1989-12-13December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
353
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 13, 1989, at 10:00 A.M. (the meeting began late
because of the inclement weather), Meeting Room #7, County Office Building,
401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 10:02 A.Mi), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom,
Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive;
Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Direc-
tor of~?lanning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to'Order. The~meeting was called to order at
10:02 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. BoWie to approve Item
4.1 and to accept the remaining items as inf6?mation.
Roll was called and the motion carried ~ the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Resolution to take Hopkins C~hrt in Raintree Phase III into
the State Secondary System of HighWays. Letiier dated December 1, 1989, was
received from Robert M. Hauser reqUesting th~t,t this road be taken into the
System. The following resolution was adopt~!d by the vote shown above:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Codell Section 33.1-229, the
Virginia Department of Transportation be!~ and is hereby requested to
accept into the Secondary System of HighWays, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident !:Highway Department, the
following roads in Raintree - Phase III:i~
Hopkins CoUrt: ~
Beginning at Station 0+17, a point .lin common with the centerline
of Hopkins Cou~t and the eastern e~ge of pavement of Old Brook
Road (Route 65~), thence in an eas~i,erly direction a distance of
428 feet to station 4+45, the end df the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and is lhereby guaranteed a 140 foot unobstructed right of
way and drainage easements along this requested addition as recorded
by plat in the OffiCe of the Clerk of thS Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Booki 833, page 104.
Item 4.2. Letter dated December 1, 198911 from Mr. Hugh C. Miller,
Department of Historic Rgsources, re: n°tifi~ation of entry of Clifton into
the National Register of i Historic Places, received as information.
Item 4.3. Letter dated November 30, 198~,.. from Mr. Hugh C. Miller,
Department of Historic Resources, re: notification of entry of Cove Presbyte-
rian Church into the National Register of. Historic Places, received as infor-
mation.
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
354
Item 4.4. Letter dated November 30, 1989, from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry,
Deputy Highway Commissioner, re: approval of Ivy Ridge Road in the Secondary
System of Highways, receivedas follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated June 21, 1989, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby
approved, effected November 29, 1989.
ADDITION
Route 1027 (Ivy Ridge Road) - From Route 657 to
Southwest cul-de-sac.
LENGTH
0.31 Mi."
Item 4.5. Letter dated November 28, 1989, from Donna Mr. Shaunesey,
Assistant Director, 3AUNT, addressed to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., re: Report of
Services and Expenditures for October 1, 1988 through September 30, 1989, was
received as information.
Mr. Bowie requested clarification by st~ff as to whether the total number
of trips refers to actual trips or to individual riders.
Item 4.6. Letter dated November 21, 1989, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, entitled: "1988-89~ Secondary Budget, Albemarle
County, Fiscal Sttmmary, in which he states:
"Attached you will find the summary of ~xpenditures of improvement
funds on the secondary system for improvements in fiscal year
1988-89. I request that this information be transmitted to the Board
of Supervisors in accordance with the C6de of Virginia.
This report is divided into two sectionS, The first section involves
incidental improvements. These are projects which can be financed and
completed usually within a single fiscaI~ year. They cover the
county-side items such as new entrance ~.~e and new signs as well as
plant mix surfacing when it is done as an improvement This report
indicated a balance of $132,732.27 as aCCrued. This is due primarily
to funds allocated for rural additions. ~ Balances remaining on other
completed budget items will be transferr~ed to the rural addition fund.
The second section lists improvements classed as numbered projects.
These are projects financed over a long period of time and usually
take a long period of time to develop an~ construct. We finished the
fiscal year with a balance of approximately $4,118,000. $928,000 of
this is allocated to the Meadow Creek Parkway, $1,123,000 to the 5th
Street Extended project, $1,300,000 to t~e improvement of Rio Road,
$500,000 to the improvement on Route 6781iand about $315,000 for spot
improvements on Rio Road, Barracks Road i~nd Georgetown Road. Until
these projects can be placed under const'~uction, I anticipate this
balance remaining in the secondary improvement fund."
Item 4.7. Copy of Planning Commission mi!nutes of November 28, 1989,
received as information.
Item 4.8. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthl~ Bond Report for August, Septem-
ber and October, 1989, received as information.
Item 4.9. Department of Planning and Community Development 1989 Third
Quarter Building Report, received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: i May 3 (N), May 17, June 7 (N),
June 21 (N), November 1 (A) and November 15 (N), 1989.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes for May 3, !1989 (N), Pages 1 to Item 9,
Page 13, and found one correction. On Page 1~, paragraph four, line 4, the
word, "Bain" should be inserted after the word, "Mr.".
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
355
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes for June 7(N), 1989, Pages 1 to 13, and
November i(A), 1989, Pages 1 - 12, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes for November i(A), 1989, Pages 26 to
End, and made the following minute book correction:
On Page 35, paragraph seven, the first three sentences would read, "Mr.
Lindstrom said if the County law is as Mr. Keeler states, their development
rights cannot be given up even if an easement is placed on the land, if any
portion of the parcel is retained. He said most people are very concerned
about how much of a tax deduction they will get. By Mr. Keeler's interpreta-
tion, it would be impossible to divest oneself of the development rights
remaining on the land not placed under easement."
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for November 15(N), 1989, Pages 1 to 8,
and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the
minutes as read and corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: ~:Discussion - Closing of Route 29
North Crossover at Maupin's Store.
Mr. Tucker said he has received a letter from Mr. Thomas F. Farley,
District Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation, dated
November 21, 1989. In his letter, Mr. Farley stated that VDoT has determined
that "the crossover serving Maupin's Store should be closed in accordance with
the initial agreement", due to limited sight~Jdistance at the crossover and the
increasing development along Route 29 North. ~. According to Mr. Farley, the
sight distance at the crossover immediately Bouth of the crossover under
discussion exceeds VDoT's standards and can serve the traffic that would
otherwise use the crossover at Maupin's Store.
Mr. Frank Kessler addressed the Board and said he is ready to close the
crossover at any time.
Mr. Bowie asked when the crossover woul~ be closed. Mr. Roosevelt said
that VDoT had extended Mr. Kessler's permit ko June, 1990. Mr. Roosevelt said
he will suggest to Mr. Kessler that the crossover be closed as early in the
Spring as the weather will allow, sometime a~ound March or April.
Mr. Bowie said closing this crossover will affect an existing business.
He said he had asked for extensions in the h~pe that the Board would not be
pressed to have the crossover closed. Nevertheless, he thinks the Board has
to proceed with the plan to close these crospOvers, but asked that this
particular crossing be closed as late as possible.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and~i!seconded by Mr. Bain to approve
the plan to proceed with the closing of the ~irossover at Maupin's Store
between March and June, 1990
Roll was called and the motion carried ~y the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess{S. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: I~iscussion - Route 660 Bridge
Improvements. ..,.
Mr. Roosevelt said that VDoT has classifi!ed Route 660 as a rural collec-
tor road that will carry 1500 vehicle trips Per day by the year 2010. For
rolling terrain, this classification would call for a design speed of 50 miles
per hour; due to the mountainous terrain surrounding the bridge, VDoT will
allow a design speed of 40 miles per hour to 7be used. VDoT cannot lower the
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
356
design speed below 40 miles per hour without incurring unacceptable liability.
Mr. Roosevelt said that VDoT also rejected the three-rail bridge due to the
design speed, the height of the bridge above water and the depth of the water.
At a design speed of 40 miles per hour, design engineers fear that a vehicle
will pass through a rail and fall into the reservoir, injuring the occupants
to the point that they would not be able to escape, from the vehicle. More-
over, the three-rail design has not been "crash-tested". Mr. Roosevelt said
the Board had requested at its meeting on SePtember 13, 1989, that "if the
three-rail aluminum design is disallowed, the concrete design which allows a
view of the river would be preferred".
Mr. Lindstrom asked what the effect would be of using a design speed of
40, rather than 30, miles per hour. Mr. RooSevelt said the lower design speed
would have allowed a steeper grade and a sharper curve. Mr. Lindstrom asked
how many vehicle trips per day are currently carried by Route 660. Mr.
Roosevelt said the current level is 1100 vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Bowie asked why VDoT has not "crashjtested" the three-rail design.
Mr. Roosevelt said he believes that VDoT is in the process of having these
conducted; VDoT itself does not "crash-test"~.bridge designs.
Mr. Bain said VDoT may have over-estimated the number of vehicle trips
per day in the year 2010, if the transportation analysts based their projec-
tion on past growth in that area. He does not think there will be any more
large subdivisions like Earlysville Forest b~ilt in that area.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the estimate of 1500 vehicle trips per day
yields a design hourly volume of 250, which jlust barely misses the design
hourly volume category that would call for alldesign speed of 30 miles per hour
in mountainous terrain. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks a design speed of 40
miles per hour will result in a greater environmental and aesthetic impact
over that section of the reservoir than would result from applying the lower
design speed. Mr. Lindstrom said the road b~zomes very curvy shortly after
the bridge. A design speed of 40 miles per L ~ur would encourage motorists to
drive at a speed that quickly becomes unsafe.I~
Mr. Lindstrom said officials at VDoT re ~atedly bring up the subject of
"unacceptable liability". He asked Mr. RooseVelt how many suits have been
brought against VDoT on this type of issue. :iMr. Roosevelt said that liability
was not an issue until 1982 when the laws governing the liability of states
and state employees changed. Since 1982, Mr.!,Roosevelt said, he does not
think there have been any major, successful suits brought against VDoT. He
credits this lack of lawsuits to advice fromi~he Attorney General that VDoT
set standards and adhere to those standards a~ rigidly as possible.
Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT may not have given the Board everything it wanted
in this case. However, Mr. Roosevelt said, ~e thmnks the Board has had some
influence over th~s pro3ect. Although VDoT hgs approved a desmgn speed of 40
miles per hour, the design engineers have bee~ directed to study the shoulder
width to see if this can be reduced in the a=ga by Ms. Rappolt's property.
Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT had chosen alignment
~ , but then switched to align-
ment "C" at the recommendation of the Board, ~ecause alignment "C" caused less
damage to Ms. Rappolt's property.
Mr. Bain said he is not happy with VDoT'~ decision. He does not see the
need for such an high estimate of the vehicle~itrips per day in the year 2010.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks VDoT goes t~o far in its concern over
liability. The only truly safe highway, he s~id, would be one in the middle
of a completely leveled, paved area. In the ~ase of this bridge, he does not
think the public benefit justifies the extra ~emolition needed to build the
bridge according to VDoT's standards.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to a~opt the resolution set out
below, objecting to the 40-mile per hour desi~h speed and the failure of VDoT
to use the three-rail system as requested by ~he Board, and including the
environmental concerns of the Board.
Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
357
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has denied a
request from the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for a 30 mile
per hour design speed for the Route 660 Bridge Project (0660-002-187,
C501, B644); and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has also
denied a request from the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for a
three rail system design;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County hereby strongly states its objection to the design
standards used for the Route 660 BridgelProject with regard to design
speed and, consequently, rail design; and
FURTHER STATES that the public benefit derived from the Depart-
ment of Transportation's design does not justify the extra demolition
and resulting damage to the environment.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bain said he would abstain and left the room at 10:33 A.M.
Mr. Perkins said that Mr. Edward Ripper, the citizen who requested that a
portion of Route 629 be abandoned, has installed a locked, metal gate on the
road where it enters his property and placed~"No Trespassing" signs at this
entrance. Mr. Perkins said some citizens feels that this road is a public
right-of-way and that it should be open to the public.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Ripper has asked that the Board defer hearing his
request to abandon Route 629 until January. ?Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that as
long as the matter is deferred and the gate remains on the roadway, the
applicant has in de facto gotten what he wanCed.
Mr. Tucker said that Mr. St. John has researched this matter and he
believes the road to still be a public right~of-way~ Mr. Tucker said he
believes the Board has to take action to mandamus that the gate be removed.
Mr. Way noted that a citizen was presen~'ito address this matter and asked
him to speak. Mr. Bruce Sullivan said Route ~29 has been there for 200 years:
it is an historic road and a public road, ye~iliMr. Ripper has had it gated.
Route 629 is also an access to the Shenandoah. National Park. Mr. Sullivan
said he is a hiker and often uses Route 629 t~ reach some waterfalls in the
mountains. If the road remains gated, he an~ihis family will have to drive up
Rockfish Gap and that trip is too long for hi~ children. He asked the Board
to do whatever it can to reopen Route 629.
Mr. Lindstrom said he believes it has been the policy of this Board not
to abandon a roadway if citizens with legitimate interest in that roadway
objected to its closing, because the public interest outweighed the private
interest. Of all the requests to abandon roadways that he can remember, Mr.
Lindstrom continued, the request to close Route 629 has generated the most
interest in keeping the road open. Even representatives of the National Parks
Service have asked the Board not to close the?~road. Given this interest and
the knowledge that the road has been gated, M~. Lindstrom said, he thinks the
Board should direct Mr. St. 3ohn to pursue th~ opening of that road consistent
with the public nature of the road.
