1988-06-08June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
297
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 8, 1988, 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 (arrived at 9:10 A.M.), MesSrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom,
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 (arrived at 10:13 A.M.); Mr. John T. P. Home,
Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Deputy County Executive.
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 Mr. Lindstrom
and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve Items 4.1 through 4.6 and to accept the
remaining items as information. 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. Street Sign Request - Willow Lake Subdivision, Phase I.
Request was received on February 20, 1987, from Abrahamse and Company Build-
ers, Inc., requesting street signs for Willow Lake Subdivision. The Board
approved the following resolution by the vote shown above:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads: ~
Willow Lake Drive (State Route 1135) at its intersection with
U. S. Highway 20;
Willow Lake Drive (State Route 1135 and Maple View Drive (State
Route 1136) at its intersection; and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and
maintain the above mentioned street signs.
Item 4.2. Street Sign Request - State F.armBoulevard (Pantops). Request
was received March 14, 1984, from Virginia Land Company for a street name
sign. The Board approved the following resolution by the vote shown above:
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify
the following roads:
State Farm Boulevard (State Route li17) at its intersection with
U. S. Highway 250; and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and TranSportation:
298
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and
maintain the above mentioned street sign.
Item 4.3. Street Sign Request - Canterbury Hills Subdivision, Section 1.
Request was received from Mr. Harold W. Deaner, dated May 19, 1988, for a
street name sign. The Board approved the following resolution by the vote
shown above:
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify
the following roads:
Chaucer Road (State Route 1405) and Barracks ROad (State Route
654) at its intersection; and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and
maintain the above mentioned street sign.
Item 4.4. Request to Abandon Old Section and Add New Section of Route
643 to the Secondary System. A letter dated May 24, 1988; was received from
Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, requesting a resolution to effect
changes in the Secondary System due to the reloaction and construction on
Route 29, Project #6029-002-116, C-501. The following resolution was adopted
by the vote shown above:
WHEREAS, Secondary Route 643 from the southbound lane Route 29
to 0.04 miles west southbound lane of Route 29 and Route 643 from
northbound lane Route 29 to 0.07 miles east of northbound lane Route
29 has been altered, and a new road has been constructed and approved
by the State Highway Commissioner, which new road serves the same
citizens as the road so altered; and
WHEREAS, certain sections of this new road foll6w new locations,
these being shown on the attached sketch titled "Ch~ges in Secondary
System due to Relocation and Construction of Route 219, Project
6029-002-116, C501, Albemarle County, dated at CharlOttesville,
Virginia, August 24, 1987." ~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the portion of Secondary
Route 643, i.e. Section 3 and 4 shown in red on the sketch titled
"Changes in Secondary System Due to Relocation and C~nstruction on
Route 29, Project 6029-002-116, C501, Albemarle County, dated at
Charlottesville, Virginia, August 24, 1987," a total~distance of 0.11.
miles be and hereby is, added to the Secondary System of State
Highways pursuant to Section 33.1 229 of the Code of!iVirginia of
1950, as amended;
And further, that the sections of old location, i.e., Section 1
and 2, shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, al/total distance
of 0.11 miles, be, and the same hereby is, abandoned!'as a public road
pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended.
Item 4.5. Request to Abandon Old Section and Add New Section of Route
678 to the Secondary System. A letter dated May 24, 1988~ was received from
Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, requesting a resolution to effect
changes in the Secondary System due to relocation and cons~urction on Route
678, Project 0678-002-212, C-501, B-649. The following resolution was adopted
by the vote shown above:
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
299
WHEREAS, Secondary Route 678, from 0.04 miles south of the
Mechums River to 0.08 miles north of the Mechums River, a distance of
0.12 miles, has been altered, and a new road has been constructed and
approved by the State Highway Commissioner, which new road serves the
same citizens as the road so altered; and
WHEREAS, certain sections of this new road follow new locations,
these being shown on the attached sketch titled "Changes in Secondary
System due to Relocation and Construction of Route 678, Albemarle
County, dated at Charlottesville, Virginia, September 9, 1987."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the portions of Secondary
Route 678, i.e. Section 2, shown in red on the sketch titled "Changes
in Secondary System Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 678,
Project 0678-002-212, C501, B649, Albemarle County, dated at
Charlottesville, Virginia, September 9, 1987," a total distance of
0.12 miles be and hereby is, added to the Secondary System of State
Highways pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended;
And further, that the sections of old location, i.e., Section 1,
shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of 0.12
miles, be, and the same hereby is, abandoned as a public road pur-
suant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended.
