Loading...
1989-01-11January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 143 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 11, 1989, at 9:00 A.M., 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, Messrs. C; Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:05 A.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney~ and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:07 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 Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to accept the items on the consent agenda as infor- mation. 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. Item 4.1. Superintendent's Memo No. 281, dated December 21, 1988, re: Revised Entitlements for Average Daily Membership (ADM) Related Accounts for 1988-89 and 1989-90 was received as information. Mr. Lindstrom asked staff to provide information as to how the per pupil expenditure is computed. Item 4.2. Notice dated December 16, 1988, from the State Corporation Commission, re: Application filed by Virginia Electric for approval of experimental rates was received as information. Item 4.3. Letter dated December 21, 1988, from Mr. George W. Williams, Executive Director, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, re: Proposed changes in Virginia Water Law was received as ~nform~t~on. Mr. Lindstrom said he questions whether:!it is necessary to submit the Rivanna Authority Four Party Agreement to the State Water Control Board, since the agreement predates the passage of the Virginia Water Law. Mr. Agnor said there is no grandfather clause in the proposed legislation and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is concerned that the Four Party Agreement may be subject to review by the State Water Control ~oard. Mr. Agnor said staff would monitor this legislation and let the B~ard know if it should take any action. Item 4.4. Memorandum dated January 9, 1989, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, 3r., County Executive, re: Semiannual Report on Computer Programs. Mr. Agnor statedthere had been no requests to date for!.new or expanded computer pro- grams. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters. Discussion: Bridge Replacement on Route 660. Mr. Agnor said the Virginia Department of Transportation is offering to give the historic bridge on Route 660 crossin~ the upper portion of the South 144 January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) Fork Rivanna River to the County, along with an amount of money not to exceed the cost of demolition of the bridge. He said staff findings indicate an approximate cost of $90,000 to $100,000 to dismantle the bridge. The cost of moving and reassembling the bridge is difficult to estimate, but staff feels associated costs would be very high. He said staff recommended declining the offer for these reasons and due to the liability the County may assume with a deteriorating bridge. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Perkins authorizing the County Executive to write a letter to the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation telling them the Board appreciates the offer of the bridge, but cannot accept the gift due to the extensive financial obligation the County would incur in reassembling and maintaining the bridge. 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. 6b. Other Highway Matters Not Listed from the Public an~ Board. As members of the committee on the establishment of the Southern Regional Park, Mr. Way and Mr. Bain wanted the Board to have early input on the road development. Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, sai~ the Virginia Department of Transportation had designed the entrance road to the Park originally for a speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph). He said they had lowered the speed to 35 miles per. hour upon appeal by the~ County. Now, however, there was a question of whether to request the speed design be lowered even further to 30 miles per hour to slow down th~ traffic. Mr. Mark Osborne, Consultant, said the principal difficulty of the road design from a cost standpoint is there is a prominent hillside with rock outcroppings. The approach is fairly direct to the hillside. A slower speed design would allow sharper curving around the hillside and reduce the amount of rock excavation that would occur at the hillside. Tha~ is really the only significant cost factor in the design. The 30 mph design~would allow a sharper turn, but because of the nature of the hillside, .he does not think the 30 mph would materially affect the cost of construction, i}te does feel that mph is the proper design speed, but would expect users toiltravel at 40 mph. An added problem is where to locate the entrance station so as not to jeopar- dize the use of state access funds. Mr. Way said his concern is that in a park where people are walking around, constructing a road with a potential of driving 50 mph is dangerous. He said he does not feel this road should be compared wit~ other state roads in the county because this road would be constructed for ~ecreation purposes. Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Bain said they would prefer th~ road to be designed for a speed limit of 30 mph. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Osborne for an estimate of the cost of the roadway. Mr. Osborne said he anticipates the cost to be ~etween $450,000 and $475,000. This estimate does not include the cost of a l~ft turn lane, about $30,000, if the State requires such a lane. The 20-foot ~Mcavation into the rock hillside would add between $25,000 and $35,000 to th~ project, if the road were built to handle speeds of 40 mph. He said the state access funds would give $200,000 to the project and provide another $1070,000 if the County matched the funds. Mr. Osborne said the entrance station !~ould not be placed on the part of the road funded by the state, because the ~'~' unty cannot charge citizens to travel on state-funded roads. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks an entrance station should be placed at the beginning of the roadway, even if the County does not charEe fees at this point, so travelers will know they are driving in a park. i'.There could be another entrance station further down the roadway where fe~s could be col- lected. He said this would help slow down traffic on the koadway. January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) 145 Mr. Pat Mullaney, Parks and Recreation Director, said he thinks fees could be collected at the beginning of the roadway, as long as the County makes it clear that the fee is for using the park, not the road. He thinks an entrance station at the beginning of the roadway will allow the traffic to be controlled more easily. He said he thinks the speed limit near the crowded end of the roadway should be lower than 30 mph, perhaps around 15 mph. Mr. Lindstrom agreed and asked if the roadway could be designed for the slowest speed possible and then posted even lower. Mr. Roosevelt said people travel at speeds they are comfortable with; if the road is designedfor a higher speed than it is posted, people will travel at the higher speed. He said he thinks YDoT would consider designing the roadway for 30 mph and suggested that the Board consider the use of horizontal curves to slow down traffic. He said 30 mph is the lowest speed for which the VDoT will design a roadway, but the Board can request a waiver of this requirement. Mr. Lindstrom asked staff to investigate the grounds on which a waiver could be granted. He said he thinks the road should be designed to encourage travelers to believe that driving over 20 or~25 mph is a mistake. Mr. Bowie said he believes that having an entrance station at the begin- ning of the roadway will encourage travelers~to drive slowly and will be safer than designing a road that is dangerous for people who drive faster than 20 mph. Mr. Roosevelt disagreed. He said an e~trance station would do little to slow down traffic and the present design of ~he road actually encourages traffic to move much faster than members of the Board wish it to move. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to direct the consultant to design the road to the end!iof state maintenance for a speed of 30 mph, using both the horizontal and vertical curvature, and to determine whether an entrance gate could be located at!iRoute 631. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Osborne if he cduld design a road to carry traffic at 20 to 25 miles per hour. Mr. Osborne said he could, but the road would be disturbingly curvy. ~ Mr. Bowie said he wants to know what th~' County plans to do about restricting parking along the roadway. If tt/e County has to get special permission from the General Assembly, he thinks the County should seek this permission. There was no further discussion. 