1989-07-05 adjJuly 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 1)
123
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 5, 1989, at 1:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting
was adjourned from June 21, 1989.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., F. R. Bowie,
C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 1:25 P.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T.
Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community
Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
1:38 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 9. Executive Session: Personnel. Mr. Way said it would
be necessary to have the executive session at the beginning of this meeting.
At 1:39 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie
to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss the appointment of identifiable
personnel under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.1.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
At 1:48 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session, and the following
certification motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative record-
ed vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia
Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in confoCmity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that'~the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors hereby certifies that, tolthe best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies,
and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Boardiii!~of Supervisors.
Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor said the position of Director of Planning and
Community Development had been advertised, and 57 applicants had responded.
Of those, eight had been interviewed. The County Executive recommended that
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, currently Albemarle C~unty Chief of Community Develop-
ment, be appointed as Director of Planning and Community Development effective
July 6, 1989, at a salary range of $39,481. ~
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 2)
124
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to accept
the County Executive's recommendation. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 1:52 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Way said a number of comments had been received at the public hearing
on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Way said staff had prepared a memo concerning
the issues raised at the public hearing. Since members of the public con-
cerned with specific properties are present,~he suggested that Mr. Cilimberg
begin the discussion with Chapter 3: Neighborhood Two, the Woodbrook/
Carrsbrook connector road item.
Mr. Cilimberg said the issue in Neighborhood Two involves the proposed
connector road between Woodbrook and Carrsbrook Subdivisions. There was a
request that the connector road be eliminated due to the potential traffic
impact on this residential area. He said the Planning Commission's recommen-
dation to retain this connector road in the Gomprehensive Plan was based on
keeping school buses and neighborhood traffic to the Woodbrook School off of
Route 29 North.
Mr. Way said that Mrs. Cooke had asked him in her absence to relay to the
Board her desire that this connector road be ieliminated as she has requested
previously. He thought the Board would want 'to discuss this item further when
Mrs. Cooke is present. No one expressed any ~opposition to this suggestion.
Mr. Cilimberg then presented the next item concerning Chapter 3: Neigh-
borhood Three. He said this request involves a large office/ regional service
area in the northwest quadrant of the 1-64/RoUte 250 East interchange. The
request is that this area be redesignated to allow more commercial use than
would be allowed under the nonresidential land use guidelines in the proposed
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the request involves over 200 acres.
He said the concern expressed at the public h~aring was that the requirement
that~regional service uses not exceed 15 percent of gross floor area in
primary office service uses was a significantlreduction of commercial develop-
ment potential for this property when compared to current zoning. There is
also a concern that the phasing of developmen~ would not allow for the commer-
cial development to occur in any significant .degree for many years. He said
that was based on the property owner's interpretation that they would have to
be into the office development phase before b~ginning any type of commercial
development. Mr. Cilimberg said the ideas that have evolved from various
Board work sessions and staff recommendations~to this point are to allow for a
large-scale, planned development in which total development scheme could
be reviewed under one plan. The guidelines established have separated
regional service uses from the standard offic~ service uses. The 15 percent
requirement would be based on the amount of of~fice floor area shown in the
planned submittal. He said that staff estimates on this particular site that
a typical development of office uses would yield a regional service square
footage of over 300,000 square feet. ~
Mr. Cilimberg said the intent is that th~ regional service area not be
developed until significant office developmen~ takes place. Based on prior
discussions, the Board has indicated that regional service could be considered
as part of the plan but could be developed separately from any office space.
He understood that the Board was interested id the location of regional
service and its orientation to the remaining ~evelopment. Mr. Cilimberg said
only supporting commercial development, which ~ould be separate from the
regional service area, would be phased based ~n the office development.
Furthermore, possible motel/hotel/conference d~velopment would not be included
as part of a percentage established for allowable supporting commercial uses.
The percentage of allowable supporting commerc~ial has not been established in
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 3)
125
the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said staff stresses the large scale,
mixed use nature of this type of development area and the importance of the
development plan in determining the location and magnitude of uses.
Mr. Lindstrom said theoretically as much as 25 percent of the area could
be developed commercially, with some being free-standing regional service.
The resulting development could be on a scale which would not be a great deal
different from what the existing zoning category would allow there now.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if all of the development on the site would have to
be done pursuant to a comprehensive site plan for the area. Mr. Cilimberg
said an application plan would specifically lay out where the office develop-
ment would occur, where the regional service would occur, and the conditions
under which each would be developed. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands it
would not be a specific site plan, but an application plan that would be
mandated as part of the approval of any portion of the development. Mr.
Cilimberg said that was correct. Mr. Bowie said he understands that once the
plan is submitted, there is no sequence as to which development comes first,
other than retail associated with office, which has to wait until the office
is built. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has that Understanding as the result of
the Board's earlier discussions.
Mr. Bowie said he felt Mr. Cilimberg's presentation represents what he
understood the Board to mean. He has no proSlem with this designation being
used to enhance the commercial office development, but he would have to see a
plan first, which is what he has stated before. He said he felt this designa-
tion would satisfy the concerns of the requestor as well as the Board's
concern for protecting the commercial aspects!and safeguarding the interests
of the City and the County.
Mr. Lindstrom said there is no guarantee~that the applicant will not come
in with an application plan that shows a stri~ development plan along Route
250 East. He said his understanding of this ~ategory is that, assuming that
the zoning is developed to reflect the intent!iof the Comprehensive Plan, the
Board would be able to control the location and orientation of the develop-
ment. Mr. Cilimberg said that was correct. Mr. Lindstrom said that is what
he is most concerned about. He does not want'ito create any more strip commer-
cial development in that area. He said the size bothers him somewhat, but
more importantly, the orientation and integration of the entire development is
a concern. He said he agrees with Mr. Bowie ~hat the discussion has been
sufficient, and he sees no reason to make any!ichanges.
Mr. Bowie asked if what has been presented by Mr. Cilimberg is what will
be in the Comprehensive Plan unless there is ~ motion to change the designa-
tion. Mr. Cilimberg said that was correct.
Mr. Cilimberg then addressed Item No. 7,':Chapter 3: Crozet - a request to
have the eastern boundary of Crozet expanded to include additional area for
residential development. He said before the public hearing the Board had
agreed to include language in the Comprehensive Plan that would allow for the
expansion eastward of the residential area at low density (one to four dwell-
ing units per acre). He said no firm boundaries were established at that time
because the expansion was based on the condition of final engineering for the
sedimentation basin at Lickinghole Creek and ~he dam location for that basin
to allow for the drainage area to be determined. The boundary would conform
to the drainage area for the basin. Based on]the private request and a
rezoning application currently in hand, about !two-thirds of the area of the
rezoning request for residential zoning (R-4),i would actually fall within what
is expected to be the boundaries of Crozet. Hnother one-third of the
requested area would likely fall outside the growth area boundary. He said
staff felt the inclusion of the remaining one-'third of the requested residen-
tial area would be inconsistent with the basis!-for the Crozet area boundaries
because it would occur in the watershed waters~pply area not planned for
regional detention facilities.
He said the issue in Crozet is the same as that on the western edge of
the urban area and northwest of Scottsville, and that is that boundaries are
drawn to conform with the water supply watershed boundary. To go beyond that
would be a violation of the precedent already set in boundary determinations.
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 4)
126
He said the applicant on this project is proposing on-site retention, some of
which would supplement the sedimentation basin. He said in the past the
County has not preferred to have local on-site retention within the water
supply watershed because of the concern over the increasing number of basins
and the maintenance of those basins potentially at public cost.
Mr. Way said it is clear that the Lickinghole Creek sedimentation basin
is not going to be entirely effective in keeping sedimentation out of the
reservoir. He asked if on-site retention would make for a better situation.