Item 4.6. Resolution: Rio Road Improvements (Sidewalk, Curb and Gut-
ter). The following letter dated May 25, 1988, was received from Mr. D. S.
Roosevelt, Resident Engineer:
"At the May llth Board meeting the Boar~ of Supervisors took action
concerning the bike trail and sidewalk proposals for the Rio Road
Project. Since that time there has been considerable verbal discus-
sion and information passed between my 9ffice and the Board through
your office. I feel some written verification of these conversations
is in order. ~
This will confirm that I have advised ypu verbally that the Depart-
ment will not participate in the cost of a bicycle trail along this
project nor maintain the trail if it isJbuilt within state right of
way. It is my understanding you have a~vised the Board of Super-
visors of this fact. They in turn haveli!advised you that they are no
longer interested in estimates of cost for a bike trail. Further
they have indicated that they wish to p~oceed with Option 3 which was
discussed with the Board at their May l~th meeting.
Based upon our verbal discussion I have ~advised my District Office to
proceed with the development of plans f~r this project based upon
Option 3. Because Option 3 requires joint Department/County cost
participation I will need a formal resolution from the Board indi-
cating their support of this option. Ygu may take this letter as
formal notification that the Department.~will not participate in the
construction of a bike trail. I reques~ that the Board respond with
an appropriate resolution concerning their participation in the
construction of the sidewalk and storm ~ewer.
It is not necessary that this resolutio~ be handled on a emergency
basis. The resolution can be obtained ~t the regular Board meeting
in June. Department work on plan modification can proceed in anti-
cipation of such a resolution. If, how~ver, I have misinterpreted
the County's position, I request that I ~'.Ibe notified immediately."
The following resolution was adopted by'~he vote shown above:
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of~. Transportation has proposed
several options listed in their letter ~f April 18, 1988 regarding
the improvement of Rio Road Project No. ~0631-002-128,C503; and
300
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has reviewed
those options proposed, and selected sidewalk option No. 3 to be
located on the northside of Rio Road;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors recommends that Virginia Department of Transportation
construct a concrete sidewalk along the north side of Rio Road from
Albemarle Square Shopping Center to Route 650 with curb and gutter
along the full length; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors agrees to pay its share of the above improvement costs in
the amount of $55,000 with the remainder of the improvement costs
$129,000 to be borne by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Item 4.7. Tentative Allocation of Funds for Fiscal Year 1988-89 for the
Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, Public Transit, Ports and
Airports, Including an Update of the Six-Year Improvement Program for Fiscal
Year 1988-89 through 1993-94, along with notice of public hearing; received as
information.
Item 4.8. Letter dated June 1, 1988, from Mr. John.T.P. Horne, Director
of Planning and Community Development, to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County
Executive, re: VDoT Tentative Primary System Allocations; received as infor-
mation.
"This Department has reviewed the VDOT tentative primary system
allocations for the Culpeper District. The Board of Supervisors had
recommended funding of two studies to determine the nature of pos-
sible road improvements on Route 240 from Route 810 ~o Route 250 in
Crozet and on Route 20 South. Staff of this Department would recom-
mend that the Board consider an additional resolution and/or appear-
ance at the June 16th public hearing in Richmond to !further stress
the need for funding of these studies to VDOT. The ilmprovements to
Route 240, in particular, are becoming crucial as t~ County and VDOT
attempt to improve the secondary system in that growth area. The
proposed extension of Park Road is an example of a sBcondary project
that will have difficulty proceeding until there hasiilbeen some
resolution of future improvements to Route 240.
The Board may wish to emphasize the small amount of ~unding that is
necessary to accomplish these studies in comparison ~o the construc-
tion projects proposed in the allocations. Without 'these studies,
however, it will be very difficult for the County to%be more specific
in its proposed improvements to these roadways."