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. Mr. Way asked that the Board be kept informed on the development of the plans for this road. Mr. Bowie asked the County Attorney to ascertain what the Board could do to change legislation to allow localities more control, when State Recreation Funds are used for County-owned property, in areas such as road design and restricted parking. ~ Mr. Bain said he had received a letter dated January 7, 1989, from the Grassmere Farm Homeowners' Association regarding an unimproved portion of Route 679. The letter stated that the road h~d deteriorated to the point where it was substandard and unsafe, especially in bad weather. The residents said they realized they had to wait their turn for the road to be paved, but felt there should be systematic and regularly~ischeduled maintenance to the road. They feel that some grading and drainage must be done in the immediate future to make the road safe during winter mo~iths. The letter cited several accidents in December, 1988, as a result of ii Mr. Roosevelt said a major problem is the road. He said the Department of Transportati~ locations on that road to help alleviate that $5,000 to $7,000. He said this is not paving .ght snowfall. lack of drainage along the n could install pipes at four problem at an estimated cost of or widening, simply helping to 146 January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) improve the drainage. To do that, easements or permission from Westvaco would have to be obtained, and he said he is willing to do that. If the Boar~ wishes to put $5,000-$7,000 into the upcoming budget or wishes him to transfe~ funds from current projects to correct this road, he will get started. Mr. Jack Taggert, a resident of Grassmere Subdivision, said that the maintenance of Route 679 has not kept up with the increased use of the road. He said he was willing to wait for the easements to be obtained for paving the road, but he wants the road maintained adequately until then. He said when it rains, driving more than five to ten miles per hour may cause the car to slide off the road. He said the road is packed down clay and has no gravel on it. Potholes are very bad. With 19 to 20 families using the road, there were fou~ accidents in 1988 and one already in 1989. As more people move into the subdivision, he said, it is just a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt on this road. Mr. Bain said he would like to see the pipes instal/ed. He asked where the funds would come from to do this. Mr. Roosevelt said maintenance funds are to maintai~ the road as it is. He said putting in pipes changes the condition of the road and constitutes an improvement. He cannot afford to take $5,000 out of the maintenance funds to install the four pipes; the funds would have to come fro~ the improvement budget. As far as maintenance on the road goes, he said~ VDoT will put additional stone on the road to correct the potholes. Ahything beyond that would be considered improvement. He said the Board would'have to direct him since he is accountable to them for the expenditure of these funds. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to authorize the installation of pipe in four locations on Route 679 to i~prove the drainage, using $5,000-$7,000 from the Secondary Improvement Budge~i! Ms. Donna Mundley, a homeowner in Grassmere subdivis!ion, said the road has been completely bald, without gravel, for four monthS~=i Although there are about 150 drivers who use this road, she said, there seems to be no schedule of'maintenance to make sure the road is kept in fair shapg. The road is scraped and gravel added only when everybody in the subdivision complains, sh~ said. i~ Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstromi Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Perkins said there are probably one hundred roads like this in the County and these roads are unsafe at any speed. ~il Mr. Way announced that he would move to Agenda Item ~, in order for the Board to consider Agenda Item 8 as close to the scheduled,:time as possible. He said any additional highway matters could be brought up after the River Heights appeal. (Note: The Board recessed at 10:45 A.M. and reconver.ed at 10:55 ~.M.) Agenda Item No. 7. Set public hearing to amend the J Service Authority service areas boundaries to include Tax and 66E, for water and sewer service to existing structur, lbemarle County map 56, Parcels 66C S. Mr. Agnor said some septic systems were damaged dur~ of the sewer system in Crozet. Two of these damaged syst~ The first is parcel 56-66E owned by Mr. and Mrs. Robert H~ has been condemned by the Health Department because of da~ construction of the sewer system and there is no feasible drainfield. The most satisfactory solution is to connect new sewer line; however, this property lies in the servic~ "water only to existing structures". The second parcel affected by the sewer system is Parcel 56-66C, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Walter ~. Perkins. Immediately after the sewer line was built, the Perkins' drainfield began leaking and Mr. the construction ms present problems. lt. The drainfield ages related to spot to place a new this house to the area designated January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) 147 William Brent authorized this property to be connected to the Crozet sewer service line. After making the connection, he realized this property was also in the area designated "water only to existing structures". To remedy these problems, Mr. Agnor said, the Board of Directors for the Albemarle County Service Authority is petitioning the Board to amend the service areas to include these two parcels for water and sewer service to existing structures. Mr. Agnor recon%mended that a public hearing on this request be set for February 8, 1989. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to set the public hearing on this matter for February 8, 1989. (Mr. Perkins said he would abstain since he was involved in the service area request.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: River Heights Retail Preliminary Site Plan. Mr. Home gave the staff report as follows: "Proposal: To locate 43,000 square fee~ of building area on 4.5 acres. This site is proposed to have s61e access to Route 29, and will be served by 207 parking spaces. The proposed uses are retail and office. Property, described as Taxilmap 45, Parcel 68D, is located on the west side of Route 29, just southeast of the Sheraton Hotel. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: This site is presently vacant and has been subject to previous grading. The property is surrounded to the south and west by undeveloped commercial property. The site has frontage on Route 29 to the east. STAFF COMMENT: Critical Slopes: The applicant is requesting modification of Section 4.2 CRITICAL SLOPES of the Zoning Ordin~mce in order to grade on 25 percent slopes for building and loading~rea construction. Section 4.2.5.1 requires that the applicant 'demonstrate to the commission that such modification is consistent with sound engineering and design practice and that the public interest and the intent of this section would be served to at least an equivalent degree by such modifica- tion' The County Engineer commented verbally on this request: Once again the slope proposed for grading is a man-made slope, rather than a natural slope which ~he Ordinance specifies for protection. The applicant's installation of a retaining wall is an acceptable method of slope stabilization and is consistent with sound engineering and design practice. Transportation/Access: The Planning Com~nission, at its meeting on July l, 1986, denied a subdivision plat ~hat would have created four lots out of an existing 4.5 acre parcel ~ith access to Hilton Heights Road. When this parcel was before the P%anning Commission as a subdivision request, staff had supported"the applicant's request for direct access to Hllton Heights Road because 'given the existing topography (as a result of previous grading) of this site and the adjacent property, there does not appeared!to be a point along the Hilton Hotel (Sheraton) access road wher~ an acceptable access could be achieved'. Further, staff stated tha~ 'although the access (direct access from Hilton Heights Road) for thi~ proposed subdivision plat creates a traffic circulation pattern which would not normally be endorsed by staff, it is recognized that t this proposal may be the only 148 January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) practical solution for this situation.' The Planning Commission cited outstanding safety issues on Route 29 and denied this request. During the site review stages for the current site plan, staff informed the applicant that access as shown from Hilton Heights Road was inconsistent with the approved subdivision plat and was considered unacceptable. In addition, staff informed the applicant that the entrance shown on the initial site plan was inconsistent with Section 32.7.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires 500 feet between crossovers. Subsequently, staff arranged a meeting with the applicant and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)to discuss access alterna- tives. At that meeting, VDOT stated that based on grades shown on the site plan, it appeared as though an entrance from the Hilton Hotel (Sheraton) access road could be achieved with a maximum grade of approximately 10 percent. Installation of such an entrance from Hilton Hotel (Sheraton) access road would require additional filling, reducing the applicant's parking and building area. The applicant has stated that such an access scheme would render thisproject economi- cally infeasible. Staff provides the following analysis: U. S. Route 29: This segment of Route 29 currently has a traffic count of 25,280 vehicle trips per day. Route 29 is a four-lane divided facility in front of this property. Right-Of-way width in front of this site is not uniform and varies at certain locations. A crossover located adjacent to this parcel exists at. Hilton Heights Road. The next closest crossover would exist at Route 643, approxi- mately one-quarter mile north of this property. ~ilton Heights Road: This road was built to State standards, but is currently not accepted in the State secondary road system. The current traffic count on this road is approximately 2,600 vehicle trips per day; projected vehicle trip for Hilton Heights Road exceeds 8,000 vehicle trips per day. A raised concrete median, varying in width from five to 15 feet, exists along the center~ine of this road. Staff has recognized that the median on Hilton Heights Road is so narrow that cars making U-turns at the Hilton Height, S Road crossover would potentially cross two traffic lanes while making this turn. This road is noted as having a variable right-of-way~ width. It should also be noted that the current crossover on Hilton Heights Road does not meet minimum distance standards from Route 29. Sheraton (Hilton) Hotel Access Road: This road is c{~rrently con- sidered a private road, and was constructed to private road standards based on its current use. This road exists with a 5~6-foot access easement, and serves three lots. The pro3ected vehicle trips for this road exceeds 7,000 vtpd, (This number reflects accesi~ to the current proposal from the Sheraton Hotel access road). ~ In staff's opinion there are three recognizable sch~es for access to this property: ~i a. Access to Sheraton Hotel Access Road and Route ~9: This scheme is the most preferred access by VDOT and staff..il This scheme provides direct access to Route 29, while provid!ing an additional access to a road with a much lower functional c~assification. Of the three roads that this parcel fronts on, the.