(Note: Mr. St. John arrived at 10:37 P.~.)
Mr. St. John said that if he, personally~i not as County Attorney, wished
to use that roadway, he would take a set of b61t cutters, cut the gate and
drive on his way. He said a citizen would hav% this right.
Mr~ Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John to take~.iwhatever action he deems appro-
priate to keep the right-of-way open. Mr. St. John said he would discuss this
matter with the applicant's attorney, Mr. Fred Payne, before filing an injunc-
tion against Mr. Ripper. If the gate is not removed immediately, Mr. St. John
said, he will file the injunction. However, it will take time for the matter
to reach the courts. Before this matter reaches court, the Board will have
heard the request to abandon the right-of-way.
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
358
Mr. Roosevelt said that Mr. Payne asked :him to search VDoT's records for
anything concerning action taken on this section of Route 629. The only thing
Mr. Roosevelt was able to find was that this section was "dropped from state
maintenance" on May 1, 1936. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not know what the
phrase "dropped from maintenance" meant in 1936. Mr. St. John said "dropped
from maintenance" is probably what is now called "discontinued from
,f
maintenance . As a matter of law, this action does not in any way diminish
the public's right to access the Park over that road. Mr. St. John said he
thinks the burden is on Mr. Ripper to show clear and convincing evidence that
this road was abandoned as a public throroughfare.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and~seconded by Mr. Perkins to direct
the County Attorney to take whatever action he deems appropriate to see that
the right-of-way on Route 629 is opened and to report to the Board on January
10 the results.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Bain.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. St. John if the blodkage of a public thoroughfare by
a private citizen is just a civil matter in ~e Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mr. St. John said he is not familiar enough With the criminal code or the
motor vehicle code, to answer that. He saidlbe thinks that blockage of
traffic is a criminal offense, but he cannoti~ay for sure. Mr. Bowie said the
County may have other options besides waitin~ifor a court date.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to thank M~i Roosevelt and VDoT for their
efforts in keeping the primary roads and eve~i:some secondary roadways passable
during today's snowstorm.
(Mr. Bain returned at 10:48 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Request to Amend thei'iService Area Boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority for water ~nd sewer to include the High-
lands at MechumRiver.
(Note: Mr. Lindstrom left at 10:48 A.M.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board approved ~'-89-06, rezoning 117 acres on
the eastern side of Crozet from RA, Rural Areas, to R-4, Residential. The
applicant has now submitted a request for a s~bdivision and would like to have
both public water and sewer service extended ~o this project. Mr. Cilimberg
said this area is currently within the servic~ boundaries for water to exist-
ing structures only. The applicant requests ~hat the service boundaries be
amended to include both water and sewer servi~e.
Mr. Tom Muncaster, representing the appl~icant, said the applicant had
thought this property would be included in th~! service area for both water and
sewer service at the time of rezoning. S~nce~th~s was not the case, the
applicant asks that the Board consider the request now.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to set a public
hearing on this request for January 10, 1990.~Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. P~rkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. ~.
Agenda Item No. 8. Request to set a Public Hearing to Include North
Ordznan6e.
Pines Subdivision under the Dog Leash '
(Mr. Lindstrom returned at 10:51 A.M.)
(Mr. Bain left at 10:51 A.M.)
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
359
Mr, Tucker said residents of the North Pines subdivision have sent a
petition to the Board requesting that this subdivision be included under the
provisions of the dog leash law. There are 107 signatures, representing 91 of
the 120 lots in the subdivision. Of the 29 lot owners who did not sign the
petition, 22 oppose the leash law and one abstains from participating. Six of
the lots are vacant. Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing for
January 17, 1990, to consider this matter.
Mr. Joe Crookston, a resident of North Pines who signed the petition, was
present and offered to answer any questions.
Mr. Bowie asked if the signatures have been verified. Mr. Tucker said
"yes".
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to set a
public hearing for January 17, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item No. 9. Request for Assistahce in Relocating the Virginia
Discovery Museum.
Mr. Tucker said the Virginia Discovery Museum requested $25,000 last
summer to help fund its move to a new location. The Board deferred the matter
until December to allow the Museum's representatives to provide more defini-
tive information on the new location and to ehable the Board to examine the
status of its contingency account closer to the mid-year. Mr. Tucker said
there is an unobligated balance of $89,630 in, the contingency account. He
said there is a request for $4,454 on today's agenda, which, if approved, will
reduce the unobligated balance to $85,176. .~
Ms. Constance Palmer addressed the Board~ and said the Museum had
requested $25,000 from the City, as well as the County, in order for the
Museum to receive a grant from the Perry Foundation of $250,000. Ms. Palmer
said the City Council has instead offered the.Museum the chance to lease a
building on the Downtown Mall, the old Piedmont Furniture Building, for three
years for one dollar per year. The City wilt~ialso commit $23,000 to pay for
the renovations needed to bring the building ~i!nto compliance with the Building
Code and will lend the museum up to $50,000 C6 be repaid at the end of one
year, for any additional costs in renovation.~,!
Ms. Palmer asked that the County contribute the remaining $25,000 neces-
sary for the Museum to receive the grant from!~the Perry Foundation. She said
the money would be used to fund exhibits, thei~first of which would be on
Leonardo da Vinci. Ms. Palmer said County citizens are the largest users of
this Museum. She said the Museum plans to move in March, 1990, pending a
public hearing held by the City on January 181~~ 1990, on the proposed contract
on the Piedmont Furniture building. Ms. Palmer said the Virginia Discovery
Museum is the only institution in the area th~,t provides children with unique
opportunities for artistic expression and scientific exploration, leading to
discoveries about themselves and the world ar~iund~,~ them.
Mr. Lindstrom said there were two reasonS' for hearing this request out of
the normal budgetary sequence: the importanc~ of matching the grant from the
Perry Foundation and the Museum's need for sp~ce. He said the need for space
no longer exists, due to the City's offer. T~e City's offer also might be
enough to earn the matching funds from the Pe~ry Foundation. He asked if the
Museum would lose the grant from the Perry Fo~!ndation if the request went
through the County's normal process and the r~uest was approved for the
budget beginning July, 1990.
Ms. Palmer said she believes the Foundation would like to see the City
and County both participate in matching the f~nds. Ms. Palmer said this
request may not be an emergency, but the Muse~. has an urgent need to move and
grow. She thinks this is a special request, the kind of request the Board
does not hear every day.
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
360
Mr. Lindstrom asked, when is the latest date the Museum can get the
matching funds amd still receive the full amount offered by the Perry
Foundation. Ms. Palmer said she thinks the Museum could wait until June,
1990. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not want the Museum to lose its match, but
he does not think the Board should hear requests for funding outside the
normal budgetary cycle. He said he would rather the funds to meet this
request come from next year's budget, after a full review of the County's
revenues and outlays. He said he thinks many other organizations could claim
a need for funds. He said the County has labored to develop a comprehensive
process for evaluating requests for funding and this process has worked
because the Board has adhered to its rules. Mr. Lindstrom said he does
believe that the offer of matching funds makes this request special.
Mr. Bowie said he has often voted against requests for funding that are
not part of the normal budget cycle. He said the Board has less than $90,000
to take care of any requests that arise for the rest of this fiscal year. Mr.
Bowie said he wants to support this request, ~but he does not feel he can
today. But, he said, the request does not h~ve to be granted today for the
Museum to receive the grant from the Perry Fo, undation.
Mr. Bain said he realizes the matching funds from the Perry Foundation
are important to the Museum, but he does not~hink a delay in the County's
meeting the match will jeopardize the funds.
Mr. Way asked Ms. Palmer is she is certain that the Museum will not lose
the grant if the Board delays acting on this request. Ms. Palmer said she
believes the Museum would receive the matching grant if it received a
commitment from the Board today, even if the ~funds were not available until
June.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to know the precise terms of the grant
from the Perry Foundation and when the cut-off date is for the grant.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no objection to isupporting this request
ultimately, but she thinks it is incumbent upon this Board, since it is
dealing with the taxpayers' money, to follow the normal procedure for
appropriating this money.
Mr. Way said he wants to know whether any of the grant promised by the
Perry Foundation will be lost this year if thA Board delays appropriating
funds for the Museum's request.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that if there is a legitimate public benefit
and substantial support for private sources based on matching funds from the
County, then the circumstances are unusual en6ugh not to set a precedent for
granting other requests outside the budget cycle. He said he is not happy
with the pressure he feels is being put upon the County to come up with
$25,000 a year for the next five years, but he believes the Museum satisfies
the two conditions he just mentioned. He said he supposes he can support this
request, but not happily.
Mr. Bowie said he would still like to kn~w the terms of the matching
funds. Mr. Bain suggested that the Museum pr6vide this information to the
Board by next week's meeting.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the arrangements between the Museum and the
Perry Foundation are very informal and not de~ailed. He said the grant
probably can be matched any time up to June 3~!, 1990, which means the Board
will have to decide whether to keep the Museum~ in suspense until June 30. He
said he can support appropriating the funds t~day.
Mrs. Cooke said she thinks the Museum is an. asset to the community, but
she thinks the Perry Foundation should have b~n more sensitive to the Board's
schedule and constraints as the steward of pub:~ic funds.
Mr. Lindstrom said that perhaps Ms. Palme~ could find the answer to some
of the Board's questions today and the Board c~uld decide what action to take
later in the meeting. Ms. Palmer agreed. ~
(Mr. St. John left at 11:22 A.M.)
(Mr. Bowie left at 11:23 A.M.)
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
3°6 1
Agenda Item No. 10. Adoption of ReSolution Authorizing Purchase of Real
Estate by the Region Ten Community Services Board.
(Mr. Bowie returned at 11:25 A.M.)
(Mr. St. John returned at 11:26 A.M.)
Mr. Tucker said the Board has received a letter from Mr. Jim Peterson
explaining Region Ten's plans to purchase the property where homeless alc°hol-
ics have been housed for the past six years, known as Charter House, located
at 1014 East Market Street in the City of Charlottesville. This is solely a
City program and does not require funding from the County, but the purchase of
the property does require the approval of all six jurisdictions in Region Ten.
Mr. Tucker said the staff has drafted a resolution for the Board's
consideration. ;
Mr. Jim Peterson, Executive Director of the Community Services Board,
addressed the Board. He said buying the property will enable Charter House to
increase its capacity by 50 percent and reduce operating costs by about $200
per year. ~ ~
Mr. St. John suggested an amendment to the~ proposed resolution. He
recommended deleting the following sentence f~om Paragraph 4: "Provided
neither the Executive Director nor the Board Of Directors of Region Ten shall
enter into any agreement or execute any document which shall constitute a
fixed or contingent indebtedness of the Coun~ of Albemarle". The following
sentence would be added as Paragraph 6: "No~h~ing herein shall be deemed to
authorize the Executive Director, the Board of Directors of Region Ten, or any
other official to enter into any agreement or, i!~:',execute any document which shall
constitute a fixed or contingent indebtednessi?of the County of Albemarle".
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the
following resolution as amended by Mr. St. Jo~n. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote!ii
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. .~
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE
BY REGION'TEN COMMUNITY ~ERVICES BOARD,
THE APPLICATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF A LOAN,
AND THE EXECUTION OF RELATED DOCLrMENTS
RECITALS ~
Region Ten Community Services Board~i!~ an agency formed pursuant to
Section 37.1-194 e__t seq. of the Code of ~irginia of 1950, as emended,
by the City of Charlottesville, and the Cbunties of. Albemarle, Nelson,
Greene, Fluvanna and Louisa, Virginia, a~:~ political subdivisions of
the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Region Ten?), presently contracts with
the City of Charlottesville to manage Cha~ter House, the shelter for
homeless alcoholics, presently located atlli' 1014 East Market Street in
the City of Charlottesville. ?i
Charter House has been filled to caP~city since it opened and is
in need of expansion in order to meet theineeds of the community for
substance abuse services. In furtheranceiof its public purpose of
establishing, maintaining and promoting t~e development of substance
abuse services, on February 13, 1989, Region Ten held a regularly
scheduled meeting and voted to acquire th~ Charter House property,
namely, 1014 East Market Street presentlY!owned by the Swannanoa Land
Trust and an adjacent parcel of land from!the Charlottesville Indus-
trial Development Authority for the purpose of providing room for
expansion (collectively referred to as th~, "Properties"), and to
undertake a rehabilitation and expansion ~roject. The purchase price
on the present Charter House location is $61,500.00, and the purchase
price on the adjacent parcel of land is $9 825.00.
ecember 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 10)
WHEREAS, after careful considerationof furtherance of the
foregoing purpose, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, THAT:
362
1. In furtherance of the public purpose of establishing, main-
taining and promoting the development of Substance abuse services and
facilities available to serve the community, and to carry out its
function more effectively, the purchase bY Region Ten of the Proper-
ties for the purchase price of $61,500.001for the Charter House
property located at 1014 East Market Street, Charlottesville,
Virginia, and the purchase price of $9,825.00 for the adjoining parcel
of land, is hereby authorized, ratified and confirmed.