Mr. Way said he thinks the Board should make a statement concerning
Routes 240 and 20 South at the public hearing in Richmond.~ Mr. Lindstrom said
he thinks the Board should also register its disapproval df the proposed
improvements to Route 29 North, the six-laning with a continuous right-turn
lane, at this public hearing. Mr. Agnor said the staff could draft a state-
ment, which the Board could either mail to VDoT or presen~ in person. Mr.
Lindstrom said he thinks it would be more effective if someone from either the
Board or the staff made the statement in person; unfortunately, he will not be
in town that week.
Item 4.9. Status Report of Feasibility Study for Sol~d Waste Disposal at
Ivy Landfill. The following report from Mr. Richard P. Mo~ing, Director of
Engineering, was received as information.
"At their May 11, 1988 meeting, the Board requested ai status report
from staff concerning the on-going feasibility study ~or solid waste
disposal. This memorandum will provide a status rep~t on the study.
This study was initiated in April of 1988 at a contract price of
$40,000. State funding to a maximum of $20,000 is available and is
being utilized through a fifty-fifty grant with the D~partment of
Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Division of Energy, and the County and
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
301
City. The formal title of this report is 'Financial Feasibility
Study of Alternative Solid Waste Disposal Methods'. The goal of this
study is for the consultant to provide a detailed feasibility and
financial analysis of the complete spectrum of environmentally
acceptable solid waste disposal alternatives including the current
method of total landfilling and to produce a recommendation for the
next ten years of operation based on this analysis. The consultant
is also to provide a statement of costs that may be included in a
general tipping fee should the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
and the Charlottesville City Council decide that such a fee is
appropriate.
Finally, the consultant will analyze the remaining useful life of the
landfill in relation to each of the alternatives proposed. To
accomplish this goal in a logical and organized manner, nine specific
tasks, listed below, have been identified and are currently being
studied:
1) Analyze historic loading data;
2) Identify present cost elements for landfill;
3) Project future waste disposal costs;
4) Define alternative disposal technologies;
5) Examine source separation and recycling;
6) Develop alternative technology~cost;
7) Compare landfill and alternate technology cost;
8) Basis for tipping fee;
9) Develop recommendations.
For a graphic representation of the relationship of each task to the
overall project, see attachment 1 (on file at the Clerk's office).
Completion of the final report is expected in late June, therefore,
we anticipate presentation to the Board~iin July or August."
Item 4.10. Monthly Bond Report for Arbor Crest Apartments for the Month
of April, 1988; received as information.
Item 4.11. Letter dated June 1, 1988, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Maintenance
Highway Supervisors, re: Closing of section ;of Route 712 for replacement of
bridge over Ammonett Branch; received as information.
"A section of Route 712 between Routes 631 and 717 west of Keene in
Albemarle County will be closed to traffic for approximately one week
while the bridge over Ammonett Branch is being replaced. The work
will begin on Monday, June 13, 1988; and: traffic will be detoured to
Routes 631 and 708. Signs are up to assist traffic flow. VDOT will
be replacing the steel beams and wooden floor timbers."
Item 4.12. Status Report on Auxiliary Police Report. The following
memorandum dated June 3, 1988, from the County Executive, was received as
information.
"In August, 1987 you approved the creatilOn of an auxiliary police
unit with an estimated timetable that provided for your review of the
effectiveness of the unit between Januar~y and July, 1990. The
timetable for development of the unit i~cluded the selection of
volunteers and the commencement of a sixty hour training program from
July 1, 1988 to July 1989 with work assignments in the records
division, referred to as level one tasks The second year of the
302
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
timetable, beginning July 1, 1989, provided for the beginning of a
second sixty hour training program with assignments in level two
tasks, which includes traffic and crowd control, disaster scenes,
crime prevention, etc.
To date, nine officers have completed the State instructor develop-
ment courses required for certification as a training instructor.
These officers will be used to conduct departmental training of
auxiliary officers. A training calendar and program for the first
sixty hour training requirement, and an ordinance creating the unit
is scheduled to be completed by July. Selection of volunteers is
planned for August, with training to commence after summer vacation
schedules have ended, probably mid-September.