Mr. Cilimberg said there has been some engineering analysis completed by the
applicant. The applicant's feeling is that his retention pond would provide a
level of protection that would exceed that of the Lickinghole Creek sedimenta-
tion basin. He said the area where on-site ~etention is also provided within
the drainage area to the sedimentation basin certainly would have an improved
level of protection. However, he pointed out that the question comes up as to
where other on-site basins would be allowed, iand to what extent within the
water supply watershed areas, and who would maintain these basins to the level
of protection necessary.
Mr. Lindstrom said it is the same issue that came up when the neighbor-
hood plans were adopted in 1981. At that time, the County Engineer analyzed
how the land could be developed using individual sedimentation facilities.
There was a considerable amount of land that icould be developed beyond the
Georgetown/Hydraulic Road boundary using sedimentation basins. At that time
the problem facing the Board was the same, who will maintain individual basins
and how will the County ensure that the stand~ards are maintained to provide
the necessary level of sedimentation needed. At that time the Board felt that
once individual basins began, it would be hard to draw the line and almost
impossible over time to ensure that they were all operated properly. He said
he is not comfortable with expanding the boundary and depending upon a pri-
vately maintained facility. ~
Mr. Bowie said this is a single applicant with a request in conjunction
with the Lickinghole Creek basin. He asked if inspections and maintenance
requirements could be handled in the negotiatiions under conditional zoning.
Mr. Cilimberg said there could certainly be conditions established, but the
question remains as to whether or not over time the problems of maintenance
and proper operation would arise. He said there is always the potential that
the public is going to be asked to step in because the conditions have not
been met, or the facility is not functioning jproperly, and it then becomes a
public responsibility. ~
Mr. Perkins asked what the useful life %~ of a sedimentation basin. He
said it seems to him that the need for the sedimentation basin would end once
the development has been stabilized. Mr. Ag~or said the life of a sedimenta-
tion basin is dependent upon the amount of e~sion, and the major part of it
does occur during construction. However, th~e will always be some erosion
from natural processes. The useful life would be determined by the capability
for holding water long enough to have it settle, rather than having sediment
go into the dam. The intent is that the basTM would prevent phosphorus and
other matters associated with land use and r~-off from roads and parking lots
from going into the reservoir forever. Another solution is that when the
basin becomes limited in its capability because of sediment, it is necessary
to dredge the basin and begin again. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said his concern is that tSe basic principle of the Compre-
hensive Plan is to avoid development in the w~tershed of a public drinking
water impoundment. If the Board allows this ~evice as proposed to expand the
area of development in the watershed, he coul~ not see how the principle
stands any longer. The situation at Crozet was that a public facility could
be built to minimize the water problem, and the principle was to allow devel-
opment in an area that would drain into that publicly maintained facility.
Crozet in and of itself is the exception to t~e rule. He said he was not sure
how the Board could respond to similar requests in other parts of the boundary
of Crozet or the urban area, if this is allowed. Building a sedimentation
basin is something that most developers could ido, and the same kind of argu-
ment could be made. {
Mr. Bowie said the operative phrase is that Crozet in and of itself is an
exception because it was already developed. On the other hand, Mr. Bowie said
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 5)
127
there is an unwillingness by the Board to allow development. Mr. Lindstrom
said there are other places within the boundaries of Crozet that could be
developed.
Mr. Perkins said the problem is that lines can be drawn on maps, but if
landowners are not willing to allow development, it will not happen. In this
case there is a willing seller and a willing purchaser. It so happens that
some of the land drains to Lickinghole Creek, but some of it does not.
Mr. Lindstrom said that argument could be made anytime there is a piece
of property someone wants to develop. Mr. Bain said Crozet is the exception,
but this type of request would have application anywhere around the urban
area. He said a distinction cannot be made between this request and other
areas in the watershed.
Mr. Perkins said this request ties in with a study that was made on the
reservoir. He asked if it has been determined whether the sedimentation
currently going into the reservoir is coming from development, or if it is
natural sedimentation. In the case of Mechums River, he said there was
probably as much sedimentation when buffalo were crossing it as there is now.
He said some sections along Mechums River contain highly erodible soil,
regardless of the number of people who live there. If something can be done
to have small sedimentation basins maintained{ he felt it should be done.
Mr. Bowie said an investment has already~been made in Crozet to encourage
growth. Mr. Lindstrom said this issue deals With one of the most fundamental
aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The precedent is being introduced that a
private developer using a private device can create his own topography. What
has been the primary principle in this Plan ia that the natural topography
will dictate where boundaries go. The natural topography allows the construc-
tion of the Lickinghole Creek Sedimentation P~nd at a size that can be managed
publicly and is reasonable to be managed publ~cly. An argument that can be
made hundreds of times is that a landowner ca~ build a sedimentation pond and
alter the natural topography. He said a fairly rigorous reservoir plan has
been in place for more than ten years, and he'.~can only assume that it has been
effective in reducing the amount of sedimentation going into the reservoir.
He noted that phosphate and nitrogen run-off ~ave been significantly tied to
residential development. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he has absolutely no ~roblem with expanding the growth
area to include the portion of land that drains naturally toward the
Lickinghole Creek basin. He said from what s~aff has reported, he believes
that includes about two-thirds of this proper~y proposed for development.
Extending the last one-third would be a fundamental change in the principles
in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Keeler said it had been some time sinlce the Lickinghole Creek basin
was discussed. He said it is now being said that this basin will have a range
of 40 to 50 percent efficiency. He said it may be necessary, even with
Lickinghole Creek basin, to have additional on-site measures within the
designated growth area. If the Board is concerned about private protection of
a public investment, which is what would result with a private basin outside
the designated growth area, Mr. Keeler said t~e vast amount of time the prior
Board spent negotiating with the City and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authori-
ty as to contribution of maintenance of the Li~ckinghole Creek basin should be
considered.
Mr. Bain said he would like to see where ~he dam will be located and
where the actual boundary will be. He said h~ has no problem extending the
boundary to those areas that would drain into ~the sedimentation basin. There
is no reason under this argument that the entire area north of Route 240 would
not be developed based on a developer installing individual basins. There
would be nothing to prevent development in those areas if it is allowed here.
Mr. Lindstrom said if development is allowed on a site-by-site basis,
then the Board is actually rezoning and not de?eloping a comprehensive plan.
He said that would be undercutting the plannln~ that has already been done.
There is plenty of room for private in~vestment.ito make a lot of money in
development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, without opening
up new precedent-setting avenues that are potehtially very expensive for the
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 6)
128
County. He suggested that this request be approved for those areas that would
drain into Lickinghole Creek only.
Hearing no further discussion or motions, Mr. Way said this growth area
boundary would remain as shown. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that meant that it
would include the additional land east of Crozet which would drain into the
Lickinghole Creek basin. Mr. Cilimberg said that is a specific statement in
the proposed Comprehensive Plan, but it will have to be determined approxi-
mately where that boundary would be.
The next item of discussion was No 8, Chapter 3: Hollymead. He said
this request was is that the northeast quadrant of the Proffit Road/U. S.
Route 29 intersection up to the North Fork of the Rivanna River and east of
Route 785 be considered as an addition to the Comprehensive Plan. It includes
areas for regional service, office service, neighborhood and residential
service. The Board had addressed this area as a possible expansion to the
Hollymead growth area. He said staff though~ of this as primarily a residen-
tial area, rather than an expansion of commercial or office area, since there
is already a good deal of office and commercial use in Hollymead. He said up
to this point, the Board has not included this area for any type of growth
area expansion. The Board did say the property owner could submit a rezoning
application for consideration in tandem with!a comprehensive plan amendment
within a year. He said staff's analysis of this area as a potential residen-
tial area would be between 300 and 1500 additional dwelling units based on the
density of development and the developability of the land in that area.