2. The Executive Director of Region!Ten is hereby authorized to
execute on behalf of Region Ten any documents, necessary to evidence
the purchase of each of the Properties updn such terms and conditions
as the Board of Directors of Region Ten shall deem to be in the best
interest of Region Ten. In addition, the iExecutive Director of Region
Ten is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of Region Ten any
contract of pUrchase or accept on behalf qf Region Ten any deed
necessary for the purchase of property up~ such terms and conditions
as the Board of Directors of Region Ten shall deem to be in the best
interest of Region Ten.
3. The Executive Director of RegionilTen is also hereby author-
ized on behalf of Region Ten to execute amy documents necessary to
effect and consummate the purchase of the !properties and to deliver to
the respective Sellers of the Properties dfi behalf of Region Ten the
funds for the purchase price for the Prope~rties.
4. Region Ten is also hereby authori;Sed to effect (1) a loan
from the Department of Housing and Communi!~y Development in_the
principal amOunt not to exceed $103,000.00i~ upon such terms and
conditions as the Board of Directors agree!!ito be in the best interest
of Region Ten, and (2) the assumption of ~e indebtedness secured by
(a) a deed of trust, dated February 9, 198~, to Lloyd T. Smith, Jr.
and M. E. Gibson, Jr., Trustees to secure ~he original principal
amount of $25,000.00 owing to Guaranty Sav:'~ngs & Loan Association of
record in the Clerk's Office of the Circui~ Court of the City of
Charlottesville (the Clerk's Office) in De~d Book 435, page 578 (the
Guaranty Deed of Trust), and (b) a deed ofiltrust, dated February 9,
1983, to Ronald R. Tweel and John V. LittI~, Trustees to secure the
original principal amount of $20,000.00 oW~'{ng to the Charlottesville
Redevelopment and Housing Authority of rec:~rd in the Clerk's Office in
Deed Book 435, page 583 (the CRHA Deed of ~rust). The Executive
Director of Region Ten is hereby authorize~ to execute on behalf of
Region Ten any such loan documents, includ~:ng, without limitation, a
note and deed of trust creating a lien agai!~nst the Properties to
secure the note to the Department of Housi !g and CommunitY Develop-
ment, in order to consummate the procuring of the loan from the
Department of Housing and Community Develo ment and the assumption of
the indebtedness secured by the Guaranty D ed of Trust and the CHRA
Deed of Trust. ii:
5. Each officer, official and employee of the County of
Albemarle and Region Ten is authorized to execute and deliver on
behalf of the County and Region Ten such i~struments, documents or
certificates, and to do and perform such t~ings and acts, as they
shall deem necessary, appropriate to carry!out the transactions
authorized by the resolution or such instr~nents, documents or certif-
icates; and alI of the foregoing previousl~i being done or performed by
such officers, officials and employees of ~e County and Region Ten
are in all respects approved, ratified andt~Confirmed.
6. Nothing herein shall be deemed to :~uthorize the Executive
Director nor the Board of Directors of Regipn Ten or any other offi-
cial to enter into any agreement or executei~~ any documents which shall
constitute a fixed or contingent indebtedness of the County of
Albemarle.
i
7. This resolution shall take effect ~immediately.
3ecember 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
363
Agenda Item No. 11. Authorize Chairman to sign Resolution Designating
the Rockfish River as a State Scenic River.
Mr. Tucker said staff has reviewed a report prepared by the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation regarding the possible designation
of the Rockfish River as a State Scenic River. It is staff's opinion that the
river meets the State's criteria for inclusion. Mr. Tucker said the staff
recommends that the Board support this designation by authorizing the Chairman
to sign the proposed resolution, which recormmends to the Governor and the
~eneral Assembly that the river be included in the State Scenic River System.
Mr. Jay Graves, President of the local chapter of the Float Fishermen of
Tirginia, addressed the Board. He asked that the Board support designating
the Rockfish River a state scenic river.
Mr. Lindstrom said that Ms. Sherry Buttrick of the Piedmont Environmental
Council is unable to attend this meeting, due to the snow, to speak in support
of this designation.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt
the resolution set out below. Roll was called:and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
lAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs
None.
RESOLUTION
Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
ROCKFISH SCENIC RIVER ALBEMARLE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Rockfish River forms a portion of the border between
Albemarle County and Nelson County; and
WHEREAS, the Rockfish River possesse~ substantial environmental,
historical, cultural, and scenic attribute~; and
WHEREAS, the Rockfish River meets State criteria for inclusion
into the scenic river system; and ,~i
WHEREAS, scenic river designation is .in the public interest;
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Chapter iDf the Float Fisherman of
Virginia has petitioned the Board of SuperVisors of Albemarle County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that i~the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, 'Virginia, recommends t°ii~the Governor and General
Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia Scenic river designation of
approximately a nine and one-half mile sec~tion of the Rockfish River-
between the Route 693 bridge at Schuyler iS Nelson County and the James
River;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Bgard recommends that the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Re'~reation be designated the
administering agency, ii'
Agenda Item No. 12. Jefferson-Madison Reg~'onal Library Request for use
of Carry-over Funds from FY 1988-89.
Mr. Ray Jones said the Library is requesting the use of $49,774.02 in
carry-over monies from the 1988-89 fiscal year. i.~ The Library would like to use
these funds for the following items left unfunded during last year's budget
review:
Shelving/End Panels $ 2,000
Signs - Central 750
Additional shelving and furniture - CEntral 5,000
Books and Other Library Materials 12,500
Apple IIe Computer for Crozet ! 2,000
Update Exterior Lighting-Gordon Ave. Branch 4,000
North Branch Planning and Consultant !i 23,000
To~al
$ 49,750
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
364
Mr. Jones said staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval
contingent upon the City's allowing the Library to retain $24,365 in
carry-over money from the City's appropriation..
Ms. Donna Selle, Library Director, addressed the Board and said the
Library needs funds to proceed as quickly as pOssible with planning and
designing for the leased space for the North Branch Library.
Mr. Bain asked if a consultant has been hired for this project, or a
budget developed. Ms. Selle said "no". She said the Library needs prelimi-
nary architectural studies and specifications for furniture and lighting,
among other things. She said there is no one dn the Library staff who can do
this work.
Mr. Lindstrom said he will not support the expenditure of $23,000 for the
North Bra~ch Planning and Consultant, without knowing specifically what the
consultant will do for $23,000 to help the Library with leased space. He also
thinks that someone on the Library staff can l~ok at specifications for
furniture and shelves, without having to hire ~ consultant. Mr. Bain agreed,
but said he would like the Library to keep some.] of the carry-over funds to buy
books. ',
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to allow the
Library to retain $26,774.02 of their 1988-89 Carry-over funds for equipment,
ibooks, materials, and lights/signs for buildingS; the request for use of the
~dditional $23,000 will be reconsidered by the liBoard when a budget for that
amount is presented. !'.
Roll was called and the motion carried by ithe following recorded vote:
.~YES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs.'.:.!Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
lAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Report: Fiscal Reso~,ce Advisory Committee.
(Mr. Bowie left at 12:23 P.M.)
Mr. William J. Kehoe, Chairman of the Fiscal Resources Committee,
zddressed the Board. He presented the Committee's recommendations (a copy of
the Report of the Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee, dated December 7, 1989,
is on file in the Clerk's office). The Committee recommended the following
nethods to increase revenues: .
1. Semi-annual collection of real proper{y tax. It is recommended that
the one-time windfall resulting from ~he accelerated collection be
used exclusively for Capital Improvement Projects. (Majority
favored) :'~
2. Provided that the accelerated collect'~on period is implemented, the
Committee recommends that the real pr'~perty tax rate remain at
$0.72/$100. (Majority favored. )
3. ' Having identified a strong need to ke~p assessments current with
market value, the Committee recommend~ that the CountY consider
annual property assessments as a mean~ of increasing tax revenues.
In making this recommendation, the Co~ittee asks that the County
study the cost effectiveness to determine if the benefits of an
~ S
annual assessment would outweigh the qost . (Majority opposed.)
4. With the understanding that proration i~of the personal property tax
is currently being considered by the ~ounty for January, 1991, the
Committee supports proration as an equitable way of collecting tax
revenues. (Majority favored. )
5. Since 68 percent of the County's land~.i;is under land use, represent-
ing an annual loss in tax revenues of ~.~pproximately $2.5 million,
the Committee recommends that the land~i use tax should be restricted
to land in agricultural/forestal districts, under conservation
easements, or subject to an agreement ~Mith the County not to be
developed for some specified period ofi time. Ail land within the
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
365
boundaries of areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan for growth,
such as villages, communities, or the urban area, should be disqual-
ified from land use and excluded from agricultural/forestal dis-
tricts, easements or contracts, unless the land is a producing farm.
Because funds recognized from these changes in the land use tax
would be generated by a source now in use for the preservation of
rural land, the use of these funds should be limited to capital
programs which would support rural and open space preservation.
(Majority favored.)
The Committee took no position on proffered zoning. The Committee
acknowledges that conditional or proffered zoning applies only to
rezonings and will not generate significant revenues. (Undecided)
7. The Committee considered a meals tax. (Majority favored.)
The Committee recon~nends a franchise tax on cable television.
(Majority favored. )
10.
The Committee recommends that the concept of establishing service
districts in the urban areas of the County be investigated. (Major-
ity favored.) ~
The Committee discussed the establishment of tipping fees and awaits
the report of the Solid Waste Task Force. (Undecided)
11.
Additional revenue from state recordS{ion fees will be available to
localities beginning July, 1990. (Mgjority favored.)
Mr. Kehoe said the Committee recommended ~he following measures to reduce
.he County's costs: '
.¸
The School Board should exert every effort to utilize simple school
buildings designed f~r low maintenanc~ and to use similar construc-
tions plans for buildings which are e~sentially duplicates in terms
of service to be provided.
A study of the benefit/cost of priva~$zation of school bus transpor-
tation, school cafeterias, automotiv~i!maintenance, and building
maintenance should be undertaken. THgse activities should be
prioritized if the benefit exceeds t~g~!i cost. (Majority favored.)
Administrative volunteers should be
u~ed zn the Polzce Department
and in other areas Where volunteers ~$e appropriate. (Majority
favored.)
The County should develop a f~ve-year?fznanc~al plan. The Committee
also recommends that the County use flnanczal forecasting more
extensively to assess the fiscal impa~t of implementing the Compre-
hensive Plan for long term needs as w~ll as yearly operating costs.
County staff, not outside groups, should perform this forecasting.
(Majority favored.)
The County should im)lement incentive~ to encourage savings in all
areas of County government. (Majority favored.)
Departments such as planning, zoning,'and parks and recreation
should be operated on as near a self-Supporting basis as possible.
(Majority favored.)
The Committee strongly recommends the !development of an internal
audit function. (M~jority favored.)
The Committee suggests that budget guidance encourage the reduction
of expenditures in ~11 departments and! the return of any surpluses.
The Committee also recommends that sold form of zero-based budgeting
be implemented. (M~jority favored.
The Committee requests an audit of the! school budget to determine if
the growth in schoo~ spending is compatible with growth in enroll-
ment. If the spending has greatly outdistanced enrollment, the
Committee recommends that spending be ~educed. (Majority favored.)
13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
366
10.
The Board of Supervisors should establish a standing Fiscal Resource
Advisory Committee. (Majority Favored.)
Mr. Kehoe said the Committee also recommended several measures that would
require the State to pass enabling legislation before the County could act
upon them. The Committee recommends that the County seek enabling legislation
for intangible taxes on securities, stocks and bonds; local income taxes;
impact fees; a share in lottery profits; local option sales tax; property tax
equity; borrowing and taxing powers equal to those of cities; and a transient
occupancy tax.
Mr. Kehoe then introduced three members of the committee who were
present: the Vice-Chairman, Mr. F. Anthony IaChetta, Mr. Jason I. Eckford,
Jr. and Mr. Leroy Yancey. Mr. Iachetta stressed that the recommendations
reflect a consensus of the Committee; there were some members who strongly
disagreed with several of the recommendations.~ Mr. Yancey said he thinks it
would benefit the County to establish a standiqg Fiscal Resources Committee.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is significant that the Committee has
recommended a careful scrutiny of the school b~dget to determine whether the
amount spent is proportionate to the need. He 5thinks that undertaking such a
scrutiny is vital to the Board's continued confidence in how the school budget
is handled.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out the ambiguity of the seventh recommendation to
enhance revenues: "A meals tax was considered~iby the Committee. (Majority
favored)". He asked if this statement means that the Committee supports the
meals tax. Mr. Iachetta said a number of the Committee members vehemently
opposed any consideration of the meals tax; some members thought the issue
should be put to referendum again; and some bel'ieved that the County should
ask the General Assembly to remove the requirement for a referendum. Mr.
