleged reason is the increased cost in
health care due to drug and alcohol abuse care. Mr. Baldino said that report-
edly two-thirds of the expenditures last year were for dependent coverage. No
screening will determine the drug problems of dependents. Therefore, the
medical reason for this policy is not valid. The largest single employer in
this area is the University of Virginia, and they do not give pre-employment
tests for drugs. Therefore, Mr. Baldino said the County would not be getting
applicants who had been rejected by other employers/k~%s been argued. He
concluded by saying that applicants can "study for" drug tests. It is easy to
stay off of drugs for several weeks and pass the test. The disadvantage is
that a number of people take antihistamines which will show up on a drug test.
He asked the Board to urge the staff to make sure that this is a drug free
workplace by using the policies already in effect to help people who have drug
or alcohol problems. He feels that a statement acknowledging the drug free
workplace is all that is needed to comply with the Federal requirements.
Mrs. Patsy Moore, School Board member, said she was confused about this
policy when it was presented to the School Board. She said there was opposi-
tion to the drug test being made a part of an employee's records. Questions
were also raised about not using the EAP when a supervisor suspects an
employee. She said statistics were requested showing the number of people
actually tested under existing policies. The School Board also thought the
policy should not be as harsh.
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Bowie asked what is the current policy with regard to an employee
being offered assistance when caught using drugs. Mr. Agnor said referral to
the EAP is a three-step process currently. The supervisor may make a
recommendation that the employee voluntarily go to EAP for help. If the
employee does not go to the EAP voluntarily, they can be assigned to go. If
an employee does not comply with that, he is subject to disciplinary action.
That procedure is not spelled out in this policy, although it is in existing
policies. Mr. Bain said there is a conflict between policies if that language
is not contained in this policy as well. Mr. Bowie agreed that policies
should be consistent.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the School Board took a position on pre-employment
screening for safety-related positions. Mrs. Moore said no position was
taken. It was discussed in a general manner with regard to costs. The School
Board wanted statistics to prove why a new policy is necessary.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County has pre-employment screening currently
for police officers. Mr. Agnor said they take physical examinations only, but
there is no drug test given. Mr. Agnor said there is a condition of assign-
ment to the drug investigation division that existing employees agree to
random drug testing in order to work in that division. He said that was a
policy requested by the officers in that division.
Mr. Way said he does not have a problem with adding~ the provision for
testing job applicants, but he feels that there has been enough confusion
about the review process to warrant further discussion. He said the percep-
tion seems to be that all employees did not review the same draft.
Mr. Bain suggested that this policy be discusSed in a joint meeting with
the School Board after the advisory groups have a dhance to review draft five,
including the suggestions made by the School Board~ Mr. Bowie concurred. He
said it might be helpful to cross-reference existing policies to narrow the
discussion down to the one change being proposed. .Mr. Way said he feels that
pulling related policies together in one place is a good idea. It is helpful
to be able to see clearly the County's policy on these matters.
The consensus of the Board was to request a meeting with the School Board
on March 28, 1990, at 4:30 P.M. at the end of the budget work session.
Agenda Item No. 15c. Report on Ordinance Revisions mentioned in
October 11, 1989, Minutes.
Mr. Agnor said the Board received a memo today from Mr. Cilimberg dated
March 14, 1990, which updates the proposed ordinance revisions listed in Mr.
St. John's letter dated October 2, 1989.
Mr. Bowie suggested that Board members read the information submitted by
Mr. Cilimberg. If Board members have questions, they can address them to
staff.
Mr. Bain asked the status of the Public Facilities Plan for the Compre-
hensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission will consider that
in several work sessions beginning in April.
Mr. Bowie asked the status of the Greenbelt Corridor Plan. Mr. Cilimberg
said an intern is working to develop a conceptual plan showing the type of
facilities incoporated in the project and an estimate of costs and properties
necessary for acquisition. He said a design firm would need to be hired to
establish phases for the CIP and for ultimate construction. He said he is not
sure when this will be completed due to the resignation of a senior planner in
the Community Development Division.