The only difficulty that has arisen so far is the planned assignment
of auxiliary officers to level one work in the records division,
which may be somewhat hampered by the remodeling in the department
that is underway. The remodeling will require temporary moves of
offices accommodating construction schedules, disrupting normal
working conditions for a period of several months. ~No other diffi-
culties are anticipated."
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: March 19 (Night), 1986; Novem-
ber 11 (Day), 1987; and May 11 (Day), 1988.
Mr. Way had read page one to 14 of the minutes for March 19, 1986
(Night), and found them to be in order.
Mr. Lindstrom had read page 12 to the end of the minutes for November 11,
1987 (Day), and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read page one to 15 for May 11, 1988, He suggested the
following amendments: on page 6, seventh paragraph, first sentence, add the
word "said" between "Roosevelt" and "the"; and, on page 11, first paragraph,
seventh line, delete the word "by".
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. !Bain to approve the
minutes as read. 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. Lindstro~i Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Public Hearing - Naming a private
road in Clearview Subdivision. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2
and June 7, 1988.)
Mr. Agnor said this matter was brought to the attention of the Board at
an earlier meeting by Ms. Lorraine Quillon, a resident of~the Clearview
subdivision. He said Ms. Quillon and other residents wish to have the road
named "Pleasantview Lane" since their original choice, "Clearview Lane" is
already the name of another road.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyon~ wished to speak on
this issue.
Ms. Lorraine Quillon addressed the Board and said she and other residents
of the Clearview subdivision would like the road to be na~ed so it could be
quickly and easily found by fire and rescue squads and th~ police, in times of
emergency.
Since no one else wished to address this issue, Mr. ~ay closed the public
hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to adopt
the following resolution:
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
303
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
that a private road in Clearview Subdivision be named Pleasantview
Lane.
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.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Secondary Road Six-Year Plan for
1988-94, re: Moormans River.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum, dated May 31, 1988:
"Attached is a letter from Mr. Roosevelt informing the County of
Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDoT) decision not to
approve the Six-Year Plan as adopted by the Board of Supervisors on
April 6, 1988. The reason for this action by VDoT is due to the
Board's deletion of a bridge replacement across the Moorman's
River on Route 671.
Also attached is Virginia Code Section 33.1-70.01 which defines the
process and authority for developing a six-year plan. The next-to-
last paragraph of this section provides for an appeal when the
governing body and resident engineer cannot agree upon the priorities
of the plan. The appeal is to the State Highway Commissioner whose
decision on the matter is binding. ~
Staff recommends that VDoT be encouraged to develop a compromise
design for this improvement which would"~replace the bridge in its
current location, and improve the approaches to the bridge on their
current alignment as would be necessaryi~.only for the replacement
bridge. It may be possible to replace this bridge without realigning
its location and approaches, and without significantly damaging the
fields abutting this project, which staff understands is the prin-
ciple community objection to this project."
The following is a letter dated May 16, ii1988, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, VDoT, to the Board:
"Reference is made to the Secondary Road Six Year Plan for Albemarle
County adopted at your April 6, 1988, m~eting. The Department has
reviewed this plan and cannot approve the plan as adopted.
The priority list adopted by the County 'deleted the improvement of
the bridge and approaches over the Moormans River on Route 671. This
project.was a part of the previously adopted plan and called for the
replacement of an obsolete and deteriorating structure. The Depart-
ment has undertaken preliminary enginee=ing work on this project and
is nearing the public hearing stage. W~ feel that due to the condi-
tion of the structure and the planning a'lready accomplished we must
continue with plans to replace this structure.
At the Six Year Plan Public Hearing it was pointed out by the Board
that other structures with low sufficienhy ratings were not included
in the plan. The Department acknowledges this fact but we feel the
proper step would have been to include t~ese other structures in the
~lan along with Route 671 rather than th~ deletion of this project.