Iachetta said a majority of the Committee couldl not agree on a firmer state-
than the one listed in the seventh recommendation.
Mr. Iachetta said he would like to respond! to Mr. Lindstrom's statement
~oncerning the school budget. Mr. Iachetta sai*d that a large part of the
Capital Improvements Program is for the buildin~ of new schools. Rather than
being monuments to the architect, he said, these new schools should be built
from a basic design that can be used over and dyer, with only slight
modifications for the differences in sites. M~i. Iachetta said other states
have adopted a series of standard plans based eib the number of students. He
said this can reduce the cost of building new ~hools.
Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with Mr. Iache~a's comments, but she thinks
the Board has had problems trying to persuade ~he public that schools should
be built from a basic design.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the Committee's ~!~port is brilliant and superb.
He commended its brevity as well. He asked Mr.jlKehoe if he thinks that
current budget guidance encourages less spending, as is stated in the eighth
recommendation under Cost Reduction Recommend~ions . Mr. Kehoe said he does
not think the present process encourages reduc{.~on in spending. He noted that
the Committee also recommends zero-based budgeting, which is difficult to
implement and unpopular with organizations.
Mr. Bowie said he agrees with the Committe!g. that the Board should estab-
lish a standing Fiscal Resources Committee. He'~i:then asked if the Committee
discussed who should handle the audit of the school budget suggested in the
ninth recommendation. Mr. Kehoe said "no", butl]he thinks the audit should be
handled internally.
Mr. Perkins said that audits are conducted 'to see whether funds have been
spent in an appropriate manner. He thinks the ~chool budget should be sub-
jected to an efficiency study, to see if the fudds are being spent as
efficiently as possible.
Mr.. Lindstrom said he thinks it is significant that the Committee
believes the land use tax should be modified to ~yield additional funds and
that these funds should be used to preserve the rural areas of the County. He
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
367
thinks the latter part of this recommendation should be remembered, so that
additional funds are not applied to just any project. Other than this recom-
mendation, Mr. Lindstrom said, he thinks the Committee's most significant
suggestions concerned cutting costs, rather than raising revenues. He said
- the Committee did not recommend increasing taxes on real estate or personal
property, took no position on proffered zoning and dodged the issue of the
meals tax. Instead, the Committee recommends measures to increase revenues
that are controlled by the General Assembly, not theCounty. Mr. Lindstrom
said he thinks the Board would rather enact some of the measures requiring
enabling legislation than raise local taxes, bdt until this legislation
becomes a reality, he thinks the Board must work within the power it has now.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board must raise revenues in addition to
curtailing expenses. With all duerespect, heisaid, he does not think the
Committee's report gives the Board much guidan~ie on how to use the tools it
has now to raise revenue.
Mr. Iachetta said he thinks the Committee!felt the County should stop
levying so many different kinds of taxes and cd.nsider the efficiency of the
State's system of tax collection based on the ilncome tax. He said that
property taxes do not account for the income ofl the property owner; in some
cases, relatively poor peoPle may own expensive!property, if they boUght the
property a long time ago. He thinks there mus~ibe some way to support local
government without depending on real property ~axes.
Mr. Lindstrom thanked Mr. Iachetta and sa~ his statement is an important
clarification.
Mr. Bain said he appreciates the amount ofilwork the Committee has done in
short time. He said the recommendations, particularly the one concerning
the land-use tax, will give the Board a lot to?ithink about. He thinks the
Board is going to haVe to grapple with the iss6~ of land use taxation and
agricultural/forestal districts, ii!
Mr. Bowie asked if the Committee received':igny comments from the public.
Mr. Kehoe said members of the Committee felt that the Board should decide
whether public hearings would be held.
Mr. Perkins referred to the Committee's reaommendation on the land use
tax, which suggests that all land within villag~s, communities and the urban
areas of the County be disqualified for the la~O use tax, unless the property
is a "producing farm". Mr. Perkins said it ca~ilbe difficult to decide whether
or not a property is a producing farm. Mr. Keh0e agreed.
Mr. Way thanked the Committee for its rep~t and said the Board will
carefully consider its recommendations.
(Note: Mr. Bowie left at 12:23 P.M.)
Return to Agenda Item No. 9. Request for'Assistance in Relocating the
Virginia Discovery Museum. :il
Mr. Way asked Ms. Palmer if she was ready ~o. answer the questions posed
by members of the Board earlier in the meeting.!il Ms. Palmer said she contacted
Mr. Francis Fife, V~ce-Presxdent of the Perry Foundatxon, who sa~d the County
should commit the funds now in order for the Museum to receive the matching
funds from the Perry Foundation. The reason given for the haste is that the
Museum must move from its old quarters owned byilthe Perry Foundation sometime
in February or March. She introduced Mr. DavidlKudravetZ, Treasurer for the
Museum, to answer any further questions the Board might have.
Mr. Kudravetz said he realizes this reques~ is coming at an inconvenient
time for the County. He said the Perry Foundation is not trying to put the
Board in an awkward position; the Foundation me~ely wishes to gauge the level
of public support for the Museum. He said the ~Oundation has seen the City
make a major commitment and would like to see s~me indication of the County's
willingness to support the Museum. He said the!iMuseum is not requesting money
for regular operations; it needs the money to m~ve.
Mr. Bain asked if this request is solely f~r the move and renovations.
Mr. Kudravetz said "yes"; the funds would be used to install the old exhibits
in the new building and put new exhibits in pla~e.
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
(Note: Mr. Bowie returned at 12:30 P.M.)
368
Mr. Bowie asked for the latest date the Museum could receive funding from
the County and still qualify for the matching grant from the Perry Foundation.
Mr. Kudravetz said the Museum must receive the County's contribution by
January, when it will also receive the grant from the Perry Foundation.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to appropriate $25,000 from the
Contingency Account, if the City does the same. Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Perkins
intended that the appropriation be for the one-time moving of exhibits. Mr.
Perkins said that could be included in the motion. Mr. Bain then seconded the
motion.
Mr. Bowie said he believes that approving this request will encourage
other agencies to request funds outside the normal budgetary sequence.
Mrs. Cooke said she will support the motion, but she hopes that, in the
future, agencies and private foundations are more sensitive to the demands
placed upon the Board as stewards of the public's money.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has changed his mind. He said he has not heard
anything to convince him that the Museum will lose the grant if the County
does not fund this request now. He said there are many other agencies with
legitimate requests for funds and he does not think approving this request
would send them the right message.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Lindstrom.
APPROPRIATION
Fiscal Year:
Fund:
Purpose of Appropriation:
1989-90
General
Virginia Discovery Museum
Expenditure
Cost Center/Catesory Description
1100079000560401 Virginia Discovery Museun
1100095000999990 Contingency for Budget Adjustments
Total
Amount
$25,000.00
(25,000.00)
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Secondary Employment Assignments -
Police Personnel.
Mr. Tucker said the staff has continued to evaluate the reimbursable
overtime compensation for police officers who accept assignments on private
property, particularly at events where alcohol is being consumed, such as the
Foxfield Races. These events tend place police officers in conflicting
situations. At these events, people are drinking excessively and the police
officers are observing and containing the crowd. Mr. Tucker said groups such
as Mothers Against Drunk Driving have complained that having the police at the
event, but not arresting the young people who drink illegally, makes it look
as though the County's police officers condone under-age drinking. Mr. Tucker
pointed out that the police officers cannot make some of the arrests on
private property that they can on public property. Moreover, by supplying
police officers to control the crowds at these events, the County is competing
unfairly with private security businesses. Some of the large events require
50 percent of the County's police force to keep order, which leaves the rest
of the County rather sparsely covered.
To address these problems, Mr. Tucker said, the staff has met with the
Commonwealth's Attorney, the Sheriff, the County Attorney and the Chief of
Police. The collective opinion is that the police officers and sheriff's
deputies should not be involved in policing large, social events on private
property, although the County has an obligation to monitor public highways and
public property within the area of the major social event. Mr. Tucker said
)ecember 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
IPage 17)
369
the County is also committed to respond whenever law enforcement intervention
~n private property is required. With the Board's concurrence, Mr. Tucker
said, staff will develop a policy to resolve and alleviate the problems
~entioned above. H~ said the staff has met with representatives of the
oxfield Races Association and told them that the County will gradually
iminish the presence of its law enforcement officers at these events, to give
the Association time to develop a security force of its own.
Mr. Way asked about the County Fair. Mr. Tucker said that all the County
police officers do at the Fair is control traffic on Route 29 South and the
entrance to the Fair; the police officers do not patrol the fairgrounds.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Benjamin Dick, legal coUnsel for the Foxfield Races
Association, for his comments. Mr. Dick said the Association has received a
license from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board which allows the
police to arrest citizens consuming alcohol illegally during the races. This
license has resulted in many arrests of under-aged drinkers.
(Mr. Bain left at 12:46 P.M.)
Mr. Dick said he understands the County's concerns over concentrating the
police officers at one event and leaving the rest-of the County unmanned. He
said the Association can work with a gradual reduction in the number of County
police officers working at the event. Nevertheless, representatives of the
Association believe that the County's police officers should be make available
to all property owners, if the officers are willing to work the additional
hours. Mr. Dick said he thinks the public's image of the County's police
force is enhanced when the public sees the police officers doing such a good
job at events like the Foxfield Races. il
Mr. Bud Ilsey, of the American Society of iIndustrial Security, addressed
the Board. Although his organization promotes ithe use of private security
forces, he said, he thinks it would be difficull~ for private security officers
to patrol effectively an event like the Foxflel~ Races. There are simply not
enough private security officers in this area t~ provide the manpower neces-
sary to cover such an event, nor do the officers currently receive the train-
ing they need to make them as effective as theyi could be. He said that
businesses such as banks and the Fashion Square~Mall have relied on off-duty
police officers to give them the security they need. ~aving been a police
Dfficer for 18 years, Mr. Ilsey said, he knows ~ow they rely on the extra
honey they earn for working in their off-duty h~urs. He said he thinks the
~ounty has a duty to provide a safe enviroument!i for citizens who attend social
functions in the County. He said that representatives of the Society of
Industrial Security would be happy to work with~the County in assessing the
area's need for security. ~
Mr. St. 3ohn said he thinks the term "off-~uty police officers" has
;onfused citizens. He said it is one thing if !A police officer wishes to
~ndertake employment with someone other than th~ County and act as a private
security guard at an event like Foxfield. If a?police officer is acting as a
)rivate security guard, he or she should not wear the uniform of a County
)olice officer. When police officers volunteer'ito patrol events such as
~oxfield and wear County uniforms, Mr. St. John '~said, he thinks these officers
~ust be considered on-duty, Albemarle County po%ice officers. As such, these
officers can arrest a person only for misdemeanors committed in the presence
of the police officers. ~!
Mr. St. John said the nature of events suc~ as Foxfield lends itself to
boisterous, drunken and unruly conduct that would be a misdemeanor on public
property. However, the consumption of alcohol ~nd unruly conduct are not
illegal on private property. He said the organizers of the Foxfield Races may
have developed rules against this kind of condudt, the breach of which would
cause a guilty person to forfeit his or her ticRet to the Races. While unruly
and drunken behavior may be contrary to Foxfieldi's rules, it is not a misde-
meanor. If a County police officer witnesses s~ch behavior, he or she cannot
arrest the person making the disturbance; instead, the police officer must ask
the individual to forfeit his or her ticket and il:leave the premises. If the
individual does not leave the premises, then he'ior she is committing a misde-
meanor, trespassing, and can be arrested.
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
370
Under these circumstances, Mr. St. John said, the police officer is
acting first as an employee of Foxfield and enforcing Foxfield's rules. If
the police officer arrests someone for trespassing, that officer is then
acting as a County police officer and enforcing the County's laws. Mr. St.
JOhn said having these officers jumping from o~e role to another exposes the
County to tremendous liability. It is also demoralizing fOr the police
officers to have certain powers one minute and different powers the next. Mr.
St. John said he believes that no police officer should act as a security
guard at the Foxfield Races, except to enforce!the laws of the State. He does
not think the County's police officers should be called upon to enforce both
Foxfield's rules and the County's laws.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if events such as the'!Foxfield Races could be consid-
ered public events on private property. He said he is inclined to support the
staff's recommendation, but he believes that many lawenforcement personnel
are needed at the Races. He does not think that private security forces will
be able to hire and train people for just one Yearly event. He asked if there
is some way the County could allow police officers to enforce laws against
drinking as if the event were held on public prOperty. Mr. St. John said that
the Foxfield Races Association would have to de~lare that the Races are a
public event. Mr. Tucker said that this solut~°n would not help the police
officers deal with the magnitude of the problem~ or the number of potential
arrests at events like the Foxfield Races.