~i!Sheraton Hotel access road is projected to have the least numbgr of vehicle trips. Also, access from the Access Road would,allow vehicles to make more favorable turning movements onto Hilt6n Heights Road. This scheme would alleviate all U-turns. ~ be Access to Hilton Heights Road and Route 29: Access to the Hilton Heights Road for this property has been previously denied by the Planning Commission. An ingress and egress at ~ilton Heights Road would force vehicles to make U-turns at th~ Hilton Heights crossover, where it has been previously noted th, at an inadequate January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) 149 median width exists, forcing vehicles to cross two lanes of traffic to conclude a turning movement. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve access to Hilton Heights Road, staff would recommend that the median be widened to 'hide' one vehicle, and a turn lane be installed. This scheme would confine U-turns to Hilton Heights Road. One point of access-to Route 29: This access scheme is con- sidered the least favorable by VDOT and staff. One point of access to this site from Route 29 would require motorists tra- veling north and motorists wishing to return to the north to make U-turns at either the Route 29/Hilton Heights Road crossover, or the Route 29/Route 643 crossover. This point of access would create access conflicts on the primary highway. This scheme would put all U-turns on Route 29. Since 1976, it has been County policy that staff recommendations reflect the best transportation and access improvements for each development review with the Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors exercising discretion regarding actual required improvements. Staff recommends that access to this development be from the Sheraton Hotel Access Road and Route 29. Staff recommends denial of the current ~ite plan." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission,:at its meeting on December 13, 1988, unanimously recommended denial of the preliminary site plan due to lack of a safe access. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, addressed the Board. He said this parcel encompasses one hundred acres, with 2~:600 feet of road frontage. During a request for rezoning, he said, he agreed to limit this site to three entrances and exits from Route 29. Considering the size of this property, he has less accesses onto Route 29 than any other property along this highway, he said. Mr. Wood said he also wished to correct~a misconception he heard expressed earlier. This site was not graded or excavated in a way to create the steep slope; instead, it was raised and filled in. Mr. Wood said he is willing to do whate~er he can to eliminate U-turns on Route 29 North without destroying the project~. He said building a commercial exit and entrance off River Heights Road according to the recommendations of the staff and the Planning Commission would eliminate over half of the build- ing space. He said his engineers and architects have come up with an idea that may be feasible and introduced Mr. Dan ~eBettencourt, President of dB Architects. Mr. DeBettencourt addressed the Board a ~d said he worked on this project for the past eight months. He proposed a modification to the second plan for access to the property as outlined in the staff's report. This modification would allow ingress only from the Hilton Heights Road, serving the 65 to 80 percent of the traffic estimated to come fromi south of the commercial area. A narrow egress could be built from the site toithe corner of the parking lot of the hotel which could lead traffic out to thei!Hotel Access Road. He said he discussed this possibility with Mr. Home thi~ morning, but the staff has not had time to consider the modification. Mr. Wood introduced Mr. Buddy Edwards of Huffman Engineering to answer any questions the Board may have concerning the technical details of the proposed modification. Since no one else wished to speak to thi~ appeal, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before t~e Board. 150 January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Bain asked Mr. Horne for his opinion of the modification proposed by Mr. DeBettencourt. Mr. Home said he needs more time to analyze the proposal He said the proposal, which would keep the point of ingress and egress onto Route 29, is an improvement over the original site plan, because it would eliminate the U-turns on Hilton Heights Road. He said the grade of the roadway concerns him: it would be steeper than the County usually allows. the road is too steep and no one uses it, the access onto Route 29 will be over-burdened. He said he does not think this proposal is preferable to the staff's recommendation. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like the staff to review Mr. DeBettencourt's proposal. He said he thinks the new proposal will address most of the con- cerns expressed by members of the Planning Commission, if the rear exit is usable. Mr. St. John asked who would own and maintain an access road to the rear of the property. Mr. Wood said there is a joint maintenance agreement the present owners of the Sheraton Hotel and River Heights Associates that would take care of the road. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to defer action on this appeal until February 1, 1989, to allow staff time to review the revised exit proposal. 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. 6b. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Lindstrom requested information as to whether li~nes could be painted on roadways leading into subdivisions to distinguish the ~ntrance. He referred specifically to Route 678 (0wensville Road). He also asked whether this could be required in the future as part of subdivision approval. Mr. Way asked that a letter dated December 5, 1988, ~from Mr. Roosevelt re: Route 620 bridge, be placed on the agenda for the February 8, 1989, meeting. Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: AlbemarIe County Model Housing Project. Mr. Horne acknowledged the assistance of Ms. Theres~!Tapscott, Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, and Mr. Blake Caravati, Tho~s Jefferson Plannin~ District Commission, in preparing a report on a housing P~oject that could be developed in the County. He said this report is based o~iihypothetical sites and situations and purports to give members of the Board ~ broad idea of the costs involved and how the public sector should be involved to produce housin within certain ranges of costs. Mr. Home handed to the Board copies of a letter from Mr. George Loper of the Charlottesville Housing Foundation offer- ing the Foundation's assistance to the County in its housSng project. Mr. Horne said Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development, is present to describe the report more fully. ,~ Mr. Cilimberg said the objective of the project willi!be to create a residential community of houses owned by people with low to moderate incomes, families at or below the qualifying incomes for Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) single-family mortgage loans. Special e~forts should be to utilize construction techniques to make the housing ada~table to the physically disabled. Mr. Cilimberg said the proposed development should b~i located in the growth areas, preferably with access to public water and Si~wer service. The size of the development should be no more than 40 units to be cost effective and to avoid a large concentration of units in one locatioh. Modular, prefab, or stick-built houses will be built to provide units that ~hould appreciate value and be acceptable to the area in which the project iS located. The January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 151 project should be developed to meet all County standards and regulations. If density dictates, curb and gutter roads and sidewalks would be constructed. Recreation facilities, such as a playground and community building, should be included and pathways are desirable where sidewalks are not built. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff identified the following possible financing participants: the County, Charlottesville Housing Foundation, Community Development Block Grant, Virginia Housing Development Authority, Farmer's Home, Virginia Housing Partnership Fund, Enterprise Foundation, the Alton Jones Foundation and the private sector. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff analyzed three possible projects. In all cases, the parcels to be purchased exceeded the acreage to be developed for the project. This excess acreage could be developed under a second phase or sold to the private sector for development. ~A site in Crozet was used for the analysis. The three projects were: four dwelling units per acre, ten acres developed (40 units), with a 47-acre parcel purchased; eight dwelling units per acre, five acres developed (40 units), a 47-acre parcel purchased; and three dwelling units per acre, ten acres developed (30 units), a 39-acre parcel purchased. Modular homes and a playground were planned for all three alternatives. He presented the costs of each alternative as follows: Projected project cost Projected per unit cost Total County participation Net project cost with County participation Per unit cost with County participation Alternative 1 $2,465,100 61,600 870,400 1,594,700 .Alternative Alternative 2 3 ~$2,374,800 $1,995,600 59,400 66,500 788,100 768,000 1,586,700 1,227,600 39,900 39,700 40,900 County participation, Mr. Cilimberg explained, could include waiving fees and taxes, using the County Attorney to cover legal fees and maintain inter- est-free, short-term financing for low- and mOderate-income housing. The County could also participate by directly funding some of the costs of the project, such as purchasing the property and paying for on- and off-site improvements. The project would also be eligible for grants such asthe Community Development Block Grant, which pe~ts the County to apply for up to $300,000 in Block Grant funds in 1989. Additional savings could be realized through the private sector and non-profit companies for services such as architectural design, engineering, financing,i site work, modular packages, concrete work, masonry and carpentry .... Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that a combination of participants will be necessary to make the project work for lower income groups. Even with the County participation shown above, the cost per unit will be too high for some people. He said the County must decide what iincome level this project will address. It is critical for the success of bhe project that it be a highly visible effort by the entire community. One way of achieving this goal would be for the County to dedicate a certain amount of money for one year to the project and then challenge other groups in the community to match that sum in cash contributions, discounts and time. To offset some of the costs of the property, the County could sell some of the excess acreage to a developer for a development targeting buyers with low and m6derate incomes. If the Board does not wish to fund a project such as the one outlined in the report, Mr. Cilimberg said, there are other kinds of projects such as conversion of the Old Scottsville School. There may also be the possibility of obtaining acreage at The Meadows for a new project along the lines of the alternatives outlined in the report. With the availability of $300,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds, he C~ncluded, an ideal opportunity exists in the next year to leverage whatever ~ollar commitment the County is willing to make. He said applying for these ~unds requires a specific pro- posal and two public hearings. Mr. Lindstrom said one of the problems w~th this type of project has been that the houses are bought at the subsidized ~rice and then sold for their fair market values. To recapture the subsidy he said, the initiators of the 152 January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) Nelson County project attached a second "forgiveable" mortage to the proper- ties. Mr. Bowie said there is a strong incentive for low- to moderate-income people to sell the houses immediately after buying them. If the County provides them with a $60,000 house for only $40,000, then the buyers of the houses can gain a quick $20,000 if they sell their houses. He said there should be some way for the County to get its money back. Mr. Cilimberg agree~ and said the County would have to show some way to recover these funds in the application for the Community Development Block Grant funds. Mr. Bowie asked if provisions could be established to make sure the properties are well-maintained. Mr. Cilimberg said there would be a homeown- ers' association and restrictive covenants. In other such projects, Mr. Lindstrom said, an individual must attend a home maintenance course to qualif for buying a house in the development. He said he would-like to see such a provision built into the County's project. Mr. Cilimberg said AHIP is consid ering offering a homeownership program to residents of the development, which would teach the new homeowners how to maintain their homes. As part of the Nelson County project, he added, the homeowners were expected to spend a certain number of hours on site work, such as landscapings, to help offset the cost of the houses. In response to concerns about recapturing the subsidy on the houses after resale, Mr. Horne said part of the appeal of this type o~project is that it eventually ceases to be a County project and becomes pri~ate property. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see the County ~dertake such a project and begin the application for the Community Devef6pment Block Grant funds. He said he prefers the third alternative, three ~elling units per acre with ten acres developed for a total of 30 units, begause it is a smaller project than the first two alternatives and will have les"~ of an impact on the area. He said he would be interested in keeping some of =the excess property open for a buffer and recreational area. He asked staff '~o confer with the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and other such groups i~o find out how much they would be willing to contribute. He thinks it would .Se difficult to lowe~ the costs of the houses to reach the means of lower incom~ levels; getting th~ costs to this level could be the challenge the County issnes to the community. Mr. Bain said he would like to see the County run a ~roject, perhaps involving mobile homes, concurrently with the developmenti!under discussion to reach the lower income groups. !~ Mr. Way said he concurs with Mr. Lindstrom. He said'~ithis is a concrete proposal that makes sense and he thinks the County should~iget started on such a project. He said he prefers the first alternative, but:i!also! finds the thir~ alternative acceptable. He does not like the second alternative because he thinks it will be too crowded. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the Board must commit itsel~to, before staff files for the Community Development Block Grant funds. M~, Cilimberg said the Board must decide how much money it is willing to spend om the project. He said the County must also list any financial commitments from other groups in the community. Mr. Bowie pointed out that the County has been tryin~ for two years to get funding for a housing project for the elderly at the Old Scottsville School. The County has also considered a housing project at another unused County school. He questioned the wisdom of jumping into another project this year and said he does not know where the County will find {he funds for such a project. He said it bothers him that people who buy homeS~subsidized by the County can sell them for a profit after only a few years. He commended the staff for the report but said it does not convince him tha~ the County should begin work on another housing project this year. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks this report will do nothing but collect dust in the bottom of a filing cabinet unless the Board takes a~tion this year on the project. He said it will be necessary for the Board t~ review the budget to see if it has the funds available to take advantage of ghe a Community Development Block Grant. He questioned whether it is fair'ito ask the staff t¢ January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting~ (Page 11) 153 complete an application for the grant for this project if it is possible that the funding for the Old Scottsville School project falls through and the County needs the Block Grant funds for the Scottsville project. He agreed with Mr. Bowie that the County is committed to the Scottsville project. Mr. Home said he thinks it is unlikely that the staff can complete the application for the $300,000 Block Grant before the spring deadline. He said $750,000 would become available in Community Development Block Grant funds in the fall and winter of 1989, which would give the staff the time it needs to find a site and other contributors. He added that he thinks the Board should state its intentions as soon as possible to encourage other groups to contrib- ute to the project. Mr. Lindstrom agreed and said he thinks staff should put together a proposal identifying characteristics of the site and specifying costs and present this information to home builders, the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and other groups. He thinks this effort should begin by next month. Mr. Bain agreed and said he prefers either the first or third alternative. Mr. Agnor said the staff would identifythree possible sites, sources of contributions and a specific process to follow.and present this information to the Board within a month. He said he is concerned about some of the private groups that may contribute. He said the Boa=d is a regulatory agency and some of these groups appear before the Board frequently to seek approval for other projects. This could create legal problems, he said. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to author- ize staff to proceed along the lines of Alternatives 1 and 3 and report back to the Board within a month. Mr. Bowie said he does not understand why Alternative 2 has been elimi- nated just because it has a higher density. He said he will not support the motion because he does not think the County can supply the necessary funds and he does not want to raise any false hopes. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bowie. (Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Perkins said they vated "AYE" with reservations.) Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Amendment to Fee Schedule for Various Departments. The Board took no action on thins matter. It was deferred to February 8, 1989. i Agenda Item No. 11. Sheriff: Request t~ Fund Bailiff position for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Mr. Agnor said the State Compensation Board has funded the bailiff position through June 30, 1989, which require~ an appropriation of $24,565. The Sheriff anticipates this bailiff will experience an increase in the number of transport trips as well as in the number of persons being transported at one time. He is requesting a full sized Chevrolet Caprice rather than a Chevrolet Cavalier as budgeted. A full sized!ivehicle would increase the appropriation by $3,045. Sheriff Terry Hawkins said he would be willing to accept a true mid-size vehicle, but a four cylinder Chevrolet Cavalier is not a true mid-size vehicle and is not suitable for multiple transports r~quired by the Juvenile Court. He said the Sheriff's department had two Cavaliers in the past which had a substantial amount of mechanical problems. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Agnor for his recommendation. Mr. Agnor said he recommends that the Board fund the purchase o4 the Chevrolet ~avalier, the cars the County has used for the past eight y~ars. 154 January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to accept the County Executive's recon~nendation of appropriation of funds for a Chevrolet Cavalier, adopting the following resolution: Fiscal Year: 1988/89; Fund: General Purpose of Appropriation: Funding of Bailiff for Juvenile and Domes- tic Relations Court Expenditure Cost Center/Category 1100031020100100 1100031020200100 1100031020200200 1100031020200500 1100031020200600 1100031020200700 1100031020301500 1100031020530500 1100031020540800 1100031020540878 1100031020540900 1100031020541000 1100031020700300 1100031020700500 Description Salary FICA VSRS Health Ins Life Ins Dental Ins Administrative Fee Vehicle - Insurance Vehicle - Supplies Vehicle - Operation Security Supplies Uniforms Communication Equipment Vehicle - Purchase Amount $8,365.00 626.00 1,344.00 846.00 91.00 60.00 465.00 750.00 450.00 400.00 400.00 500.00 1,700.00 8,568.00 Total $24~565.00 Revenue 2100019000190202 2100023000230201 2100051000510100 Description ~ount J&D Court (City Share) $~.~488.00 Sheriff Salaries 9,589.00 (State Share) App. from Gen'l Fund 71~488.00 Balance (County Share) Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow:%ng recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstro~ Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12a. Executive Session: Acquisition of Property. At 12:54 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn into executive session to discuss acquisition of propert and personnel matters. 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. The Board reconvened at 2:05 P.M. into open session. Agenda Item No. 12. Review Southside Elementary SchOol Plans. Mr. Agnor said as a result of previous direction by ~he Board, represen- tatives from Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Inc., Architects for the Southa~de School, were present to provide the Board with ~e gymnasium config- uration for two alternative proposals. Mr. Jack Simmons, Project Manager for Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Inc., said the plans for the Southside Elementary School ~Ave been approved by the State with only a few minor changes. He said the pla~ that were approved included a gymnasium of 5000 square feet. He said the con!struction documents should be completed by the first week in February and presAnted to the School Board on February 13, 1989. He introduced Mr. James Moring to talk more abou~ the gymnasium. Mr. Moring and Mr. Simmons presented the two alternatives for an expanded gymnasium as follows: January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 155 Alternative No. 1: 6,720 square feet (Increase of 1,720 square feet above the original size of 5,000 square feet) Structure increase (includes joist and footings) Wood floor (in lieu of RYT) Concrete slab Wall increase (including paint) Roof increase (including deck and insulation) Mechanical increase Electrical increase Site change Total cost for the increase of 1,720 square feet $ 3,800 26,900 3,000 56,000 8,000 12,000 1,700 900 $112,300 Alternative No. 2: 8,422 square feet (Increase of 3,442 square fe~iabove the original 5,000 square feet) Structure increase (includes joist and footings) Wood floor (in lieu of RVT) Concrete slab Wall increase (including paint) Roof increase Mechanical increase Electrical increase Wood bleachers (seat 300) Site change Total cost for the increase of 3,442 square feet $ 8,600 36,400 5,800 73,600 16,000 27,500 3,400 18,000 2~000 $191,300 Mr. Moring said either alternate would have little impact on the outward appearance and design of the school. Mr. Simmons credited members of the Board with minimizing the impact and cost by suggesting that the locations of the gymnasium and the cafeteria be interchanged. Mr. Way asked Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, what he thinks of the two alternatives. Mr. Mullaney said the smaller gymnasium, Alternate 1, would accommodate the basketball games spon- sored by the Department. He said he does need seating for about 100 specta- tors. He suggested that the basketball courts in Alternative 1 be moved closer to the stage to allow room for bleachers. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much it will cost to buy the property, build the school and do the site work. Mr. Simmons said the construction budget is $4.43 million, which includes the site work,!.an inflation rate of five per- cent, and a five percent contingency fund for construction costs. Mr. David Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance, said the prop- erty costs $210,000. After some discussion, the Board requested a list of what the estimate of $4.43 million covered. Mr. Simmons said he is concerned about ~he cost of running a water line to the school. He said this is not included in the estimate of $4.43 million, nor is the cost of architecture and engineering services, which amount to about $320,000. Mr. Agnor pointed out that there is only $4,980,750 allocated to the Southside school in the Capital Improvements budget. Mr. Simmons asked the Board to direct him concerning the gymnasium. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any of the cost could be funded by the Parks and Recreation budget. Mr. Agnor said $25,000 c6uld be applied immediately toward the cost of the gymnasium and another $150,0Q0 could be gained if projects of less priority were postponed. Mr. Lindstrom asked what would be deferred. Mr. Agnor said the deferrable projects includ~ handicapped access to Mint Springs and Beaver Creek, the parking lot for Crozet Park, the playground for the Greenwood Community Center, the picnic shelter for Mint Springs and the beach shelter at Chris Greene Lake. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and se&onded by Mr. Bowie to approve Alternative No. 1 as outlined above with an amendment changing the floor space to allow for seating. ~ 156 January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) Mr. Bowie said he based his support of the motion on the figures just given, which add up to a total of $4,973,000, and that $25,000 is currently available in the budget for the Department of Parks and Recreation to help offset the cost of the gymnasium. 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. Mr. Mullaney asked the architects to report on any savings that might result from combining the two outdoor playing fields into onelarge field. Mr. Way asked that the architects and schools staff include Mr. Mullaney in discussions and decisions involving recreational facilities. Agenda Item No. 13. Review Crozet Elementary Replacement School Plans. Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Superintendent of Schools, said the School Board had asked the architectural firm of Vickery, Moje, .Drinkard, and Oakland (VMDO) to address the response list from Jensen Associates, the architectural firm the Board had employed for a second opinion on the Crozet School Project. VMDO was also requested to explain why Mr. 3ensen was not provided dimensions on the preliminary plans as requested. Mr. Bob Moje addressed the Board and explained that all dimensions to the plans are stored in their computers and usually are not printed at the prelim- inary stage of planning. He has offered Mr. Jensen any information he needs on the dimensions. Mr. Moje then began to explain each of the 16 items!listed by Jensen Associates. The first item concerned the ratio of exteri6r wall surface to enclosed floor area, which Mr. Jensen felt was too high.-;Mr. Moje said the design of the building (two-story stacked, single-loaded~orridor) reduced area of the roof, which saved money on heating and allowe~ all classrooms to be equally exposed to natural light and air. He said th~ design is well- suited to the site, requires less grading (saving $40,0001) and reduces the total exterior surface required for the building. ~_~ Mr. Moje read the second item listed by Mr. 3ensen:~!' ~i~"the wide assor of exterior surface materials, including roof materials,.will have a negative impact on trade coordination and costs". Mr. Moje said the assortment of materials actually facilitated the building process by allowing different types of construction to occur at the same time. ~ Mr. Moje said that Mr. Jensen was also concerned that the radius wall used in the design would be more costly to build than a straight wall. Mr. Moje said the layout of the building on radial geometry mSy require some extr~ time on the part of the contractor, but the construction should cost no more than a standard building based on straight lines. Mr. Moje said items four through 16 on Mr. Jensen's list concerned the cost of specific materials to be used in building the sch6ol. He said Mr. Jensen claimed that using 12-inch reinforced and grouted ~MU would cost three dollars less per square foot than the cast in place concrete shown in the Moje said the structural engineer consmdered~thls poss~bllmty early in the design process and concluded that 12-inch reenforced CMU could not stand the load and was not suited to the soil conditions on the site. Item ~5 recommended a change in the joists to save money. Mr. Moje said the joists that VMDO planned to use were more available a~d the structural engineer said they will be more cost effective. Mr. Moje said Mr. Jensen also recommended using pained metal roof decking instead of galvanized roof decking, for a savings iof $2,000. Mr. Mo said VMDO never intended to use galvanized roof decking. Item #7 recommended that the height of the masonry parapet wall be reduced to save $11,000. Mr. Moje said Mr. Jensen apparently eliminated the parapet wall all together