Regarding the question of Hollymead at the public hearing, there was a concern
about the overall employment capacity, particularly for industrial and office
uses. He said staff has conservatively estimated that the capacity for
developable industrial and office acreage isiat least 9000 employees and may
well be more than that.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if staff had determined whether or not three million
square feet can be obtained on the 250 acres,~ias the owner claims. Mr.
Cilimberg said an initial review indicated t~at it would not be an industrial
office development characteristic of this area. He said it would entail
building upward and having parking and office.larea underground.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what percentage of the three million square feet
could be obtained through a typical developmeht. Mr. Keeler said he had
looked at that and found that about 2.3 millibn square feet could be obtained
on 250 acres using a fairly typical style of ~evelopment and the figures
supplied with this application. Mr. Lindstr~m said if three million square
feet of office research space would produce a~out 6500 jobs, and the applicant
could achieve about 70 percent of that on the~acreage they currently have with
the same ratio of employees, or 4042 employees on about 230 acres. If that is
typical of that area, his question is how man~ total acres are shown in
Hollymead for this kind of use right now. Mr~ Cilimberg said office and
industrial acreage total about 650 developabl~i acres. Using their development
intensity, there would be an employment base 9f between 9000 and 12,000. Mr.
Lindstrom said a lot of these would be people who live and work in Albemarle
County. Looking at a potential of 12,000 jobs being created for people to
live here, it means a service demand that is very substantial. He said the
numbers will show that development is costly. He said when the map is drawn
up, the question then becomes how much of this land should actually be zoned
prior to applications being made. If it is zaned.ahead of time, there is no
ability to deal with the development through dew legislation, but the cost
~ .
under the current tax structure will be a submtant~al net cost to the County.
He said his concern is that so much acreage iq shown over which the County has
little control. He said there is already twide as much as there should be.
The argument is made that the Comprehensive Pi~an is made to accommodate the
people that will move here. He said that com~rcial~ and industrial zoning
will create population more than it will acco~odate the population. He
wondered if that much more industrial use shou{d be shown on the map at this
time for that area. Control over industrial a~d commercial zoning is the only
real control the Board has by statute that allbws phasing of the amount of
population that has to be absorbed from time ~? time.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board needs to con~ider what scaling back would do
to the availability of land in the County in g~neral, and whether or not there
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 7)
129
will be pressure placed elsewhere for specialized development. Mr. Lindstrom
said acceding to these demands will very likely mean an increased tax rate
unless there are better ways of dealing with the services that will be re-
quired as a result of development. He said every growing community in this
State has experienced that problem.
Mr. Lindstrom said that control of growth is something that counties
generally are not given the power to do through enabling legislation.
However, they do have the authority to determine within reason how much
commercial and industrial zoning can be show~. He said there have been some
good arguments made by the public that the cost of development is not clear
nor is the resource base there to absorb it.~ He said'the growth that has
occurred in the past ten years will start costing money to accommodate the
children in school, increase the police department and all of the other
functions of the County. He said the Board heeds to take a hard look at the
amount of commercial and industrial zoning included in the Comprehensive Plan.
In the next year or so, there has to be a ma~ch with what is allowed and what
can be supported and what the economic consequences will be.
Mr. Bowie said he concurs with Mr. Lindstrom, although he is not sure he
would change the industrial that is already Shown in this area. He does feel
that this matter should be considered again. He thinks it is a mistake to let
industry go to other counties, leaving Albemarle with the people requiring
schools without the industrial taxes. He sa~d he believes there is enough
development in Hollymead at this time. He would be willing to look at the mix
of residential and industrial acreage, as we~l as the amount of industrial
designation. He said this area is in his district, and he does not intend to
make any motion to expand the growth area inlHollymead at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom said he respects the fact that this is in Mr. Bowie's
district, but when the distinction is made between localized issues and major
County and regional issues affecting 20,000 p~ople over the next 20 years, he
does not think that it matters whose district the property is in. Mr. Bowie
said he was saying that he agreed with Mr. Li~dstrom completely, although he
had said it much shorter. ~
Mr. Way said he felt the Board would ne~ to address the question of what
\Jwould be allowed on the other side of Route 129. There would have to be some
additional commercial development as well as i~esidential. He said he did not
object to waiting a while, but he did not thi~k it was realistic to wait until
the next Comprehensive Plan update to considec this question. Mr. Bowie said
he thought the idea was to consider these mat~ers on an annual basis.
Mr. Bain said there is some area south olf Hollymead that can be filled in
before continuing on up Route 29 North with more strip development.
Hearing no motion for a change, Mr. Way Called for a break at 3:13 P.M.,
and the Board reconvened at 3:28 P.M.
Next, Mr. Cilimberg discussed the North Garden Village which had been
addressed at the public hearing. He said the~Village has been expanded
substantially over the current Comprehensive Plan. At this point, the Board
has determined that the provision of public utilities is not feasible for this
Village. As currently proposed, it is to be a low density residential area
providing an alternative to development in th~ rural area. Without public
water from a reliable source, and because theilCounty does not currently
require proof of adequate well water before issuing a residential building
permit, concern has been raised that development at a village density in this
large area will have harmful effects on the g~oundwater supply.
Mr. Bowie asked if the County could legally require proof of adequate
well water before issuing residential buildin~i permits. Mr. Cilimberg said
there are counties in Virginia which do have ~hat legislative authority. He
said that is something that would be a good l~gislative initiative for this
County this year. He said staff is doing analysis and could come back to the
Board with recommendations in the fall regarding how to proceed. Mr. Bowie
said when someone wants to build homes for profitable sale to others, there
should be some way the County can ensure that i%here is water to support the
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 8)
130
development. He thinks this should be included in the packet of proposed
legislation to the Virginia Association of Counties.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that Clark County has an unusual groundwater
situation because they have a lot of limestone, and possibly more information
could be obtained about what they have done with their water ordinance. Mr.
Bowie asked if there is any way a bonding procedure could be used on develop-
ment in the rural areas so that if the water runs out, the County is not stuck
with the bill.
Mr. Bain said there are two points of discussion. He said he thought
that because of the geological studies, the Board concluded there was no way
to provide water or sewer service to North Garden and that the Board had
decided to delete that reference altogether. He said the Board needs to
address whether the possibility of the private sector initiating that is to be
left in. The second point is the boundary of North Garden. He said some
areas had been deleted at the southern end and some added at the north when
this was previously discussed. Citizens who are concerned are those in the
area northeast of Route 710. He asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain how staff and
the Planning Commission arrived at the boundary line determination.
Mr. Cilimberg said there were several limitations to the area, and the
boundary was generally following the rivers and streams and including the
agricultural district. For the northern quadrant, the final decision was
based on the fact that there is a large subdivision in that area currently,
and the Planning Commission wanted to include.in the growth area some areas
that had potential for development. That was~'the primary thought for includ-
ing the area of South Fork Farms.
(Mr. St. John returned at 3:42 P.M.)
Mr. Bowie said there needs to be some way of ensuring that there will be
water if this area is developed. Mr. Lindstrom said what the Board knows now
and did not know when North Garden was first discussed, is that it is diffi-
cult to find a source of water to serve these~people. Mr. Bain said the
question the Board has to deal with is whethe= it is better to provide water
to this area to have some control over development, or to allow scattered
development throughout the rural area.
Mr. Lindstrom said it should be made clear in the Comprehensive Plan that
when development occurs in the rural areas, t~ere is absolutely no obligation
on the part of the County to solve resulting ~roblems. However, when the
Comprehensive Plan designates on a map a village or growth area and indicates
that this is where the County wants growth to~igo, there seems to be some
obligation on the part of the County.