The consensus of the Board was that more ~!me for discussion is needed on
Lhis item.
(Mr. Perkins left at 1:00 P.M.)
Not Docketed: At.l:03 P.M., Mr. Lindstro~ said an executive session is
aecessary to discuss specific personnel matters. Mr. St. John added that
legal matters, specifically the Spradlin case, ilwould need to be discussed as
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and second~d by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn
into ExeCutive Session for the purpose of discUSsing personnel in accordance
~ith Code Section 2.1-344.A.1 and for discussiO~ of legal matters in
~ccordance with Section 2.1-344.A.7. '~
Roll was called and the motion carried by i~he following recorded vote:
~YES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Li~strom and Mr. Way.
~AYS: None.
~BSENT: Mr. Perkins.
(The Board reconvened into open session at~!l:51 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: SP'8~8-25. Thomas Vincent. To
:onduct a home occupation, Class B, for a woodworking shop on 83.0404 acres,
zoned RA. Property located on north side of Route 692, approx, one-tenth mile
west of its intersection with Route 696. Tax Map 86, Parcel 16. The appli-
cant requests extension of the time limit set f6r construction of a single-
family dwelling - Condition #3 on the permit. Samuel Miller District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 2~ and December 5, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff had recommended approval of the petition in
May, 1988, with the following conditiOns:
1. Virginia Department of Transportation,approval of entrance;
2. Compliance with Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. A single-family dwelling shall be constructed and have received a
Certificate of Occupancy Within eighteen months of approval of this
petition by the Board of Supervisors. Failure to comply with this
condition shall be deemed abandonment of this special use permit and
all authority granted herein shall terminate. No condu6t of the
)ecember 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
IPage 19)
requested home occupation, includingthe storage and/or maintenance
of machinery related thereto, shall occur on the premises until the
dwelling has received a certificate of occupancy;
4. No operation except between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M;
5. Not more than one employee other than family members.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff was concerned that approving a request of
~his nature could set a precedent for future requests for home occupation
,ermits on vacant property. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes that eighteen
nonths is a reasonable amount of time for construction to begin. However, the
applicant has stated that he had problems obtaining an easement for utilities
and bad weather added to his difficulties. According to the applicant, the
homesite has been evacuated and bids are out fdr both the concrete and steel
work. The Inspections Department has indicated that the original building
~ermit has expired and the applicant will be required to apply for a new
~ermit.
Unless the Board feels that the circumstances outlined outweigh the
reasons for the original conditions, Mr. Cilimberg said, he sees no reason to
mxtend this permit.
Not Docketed: At 2:00 P.M., Mr. Way stopped the meeting to say the
certification to reconvene from Executive Session would be necessary at this
· ime.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie
~ertifying that the Executive Session was in accordance with the Code of
Virginia. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs ~Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE M~RTING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant~ito an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions~of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Cod~ of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Boar~ of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that t~e Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the Best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law ~ere discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certificat!ion resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MeSsrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and
Mr. Way. ~'i:~
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
The Board returned to discussion of Agenda ~tem No. 16. The public
hearing was opened at this time. ~!
Mr. Thomas Vincent addressed the Board and :~aid it has taken him over a
year to receive an easement to bring electricityito the property from one of
the neighbors who opposed his request for the ho~e occupation permit. He said
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
372
he is asking for an extension rather than waste the Board's time by re-apply-
ing for a special use permit next summer. He said he also needs a licensed
engineer to approve his building plans before the County will issue him a
building permit.
Since no one else wished to speak to this extension, Mr. Way closed the
~ublic hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Way said the applicant's explanation for the delay seems reasonable.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve
~he extension for nine months from the time of approval with the conditions
initially applied, and set out above.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. CPA-89-1. To amend the Comprehensive Plan to add a
new village growth area in the eastern part of Albemarle County. (Deferred
from December 6, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg distributed a memo dated December 13, 1989, regarding the
provision of water service to the proposed Rivanna Village in response to
questions raised at the public hearing last wee~. Attached to his memo was
further information provided by the Albemarle County Service Authority in
~esponse to the request. ~!
Mr. Cilimberg said the size of the water Iine to this village is governed
by the minimum fire flow as required by the CoUnty fire official. The
position of the County has consistently been that public water supply to
residential areas must meet minimum fire flow ~andards and that public
~acilities along public water lines meet adequate fire flow standards.
Regarding the question raised concerning ~he Stone Robinson Elementary
;chool, Mr. Cilimberg said that there is a projgct underway to install a
supplemental underground storage tank and boos[igr pump to provide fire protec-
tion to storage areas in the school as requiredi~by the Uniform Statewide
Building Code. He said these improvements woui~ not provide fire protection
to the entire school building, however. He sai~ the project has been stopped
because the contract was awarded, but a permit ~as not been issued.
Mr. Cilimberg then outlined the different ~inds of waterlines that could
be extended to the proposed growth area. The first alternative would provide
a 14-inch waterline to the growth area, with a ~onnection to Stone Robinson
School. This alternative would meet fire flow standards for the proposed
clubhouse and the residential area of the Glenm~re development, and the Stone
Robinson School. The 14-inch waterline would s~rve 4162 dwelling units and
cost the developer $1,149,310 and the County $5~2,440. Mr. Cilimberg said the
developer has promised to provide a site for a new school in the proposed
growth area. If the 14-inch water line is to provide a fire flow of 2000
gallons per minute to the new school, then the tine can serve only 1429
dwelling units.
The second alternative calls for running a~ eight-inch line to the growth
area and installing an elevated storage tank near the proposed clubhouse with
a capacity of 400,000 gallons. This would provide fire flow for the clubhouse
and residential area and could serve as many as 2775 dwelling units. The
entire cost of $1,186,800 would be borne by the ~developer. This alternative
would not serve the Stone Robinson School; the School would require its own
storage facility at a cost to the County. Any ~ew school built in the pro-
posed growth area would also have to have its o~n storage facilities. Because
of the elevation of the area, storage tanks at Stone Robinson School and any
new school in the growth area would have to be ~levated to meet fire flow
requirements.
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
373
A modification of the second alternative would pair an eight-inch water
line with an elevated storage tank at Stone Robinson School holding 300,000
gallons. This waterline and storage tank would provide fire flow to the
residential area, the clubhouse and Stone Robinson School and could serve 2775
dwelling units. The waterline would cost the developer $1,186,800 and the
storage tank would cost the County $228,075.
Mr. Cilimberg said that using storage tanks in conjunction with a smaller
waterline would allow the County to limit the number of dwelling units served,
but that combination costs the County more money and presents the aesthetical
problem of where to place the elevated storage tanks.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the storage tank would be needed for just the
clubhouse or the residential area as well. Mr. Cilimberg said the clubhouse
makes the storage tank necessary; an eight-inch~waterline alone could serve
the residential section of the proposed growth .area.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how the Board could reserve the capacity in a 14-inch
~aterline for a future school in the proposed g~owth area. Mr. Cilimberg said
me would have to investigate this question. M~:~ St. John said he does not
Lhink the Board would have any problem allocating the capacity to a future
school.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain t:he revisions of staff's recom-
nendations for approval of the growth area. Mr!, Cilimberg said that the
following sentence has been added to the fifth ~ecommendation: "No commercial
land use will be allowed in the Village".
Mr. Bain asked if the clubhouse could be c6nsidered a commercial use.
Hr. Cilimberg said staff considers clubhouses ~ become commercial when they
become public facilities and solicit members from outside the development.
Such clubhouses are no longer exclusively for the benefit of the residents of
the development. Although a clubhouse may be q~mmercial in nature, Mr.
Cilimberg continued, it is usually handled through the special permit process,
rather than having the property zoned to a commercial designation. He said
that staff believes that recreational facilities in conjunction with residen-
tial development, even if the facilities solici~ outside membership, is not
the same as commercial uses like shopping centers.
Mr. Keeler said the staff intended that thai clause prohibiting commercial
development in the growth area preclude commercial zoning, but not necessarily
all commercial uses that may exist within the z9ning designations of Village
Residential or Rural Areas. He said it may inappropriate to state in the
Comprehensive Plan that no commercial zoning wiS1 permitted within this area,
but that is the intent of this Clause, to prohibit commercial zoning, not all
commercial uses. Mr. Keeler said the Board hasiialso recently amended the
Planned Development district to allow golf courses by special use permit. He
said the question of whether such a facility is ~commercial can be determined
during the special permit process. ?
Mr. Way asked Mr. Kessler for his commentsl Mr. Kessler said he intended
the clubhouse to be a private club. At first, ~ome members may not live in
the growth area, since the golf course and clubhouse will be built before the
residences. Mr. Kessler said he will purchase ~hese outside memberships as
the residences are built. He said he does not plan to allow the public to use
the golf course and pro shop.
Mr. Bowie said the issue of the clubhouse d~n be worked out during the
special permit process. He said he thinks the proposed amendment represents a
concept that is new to the Comprehensive Plan. .He said he wants to make sure
the concept is right and will allow what the Board wants to allow.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the sentence "No commercial land use will be
allowed in the Village" be revised to "No commercial land use designation is
necessary in this Village". Mr. Bowie said he thinks this revision is satis-
factory. ~
Mr. Lindstrom referred to the first recommegdation, which states:
"Preserve the extensive flood plain along the Rivanna River, Carroll Creek and
other streams as open space. Protect the unique~scenic and historic charac-
,ecember 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 22)
374
aristics of the river with the development of the village". Mr. Lindstrom
luggested that the phrase "and critical slopes"!-be inserted after "the exten-
:ive flood plain".
Mr. Lindstrom then referred to staff's second recommendation, which
[escribes the proposed boundaries of the growth area. He said the growth area
.s shown as ending on the north side of Route 250 East, leaving a narrow strip
,f land between Route 250 and Interstate 64. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks
.eaving this strip of land will invite requests for commercial designations in
:he future. He suggested that the second sentence of the second recommenda-
2ion be reworded as follows: "To preserve and protect these resources, do not
~xpand the village boundaries north of Route 250 East, west of Route 22, nor
~outh of the Rivanna River". Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks this change will
~rovide a buffer to protect the sensitive areas to the north of the growth
rea. Mr. Bowie concurred.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has struggled with t. he issue of utilities. He
uggested adding a condition concerning utilities, general in nature, to
reinforce what he believes to be the Board's consensus that the Rivanna
Pillage should not grow beyond what has been planned. He recommended adding
:he following sentences to staff's second recommendation: "To further pre-
;erve and protect these resources, utilities shall be sized to serve the
~ivanna Village as described and the Stone Robinson School. Capacity in the
~ublic water lines shall be reserved for a futdre elementary school which may
De located in the Village, until such time as ~e Board may determine that
~uch a facility will not be required", ii'i
Mr. Bowie said that a decision about the w,~ater line will be made when the
½oard received an application for the development. Mr. Lindstrom said the
· .ondition he just recommended does not limit th~ Board to choosing a water
_ine of a particular size. He said this condition, would apply more specifi-
c. ally to the sewage treatment plant, which can 'ibe sized more precisely than
;he water line. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that the water line must
;upply more water than is needed for residentia~ use, to meet fire flow
~tandards ~
Mr. Bain said he questions the legality of'isuch specific language in the
~omprehensive Plan. Mr. St. John said there isi!the possibility that someone
~ay come before a future Board and say this Vil~age was tailor-made to accom-
]odate a development known as Glenmore Downs, and that the Board sized the
~ater line to accommodate this elite developmen! and to prevent the Village
.-'rom expanding to include less elite development.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the record clearly shows that the Board is
~oncerned that the utilities may lead to a sprawling community. He said the
~oard is trying to limit the size of this Village on general planning princi-
ples, rather than attempting to limit the growt~ area to a certain set of
~eople.
Mr. Bowie said he does not object to the l~nguage recommended by Mr.
~indstrom concerning the utilities. He said he'thinks the wording makes it
:lear that the utilities are being sized to pro~ect the land north of the
growth area. Mr. Bowie said he thinks the original wording of the second
~entence of the fifth recommendation, which concerns commercial development,
~s firmer and makes more clear the Board's intent. Mr. Bain agreed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve an~
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by the addition of a new village growth
area in the eastern part of Albemarle County known as the Rivanna Village.
the growth area is located in the vicinity eastli!of Shadwell and south of U. S.
Route 250 East, north of the Rivanna River, easU of Route 729, and west of
Route 808, with the changes discussed and as se~ out below. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorde~ vote:
tYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. ~indstrom, Perkins and Way.
~AYS: None.
)ecember 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
iPage 23)
375
Recommendations
Preserve the extensive flood plain and critical slopes along the
Rivanna River, Carroll Creek and other streams as open space. Protect
the unique scenic and historic characteristics of the river with the
development of the village.