There was no objection by Board members to reading Mr. Cilimberg's memo
independently.
Agenda Item No. 15a. Work Sessions: Murray S~hool Construction Costs.
Mrs. Patsy Moore spoke while the Board waited for Mr. David Papenfuse to
arrive. She warned the Board that the Murray School project will cost more
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
263
than the planning figures. She said there are some items that can be cut,
however. ~For example, the kitchen could be upgraded instead of being
completely renovated. The School Board felt that most of the changes are
important to have the school suitable for elementary school children. That is
why the School Board did not suggest major cuts. However, the School Board
did consider and discuss all the options. Mrs. Moore said the major expense
is due to site development and preparation. The fuel tank cannot be located
next to the well. A new drainfield and septic system must be installed. A
new sprinkler system is needed. The wood floor in the gym is an additional
cost.
Mr. Papenfuse said the Board of Supervisors had asked to be updated on
the progress of the plans for the Murray School. He said the Project has been
worked on for about two months and there is a preliminary design for the
Board's review today. He then introduced Mr. Jack Simmons, architect from
Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern.
Mr. Simmons said the project involves the addition of six classrooms, two
special education classrooms, a library and gymnasium. During the design
process it became clear that the cafeteria was inadequate to serve 375 people.
The most feasible way to increase that area was to extend into space across
the hall, which would result in moving the administrative suite to a new
space. This allowed a design which would bring the administrative wing, the
front entry, and the classrooms into a functional relationship. He noted that
the location of the gym is such that it can be separated for after hours use.
He said very little renovation work, other than replacing classroom windows
for more efficient h~.~i~g and air conditioning the area, is being done to a
large part of the school.
Mr. Simmons said the driving force causing an increase in the overall
size of the project is the fact that the kitchen and cafeteria area is insuf-
ficient to meet the requirements of a 375 student capacity.
Regarding the development of the site, Mr. Simmons said a portion of the
entrance has to be relocated so that buses and cars can be separated. Also,
for functional circulation for pedestrians and vehicles, it seemed feasible to
leave the existing entrance, thus allowing an exit-only route for vehicles
other than buses. Mr. Simmons pointed out other site changes including the
new location of the playground, drainfields, and wells. He believes the well
capacity is sufficient for the additional school size, although it has not yet
been tested. A new pressure tank for domestic water and an additional storage
tank for fire water will be required. In addition, the drainfields are being
replaced entirely because they are totally inadequate for a capacity of 375
students. The septic system is 30 years old, and ~he current Health Depart-
ment requirements necessitate these changes.
Mr. Perkins asked if fill dirt would be necessary for the new playground.
Mr. Simmons said he does not think so at the present time. The cut and fill
design has not been finalized, however. Mr. Simmons said that during the soil
boring investigation, it was discovered that the site has some soft material
which may require a small amount of fill.
Mrs. Humphris asked the capacity of the parking area. Mr. Simmons said
it is about 100 spaces. Mr. Papenfuse said the architects were asked to
maximize the parking area because of past experiences at Meriwether Lewis and
Stone Robinson Schools. Mr. Simmons said the existing parking is not suffi-
cient and has been expanded slightly by enlarging the loop for overflow
parking during after hours use.
Regarding the facade, Mr. Simmons said he is attempting to match the
existing brick in color and continue the character of the building as much as
possible. He said the intent is that the addition will not look like a new
wing, but rather the entire building will appear to be a new facility. He
said the exterior design materials consist of glass and brick, which gives a
clean and simple appearance.
Mr. Papenfuse said this project was to add .an eight classroom section
onto this school, and estimates were given for that in the School Long Range
Plan. Now that a preliminary design is finished, more accurate estimates can
be shown. Mr. Papenfuse said there is an increase in the planning and design
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
264
cost~ because of the extra site work just described. He noted that the con-
struction cost has also increased considerably, and asbestos removal is a new
item altogether. Asbestos has to be removed from the floor tile in disturbed
areas. Mr. Papenfuse explained that an inflation amount of $110,816 is
included in the event that prices increase. The total increase is $637,224.