Mr. Bowie said he thought that was where the new conditional zoning
legislation would be effective. Mr. Cilimberg said staff's understanding was
that the Board wanted to go back '
to the Planning Commission s original recom-
mendation regarding utilities in North Garden ~nd allow developers to think
about that provision if they wanted to develop there. He said this can be
addressed during the implementation of conditional zoning.
Mr. Way said doubling the size of a village when there are no utilities
available does not make sense. The only way development can happen is if
there are utilities. Mr. Lindstrom said the question can be asked as to why
an area should be designated for growth at altl, knowing that there may be
water problems. Maybe the discussion should fOCUS on what the pre-conditions
for having a village should be; it is too late to talk about that now. He
said it would be better not to expand North Garden at this time and to give
more thought to what a village should entail. ~The boundary presently includes
land that is likely to be developed at the vil~lage residential density. The
benefit is that it will absorb some development that would occur elsewhere.
Mr. Way asked what the proposed Comprehensive Plan actually says in
reference to this village. Mr. Cilimberg referred the Board to Page 287,
paragraph 4. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the~statement should indicate the
possibility of water problems. He suggested adding language to the effect
that studies indicate central utilities are going to be difficult to provide
to this community, therefore, developers should be required to prove that
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 9)
131
there is adequate water supply. There were no objections from other Board
members to this language. Mr. Lindstrom said in the future, this Board should
consider utility potential in all the other villages as well. Mr. Cilimberg
asked if his understanding was correct that the Board wished to keep the
boundaries as recommended and add the statement with regard to water. There
was no objection offered to his understanding.
Mr. Way said the Board would continue its work session on the Comprehen-
sive Plan on July 12, 1989.
Agenda Item No. 5. Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority - South Rivanna
Reservoir Bathymetric Survey.
Mr. Agnor said staff had analyzed the Reed Associates Bathymetric Survey
of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir conducted for the Route 29 corridor study.
The analysis had compared the storage loss of the reservoir due to siltation
from four studies:
1. The design engineer's estimate made 'in the early 1960's;
2. The Betz Study conducted in 1977;
3. The Glaspy Study completed in 1981; and
4. The Reed Study.
Mr. Agnor said the analysis concluded that the siltation in the Reed
Study is close to the original design estimates. He said plans for the Buck
Mountain supplemental supply should remain on schedule for about the year
2015. The report also recommends that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
conduct a bathymetric study within the next five years to ensure that water
supply planning continues on a sound basis.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what factors were assumed to project the rate of
sedimentation when the design study was done. Mr. Agnor said it was an
engineer's calculation based on the total drainage of the reservoir basin and
the normal siltation of reservoirs that occurs, over a period of thirty and
forty year cycles. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any assumptions made
about the land use activities, the character Of the soils, or the topography.
Mr. Agnor said that Mr. George Williams from the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority could answer that question. ~'~
Mr. Williams said the engineer probably ~sed the universal soil loss
equation in determining the siltation rate. He would have made some assump-
tions on the proportion of the drainage basinii!~that was utilized for agricul-
tural or forestry purposes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if those assumptions were set
out in the study. Mr. Williams said he thoug}{t they were.
Mr. Lindstrom said it appears that Glasb~ and Reed confirmed what the
design study projected for this time frame. Me asked whether the rate of
siltation is increasing. Mr. Williams said i]~ is difficult to determine
whether the siltation occurred in the original ten years, or whether there was
an increase or decrease in the rate in the second ten years. Mr. Williams
said that as more data is collected, the more iaccurate the determination will
be.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had talked with Mr,~i Reed who differentiated between
a study and a survey. This was a survey and r~flects exactly what is there
now. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to knoW more about the rate of change.
He felt that is the unanswered question. Mr. Williams said he did not know
that a study could be done to make that determination.
Mr. Bowie said it seems that the siltation is far less in all the studies
than was originally estimated. The problem seems to be more with release of
water, which is a regulatory problem. Mr. Williams said that is true.
Mr. Lindstrom said his understanding is that the Reed study indicates
that the siltation rate does not seem to be as~bad as originally projected.
However, the depletion is greater because more'water is being taken out. Mr.
Lindstrom said the question that is indirectly addressed is whether or not
there should be further study at this point. If further study could be done
to determine more about the rate of change, he!thinks that would be
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 10)
132
worthwhile. Otherwise, as far as sedimentation is concerned there is no need
for further study now. Mr. Bain said there should be a way to monitor the
rate without waiting for five years for another study. Mr. Lindstrom said a
survey seems to be a fairly simple process. He said there are two issues
'involved here. One is how much water the reservoir can hold, and the other is
whether the water is drinkable.
Mr. Bowie said someone should be able to verify with Glasby and Reed the
bases of their reports. If both are based on the same assumptions, there is a
declining rate of siltation. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like staff to look
at the original design study and try to determine what assumptions were
included and how they compare to what is happening now. He said he would like
to have an estimate of the cost of running an annual bathymetric survey. Mr.
Bain said he would like to know that as well.
Mr. Perkins said it seems that if the streams flowing into the reservoir
were monitored, it would determine where the siltation is coming from. The
source has to be determined in order to solve the problem.
Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: 1989 Statewide Highway Plan.
Mr. David Benish from the Planning Department said the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation requested that staff review the recommendations for
improvements on County roads contained in their proposed 1989 Statewide
Highway Plan. He said that legislation enacted by the General Assembly in
1985 requires YDoT to undertake a comprehensive review of statewide construc-
tion needs for all the highway system roads at least once every five years.
The purpose is to produce an inventory of needs for all highway systems for a
period of twenty years based on standards established by VDoT. The Plan
indicates the deficiencies along road segments, the recommended improvements,
and a cost estimate for the improvements. M~ Benish said the listing is
prioritized by roads listed in VDoT's financial plans for secondary and
primary roads first, and then projects recommended in the Charlottesville Area
Transportation Study (CATS). He said the type of improvements proposed is
based on VDoT general design standards to bring road segments up to acceptable
service levels. The improvements listed arelpot necessarily what will be
constructed when the project is ultimately p~ogrammed. Specific needs and
recommended improvements will be determined d6ring actual project planning.
The intent of the 1989 Statewide HighwaM~iPlan is to create a prioritized
list of all road construction needs for all Highway systems in the state based
on a standardized methodology which provides Yor all roads to be reviewed on
an equal basis. The Plan also gives an indiciAtion of highway improvement
priorities based solely on technical data without economic constraints and
provides individual localities insight into t~e relative needs of their
particular areas. It is not necessarily intended to reflect locally identi-
fied transportation improvement needs which m~y be based on non-design, or
deficiency issues. The Plan should be considered as a resource to assist
localities in determining future road improvement needs. It is not developed
or used directly to determine levels of State?jor local funding.
Mr. Benish said the Plan is generally consistent with the CATS Study and
the Six Year Secondary and Primary Plans, wit~ the exception of the Board's
request for an interchange on 1-64 at Avon Street. Staff recommended that the
Board formally request inclusion of the 1-64 ~nterchange in the Plan as well
as the following projects not indicated in th9 Highway Plan which are in the
current financial plan for secondary road mmppovements:
Route 601, Buck Mountain bridge project
~Route 810, alignment by Crozet Elementary School
Routes 708/631, intersection improvement
Routes 743/606, intersection improvement
Route 601 (Old Ivy Road)., spot improvements
Route 654 (Barracks Road), widen to four ililanes.