Areas north of Interstate 64 have historic/scenic significance to the
County and region (including possible designation as a Rural Historic
District) and have large acreage in an Agricultural/ Forestal
District. To preserve and protect these resources, do not expand the
village boundaries north of U. S. Route 250 East, west of Route 22,
nor south of the Rivanna River.
To further preserve and protect these resources, utilities shall be
sized to serve the Rivanna Village as approved December 13, 1989, and
the Stone Robinson School. Capacity in any main water line serving
the village shall be reserved for a possible new elementary school to
be located in the village, until such time as the Board of Supervisors
shall determine such elementary school is not needed.
No development of properties above current allowable zoning densities
shall be permitted unless public water and sewer are made available.
Ultimate gross density with the provision of water and sewer is not to
exceed village density as described under'Residential Land Use
designations.
Residential development dwelling unit typ9 shall be limited to single
family detached.
Existing local convenience commercial user'!in combination with the
proximity of Urban Area commercial are sufficient to serve the
village. No commercial land use will be allowed in the village.
Consider development proposals under a planned development approach to
allow for the coordinated planning of utilities, public facilities and
roads necessary to support the entire growth area.
Access within the village between Route 250 and the Rivanna River is
currently provided by roads which do not ~6nnect. An internal road
network should be planned to provide an alternative to travel on Route
250 and is to be incorporated into development proposals.
As this area could function as a public service center for the eastern
part of the County, necessary public facilities are to be located
consistent with objectives and strategies:of the Public Facilities
Plan.
Agenda Item No. 18. Proposed Ground WaveEmergency Network Tower (GWEN)
in Nelson County, Request from Citizen.
Mr. Cilimberg said the U. S. Air Force is proposing to construct a
299-foot emergency broadcast tower to be employed for national security
purposes in the event of nuclear war. The tower would be located in the
Faber/Wood's Mill area of Nelson County about ten miles from Albemarle County.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that a resident of Nelson County who is opposed to
the tower has requested that the Board take a ppsition in opposition to the
tower. The citizen feels that the broadcast facility would be a health
threat.
Mr. Cilimberg said that no official positipn has been taken at this time
by the Nelson Board of Supervisors. Further information is to be forwarded by
the Nelson Board on this matter. Meanwhile, th~ Air Force is holding a public
meeting on December 18 at the Nelson County Hig~ School. Staff recommends
that the matter be addressed through the Thomas"'Jefferson Planning District
Commission if the Board feels this is of regional importance.
~cember 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
{age 24)
376
Mr. Way asked that staff keep the Board informed of the status of the
2ower.
Agenda Item No. 19. Status Report on E-911.
(Mr. St. John left at 2:58 P.M.)
Mr. Tucker said that staff had investigated various options available for
g an Emergency Response System. The consultants have submitted
alternatives: a Street Address Locator Approach, a Grid Locator
,roach, and a Roads and Mileposts approach. Mr. Tucker said the Street
Locator alternative is recommended because it can be used easily by
:itizens, it is currently being used by the City and much of the County, and
does not require special equipment or expertise to use the system. This
~roach can also be integrated into a Geographic Information System in the
for computer-aided mapping.
Mr. Tucker reported that, while the other two alternatives were feasible,
do not offer the overall advantages just described, and citizens would
difficulty identifying and using either of those alternatives.
Mr. Tucker said the Street Address alternative will require the assign-
of street names and addresses for much of ;the County and the posting of
lame signs on newly named streets. It may be necessary to establish a street
lame and address ordinance and a public information program in order to
.mplement the Street Address Locator approach .... ~
The cost estimate for implementing the E-~i minimal requirements is in
:he range of $196,000 to $207,000. The cost ~]~_ ~rovide E-911 and GIS require-
would be in the range of $441,000 tg~~. The minimal option can be
through the telephone surcharge. The co;Mt for the GIS option is
~elated to a complicated aerial photography requirement and would have to be
by the County, City and other utility agencies interested in this
:apability. Mr. Tucker explained that the ranj~ listed for the GIS system
.ncludes three basic implementation phases. P~se I encompasses the ~aerial
geodetic control, photo production:land road map preparation.
II would involve staffing and actual address assignment. Phase III
entail the basic microcomputer-based hardware and software system and
~raining for a single workstation at the Joint !Dispatch Center. }te said that
~tion of all phases for the entire Co~ty would take eighteen to
z-four months. ':~
Staff's recommendation is to proceed with ~he implementation of the
]treet Address Locator approach, bidding both t'~e minimal and GIS options.
would allow further study of the feasibility of the GIS as well as
]etermining the number of utility agencies inteYested in funding such a
)rogram. Mr. Tucker said that staff would keep!i:the Board informed of the
~tatus of the bids on the project.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to accept
~taff's recommendation. Roll was called and th~ motion carried by the follow-
lng recorded vote: :
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs.~Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Lickinghole Creek Basin Fee Schedule for Develop-
In search of ways to offset the cost to thg County of building the
hole Creek impoundment, Mr. Cilimberg saiid, staff has compared the
~ollowing methods of assessing developers for the project: charging a flat
~ate of $1,760.50 per acre; charging varying amdunts per acre depending on the
[ensity of the development; and charging a flat ~rate per square foot of
~ervious surface.
The costs per acre depending on the densit~ of development were based on
~he following guidelines:
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
377
Development
Low Density Residential
(averages 2.5 dwelling
units per acre)
Amount of Impervious Coverage
5,000 square feet per acre
Medium Density Residential
(averages 7.5 dwelling
units per acre)
15,000 square feet per acre
Commercial
40,000'square feet per acre
Industrial
25,000 square feet per acre.
Applying these figures to new development in the Crozet Community as
recommended by the Comprehensive Plan yields 12.375 million square feet of
impervious area, or $0.162 per square foot of impervious coverage, assuming
the Lickinghole Creek impoundment costs $1.97 million. The revised contribu-
tions are as follows:
Flat Rate
Low Density
Medium Density
Commercial
Industrial
$1760.50 per acre
$ 810.00 per acre
$2430.00 per acre
$6480.~0 per acre
$4050.Q0 per acre
Mr. Cilimberg said that adopting a varyin~charge depending on the
density of development would reduce the burden!iilto residential development and
could be easily applied at the time of site plan/subdivision approval. A more
comprehensive approach would be to apply directly a charge per square foot of
impervious coverage. However, since the coverage of industrial buildings
varies greatly, charging by the square foot might not recoup as much as
charging by the acre.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what the County would~,~harge a developer who planned
a development averaging five units per acre, a!i~igure between the averages for
the categories of low and medium density residential development. If staff
were to apply a varying charge per acre, Mr. C~%imberg said, the charge could
be prorated or applied in accordance with the ~tes for a medium density area.
If the charges are assessed per square foot ofiimpervious coverage, the
deVeloper's contribution could accurately reflect the true amount of impervi-
ous coverage in the development. Mr. Cilimberglsaid this is why staff favors
charging by the square foot of impervious coverage.
In the case of some subdivisions, Mr. BaiJilsaid, the staff would receive
only a subdiVision plat, not a site plan, maki~g it imposSible to know the
size of the house and therefore, the amount of ~lmpervious coverage. He asked
if staff would use averages based on national or state estimates of the amount
of impervious coverage resulting from single-f~ily residences. Mr. Cilimberg
said "yes". He said the subdivision plat wouldjreveal the amount of roadway
to be paved, so some of the impervious area could be calculated~ exactly.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that the size of th~ residence would become
available during the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Lindstrom said he
thinks it would be easier to collect the contriiBution early in the process,
before the building permit stage, so that the money couldbe collected from
the developer, rather than the individual lot o~ers.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the idea of charging by the square foot of
impervious surface makes sense, if the administration of this option is not
too difficult.
Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with the ~arious methods of collecting
contributions for the Lickinghole Creek impoun~ent. What concerns him is
that the project seems to be rolling forward, d~spite the fact that several
members of the Board have expressed reservationSl about the concept of a
regional basin. He said he has prepared some qBestions he would like staff to
address concerning the efficiency and cost of r~gional basins versus smaller,
on-site sedimentation basins. He believes thatlProtecting the watershed is of
paramount importance, but he is not sure that t~e Lickinghole Creek impound-
ment is the best way to insure that protection, i He cited a study by Dr. Long,
~ecember 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
378
~ssistant Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Virginia, dated
1984. In this report, Dr. Long states that the Lickinghole Creek impoundment
~ill reduce the phosphorous content by only 1.4 percent and that on-site
basins would perform more efficiently.
Mr. Bowie then presented the following list of questions:
Will the Lickinghole Creek Basin provide better runoff control than
on-site basins? If so, by what amount?
Even if the Lickinghole Creek basin is built and developer contribu-
tions obtained, if it turns out that on-site facilities would be
better, can on-site facilities be required in addition to the
contribution? If so, who pays?
Has the comparative effectiveness of on-site facilities coupled with
the Lickinghole Creek basin been analyzed? What were the results?
Could runoff protection be established through bonding by the
developer until such time as 50 or more percent of homes/lots are
sold, then a homeowners' association be made responsible for mainte-
nance?
5. What are the estimated annual costs of maintaining the Lickinghole
Creek basin?
6. There are three locations for the da~. site. "C" is the largest,
most expensive and generates the smallest basin. Why is not "A" or
"B" used? ?
7. The County's ordinance provides for on-site individual basins. If
these basins are better, and if enfo~icement is required, should they
not be maintained and inspected by t~e Rivanna Authority?
Mr. Bowie said he would like answers to t~ese questions by December 20,
~hen the Board will meet to appropriate funds for the next six months of the
Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board sh~Hld ask itself how effectively
the County has been able to administer the sedimentation projects already
established, such as the one in Camelia Gardens° He said he thinks it will be
difficult to administer dozens of on-site basi~s that must be inspected and
maintained. He pointed out that the County wod~d have to rely on the private
sector to maintain on-site basins. Mr. Lindstm6m said he is assuming that the
Rivanna Authority will pay for the maintenance ~f the Lickinghole Creek
impoundment.
Mr. Tucker said that on-site basins are unable to capture all of the
runoff from existing development in Crozet, whihh is why staff favors the
construction of a regional sedimentation basin.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is important to have the Lickinghole
Creek impoundment built before the Crozet growth area is developed, in order
to capture the runoff caused by new development~ If on-site basins are built,
the developer might build the basin after developing the property, in which
case the runoff and sedimentation occurring as ~art of the early stages of
construction would not be captured.
Mr. Bain said he thinks it would be difficult to collect funds from
homeowners' associations to maintain individual~ on-site basins. Mr. Bowie
said liens could be placed on houses, if their 6wners do not pay a portion of
the costs of maintaining the basins. Mr. Linds~rom. said he thinks it unlikely
that the County could collect funds from homeowners even if liens were placed
on their property.
Mr. Perkins said he has listed some questions concerning the efficiency
and cost of the Lickinghole Creek impoundment that he would like staff to
address. He handed out copies of these questzons.
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
379
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the concept of on-site basins plays directly
into the hands of the people who want to develop the watershed. Once the
Board allows residential development to be managed by on-site basins, the door
is open: there would no longer be any logical basis for limiting the amount
and area of development in the watershed, or for adhering to the boundaries
set for the community of Crozet.
Agenda Item No. 22. Meet with Legislative Representatives.
At 3:20 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 3:40 P.M. in Meeting
Rooms 5/6 for discussions with the Legislative representatives. Senator
Thomas J. Michie, Jr., Delegate Mitchell Van Yahres and Delegate George F.
Allen were present.
Mr. Way said the Board's first priority for the 1990 session of the
General Assembly is to request taxing and borrowing powers equal to those of
cities and towns. As one of the fastest growigg counties in Virginia, Mr. Way
continued, Albemarle County needs these taxing!ipowers to raise the funds
necessary to meet the increasing demand for services. Mr. Way said the Board
would like to have available sources of revenue other than taxes on real
estate and personal property.
Delegate Allen said he believes that the ~axpayers should be consulted
before counties receive the taxing powers of c~ties. He said it seems to him
that a growing County experiences growing revenues as well as growing expendi-
tures. Delegate Allen said he does support re~urnzng to localzt~es a share of
the money raised in statewide lotteries, as long as the localities use these
funds for capital projects, such as schools, r6ads and landfills. He
suggested that the Board request that a share gf the lottery revenues be
returned on the basis of the population of a l~cality, not the number of
lottery tickets sold in that locality.
Delegate Allen said he would like the Boa~id's opinion concerning the
recommendations on annexation made by the Gray~°n Commission. The Commission
proposes to abolish small cities as independen~i entities and to encourage the
merger of such cities with surrounding countieSl under one government.
Mr. Lindstrom said he opposes this proposal. First, he said, he thinks
Delegate Allen should be careful of his assump~ion that the County will have
more money available for services because its Population is growing. In the
past nine years, the County's tax base has gro~D by 44 percent, yet the County
must still collect 78 percent more in local ta~s than it did nine years ago
to meet the increasing need for public service~~. Mr. Lindstrom said the
growth in the tax base has not made up for thei!iexpanded demand for public
services. He said he thinks the County needs ~ew ways to fund these services.