to realize this savings. Mr. MQje said the parapet January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 157 wall would extend only two feet above the roof; good roofing practices dic- tates that a parapet extend at least 12 inches above the roof to maintain the integrity of the roof and turn up on the flashing. He said VMDO designed the parapet to be higher than the minimum height to screen the mechanical equip- ment on the roof from the roadway. He said reducing the height to 12 inches would save $2,000 to $4,000. Item #8 advised that using metal studs and gypsum board instead of CMU non-bearing partitions would save about $2,000. Mr. Moje said VMDO chose the CMU panels because they were more durable. Mr. Moje said Mr. Jensen also recommended the use of hollow doors wher- ever possible to save as much as $1500. Mr. Moje said hollow doors were much less durable than solid doors.are not used in any of the existing County schools. ~ Item #10 recommends using knock-down metal door frames instead of welded drywall partitions to save $1,000. Mr. Moje said the use of metal door frames depends on how much gypsum board is used, since these frames cannot be used in a block wall. Mr. Moje said Item #11 and #12 should be considered in conjunction: Item #11 calls for the use of two-by-four lay-in ceiling in lieu of two-by-two tiles; Item #12 recommends that the ceiling be continuous with all room partitions terminating where the ceiling tile begins. Mr. Moje said the two-by-two tiles do not sag over time and ar~ easier to replace than the two-by-fours. He said running the ceiling cdntinuously would require changing the walls to gypsum board partitions, which would reduce the acoustical quality of the design. He said VMDO has use~ continuous walls and gypsum board partitions where practical, and cited ~he office areas as an example. Item #13 questioned the need for five-f6~ot projections over the rear of the classrooms on the upper level. Mr. Mojei~said the overhang protects the windows and doors from the weather and shades the classrooms. Item #14 recommends the use of stand alone heat pumps in the classrooms to realize a savings of $35,000 to $40,000. ~Mr. Moje said VMDO considered this idea and noted that it would require two~ units per classroom, or 26 units. He said the savings would be about $~0,000, but the operating costs would increase the first year by about $1,000i~ These units would also gener- ate noise in the classroom and the equipmentli!asts about half as long as the heating and cooling system planned by VMDO foz the school. Item #15 claims that using direct expansion cooling, instead of a chiller, along with the hot water heater woul~ save $125,000. Mr. Moje said he does not believe this amount of money can be saved without going to indi- vidual units with the problems mentioned above. Item #16 recommends using a gas-fired heating system instead of oil to save about $30,000. Mr. Moje said gas-fired ?ystems are the most economical choice when available, but the nearest known source for gas is the ConAgra plant on Route 240. There is no distribution~agency or the necessary right-of-way to bring gas to this site. Mr. Moje said the Board suggested that t~e library be redesigned with an eight-foot ceiling. He said changing the design of the library would change He the design of other areas of the building as ~ell. said the upper portion of the library, beyond the first story, costs!ilabout $29,000 more than it would with an eight-foot ceiling. He said the library was designed to be the major focus of the building, from both the inside add the outside. He said the library was also designed to hold large group~ of people and the clerestory windows provide the natural light requested i~ the educational specifications. In summary, Mr. Moje said, Mr. Jensen estimated that his recommendations could save the County $248,000. Of this amount, $190,000 in savings would result from changing the heating and cooling ~ystem. Mr.. Moje said the heating and cooling system recommended by VMD~ was evaluated against three other systems and found to be the best value ~hen both long- and short-term costs were considered. Of the other recommended changes, Mr. Moje said, Mr. Jensen himself says they will save the County ~oney if they are possible to 158 January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) do, such as bringing a gas line to the school. Mr. Moje.said he estimates that following the rest of these recommendations would save the County between $43,000 and $45,000. Mr. Moje said it may be helpful to compare estimates for the building. He said Mr. Jensen estimates that the building and site construction will cost $4,557,000, which does not include buying the property or paying fees. He said VMDO estimates that site work and construction will cost $4,344,638. The difference between the two estimates is $216,000, or about 4.6 percent. He said Mr. Jensen included in his estimate a ten percent contingency and a five percent contingency, while there is only a ten percent contingency added to the VMDO estimate. Adding a five percent contingency to VMDO's estimate brings % the two estimates within $16,000 of each other. Mr. Moje said the most expensive part of the cost of construction is the site work, which Mr. Jensen estimates will cost $504,000. He said VMD0 has little control over the cost of site work. He said the cost of the building itself is within two dollars of the national average for a school this size. He said three things affect the cost of the building. The first factor is the economy of scale; even though the Crozet replacement school is smaller than other projects just built or in the planning stages, it will not be a lot less expensive to build. The second factor is the somewhat flexible capacity of the school. Although the school will be built for 450 students, it was designed so there would be a convenient way to expand th~ school to 600 students, if necessary. He said this flexible design added about $80,000 to the price of the building. The third factor is the sewe=~line which runs through the middle of the site and influenced the design of the building. He said he thinks the only way to reduce the cost of this project is to reduce the quality of the materials. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands the theory behind economies of scale, but he does not understand how the Southside school, whic~li will hold 150 more students than the Crozet school, will cost only $100,000 'more. Mr. Bowie noted that most of Mr. Moje's presentationi.~.seemed to be a justification of the original design. For the past ten tx 12 months, he said, some members of the Board have believed that the project Us too expensive and have asked the architects to reduce the cost somehow. Hei said there has been no. such attempt. Mr. Lindstrom said he has reservations about proceeding with the project, particularly since the site seems to be driving up the co~t of the school. Mr. Perkins said the last estimate on the Crozet pro~ect was $4.2 mil- lion. He said both the Southside and the Crozet schools 9ere to cost $74 per square foot. ~ Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Moje for an estimate for the entire project, exclud- ing acquiring the property and including all necessary fe~s. Mr. Moje said fees would add $200,000 to the estimate, i! Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Jensen to comment on the likelihood of finding a source of gas for this property. Mr. Jensen said there may be additional users who would share the cost for extending a gas line tQ this property. He recommended that the Board investigate this possibility b~cause heating by gas is much cheaper than other methods. ~ Mr. Perkins asked what was allocated to this project ~in the Capital Improvements Plan. Mr. Agnor said $4,079,000, which was ~0 include purchasing the property. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that acquiring the site and doing the site work is estimated to cost $1 million. ~ Mr. Way asked Mr. 3ensen if he wished to comment further. Mr. 3ensen said he believes the package units he recommended could bei~ia viable, less expensive alternative to the heating and cooling system recommended by VMDO. Mr. Perkins said he is concerned about the cost of th~ project. He thinks the site may be larger than necessary; perhaps a ba~l field could be eliminated. Despite his concern, he said, he thinks the C~unty needs to move ahead on this project. Any delay will just cost more mone~ as building costs January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) 159 rise, he said. He believes Crozet Elementar.y School is in worse shape than any other school building in the County. He said this school may even be unsafe and he does not think it can operate as a school for two more years without the County having to spend a lot of money in maintenance costs. Mr. Way said he thinks the Board should delay its decision until after the next meeting with the School Board on January 23, because of the questions of site acquisition. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr~ Bowie to defer continued discussion to the meeting with the School Board on January 23, 1989, at 8:00 A.M. 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. (Note: The Board recessed at 4:07 P.M. and reconvened at 4:19 P.M. with Mr. Perkins absent). Mr. Way said the Board will consider Agenda Item 19 next, since there were citizens waiting to speak to this item. Agenda Item No. 19. Concerned Citizens of Albemarle, Reply to Request from. Mr. Agnor said as a result of a previous direction of the Board for a staff report on a request by Mr. Nimrod T. Clark representing the Concerned Citizens of Albemarle, who asked the Board to order a referendum on the Police Department, and two requests from Mr. James ~. Morris representing the opin- ions of a minority of the same organization, requesting the establishment of a Public Safety Board and an amendment to State law as to the way counties may change their type of lap enforcement, staffiwas making several recommenda- tions as follows: 1. Referendum - Mr. St. John has ~dvised that State law does not authorize the County to hold a referendum, binding or advisory. Staff recommends that the Board follow the County Attorney's advice. 