Mr. Benish said VDoT officials had indica]ted that these projects would be
included in the final revisions of the Plan. ~e said the following projects
from the County Road Improvements Priority Lisi~ are not indicated for
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 11)
133
improvement in the Highway Plan and should be formally requested to be includ-
ed by the Board:
Route 649 (Airport Road), reconstruct from Route 29 to Route 606
Route 743 (Hydraulic Road), turn lanes :at Commonwealth Drive
Route 691 (Jarman's Gap Road), reconstruct, spot improvement
Route 810, Moormans River Bridge
Route 677, (Old Ballard Road), bridge over railroad
Route 743 (intersection at Route 663)
Route 726, from Route 20 to Route 1302
Route 708, from Route 20 to Route 29 South, reconstruct,
spot improvement
Route 712 (Ammonett Branch), bridge
Route 637 (Ivy Creek), bridge
Route 656 (Georgetown Road), reconstruct.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about the reconstruction on Route 656. Mr. Cilimberg
said this item is on the priority list and involves what has been discussed as
a minimum possibility for turn lanes. He sald there was interest by the
Planning Commission, and it was a recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan,
that turn lanes be considered in the future.. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not
support including this project for anything other than what is already to be
done. He said he thinks it should be left as is, and the Board members
already know why because it has been discussed before.
Mr. Benish pointed out that staff also recommends that the Board express
its concern with the four-lane, divided roadl.design for Route 20 South. He
said staff recommends that functional classification of roads in the Statewide
Highway Plan and local functional classification system be reviewed and
modified to provide a consistent functional ~lassification of roads between
the various levels of planning. He pointed out that the Plan prioritized road
segments in the rural areas for improvement based on volume/service volume
ratio, or inadequate geometrics. He said ruCal area road improvements are
prioritized locally when public safety is ink,question or the road serves as an
important access between growth areas or to essential services.
Mr. Way asked what staff is suggesting ~ith regard to Route 20 South.
Mr. Cilimberg said at a minimum there is a n~ed for realignment of certain
sections of Route 20. He said there is concern particularly about the hori-
zontal curves rather than four lanes. Mr. B~ish said there is a possibility
of turn lanes and certain divided segments. .!Hr. Way said he agreed, but it
makes sense to think in terms of four lanes ~i~ Route 20 to its intersection
with Avon Street.
Mr. Lindstrom asked why this list was ngcessary. Mr. Roosevelt said %fOoT
has a system influenced by the federal aid d~Signations. That is a four tier
system made up of arterial roads, major collectors, minor collectors, and
local roads. All state-maintained roads fal~ into one of those classifica-
tions. In the primary system, roads are either arterials or major collectors,
which means they are eligible for federal ai~ In the secondary system, the
federal government has designated that a certain percentage of the roads in
each state can receive federal aid. Those ro~ds automatically become either
arterial or major collector roads by the fact!ithat they are designated for
federal aid. Approximately 15 percent of the~secondary roads can be federal
aid roads. The State then attempts to designate the major secondary roads in
each county as the collectors and arterial roads. Normally, greater than 15
percent of the secondary roads in each county!late the major roads. Therefore,
YDoT has designated some as minor collectors ~hich are not on the federal aid
system, but which are the major roads in the ~ounty. Mr. Roosevelt said one
of the problems VDoT has in changing its designated system to match the
county's is that the federal government has d~signated the arterial and major
collectors as federal aid routes. Before VDo~ can change or add to those
~ .
routes, federal government approval must be o~ta~ned. He said he agrees and
supports staff's contention that the county d~signation of arterials, collec-
tors and local roads should match the State d~signation so that the list is
the same. But the federal government's involvement in the process makes it
difficult for YDoT to change their list. Mr.%Roosevelt said he personally
thinks that the county's designation of what Should be arterials and major and
minor collectors is closer to reality than the State's designation. He said
the Board should attempt to get the State to ~odify its designations to match
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 12)
134
the county's, and he would support that. He said it would be worth the effort
next year when the State modifies their list.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the primary and secondary listing of roads com-
prise all the projects that will be funded in any way by the State or Federal
government. Mr. Roosevelt explained that there are two lists--a primary list
and a secondary list. Every road in the primary system is on this list
because all of those are federal aid highways. They are either major collec-
tors or arterials. For the secondary roads, the only things listed are the
arterials and major and minor collector roads. The local roads are not
listed. There are certain projects, for instance a bridge, which can be
funded by federal aid whether it is under the federal aid system or not.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had not understood that the comprehensive review of
statewide construction needs that staff had described was taking into account
whether they were federally funded or state funded projects. He thought it
was a review of all roads that needed to be improved or built.
Mr. Roosevelt said it is supposed to be a comprehensive list for the
primary system, but it is not a comprehensive list for the secondary system
because it does not include the needs on the ~roads that are designated as
local roads. He gave the Route 671 (Milling[on Bridge) project as an example
of a local road that is not on VDoT's list.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that, instead of going through this exercise
every five years, Mr. Roosevelt add to the primary list anything that is shown
in Albemarle County's Six Year Plan for improvement or construction.
Mr. Roosevelt said he was not sure the Board understands the purpose of
today's discussion. He said the statewide transportation plan was required by
the General Assembly. It is a report from YDOT to the General Assembly of the
statewide transportation needs. It is to be Updated every five years. The
legislature wants to know the bottom line dollar value of transportation needs
for this State in the year 2010. The legisla~ture will use this information to
say there are certain needs in this State, an~ over the next 20 years it is
expected that only 10 percent of the revenue ~ill be received. Therefore,
additional funding needs to be considered. MT. Roosevelt said that is the
purpose of this plan.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that. iii!He is concerned about the
difficulty of keeping track of these road pro~ects. The Board goes through a
detailed and comprehensive secondary road improvement process at least every
year. The primary road process goes through ~he Metropolitan Planning Organ-
ization (MPO), and he understands how that process works. He would feel much
more comfortable if any road recommendation f~ the statewide plan had already
been determined to be on these two lists. He'!said a separate exercise to
include other road pro3ects which are not on ~hat l~st makes hmm uneasy
because they have not been reviewed before. ~e said if the purpose is to tell
the legislature what Albemarle thinks needs t~ be funded in the foreseeable
future, then if it's not on the secondary or ~e primary list, it should not
be funded.
Mr. Roosevelt said the plans for the primary and secondary system that
Mr. Llndstrom referred to are really prlormty .~sts. They are what the County
can finance over a six-year period. Mr. Linds~rom said he thought the County
had begun putting every possible need on that ~i~ist. Mr. Roosevelt said he did
not think so. Mr. Cilimberg said when staff r~viewed the list last year, it
was much longer than a six year plan. He saidi~ it may not be a twenty year
plan, but the dollar value is much more than the County could do in six years.
Mr. Lindstrom said if the County's secondary pi~an does not have all the
projects necessary to fill up 20 years of fund?~ng, then that should be done
through the secondary plan process and not thr!6ugh some additional process to
fill out the State's "wish" list for 20 years.~i
Mr. Cilimberg said the summary of project~ that Mr. Benish had read are
projects on the priority list that the Board adopted this year but which are
not in the statewide plan. He said staff feel~ that it would be good to have
the State's 20 year list include what the County has identified in its priori-
ty list. He said the projects that were not l%sted did not meet the criteria
of the statewide planning program. ~
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 13)
135
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that specific action needs to be taken
on this request. However, as a matter of principle, he suggested that the
Board adopt a resolution to the effect that the Planning Department staff and
YDoT's development of the secondary road list be prepared in a way to include
enough projects to cover the 20 year period, and that anything the County puts
on that plan be drawn from the secondary road list. If that means that staff
has to extend their analysis to include more projects for the full 20 years,
then do it. In that way there would not be a separate review. When the five
year request comes in, then staff would automatically send in the County's
secondary road improvement list which would have everything on it. He said he
understands that all the projects are not going to be funded by VDoT, but they
will show the priority that VDoT needs.
Mr. Roosevelt said the statewide highway plan is a listing of needs on
all of the primary system and everything except the local roads on the secon-
dary system. These needs will exist in the year 2010. This does not say
there will be any funds available to take care of these needs. Mr. Lindstrom
said he understands that. He just wants to be sure that the County's secon-
dary road list is all that the County submits when this statewide highway plan
comes up. If staff needs to put some other ~rojects on that secondary road
list to meet this requirement, then it should be done.