I am developing a revised financial plan which will include financing
for the Route 671 project. I request that the Board consider revis-
ing the priority list to include the Route 671 project. I will
include funding in the financial plan sufficient to fund theantici-
pated preliminary engineering and constrOction on this project
according to the program established by the previous Six Year Plan.
I am prepared to discuss this matter at ~ome future Board meeting.
Please advise me of your desire for future discussion."
304
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Way said Mr. Forbes Reback has given material concerning the Moormans
River Bridge to several members of the Board and asked him to share his
information with the rest of the Board.
Mr. Forbes Reback addressed the Board and said he and other concerned
citizens played the game by the rules and thought they had won: the project
would be deleted from the Six Year Plan. He said he and his neighbors prom-
ised to work with the VDoT to try to modify what seemed to them to be inflexi-
ble and insensitive rules governing the design of the approaches to the bridge
and the bridge itself. He said he and his neighbors were trying to arrange an
interview with Ms. Connie Kinchloe, a member of the Highway Commission, when
the above letter from Mr. Roosevelt arrived.
He said he and his neighbors cannot understand why the Moormans River
Bridge is being singled out of all the bridges in the CoUnty that need to be
replaced. He said he finds it hard to believe that the acquiescence of the
VDoT to the Six Year Plan depends upon the replacement of this bridge and its
approaches.
In the meantime, he said, the General Assembly has brought him and his
neighbors some relief, by extending the system of Virginia Scenic Rivers to
include the Moormans River from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir to the Free Union
Bridge on Route 601. He said he has provided the Board with copies of this
legislation, which will be codified as Virginia Code Section 10-173.10. He
said the new legislation designates the CoUnty to administer the Moormans
Scenic River and to recommend to the Governor appointees~i'to the Moormans River
Advisory Board, which will be composed of five residentsi~from the area.
Mr. Reback then read from Section 10-167(e): "In all planning for the
use and development of water and related land resources,?including the con-
struction of impoundments, conversions, roadways, crossings, channelizations,
lochs, canals or other uses which change the character of a stream or waterwa~
or destroy its scenic value, full consideration and evaluation of the river as
a scenic resource shall be given before alternative plan~ for use and develop-
ment are approved". He asked the Board to consider its qbligation to the
river and the Public and determine if the VDoT will construct a bridge and
approaches so as not to destroy the scenic value of the ~iver.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, addressed the iBoard and asked that
the Board take action concerning the Six Year Plan. He s~aid the Board has
three options. The first option is to do nothing. If th~ Board exercises
this option, he said, the VDoT will proceed with a plan slimilar to the Six
Year Plan proposed by the Board, with the addition of theiMoormans River
Bridge project. Or, he said, the Board could appeal to the Highway Commis-
sioner the decision by VDoT to include the project. As a!third option, he
said, the Board could send him to the VDoT with a revised priority list that
would include Route 671 and the Moormans Bridge. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he believes the VDoT must consider the new scenic
river legislation mentioned by Mr. Reback. He said it se~ms clear to him that
the Moormans River Advisory Board must also participate i~ any decision that
affects this river, including any bridges to be built across it.
Mr. Roosevelt said this river would be treated as an~ other environmental
issue: the VDoT contacts the agency that is responsible for the site, obtains
their comment, and considers those comments in an environmental evaluation of
the project. He said almost all projects involving river~ require environ-
mental documents. The designation of the Moormans River ~s a scenic river
increases the number of agencies the VDoT will have to approach, but, he
concluded, the designation really will not change the overall process that
much. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think the VDoT, in th~ absence of a
jointly adopted Six Year Plan, should ignore the wishes o~ the County and go
ahead with a Plan unless the County takes the initiative ~nd appeals to the
Highway Commissioner. He said he does not think the VDoTl~should have the
authority to operate on its own plan in the absence of a Dlan jointly adopted
under the established procedure. It seems to him, he sai~~, that legislation
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
305
has designated the County to be the agency that will oversee this particular
scenic river. He said the bridge project may well be the most critical
decision the Moormans Scenic River Advisory Board will face. For the VDoT to
proceed with the project before the County has given its consent and before
the advisory board has even been created would be contrary to both the legis-
lation dealing with the Six Year Plan and the recent act by the General
Assembly, Mr. Lindstrom concluded.