Mr. Bowie said it has been estimated thati!iithe County will need $62
million to build new schools in the next ten ye~ars. If a family moves to the
County and builds a house worth $100,000, theyii~ay $720 per year in real
property taxes. If this family has one schoolS!aged child, it costs the County
$3000, excluding capital costs, per year to edUCate this child.
Delegate Allen said that certain kinds ofi!growth bring in more revenue
than they drain in services and he cited the G~heral Electric plant as an
example. Mr. Lindstrom said he has studied thei!icosts and benefits of the
research park proposed by the University of Virginia, about the most lucrative
expansion of the tax base available to the County. He said he calculated that
the revenues generated by such a park and its a!~tendant commercial and resi-
dential development will be about half of what i~t will cost the County to
provide services for the increase in population!ilbrought about by the research
park and attendant development. He said it is ~imply not true that growth
Pays for itself; instead, the County must be able to tap new resources if it
is to provide education, capital improvements a~d the services of general
government for an increasing population.
Senator Michie said he has read many studies which demonstrate that
growth does not pay for itself. He said he hasi!also noted that taxes in
urbanizing areas invariably increase, which als~ proves that growth does not
pay for itself. Senator Michie said he has supported granting equal taxing
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
380
powers to counties for the past 20 years, because he thinks counties have the
same responsibilities to their citizens as cities do. Senator Michie said he
supports returning a share of lottery revenues to counties, but on a basis of
need rather than the amount of tickets sold or the population of the locality.
- Re said he believes that one of the roles of the State is to even out the
uneven revenue-gathering abilities of its counties and cities. Mr. Lindstrom
said he thinks that how quickly the population of a locality is increasing
should be a factor in determining the need of that locality. Senator Michie
mgreed and said a rapidly growing locality would have a greater need for
capital projects than a locality with a stable population.
Delegate Van Yahres said he is skeptical about using lottery revenues as
m way to return funds from the State to counties. He said he agrees that
funds from the State should go back to localities, but he is not sure that
returning lottery revenues is the right approach. Since education is the most
expensive service provided by localities, Delegate Van Yahres said, he thinks
the State should amend its formula for funding education to allow more money
to go to the localities for education. He said the lottery revenues are being
~sed by the State to fund its own capital imprOvements and to exoand higher
education, but he does believe that localities need funding from the State to
beet the demands of growth, particularly in education.
Mr. Bain asked the legislators if they woBld support granting localities
~he power to levy a local option sales tax. S~nator Michie said he has
supported this in the past, but he does not think the measure has the momentum
necessary to make it though the General Assembly. Delegate Allen said he does
not think he could support such a tax. Delega~e Van Yahres said he would
support such a tax. He said he could also support having the State return a
portion of revenues from income taxes to the l~calities. He does not think
the local option sales tax is a broad-based ta~, or a fair tax, particularly
on food. He thinks the income tax is the fair~st, broadest-based tax that can
be levied and he thinks it should be administered at the state level.
Delegate Allen asked how counties differ ~rom cities in the ability to
borrow money. Mr. Lindstrom said that countie~i~ cannot borrow money unless the
loan can be paid within one year or the funds a..ye from the State Literary
Fund, or the Virginia Public School Authority, Without submitting to a
referendum. He said it is difficult to convince voters of the necessity of
spending money on long-term benefits to thecommunzty~' ' , like parks and roads.
Re said it is even difficult to convince voter~' of the necessity of schools,
mnless their children are attending one that i~ over-crowded. Mr. Lindstrom
· sked Delegate Allen if he would support takin~ state projects, such as the
improvements to Route 29 North, to referendum, ii Mr. Allen said he would
support such a measure, if taxes were levied tq pay for the project. He
thinks that any demand for new taxes should be i~oted on by the taxpayer.
Delegate Van Yahres said he believes the vbters elected him to do a job
· nd if they do not like the way he does it, the~ they should vote for someone
else next time. He does not support submittingi, every decision to referendum,
because he believes he, and other elected officials, are elected to make those
decisions.
Delegate Allen said he does not think the '.~eneral Assembly will grant new
taxing powers to localities without requiring that the localities hold refer-
endums on the new taxes.
Mr. Way said localities must have addition~l funds to provide the
services expected by their citizens and mandated by the State.
Mrs. Cooke referred to the defeat of the meals tax by referendum and said
that many citizens have told her that, knowing now what they did not know
then, they would vote for the meals tax should it appear once again on the
ballot. She said the Board did not promote the~need for the meals tax as well
as the opposition rallied voters against the ta~. Mr. Lindstrom said he does
not think members of the Board should have to s~end hours convincing the
)ublic of the need for every new source of revenue.
Mr. Way suggested that the discussion continue with consideration of
~ther requests for legislation concerning salar{es for school board members
and allowing the County to require that private!wells be tested for water
quality before a building permit is issued.
December 13, 1989. (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
381
Senator Michie said he supports the request concerning the groundwater
analysis. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that a test for quality could also allow
the property owners to find out whether the quantity of the groundwater
suffices for a well, before they build their homes. Mr. Tucker said a ground-
water study being prepared by staff should be Completed by March, 1990, which
will address the quantity of groundwater in the County.
Delegate Van Yahres said he supports allowing the County to require that
the quality of water in private wells be tested before a building permit is
issued. Delegate Allen said he questions the needfor such legislation and
said it would add $300 to $400 to the cost of housing in the County when the
County has experienced no demonstrable problemilwith the quality of its
groundwater. In this case, Senator Michie said, he believes that the General
Assembly should give l~cal government the toolS and let them make the
decisions.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to ask the legislators to be sensitive
to a future proposal concerning vested rights in zoning matters. In the past,
the courts have decided, on a case by case basis, whether a property owner
justifiably relied upon local ordinance to his~detriment by spending money
beyond acquiring the land, such as on preparing a site plan or applying for a
special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom said he is qoncerned that, if the
legislature attempts to define when a right ve~ts, it would be impossible to
handle the individual circumstances that have ~risen in the past with regard
to vested rights. He said he has heard it repdrted that some legislators
favor vesting rights in the zoning of a proPertly if a property owner has owned
that property for five years, regardless of wh~ther the property owner has
done anything in pursuance of that zoning, and~?~that the property owner would
have to consent to any change in the zoning ofilithat property. Mr. Lindstrom
said the by-products of that approach to zoning, can be seen along Route 29
North, because property owners often want the ~iost intensive zoning possible
for their property. He said he believes the i~ue of when a right is vested
should be left to the courts. In the past, some localities may have allowed
generous amounts of commercial, industrial and~/~esidential zoning and then
learned later that their resources could not s~pport such intensive zoning.
If the zoning were to become vested, the localities would lose their ability
to regulate zoning according to their needs.
Senator Michie said the results of such a~' action by the General Assembly
might run counter to the expectations of develOPers and property owners. He
said local governments would be reluctant to r~zone properties if the rezoning
were permanent, even though the landowner did ~Othing with the property.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that prior to 1980,ii!i the property along both sides
of Route 29 North, from the roadway back 300 f~et, was zoned commercial to the
Greene County Line. On December 10, 1980, the':Board down-zoned the property
along Route 29 North to the north of the South iMork of the Rivanna River, with
the exception of areas around Airport and Proffiit Roads. Mr. Tucker said this
down-zoning was undertaken in response to the Phblic s concerns with the
traffic congestion on Route 29 North. If the G~neral Assembly were to make
the changes described by Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Tucker said, the Board would not
have been able to change the zoning on these properties.
Mr. Perkins asked if the legislators plann,~d to sponsor any legislation
affecting the County. Delegate Allen said he w'~ll co-sponsor legislation for
local option election of school boards. He sai~ his top priority will be to
introduce a constitutional amendment to allow the assets of drug dealers to be
used for local law enforcement efforts to comba~ the use of drugs. He
commended Mr. Bowie for his efforts in persuading the Virginia Association of
Counties to support this amendment. Senator Mi~hie said he will introduce the
Clean Air legislation again and he commended th~ Board for passing its own
Clean Air ordinance. Delegate Van Yahres said ~e will introduce a bill
calling for stronger mandates in the standards ~f' quality in education,
especially in the area of parental involvement. ~! He said he does not believe
this bill would have a fiscal impact on localit{es. He said he is also
introducing a server intervention bill, which w~uld require all managers of
establishments dispensing or selling alcohol to litake a course on serving
alcoholic beverages and how to handle customers i~who have drunk to freely.
Mr. Way thanked the legislators for attend{?g this meeting and for their
comments.
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
382
At 4:45 P.M., the Board returned to Room .7 and resumed its regular
agenda.
Agenda Item No. 15a. Appropriation. Additional Officers for the Joint
Security Complex.
Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Mike McMahan, Jail Administrator, had indicated
that the Compensation Board and Jail Board had accepted and approved fourteen
new correctional officers. Funding for seven of those positions is considered
temporary because it is available only through 3une 30, 1990. The other seven
positions are considered permanent because they are funded by the Compensation
Board as of March 1, 1990. He said these positions have been authorized due
to the current jail expansion project to be completed in March, 1990. Mr.
Tucker said staff recommends approval of the appropriation regarding these
additional positions and the Board's concurrence that local funding of the
temporary positions beyond June 30, 1990, is dependent upon future funding by
the State Compensation Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the
appropriation by adopting the following resolution, contingent on the City
providing their share of the funding.
Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messr~ Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
1989-90
Joint Security
Funding of Additional Officers
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1400033020110000
1400033020210000
1400033020221000
1400033020231000
1400033020232000
1400033020241000
1400033020601100
1100033020700002
1100095000999990
REVENUE
Salaries-Regular
FICA
VSRS
Health Insurance
Dental Insurance
VSRS Group Life
Uniforms
Regional Jail
Contingency for Budget Adjustments
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
$100,782.50
7,641.67
11,159.17
1,090.83
5,250.00
455.00
5,600.00
4,454.45
(4,454.45)
$131,979.17
AMOUNT
2400016000160503
2400016000160502
2400023000230901
County Share 26%
City Share 74%
State Share
$ 4,454.45
12,678.05
114,846.67
TOTAL $131,979.17
Agenda Item No. 15b. Appropriation: Rivanna Park.
Mr. Jones explained that this request provides for adjustment of the
Rivanna Park operating budget due to the delayed opening. Expenditures and
revenues are being reduced by a total of $39,500, resulting in a reduction of
the County's share of the operating cost by $1~,500. The Director of Parks
and Recreation has requested that this amount Be transferred to the Capital
Improvements Program to complete construction ~f the revised Phase I.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve the
request by adopting the following resolution. 'Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote: i~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs!~:! Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. !~:
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
383
FISCAL YEAR:
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
1989-90
Rivanna Park/Capital
Revisions to Rivanna Park Operating Budget
and Addition Construction Funding
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1420071002130000
1420071002210000
1420071002390000
1420071002390002
1420071002510100
1420071002510300
1420071002600500
1420071002600700
1100071002700007
1100093010930004
1900071002800650
REVENUE
Compensation-Part-time
FICA-Employer
Contract Serv-Other
Contract Serv-Refuse
Electrical Services
Water Services
Laundry/Janitor Supplies
Repair/Maint Supplies
Rivanna Park Operations-
County Share
Transfer to Capital
Improvement Program
Rivanna Park Construction
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
($27,105.00)
(2,055.00)
(500.00)
(1,ooo.oo)
(2,500.00)
(1,ooo.oo)
(500.00)
(4,840.00)
(10,500.00)
10,500.00
10,500.00
($29,000.00)
AMOUNT
2420016000160502
2420016000160503
2420016000161301
290051000512004
City of Charlottesville
County of Albemarle
Recreation Fees
($10,500.00)
(10,500.00)
(18,500.00)
Transfer to Capital Improvement
Program from General Fund 10,500.00
TOTAL ($29,000.00)
Agenda Item No. 15c. Appropriation: Soil and Water Conservation.
Mr. Tucker said this appropriation request covers FY 1989-90 operations
for the Soil and Water Conservation Grant. The County's share is 25 percent
of the total operating budget of $30,298.68.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the
appropriation by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:~'
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS~ Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1989-90
FUND: Soil & Water d~nservation
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1989-90 So~l Conservation Grant
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION ~ AMOUNT
1122282030110000
1122282030210000
1122282030221000
1122282030231000
1122282030232000
1122282030241000
1122282030270000
REVENUE
Salaries-Regularl
FICA i.~
VSRS
Health Insurancei"
Dental Insurancel~,
VSRS Group Life
Worker's Compensation
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
$23,412.93
1,774.71
2,591.76
900.00
60.00
238.80
1,320.48
$30,298.68
AMOUNT
2122251000512004
2122224000240500
County Share 25%~
State Grant 75%
TOTAL
$ 7,574.67
22~724.01
$30,298.68
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
384
Agenda Item No. 21. Adoption of Revised Personnel Policy - Retirement
Pay/Payment Upon Death.