Mr. Bain said he did not think it was ngcessary for staff to come up with
a 20 year list. Mr. Lindstrom said they are'~being asked by VDoT to provide a
list of the needs to the year 2010. Mr. Roosevelt said the list is not from
now until the year 2010, but rather needs in ~that year. The difference is
that projects listed as needs in that year ma~y not have funds available to
accomplish them. Mr. Lindstrom said they could be drawn from the same list
and should be developed in the same way.
Mr. Roosevelt disagreed. He said a lis~? of needs is a separate thing.
Once needs are developed and prioritized, they can be drawn as necessary to be
put into the financial plan between now and the year 2010.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not want two ~iists. He wants one list that is
prioritized based on the funding available a~d what the Board thinks should be
funded. The list would also include items t~t are not funded. It should be
developed in one process. If it is beyond th~ six year funding, it is still
part of the County's recommendation for the s!~ate{~ide highway plan.
Mr. Bowie said the simpler it can be made, the better. He said it seems
that while staff is developing a classification system for all roads in the
County as mentioned by Mr. Benish, it should ~onsider how to develop one list.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff attempted to male the Board aware that there is
a listing requested by the General Assembly w~ich is being used for policy
purposes. This is the first time staff has r~viewed it. From this discus-
sion, Mr. Cilimberg said it seems that the CoUnty's priority list should be
forwarded to VDoT when the statewide plan is ~pdated. The County would ask
YDoT to include all the projects on the County's priority list in VDoT's
statewide plan. The Board would not present .~wo different lists, and staff
would be taking one approach to highway plann~ing.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is uneasy about gi~ing ¥DoT a list of roads that
has not been developed by the process described by Mr. Cilimberg because those
roads may come back to this Board as somethin~ that it endorsed. He said that
has happened before.
Mr. C~lmmberg sa~d mf the Board concurs ~zth Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion
for one listing, staff can provide a priority ~listing of secondary road
projects for VDoT indicating that only those ~ojects should be on the state-
wide highway plan. The remaining projects sha%ld not be included because
staff has not reviewed them. VDoT can choose ~hat they want, but at least the
County has made a statement.
Mr. Cilimberg said the 1-64/Avon Street i~terchange in the Comprehensive
Plan could be added as a project identified byi the County as one that should
be in the statewide highway plan. Anything el~e should not ~be included. Mr.
Benish said that was basically what staff had ~one.
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 14)
136
Mr. Bowie said he would hate to ask staff to develop a 20 year list
because it probably would not be very meaningful. He said possibly a better
response is needed for VDoT. Mr. Lindstrom said he wanted the projects to be
reviewed as part of the secondary road planning with Board approval of any
project in the list.
Mr. Bowie said it bothers him to have a project such as widening Route
20 to four lanes appear on an official list, when he never remembers it being
discussed before. He said VDoT will assume the Board has approved everything
if some response is not given to them on each of these items.
Mr. Roosevelt said he wanted to point out that this is a comprehensive
plan, although it is not a detailed one. Every mile of secondary road in the
County and every improvement need has been g~ven a cost estimate. He said
this report indicates that $511 million is needed on the secondary system to
pay for the needs of the year 2010. The six iyear plan is a priority list of
what can be built for $19 million over the next six years and designates where
that money will go. This plan says that in Albemarle County there is $511
million worth of needs.
Mr. Lindstrom said what he wanted to prevent is being told five years
from now that this Board recommended that a certain project be on the State's
list, and now it is time to build it. He sa~d he agrees with the process Mr.
Cilimberg has described, even though it may ~ot be what VDoT would like. Any
road on anybody's list anywhere, should be a i~oad that the County has reviewed
and approved. Otherwise, the Board did not ~ndorse.
Mr. Agnor said if the Board adopts staffi~recommendations, it will accom-
plish what has been discussed. ~il
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to accept
staff's recommendations as set out in Mr. Cil{mberg's memo of June 29, 1989.
Roll was called and the motion carried by theilfollowing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr!~ Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not endorse the Georgetown Road undesignated
reconstruction project nor the Millington Bridge Project. He voted "aye" with
those two exceptions.
Agenda Item No. 3. Resolution: State R~creation Access Funds for the
Southern Regional Park. ;~
Mr. Agnor said a proposed resolution is being submitted for Board approv-
al to request recreational access funds from ~he Virginia Department of
Transportation and the Department of Conservation and Historic Resources for
the Southern Regional Park. The access funds,~are requested to make improve-
ments on Route 631 at the entrance to the par~ and for construction of the
park road from Route 631 to the main parking area serving the swimming beach.
He said the resolution also addresses the fac~~ that all additional
right-of-way and utility costs would be borneby the County; the park entrance
road would be designated a "Virginia Byway"; and any additional funding
required beyond the amount allowed by the Stat~ would be provided by the
County in order to complete the road construction project. The funding limit
for access funds is $250,000 with an additional $100,000 if supplemented on a
dollar-for-dollar basis.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt
the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 15)
137
WHEREAS, the Southern Park is owned and is to be developed by
the County of Albemarle as a regional recreation facility serving
the residents of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and
adjoining counties; and
WHEREAS, the facility is in need of adequate access; and
WHEREAS, adequate access can be provided by the improvement of
Route 631 at the entrance to the park; and the construction of the
park road from Route 631 to the main parking area serving the
swimming beach;~ and
WHEREAS, all right-of-way and utility costs necessary for the
access road construction will be provided by the County from the
Southern Park project fund at no cost to the State; and
WHEREAS, the procedure governing the allocation of recrea-
tional access funds set forth in Virginia Code SectiOn 33.1-223, as
amended, requires joint action by the Director of Conservation and
HistOric Resources and the Commonwealthi!Transportation Board; and
WHEREAS, a statement of policy agreed upon between the said
Director and Transportation Board approves the use of such funds for
the construction of access roads to publicly-owned recreational
areas; and
WHEREAS, it appears to the Board o~i.!Supervisors of Albemarle
County that all requirements of the law have been met to permit the
Director of Conservation and Historic Resources to designate the
Southern Park as a recreational facilit~iiand further permit the
Commonwealth Transportation Board to prOVide funds for access to
this public recreation area in accordanC& with Virginia Code Section
33.1-223, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors agknowledges that pursuant to
the provisions of Virginia Code Section~'~33.1-223 and 33.1-62, as
amended, the access road shall be designated a "Virginia Byway" and
recommends that the Commonwealth Transpq~tation Board, in coopera-
tion with the Director of Conservation and Historic Resources, take
the appropriate action to implement thislidesignation. Further the
Board agrees, in keeping with the inten[i!iof Virginia Code Section
33.1-63, to use its good offices to reasonably protect the aesthetic
and cultural value of this road;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by .the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Director of Conservation and
Historic Resources is requested to designate the Southern Park as a
public recreational area and to recommend' to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board that recreational a~cess funds be allocated for
an access road to serve said park; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors gives
assurance that matching funds will be pr61vided dollar for dollar
from the Southern Park project for all r~icreation access funds
contributed in excess of $250'000 up to ~he maximum contribution
allowable, and if additional funding is ~eeded to complete the road
construction, that additional funding wi~!l be provided in full from
the Southern Park project fund; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commonwealth Transportation Board is
hereby requested to allocate the necessa~iy recreational access funds
to provide a suitable access road as herel~inbefore described.
Agenda Item No. 6. Request to amend the iEducation budget for 1989-90 to
reflect the addition of the After School Programs.
Mr. Agnor said this is a request from thei School Board that the 1989-90
budget for the after school program have $189,b00 added to it for schools
which have been having after school programs conducted by the YMCA. He said
the school system will now be administering th~se programs. He asked Mr.