Mr. Papenfuse said unanticipated changes in the scope of work include addi-
tional engineering fees, site work, replacing the kitchen, wooden gym floor,
fire protection needs, replacing the fuel tank, and asbestos removal. He
noted that all of these items are subject to revision. He said the intent is
to inform the Board early in the design that the costs are already higher than
anticipated and to explain the reasons why.
Mr. Bain said the largest square footage change appears to be the 3000
square foot increase for halls, walls and bathrooms. Mr. Papenfuse said a
large portion of this increase is for~ toilets with handicapped access.
Mr. Bowerman asked if funds were allocated in the Capital Plan to replace
all eXisting fuel tanks throughout the school system. Mr. Papenfuse said that
replacement cost is for gasoline tanks.~ This is a fuel oil tank located in
close proximity to the well. ~nly
Mr. Bain asked if the existing well will need to be upgraded. Mr.
Simmons said he feels the well pump and tank size for domestic water will need
to be upgarded, and a new tank will have to be inStalled for fire water. The
fire tank would hold 22,000 gallons of water.
Mrs. Humphris said the $120,000 amount for equipment and furnishings
seems low. Mr. Papenfuse said this amount applies to non-fixed equipment such
as blinds, office desks and chairs, cafeteria tables, etc. As a comparison,
he said the bids for Cale Elementary School furnishings came in at approxi-
mately $150,000.
Mr. Perkins asked if the gym floor price reflects the new policy of using
hardwood. Mr. Papenfuse said it does. Mr. Perkins said he recalls the figure
as. being much cheaper for wood gym floors at Stony Point and Yancey Schools.
Mr. Simmons said this price is taken from a cost-estimating catalog. He said
this is a budget number based on his firm's experience.
Mr. Bowie asked why the $110,000 is necessary for inflation if the budget
prices are estimated high anyway. Mr. Simmons said the inflation amount could
have been included in the budget figures, but he felt it was clearer to show
the cost estimates separately.
Mr. Bowerman asked the cost estimate in the CIP for this project. Mr.
Papenfuse said it is $2,696,000, plus a contingency of $135,000. Mr. Bowie
asked what happens if the bids come in over the amount in the CIP. Mr. Agnor
said the only possibility would be to borrow more money, unless there are
other projects that could be deferred. Mr. Bowie said he understands that the
entire amount cannot be made up in the School portion of the CIP budget, but
he feels that the effort should be made to find ways to save on this project
so that the total variance will not be as wide.
Mr. Bain pointed out that the kitchen cost is almost 40 percent of the
increase. Mr. Papenfuse said that is the inherent danger in submitting long-
range planning figures. The actual design and site development costs may vary
significantly from the planning figures. Mr. Bowerman said the School's Long
Range Planning Committee looked at historic costs for renovations and tried to
be realistic. He said the committee was aware that facility improvement needs
would result from increasing the number of students, but they tried to be sure
those figures were included within the square foot costs. In fact, he said
the committee was actually liberal with those estimates.
Mr. Papenfuse said he wanted the Board to be aware of the significant
difference in cost estimates early in the project.
Mr. Simmons said he feels this is the most logical and economical design
for this site to accommodate the number of students in this school. Mr.
Bowerman asked if the new kitchen and gymnasium will accommodate another
four-classroom pod. Mr. Simmons said the gym and library would accommodate
expanded use, but there would have to be three lunches served. He said the
footprint of the building would not have to be increased to add on another
classroom section.
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page
265
Mr. Bowerman said he feels the plan makes common sense and seems to
accomplish the goal. It is a simple and efficient use of the building in his
opinion.
Mr. Agnor then introduced the new Capital Projects Coordinator, Ms. Joann
Higgins.
Agenda Item No. 16. Grant Application: Regional Drug Prosecutor.
Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, Commonwealth's Attorney, could
not be present due to a court appointment. The Board agreed to hear this
request at the end of the March 26, 1990, afternoon work session on the
budget.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Mr. Bowie asked Board members to be prepared to make appointments at the
next meeting. If Board members do not offer nominees, then the vacancies will
be advertised.
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC and the Board.
Mr. St. John said Mr. George Graham has a matter to present to the Board.
Mr. St. John said Mr. Graham was denied a variance after a long hearing before
the Board of Zoning Appeals yesterday. His variance request was for the use
of a sand filtration septic system in Ashmere. He owns land that will not
perk. This system has apparently b
the Environmental Protection Agency
presentation to the Board of Zoning
which are otherwise undevelopable,
subdivisions. It was the Zoning Ad
Ordinance does not permit this type
and State Water Control Board will
certificate is issued from the Coun
ordinances. Mr. St. John said this
approval because it results in an o
septic field, this system purifies
into a ditch. Mr. St. John said th
such a statement. The BZA denied t
Ken approved and grants are available from
promoting this system. According to the
appeals, this system will permit lots
to be developed in existing, platted
ninistrator's opinion that the Zoning
of septic system. The Health Department
apparently approve this system only after a
ty saying that it complies with local
system requires State Water Control Board
~tfall discharge. Unlike the ordinary
Effluent and then discharges it from a pipe
at Albemarle County staff refused to sign
ne variance on the particular ground that
it appeared to be a wide-spread problem. The Code~indicates that no variance
is to be granted if the difficulty ~aced by the apPlicant is of such recurring
nature as to be properly addressed by an amendmentlto the ordinance rather
than a variance from the ordinance. The BZA felt the problem is wide-spread
enough that a change should be made in the Zoning Ordinance by the governing
body, Therefore, Mr. Graham is applying for an amendment to the zoning
ordinance. He is also applying for a written ruling from the Zoning Adminis-
trator. Mr. Graham feels her decision is wrong, and he is appealing that
decision to the BZA, which may overrule the Zoning.Administrator. Mr. St.
John said there is no reason that M~. Graham cannot proceed with an amendment
request at the same time he is makiDg an appeal. He said he does not want the
Board to hear about this in the news media without knowing what is taking
place.
Mr. George Graham, citizen and property owner, handed out packets of
information to the Board. He said ~e would be glad to answer questions about
this system after the Board has tim~ to read the material. He said the
Federal government has made grants available so that localities can take
advantage of this system.
Mr. Agnor said the 911 Dispatch Center Board proposed an enhanced system
called "Egll" to provide a locator system for emergency calls. To do that,
this Board approved the development of a system whereby every building in the
County could be identified. He said the State Code allows localities to
expend funds for this purpose and to recover them through a telephone
March 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
266
surcharge on the users of the telephone system. He does not have the specific
cost of the surcharge at this time, but it will be less that $1.00 per month.
Me said the Board appropriated $35,000 from the General Fund Balance to
cormmence the program which has been underway for approximately one year. Bids
have now been taken for aerial photography, and there is not a sufficient
balance from the initial $35,000 to sign a contract for aerial photography.
He requested that a second increment of $35,000 be appropriated for this
project from the General Fund Balance. Mr. Agnor said the timing is critical
because the photography work must be done before the trees bud.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mrs. Humphris approving a
$35,000 appropriation as described by the County Executive and set out below.
Mr. Perkins said there are many agencies which use aerial photographs.
He wondered if there might be a joint contract wi~h one of those groups. Mr.
Agnor said staff has already researched that and discussed it with each
agency. The conclusion from those discussions is'that the County will sell
copies of aerial photographs to interested agencigs. He said the Albemarle
County Service Authority, the City utility company, and some private develop-
ers are interested.
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 89/90
FUND GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATIONS:
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR Egll
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100031040950054
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
Egll $35,000.00
TOTAL $35,000.00
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100051000510100
APP. FROM GEN'L FUND BALANCE $35~000.00
TOTAL $35,000.00
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn.
At 4:07 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned.
CHAIRMAN