Mr. Tucker explained that a word had been inadvertently omitted from the
newly adopted personnel policy P-64, Retirement Pay/Payment Upon Death. The
word "continuous" should be included in the first paragraph referring to the
payment of $200 per year for each year of service. He said it was included in
the School Board policy and was intended to be in local government's policy as
well.
Mr. Bowie said some police officers had a question with regard to the
form for selecting whether payment would be for retirement or sick leave for
present County employees. He said there is a concern that if a new law is
passed regarding early retirement for police officers, they would not be
allowed to take advantage of that because of signing this form. Mr. Tucker
said if the law passes, the policy would be amended to reflect that change.
Mr. Bowie asked that the Police Department and Sheriff's Office be so
informed, i
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt
Personnel Policy P-64 as revised. Roll was c~lled and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote: i~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~'
P-64 RETIREMENT PAY/PAYMENT UPON DEATH
In recognition of employee service to Albemarle County, employees
who are eligible to retire under the Virginia Supplemental Retirement
System shall be paid upon their retirement $200 per year for each year
of continuous service to the County up t~! a maximum payment for 25
years of service.
PAYMENT TO SPOUSE/ESTATE
The surviving spouse or the estate ~f an active employee who dies
shall receive payment for the former employee's years of service at
the rate of $200 per year for each year 6f continuous permanent
employment.
Not I)ocketed: Mr. Tucker said an item wtis inadvertently omitted from the
agenda, but had been advertised for this meeting. A resolution creating a
Public Recreational Facilities Authority need~:; to be acted on at this meeting.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised !in the Daily Progress on
December 1, 1989.)
Mr. Way opened the public hearing at thisi*time. There being no members
of the public present to speak, the public head,ring was closed and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Li~dstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie
to adopt the following resolution establishing}'~ the Public Recreational
Facilities Authority. Roll was called and the?motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs/. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ':'
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
38~
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY
PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County:
There is hereby creRted a public recreational facilities author-
ity whose name shall be the Public Recreational Facilities Authority
of Albemarle County, the address of whose principal office shall be
the County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia, 22901-4596.
The Authority is created under the provisions of Chapter 29,
Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia 1950, Sections 15.1-1271 through
15.1-1287.
The names, addresses and terms of office of the first members of
the Authority are:
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
23 Orchard Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
One-year term
Mr. David Bass
Route 1, Box 356
Charlottesville, VA
22901
One-year term
Mr. John H. Birdsall, III
Route 5, Box 356
Charlottesville, VA 22901
One-year term
Mr. Archibald Craige
East Belmont Farm
Keswick, VA 22947
TWo-year term
Ms. Norma J. Diehl
106 Mountainview Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Two-year term
Mr. G. David Emmitt
1734 Franklin Drive
Charlottesville, VA
22901
Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom
HCR 1, Box 20
Charlottesville, VA 22901
TWo-year term
Three-year term
Mr. Scott B. Peyton
Seven Oaks Farm
Greenwood, VA. 22943
Three-year term
Mr. RaymOnd Reiss
Route 2, Box 317
Scottsville, VA 24590
Three-year term
The purpose for which the Authority ~s created, is to accept,
hold, and administer open-space land and interests therein, under the
provisions of Chapter 17 of Title 10.1 oflithe Code of Virginia 1950,
as specifically prescribed by Code Sectio~ 10.1-1701.
The name of the participating political subdivision is Albemarle
County.
The purposes of the Authority shall n~ot include power to acquire
interests in land by purchase or by eminent domain without the express
concurrence of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle CoUnty, but shall
be limited to accepting interests in landliwhieh from time to time may
be voluntarily conveyed to the Authority 15y the owner or owners
thereof.
The purposes of the Authority shall ~-ot include the power to
issue bonds or to incur debt.
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
386
Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mr. Bowie briefed the Board on his recent visit to Richmond to speak
_ before the committee studying HJR 432, which concerns the need for infrastruc-
ture. He thanked Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, Mr.
Lindstrom, and Mrs. Charlotte Humphris for their assistance in preparing the
speech, which concerned the difficulties experienced by the County in funding
roads, schools and other services necessitatedl by the growth in population.
Mr. Bowie said the members of the committee were very receptive to the speech
and concerned about the problems the County faces due to its increasing
population.
Mr. Bain asked if staff could obtain from the files the substantive
objections to the Virginia Department of Transportation's subdivision road
standards. He said if the Board concurred, heiwould like to discuss those
objections on January 10 and resubmit them to ~VDoT. There were no objections
from the Board.
Agenda Item No. 23. Recess and Reconvene at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7.
At 5:04 P.M., the Board recessed for dinner. The Board reconvened at
7:30 P.M. with all Board members present. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Cilimberg were
also present.
Agenda Item No. 24. To receive public comments on the 1989-1995 Capital
Improvements Program (CIP). (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in
the Daily Progress on November 28 and December~5, 1989.)
Mr. Tucker outlined the projects planned for both the next five years and
the next six months of the CIP. He said the cost of the projects in the
1989-1995 CIP totals $76,472,109. The capital~projects planned for the next
six months total $2,550,503.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked that citizens organize their
comments according to the categories of the CIP. The first category, "Admin-
istration and Courts", elicited no comments from the public.
Under the category "Education", Ms. Sally"Thomas, a member of the School
Long Range Planning Committee and the League of Women Voters, offered the
following comments. She urged the Board to ac~ quickly to allow the schools
to handle the pressures of growing enrollment, i;- She said she understands the
expenses facing the Board, and she asked that ~he Board not succumb to the
fallacy that delaying painful decisions makes ~hem less painful. She said the
long range plan prepared by the committee was intended to be adopted as a
coherent whole, not picked apart and some pieces kept and some abandoned.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the information presented in the committee's
report was valuable and the recommendations helpful. However, he said, it
would be wrong to assume that the Board is giving up its right to make deci-
sions when it appoints a committee to study an~issue. Mr. Lindstrom said he
believes it is the Board's job to evaluate the~data and recommendations
offered by the committee and make its own decisions. He does not think that
members of the committee should feel the repor~ is being ignored.
Mr. Howard Sheinfeld, a resident of the C~arlottesville District,
addressed the Board. He asked about the statu~ of the elementary school for
the urban area listed in the CIP: when and wh~re the school will be built.
Mr. Way said the Board has not decided upon a ~ocation for the school.
He said several sites are under consideration, '.!including the Whitewood Road
site, and will be discussed at a work session on January 10, 1990. He said
the urban area elementary school is currently S~cheduled to be funded in the
1992-93 year of the CIP. .~
Mr. Sheinfeld said he is concerned that d~!laying the construction of
this school will cause the School Board to adoPit interim solutions such as
redistricting and moving children from school ~o school. He urged the Board
to approve a site and fund the school as soon ~s possible.
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
38~
Mr. Bob Critzer, a resident of Oak Forest Subdivision, which lies across
the road from the Whitewood Road site, addresSed the Board. He said that many
residents of the area would like this property to be used for a park, rather
than developed in any way. He said he hopes the Board is aware of the many
citizens who spoke in favor of preserving this property as a park at a public
hearing held by the Planning Commission. He said' that members of the Commis-
sion raised several objections to the idea of lUsing the property for a park
instead of a sChool. Several members were concerned that taxpayers would be
unwilling to have the County pay nearly $700,000 for a new site. Mr. Critzer
said he thinks this is a reasonable cost for a park in an urban area. Another
objection concerned the problem of security on the wooded site. Mr. Critzer
said he has questioned citizens who use the park and they all feel safe there.
He urged the Board to consider other sites for the urban area elementary
school.
Ms. Eleanor Spoonover, who has two children at Rose Hill Elementary
School, addressed the Board and said she supports the comments made by Mr.
Sheinfeld. She does think that school-aged children should not be shuttled
back and forth between schools, which will happen if the School BOard has to
redistrict the school population. She thinks ilit would make sense to have the
urban area elementary school close to a park, ibecause children need lots of
open space.
There were no comments offered under "FiH¢, Rescue and Safety". Under
"Highways and Transportation" Mr. Sheinfeld dnce again addressed the Board.
He said a traffic light is needed at the intem~ection of Greenbrier Drive and
Rio Road. He said this is a heavily traveled !intersection and many traffic
accidents have taken place there. Mrs. Cooke i~aid she would discuss this with
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer for the ~%rginia Department of Transpor-
tation. However, she said, she knows of intersections carrying more traffic
than the one cited by Mr. Sheinfeld that VDoT ~as stated do not warrant
traffic lights. She added that traffic lights!ii'are not part of the CIP, but
are included under primary and secondary highway budgets.
There were no comments offered under "Lib}aries". Under "Parks and
Recreation", Mr. Tom Sulliman, representing th~ Charlottesville Tennis Patrons
Association, offered the following comments. He said the Association is
interested in developing the potential for tenD~s among young people in the
area. He said the Association supports the proposed expenditure to improve
the tennis courts at Albemarle High School, because tennis allows children to
participate in a non-contact, low-injury sportilwhile improving their self-
reliance.
Ms. Eileen Rutschow, President of the Alb~arle High School Tennis
Boosters, addressed the Board and said she has]two sons enrolled at Albemarle
High School. She supported the comments made Mr. Sulliman. She said she can
think of no better way to spend the money than}to build four new courts at the
High School, because these courts can be used ~Y both students and adults from
both the City and County. She thanked the Board for its support of tennis in
the past.
Under "Utilities", Ms. Sally Thomas made~ihe following comments as a
representative of the League of Women Voters. i~She said the League supports
the proposed funding for the Lickinghole Creeki~regional sedimentation basin
because the basin will preserve the reservoir ~hile allowing the community of
Crozet to grow as planned. She said the designation of Crozet as a growth
area was based on the assumption that the commodity would lie within the
drainage area of the proposed impoundment. Sh~ said the League would never
haVe supported the designation of Crozet as a gMowth area if the League had
known that there was a possibility the Licking~le Creek basin, the key to the
development of Crozet, would not be built. Sh~ said that regional basins are
more efficient and cOst-effective than individ~l, on-site basins. She said
the League also belieVes that the cost of constructing the Lickinghole Creek
basin should be shared by the County and developers.
Since no one else wished to speak concerning the CIP, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before thei~Board. Mr. Way said the Board
will take action on the CIP for the next six mo~ths at its meeting on
December 20, 1989. The Board will wait until J~nuary, 1990, to take action on
the CIP for the next five years, to allow new B~ard members to part~cmpate ~n
the decision.
December 13, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
3 88?
Mr. Bowie said he would like to respond to Ms. Thomas's comments on the
long range planning committee. He said that some people believe that when
recommendations are made by intelligent people serving on a committee, the
Board will follow those recommendations without questioning them. However, he
said, committees consider only the issue under their charge and no more. The
Board must consider all of the needs of all the people in the County and
allocate resources accordingly.
Not Docketed: Mr. Way said that a gift of historical significance will
be presented to the residents of the Albemarle and Charlottesville area on
December 17, 1989. An exhibit will be on display at the Rio Hills Shopping
Center to commemorate a battle that took place on that site on February 29,
1864, during the War between the States. The Board has been requested to
adopt the following proclamation:
WHEREAS on February 29, 1864, General George A. Custer and
fifteen hundred Union caalrymen made a diversionary raid into
Albemarle County towards Charlottesville; and
WHEREAS the only Confederate force opposing him was composed of
the two hundred and seventy-six men of the Stuart Horse Artillery
encamped for the winter at Rio Hill, north of Charlottesville this day
one hundred and twenty-six years ago. Despite destruction to their
camp, these Confederates rallied in a couhterattach which forced
Custer's withdrawal; therefore
BE IT RESOLVED that, on behalf of the citizens, the Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby reaffirm our thanks to the
officers and men of the said artillery bailtalion for their gallantry
and heroism on that day, and hereby exten~ our gratitute to those
history-minded citizens of Albemarle CoUnty and the City of
Charlottesville, as well as the First Interstate Development Group of
Cleveland, Ohio, for their assistance andlgenerous support in the
development and dedication on December 23.~.~? 1989, of a permanent public
museum exhibit commemorating this histori~ event on the site of the
Rio Hill Shopping Center; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the abov~ preamble and resolution be
communicated to the citizens of CharlotteSville and Albemarle County
this 13th day of December, 1989. 'i~
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to
adopt the foregoing resolution commemorating th~ battle at Rio Hill.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrsf Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
Mr. Bowie said he would like to know at next week's meeting whether the
Brown's Gap matter (Route 629) is strictly a citvil one.
Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn to December !~9, 1989 at 1:00 P.M.
At 8:12 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. B~in and seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom to adjourn to December 19, 1989, at i!:00 P.M. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs.i Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.