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 16)
138
Overstreet to be present to explain why the decision was made to put all these
programs under the school's administration and which schools are affected.
Mr. Overstreet said the after school programs were begun in 1977, and the
first one was a YMCA program. In 1983, the school system began adding these
programs in schools where the YMCA did not have a project. Over the years the
program has grown to the point that they are offered in practically all of the
elementary schools. It is a fully self-sustaining program. He said that
means that the fees paid for these children on an hourly or per diem basis
cover the entire cost of the program. The schools involved presently with
YMCA programs are Meriwether Lewis, Scottsville, Stony Point, Woodbrook and
Rose Hill. The requests for those schools to come under the auspices of the
school administration rather than the YMCA were initiated in 1985. This year
Mr. Overstreet asked principals for specific reasons for the school system to
take over the programs. He said they responded with issues of quality,
accountability, stability, uniformity, and opportunity. Regarding the quality
of programs, he said the YMCA has not had the available supervisory personnel
to give the proper oversight to the program. Whereas, in the school the
principal has direct control of supervision. There was also a big turnover in
personnel at the YMCA. The school programs are able to provide better enrich-
ment activities, resources, supplies and materials. Principals having YMCA
programs in their schools found that the personnel involved in running them
were becoming discontented, had morale problems, and problems with inequities
in the pay structure. The schools were having to provide materials and
supplies from its after school programs in order to support the YMCA programs.
He said the whole issue became one of qualit~ control. Principals feel that
they should have some say in how the program!lis run because it is run in the
school. They also want to have the opportunity to meet the expectations of
the parents in terms of quality.
Mr. Overstreet said the lack of continuity in the YMCA leadership over
the last two years has impacted their programs negatively. The principals
felt that the programs held in all schools should be uniform. The last issue
was that more and better opportunities were ~vailable for children in school-
based programs. He said he had recommended ~o the School Board that the five
YMCA programs be incorporated into the school-based programs based on the
input from principals. One of the five principals did indicate that he was
pleased with the YMCA program in his school and would like to keep it. The
School Board voted to adopt the recommendati6n to incorporate all five
schools. Mr. Overstreet said he made it clear to the YMCA people that if they
could run a high quality program in one or t~o of the schools, particularly
where the principal wanted them to stay, tha~ would be fine. At that time,
the YMCA was uncertain that they could run j~st one or two programs. He said
he has not heard from them since that time, ~nd he suspects that they will not
run any programs. If in the future, a partiCUlar school wants to return to
the YMCA program, that could be handled administratively. He said this would
require a change in the budget to shift the ~ost. He said the costs for this
program would be supported by the fee structure. He said this kind of program
has grown rapidly, and he expects to see mor~ requests for this kind of
service.
Mr. Bain asked if the revenues are exceeding the expenses. Mr.
Overstreet said there is a balance between revenues and expenses. A few years
ago the program was running in the red. He s~id Mr. Andy Stamp's first
mission was to bring that into balance, and h~ recalls that last year's budget
was the first time the deficit was made up.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this program is a~completely separate account and
if all of the overhead is charged separately,l including materials and space.
Mr. Overstreet said the overhead related to rental of the space is not charged
to a separate account. Mr. Overstreet said i~ is a separate account within
the education budget called self-sustaining programs. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
all the copy costs, telephone charges, mileagD, etc. needed to make this
operation run is charged to that account. Mr~ Overstreet said that was
correct with the exception of the school facilities.
Mr. Bowie asked if all of that overhead ~as 100 percent offset by the
fees. Mr. Overstreet said that was correct, ~ith the exception of the space.
He said there was no School Board or County sgbsidy for this program whatsoev-
er, and there never has been to his knowledge~
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 17)
139
Mr. Bowie asked how many after school programs there are. Mr. Overstreet
said there are about 13 after school programs. Mr. Bowie said he was confused
by the additional request for funds. If the schools presently operate with no
routine travel and the request shows $268 for the five additional schools, the
numbers do not make sense. The same goes for the telephone request. Current-
ly they have $44 for telephone, and the request shows $200 to add five schools
to the program. Mr. Overstreet said the numbers partly are a reflection of
the size of the after school programs. These figures reflect high levels of
participation in some cases.
Mr. Lindstrom asked who is included as part time teachers or part time
teacher aides. Mr. Overstreet said these are almost entirely people who do
the instruction and caretaking of the youngsters in the after school programs.
The head teachers are also included in that budget. Mr. Lindstrom asked who
actually administers the program. Mr. Overs%reet said the only administrator
is Mr. Stamp, and he does not appear to be reflected, although he thought that
was the case. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concArned that this be a 100 percent
separate, participant-supported program. He,has a concern about the schools
taking over a program that was being provided outside of the public domain.
He said he understands the reasons for the cRange, although he is not sure
that if the YMCA had not been competing withilthe schools, it would have done a
different kind of job. He has heard from reliable sources on the school staff
that this is generally not a self-supportingiilprogram. He said it concerned
him to hear today that it does support itselJ. If the premise is that it is
self-sustaining, then space and administration .should be charged as well. The
cost of maintenance, heat, lighting, cleaning, and a reasonable proportion for
space, should all be included, and the fees ~hould reflect that. If the fees
turn out to be too high, then a decision wou!d have to be made regarding
subsidy. He said in his opinion that would ~e the appropriate way to handle
this.
Mr. Overstreet said the administration n%ay be reflected in the budget in
another place, and he would find out. He said he knows that custodial ser-
vices, for example, and any other expense re~ated to space are not included.
Mr. Perkins asked what the cost is per ~hild and how that compares to the
YMCA. Mr. Overstreet said generally the rates have been about $1.00 more a
day than the YMCA program. The rate is $5.25i per day. Mr. Lindstrom said if
the number of students in the program are divided into the cost, what would
that be. Mr. Overstreet said he did not knoW, i the number of students who
participate. He said those numbers could be ~developed. Mr. Perkins said he
wanted to know the amount the school charges as compared to the YMCA or what
other private providers would charge. Mr. Ov~rstreet said the school charges
more because the teachers are paid more. He '~aid these figures were based on
last year. Next year, he said his understanR~ng was that the YMCA was
increasing their rate by $0.75 per day. On a.'~ hourly basis, ~t ~s less than
the neighborhood babysitter costs, whether it~:~.t~is the YMCA program or the
school's program. Because the school's charg~ is a little more than the YMCA,
he said there is a scholarship program funded!i through this budget. It gives a
sliding scale fee based on the income of the ~amily. He said that would be
adjusted to help accommodate some families wh~ may have been in the YMCA
program and could not sustain any level of in6rease in charges. He said he
noticed that last year there were 50 scholarship students receiving $25,000
worth of tuition discounts in the school program. He said the budget is
adjusted taking into account these scholarships.
Mr. Overstreet said this is not a progra~ that entails bureaucratic
entanglement or overhead in terms of supervis%on and oversight. He said he
has had to focus very little attention to this program. He said that is
because the program is not dependent on any s~ate or federal agency for funds
or rules and regulations. In his view, excep% for complaints from the princi-
pals about the YMCA programs, this is a good ~rogram offering a service to the
community and is nearly self-supporting.
Mr. Bowie said looking at the figures, h~ does not see how the program
can be self-supporting. He said it should be ~fairly simple to get a compari-
son of total expenses and total income for th~ current year to see whether or
not it is self-supporting. He said it seems ~at to make this program pay for
itself, there would have to be 70 to 100 children in each school. Mr.
Overstreet said some of the schools average 20!0 students a day participating
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 18)
140
in this program. Mr. Lindstrom said the total would be about 1300 students in
the program.