2. Public Safety Board - The Boar~ of Supervisors has the authority to create advisory boards andi!~etermine their purpose and composition. The requested board is similar to an existing group, Emergency Services Providers Advisory CQ~mlttee, which consists of representatives of police, fire and rescDe units, and the Universi- ty's Poison Control Center. It is a con~nunity wide organization including the City, County and University. Its primary focus is communications and dispatching. Staff recommends that the Concerned Citizens of Albemarle meet with the Emergency Services Providers Advisory Committee to discuss their concerns and solutions to those concerns. 3. State Legislation - Amendments to State legislation are normally introduced by local governments affected by the legiSlation proposed to be amended. Also, the Virginia Association of Counties encourages its members to submit any legislation that has statewide implications to VACo committees. Staff recommends that the Board not seek an amendment because the current law does not apply to Albemarle County, and because the Board has just completed partici- pation in the VACo legislative review and adoption process on statewide legislative matters. (Note: Mr. Perkins returned at 4:25 P.M.) Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if the Gounty would be legally liable if it were to spend funds on initiating such a r~ferendum. Mr. St. John said the County was excluded from the statute authorizing this type of referendum for other counties. Even if the County tried to h~old such a referendum, the State Board of Elections would never allow it to re,ch the ballot. If by some chance, the State Board of Elections authorized the referendum, Mr. St. John 160 January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) said, he thinks the County would be protected against any charge that County funds were spent illegally. Mr. Lindstrom said he has a philosophical problem with referendums and cited the state of California where citizens vote on hundreds of referendums at each election. He said the success of these referendums depends on the wealth of the group supporting it. He said he feels members of the Board are elected to exercise their judgment based upon information which citizens sometimes do not have the time or the inclination to pursue. He said he does not want to hide behind the legal technicalities of such a referendum; he not think that law enforcement in the County should be subjected to something other areas of County administration are not. Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with Mr. Lindstrom. She said she thinks the Board should follow the advice of the County Attorney and the County Execu- tive. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded byiMrs. Cooke to accept the County Executive's recommendation that no referendum~be held on the basis of the County Attorney's advice. Mr. Bain said he does not support holding such a referendum and he believes the matter should be handled through the electoral process. 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. Mr. Nimrod Clark then said the Concerned Citizens of Albemarle would proceed to have state law changed by seeking court decision. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the City and the University w~uld have to agree with any change to the Emergency Services Providers Advispry Committee. Mr. Agnor said "yes". .Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the role!if the Committee should be expanded to include public safety and law enfot~ement issues, but thinks it would be inappropriate for a joint committee sUCh as this one to focus solely on the County. If the City and University a~e amenable to expanding the Committee to include public safety and law ~nforcement issues their bailiwicks, he supports this request and thinks it~would be a signifi- cant step forward in terms of City/County/University cooperation. Mr. Bain agreed and said he thinks representatives of the City and the University should be asked whether they support expandinglthe Committee to handle this request. Mr. Way asked Mr. Jim Morris if he would like to address the Board. Mr. Morris thanked the Board for considering the request of the Concerned Citizen: of Albemarle. He said he thinks that using the Emergencyi=!Services Providers Advisory Committee might expand its role more than would ~e necessary to get the job done. Mr. Bowie said he met with Mr. Morris earlier and thought his request the establishment of a Public Safety Board made sense. He said he agrees the Concerned Citizens of Albemarle should first work through an existing organization, but if that does not work, he thinks a Public Safety Board should be established. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. ~ain to follow the County Executive's recommendation that the Concerned CitiZens of Albemarle meet with the existing Emergency Services Providers Advisdry Committee to h address their concerns, and that t e City and University ~e consulted regard- ing expansion of the role of the Emergency Services Providers Advisory Commit- tee. In the event the City and University are unwilling ~o include the concerns of the Concerned Citizens of Albgmarle, the Boar~ would authorize formation of a committee with a more narrow focus on County public safety. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow~mg recorded vote: January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 161 AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to follow the County Executive's reco~nendation that Albemarle County not seek. an amendment to state law to allow the County to hold a referendum on this issue. Mr. Bowie said he supports the motion. In 1983 when the Board decided to establish a police department, Mr. Bowie said, he spoke during a public hearing and said he thought a referendum should be held on the matter. He said he remembers that some members of the Concerned Citizens of Albemarle argued that the issue should not go to referendum and they prevailed. Now, he said, the decision has been made. It was a legal decision and he thinks the County should stick to it. He said he thinks subjecting every police depart- ment in the State to referendum every four years would disrupt professional law enforcement. Mrs. Cooke said subjecting the police department to referendums would lower the quality of applicants. No man will put his life on the line for a job that is in jeopardy every four years, sh~ said. She said policemen and women must feel they have careers ahead of t~em and stability, rather than feeling that their jobs are available only a~ the whim of the public. 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. 14. Set Public Hearing?..Date to amend the County Code to Consolidate Fire Protection Codes. -~ Without discussing this item, the Board~deferred the matter to February 8, 1989. Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Way suggested the Board next discuss Agenda Item No. 17, since a decision must be made on this item today. Agenda Item No. 17. Transfer of Deferred Debt Obligations on McIntire School Sale from McIntire Village Associates to the YMCA. (Mrs. Cooke disqualified herself from the discussion because of conflict of interest and left the room.) Mr. Agnor said the County has been requested to transfer the balance of $495,000 in deferred payments payable at the ~ate of $55,000 per year from McIntire Village Associates to the Charlottesville-Albemarle YMCA. The current obligation is secured by an agreement:!inclusive of a note and a Letter of Credit issued to the County by Sovran Bank~ The YMCA wishes to substitute the current Letter of Credit issued by Sovran Bank with an identical Letter of Credit issued by Investor's Savings and Loan to the County on behalf of the YMCA. He said approval of this request would transfer the remaining portion of the McIntire School property to the YMCA with~the YMCA being liable to the County for the remaining $495,000 over the next nine years. He said the County Attorney and staff found no problems with the documents concerning the substitution submitted for review. Mr. St. John pointed to the third paragraph of the agreement and said this is the first time he knew that the McIntire Village Associates was asking for "assumption by YMCA of the obligations of ~Associates under the Note". Mr. St. John said releasing the Associates from liability on the original note was mentioned in none of his discussions with Mr.:Kroner, legal counsel for the YMCA. He said releasing the associates was not necessary for the substitution of collateral and he does not see any justification for this measure. 162 January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) Mr. Kroner said he discussed assuming these obligations with the Associ- ates and said the security of the County is assured regardless of whether the YMCA or the McIntire Village Associates is obligated to the County. If this clause disturbs the Board, he said, he is willing to renegotiate this part of the agreement with McIntire Village Associates. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Kroner if the McIntire Village Associates was formed solely to purchase the McIntire School or if the group has any other assets or does any other business. Mr. Kroner said he thinks the corporation will be dissolved after the sale of the property, but he is not sure. Mr. St. John said he does not feel strongly about this issue and added that releasing McIntire Village Associates from obligation will affect the County's credit rating. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded bylMr. Perkins to authorize the County Executive to execute the agreement set out below: THIS ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT, made this day of December, 1988, by and among MCINTIRE VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Virginia corporation ("Associates"), CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE YMCA, INC~, a Virginia non-stock corporation ("YMCA") and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ("County"). Background. A. By deed dated December 6, 1985, the County sold and conveyed to Associates certain real property located in the Qity of Charlottesville known locally as the McIntire Schoo~ property. Associates paid $550,000 of the purchase price by means of a deferred purchase money note (the "Note"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. B. Payment of the Note was originally secure~i by a deed of trust on the McIntire School property. On May 15, ~86, Associates conveyed the rear portion of the McIntire School property to YMCA, the deed of trust on the McIntire School property was released and an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $550,000, issued by Sovran Bank, N.A. to the County, was substituted as ~collateral for the payment of the Note. C. Associates and YMCA have entered into a r~l estate purchase agreement whereby Associates has agreed to sell and mCA has agreed to buy the remaining McIntire School property owned by ~ssociates. The consideration for such purchase is the assumption byilyMCA of the obligations of Associates under the Note. D. YMCA desires to assume Associates' obligations under the Note, and the County has agreed to consent to such a~sumption and to the substitution of a new irrevocableletter of credit to secure the payment of the Note on the terms and conditions set ~orth in this Agreement. ~ A~reement. ~il NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by each of the parties~!pursuant to this Agreement, the parties covenant and agree as follows~ 1. YMCA hereby assumes, and agrees to pay whe~due, the Note, having a present principal balance of $495,000, and ~oes further agree to perform all other obligations imposed by the Note~ and to indemnify Associates with respect thereto and save it harmlessl~herefrom. 2. The County hereby accepts as substitute collateral for the payment of the Note an irrevocable letter of credit, lin the amount of $495,000, issued by Investors Savings Bank in the fo~ attached hereto as Exhibit B. ~i 3. Upon receipt by the County of the executed original of the letter of credit issued by Investors Savings Bank, AsSociates shall be January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) relieved of and from all liability arising under or an account of the Note. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mrs. Cooke. Mrs. Cooke returned for the remainder of the meeting. Agenda Item No. 15. Set Public Hearing Date to amend the County Code to Regulate the Operating Hours of Solicitors. The matter was deferred to February 8, 1989, without discussion. Agenda Item No. I6. Authorize Chairman to Execute Jordan Devel- opment Corporation Contract Extension. Mr. Agnor said the Jordan Development Corporation is requesting the extension of their contract with the County to June 30, 1989. Their plans were delayed due to the extended delays on the part of several Federal agencies on the levee, as well as delays on the acquisition of additional land from Uniroyal/Goodrich. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to authorize the Chairman to execute the amended contract amending Paragraph 11 to read as follows: ~ "11. Closing. Ail the contingencies set forth herein must be satisfied on or before June 30, 1989, and closing shall occur within fifteen days after the satisfaction of all of the conditions and contingencies contained in this agreement." Roll was called and the motion carried Ky the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ Mr. Home asked the Board for authorization to begin working on an application for a Community Development BlocHi Grant of up to $300,000 for the Scottsville project. He said the application~must be finished by March. He said representatives of the Albemarle Housing!i Improvement Program, which is also seeking additional funds, support fundin~ the Scottsville project before receiving the additional money themselves. Mr. Bowie asked if grants could be developed for both the Jordan Develop- ment Corporation and AHIP at the same time, so if one was denied the funding, the other group would have a chance. Mr. Horne said this would be difficult, but he will investigate the possibility. If AHIP receives the grant, Mr. Lindstrom asked, could the money be used for a model housing program such as the one the Board discussed earlier, or must the grant be used for a rehabilitation p~ogram. Mr. Horne said the application must state specifically how the money will be used. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to author- ize Mr. Horne to begin work on the applicatio~ for the block grant for the old Scottsville School project. Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Perkins andMr. Way. NAYS: None. 164 January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) Agenda Item No. 20. Revisions to Personnel Policies: Snow Day Policy. Mr. Agnor said the current policy provides for the County Executive to close offices due to hazardous road conditions and further provides that employees may arrive late to work with the first hour free, with the hours from 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon required to be made up, and hours after 12:00 Noon charged to annual leave or compensatory time. He said the policy creates problems of equity among employees who have to report for work regardless of the weather, such as snow removal crews and police staff, and employees who arrive on time and receive no free time for their effort. Consequently, an amended policy is requested, which provides that employees arriving late or leaving early due to weather will be charged annual leave or compensatory leave. Mr. Perkins suggested that this policy include all inclement weather conditions, not just snow. Mr. Agnor agreed and said "weather conditions" could replace "snow". Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the revised snow policy as recommended by the County Executive and amended as set out below: "If road conditions become hazardous during the day ~or night due to weather conditions, County offices may close at the discretion of the County Executive. The County Executive, or his designated agent, will notify the radio stations and department heads of such closings. Unless such an announcement is made, emp!6yees will be expected for work at their regular times. If, due t~o individual circumstances, an employee cannot report to work, r~ports to work late or leaves early, the time not worked will be charged to annual leave or compensatory time. If an employee cannot report for work, and the building is subsequently closed early, leav~ will only be charged up until the time that the building closes." Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstromi Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ Agenda Item No. 2la. Appointments: Clergy Representative to the Chil- dren and Youth Task Force. Mr. Agnor said that when appointments were made to the Charlottesville/ Albemarle Task Force on Children and Youth, there were n0ilapplicants for the Clergy representative, and the position has remained unfilled. Rev. James Baker, Co-Pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church, has ~greed to serve in this position. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr~i Lindstrom to appoint Rev. James Baker as Clergy Representative to the ~harlottesville/ Albemarle Task Force on Children and Youth. Roll was called and the motion carried by the followSng recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom~i Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 2lb. Other. Mr. Way nominated Mr. Roger R. Ward as the Scottsvilte District tative to the Albemarle County School Board to serve out the unexpired term Mr. Forrest Marshall. He said Mr. Ward had been a resident of Albemarle County for ten years. Currently he is employed at Uniroy~tGoodrich. He has his MBA. Mr. Ward has two children, one in the Albemarle iCounty school s and one preparing to enter. He is active in the PTO of Rase Hill school. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appoint Mr. Roger R. Ward to the Albemarle County School Board as the ~cottsville January 11, 1989 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) 165 representative, filling out the unexpired term of Forrest Marshall, term to expire on December 31, 1991. 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. 5. Approval of Minutes: April 9 and May 21 (N) 1986; November 4, 1987; October 24, 1988. Mr. Bain had read the minutes for October 24, 1988, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the minutes as read. 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. Discussion on the following items was deferred due to the lack of time. Agenda Item No. 18. Transfer Home Care Funds fromthe Board's Contin- gency Account to the Department of Social Services. This matter was deferred to February 8, 1989, without discussion. Agenda Item No. 22. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan Revisions. No action was taken on the Comprehensive Plan. The next work session is scheduled for January 18, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. Agenda Item No. 23. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Bowie distributed a report for information from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Con~nission entitled, "Legislative Program, 1989" and a copy of a memo dated December 27, 1988, Commission on Local Government Structures and Relationships on Points of Consensus. Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn to January 18, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. At 5:30 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adjourn to January 18, 1989, at 1:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7. 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.