Mr. Overstreet said he was surprised at the level of participation and
how much it has grown. He said he had two concerns about these programs when
he first came to Albemarle. He was not an advocate of schools responding to
needs that other agencies could effectively do. Also, he was concerned that
the program would be so difficult to manage that it would strain the resources
from other areas. He pointed out that both of his concerns turned out to be
unfounded.
Mr. Bowie said when this comes up again next year, he would like more
information at that time to see that this program is really self-sustaining,
how many children are involved, what is being taught, and whether it can be
done elsewhere. He has a concern about whether schools should be doing this
if another agency can or will offer the program.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks it is a good program and provides a necessary
service to parents with school-aged children.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie
to amend the budget and appropriate the funds as requested by adopting the
following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, afi.d Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Way.
Mrs. Cooke.
FISCAL YEAR 89/90
FUND
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
COMMUNITY EDUCATION
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR AFTER SCHOOL
PROGRAMS~FORMERLY OPERATED BY YMCA.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1330060000132100
1330060000134100
1330060000210000
1330060000231000
1330060000232000
1330060000241000
1330060000312700
1330060000520301
1330060000520302
1330060000550100
1330060000580500
1330060000580000
1330060000600100
1330060000600200
1330060000601300
1330060000601700
PART-TIME TEACHERS '~
PART-TIME TEACHERS ~$DES
FICA
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE '~
GROUP LIFE INSURANCEi
COHNSULTING SERVICES
TELEPHONE-LOCAL
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE
TRAVEL-ROIJTINE
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
MISC EXPENSES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
FOOD SUPPLIES
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES
COPY SUPPLIES
$108,133.00
18,382.00
9,590.00
12,000.00
1,000.00
1,328.00
7,000.00
1,425.00
200.00
268.00
950.00
4,574.00
1,000.00
16,920.00
5,600.00
630.00
TOTAL $189,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1330016000161201 TUITION $189,000.00
TOTAL $189,000.00
Mr. Way said he knows that Mr. Overstreet,is responding to pressure from
principals, but he is totally opposed to government getting into the business
of child care. He said he knows that might belunrealistic, but he is totally
opposed to the school system getting involved in taking care of children from
"the cradle to the grave". He said he voted against this as matter of princi-
ple, not based on the way the school administers it. He said this kind of
thing happening in our country is one of the reasons for some of the problems
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 19)
141
with young people. It is another excuse for parents not to take the responsi-
bility they should for their children. He added that his vote has nothing to
do with Mr. Overstreet or the way the school system runs the program.
Mr. Perkins said he certainly agrees with what Mr. Way has said, but
pointed out that most of the people using this service are working parents who
get home an hour or so after the children get off from school. This prevents
the "latch-key" children from being out on the streets, which is where many of
them would be if the after school programs were not available.
Mr. Lindstrom requested that when this is presented in the future, it
show the actual administrative costs, the space that is used and the mainte-
nance of that space, and the actual scholarship fund so that those three items
are shown as separate line items in the budget.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Appropriation requests for Cale Elementary School
and Stony Point Elementary School.
Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Overstreet has requested approval of funding for
the Cale Elementary School in the amount of $5,114,000, and remodeling of the
Stony Point Elementary School for $2,086,900. He said the Cale Elementary
School was bid at $250,000 below budget which allowed for $145,000 overage in
land cost, with $105,000 remaining. The SchoOl Board is requesting that
amount as a contingency. Mr. Agnor said staff recommends that a $50,000
contingency be approved for Cale Elementary as was the case with the Crozet
Replacement School. That would reduce the School Board's request by $55,000.
Stony Point was bid $84,100 below budget, andithat amount is being requested
for a contingency. He said it was discoveredlthat the roof is in worse
condition than anticipated. An alternate bidlhas been requested on replacing
the roof. That price has not yet been settled. It is being negotiated and
may have to be re-bid. Staff recommends that'S1,989,900 be appropriated for
Stony Point, which would not include the roof!replacement. He recommended
that the roof replacement appropriation be brought to the Board for approval
when the final amount is determined. This appropriation would include the
$84,100 contingency the School Board requeste~d, which is approximately five
percent of the construction bid. He pointed 6ut that on a remodeling project,
there are usually more change orders than on a new construction project. He
said the change orders would be reviewed by t~e capital projects coordinator
and approved by the County Engineer. Mr. Agn6r said he intends to review
those himself and give final approval in consultation with Mr. Overstreet's
office if necessary. When the CIP budget hea~ing is completed tonight, Mr.
Agnor said the Board would appropriate funds ~or all the projects in the first
six months of the fiscal year. These project~ are listed in that appropria-
tion, but he wanted the Board to have an opportunity to ask Mr. Overstreet any
questions they might have.
Mr. Lindstrom said given the unusual nature of this report, he thought
that a motion to specifically act on these prD~jects would be appropriate.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie
to accept staff's recommendation for handling the contingencies, showing a
$50,000 contingency for Cale Elementary Schoo~ and an $84,100 contingency for
Stony Point School. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appointments: Fiscal Resource Committee.
Mr. Way said these appointments are on th~ agenda for the night meeting,
but he felt this could be discussed in executive session. Mr. Agnor said that
individual appointments could be discussed in executive session. Mr. Way said
a lot of names had been submitted to the Board'~
Mr. Bowie said he has a magisterial district appointment and a recommen-
dation for an at-large appointment, but he has not been able to contact either
individual. Mr. Way said the list the Board r~ceived came from the League of
July 5, 1989 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 20)
142
Women Voters. He said it is strictly a list of suggested possibilities to
help the Board in terms of selecting at-large members. With Mrs. Cooke
absent, he said this committee might not be appointed until next Wednesday.
The Board agreed to make these appointments at the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 8. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. St. John would explain the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act to the Board members soon.
Mr. St. John said he could brief the Board now. Mr. Lindstrom said it
would be helpful to have a succinct description of what is specifically
covered and can be legitimately certified under each of the three exceptions
of personnel, property acquisition, and legal matters. Mr. St. John said
there is nothing new about the definition of what is a legitimate personnel
matter. Mr. Bain said the subject had to be identified before going into the
meeting. Mr. St. John said any number of personnel could be discussed as long
as they were identifiable individuals. He said the number of people to be
discussed does not have to be identified before going into the meeting.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what is included in land acquisition. Mr. St. John
said the law has not changed. No identification of what land is being dis-
cussed or the purpose has to be given, other than to acquire same for public
purposes. Mr. Bowie said the change is the motion going in and the certifica-
tion coming out of executive session. Mr. St. John said that is correct. The
law has not changed about the motion going into executive session except the
part that says that a general statement is not sufficient, and the section of
the Code involved has to be cited.
Mr. Lindstrom said if someone has a question about whether a matter is
proper for executive session, is there an official person given in the statute
who is charged with the responsibility for giving an opinion on the conflicts
of interest statue. Mr. St. John said there 19as not. The County Attorney is
not charged with that duty. The only solution is that if one member of the
Board feels that something is being discussed?that should not be and the
others feel it is legitimate, then when the certificate is adopted, that
person would vote nay. When that vote is given, the dissenter has to state
what was discussed that he or she feels was not proper. There is not and
never has been, a rule that the majority of ~e Board can enforce a "gag
order" or silence a member from stating what ~ook place in executive session,
even if all members agree it was a legitimate subject. There is no person who
is officially charged with the responsibility of making that decision. In the
past there was nothing to prevent a Board member from indicating that some-
thing improper had been discussed in executiv~ session. But neither was there
anything that required that a Board member mupt either vote that everything
was proper, or must vote that it was improper~and state what was improper.
That is essentially the only change with regard to executive meetings.
Mr. Way said this could be further discussed at the evening meeting, and
if time did not allow, it could be discussed next Wednesday morning. In the
meantime, he would try to get together with Mr. St. John personally to find
out what the Chairman is supposed to do.
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. At 5:57 PJM., with no further business to
come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
CHAIRMAN