Mr. Roosevelt said he understands that the Governor is to appoint the
advisory board in conjunction with the County. He does not think the scenic
river legislation gives the advisory board complete control over all highway
improvements within the watershed or crossing the river. He quoted the
following section: "full consideration and evaluation of the river as a
scenic resource shall be given before alternative plans for use and develop-
ment are approved". He said he thinks the VDoT, through its preliminary
engineering procedures, will have given the full consideration required by
this law.
Mr. Lindstrom said the advisory board most play its part and it has not
yet been established. Mr. Roosevelt said he:thinks there will be an advisory
board appointed soon and this board will have the opportunity to submit its
comments during the preliminary engineering procedure. He said there is still
plenty of time: the VDoT has to develop a more detailed set of plans, hold a
public hearing and write the environmental document for this project.
Once the VDoT has developed its plans for the bridge improvements, Mr.
Lindstrom said, the agency specifically granted authority over this scenic
river could participate in the decision in only a very minimal way. He added
that the scenic river legislation states that nothing impeding the natural
flow of a scenic river can be built without an act of the General Assembly.
He said he does not know that the proposed i~provement will impede the flow of
the Moormans River, but he thinks it likely.
Mr. Roosevelt said that Mr. Lindstrom was asking an engineer to comment
upon legal questions. Mr. Lindstrom said he'thinks the Board needs some legal
advice on this issue. Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks the VDoT will seek legal
advice as well as part of the process, whichilwill go on whether the plan the
VDoT goes by is a jointly adopted plan or its own plan.
In other words, Mr. Lindstrom said, the!~DoT is going to go ahead with
its plans for the improvements to the Moorma~s River Bridge, no matter what
the County does, or what the General Assembt~ has done. Mr. Roosevelt said
the VDoT will certainly comply with legislation passed by the General Assem-
bly. Mr. Lindstrom said it seems reasonable ~o delay any action for a few
weeks to give both the County and the VDoT time to consult legal counsel,
discover the implications of the new scenic r~lver legislation and determine if
the VDoT has the authority to proceed with road improvements in the absence of
a joint Six Year Plan.
Mr. Dave Ogle, Assistant District Engineer for the Culpeper District,
said the legislation concerning six year plans has been in effect for some
time. He said he does not think the legislat~ion concerning scenic rivers has
an impact on the earlier legislation. Mr. Lihdstrom asked if he knows of any
court decisions that have interpreted either ipection of the legislation as to
how they affect the authority of the VDoT. ~
Mr. Ogle said he knows of no such court ~ecisions. He said the VDoT is
required to go through the process of developing six year plans and must have
a six year plan for the County. He said the ~DoT has determined that the
priority list adopted by the County is correct in every way except for the
deletion of Route 671. He said he wants to emphasize that the VDoT agrees
with the County's priority list in every respect, with the exception of this
one project. He said the VDoT will proceed with the planning stages of this
project and will welcome the opinions of property owners, Board members and
anyone who wishes to comment upon this project. He said consultanting engi-
neers have developed one scheme for the project crossing the Moormans River
and have developed a potential, new alignment~ based upon comments received by
the VDoT. He said the VDoT prefers to procee~ through the normal process for
road improvements, hold public information me,tings, present proposals at
public hearings and entertain comments and suggestions from the public
306
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
concerning the design of the project. He said the design for the project will
incorporate the requirements of the scenic river legiSlation. He said he does
not want to speak for the Board, but he thinks the Board would not disagree
with the opinion that the bridge over the Moormans River needs some attention.
If the VDoT just wanted to replace the bridge, Mr. Lindstrom said, he
does not think the public would have raised such a fuss. He pointed out that
the VDoT wants to do more than replace the bridge. If the VDoT proceeds with
the design process, he continued, the County will soon hear that the VDoT has
spent too much money designing the proposed improvementslfor the project to be
deleted from the Six Year Plan. He said that proceeding with the planning
stages of the project would reduce the County's participation in the Six Year
Plan, a legislatively provided procedure which he thinks should be more
meaningful than allowing the VDoT to go ahead with its own plans if it dis-
agrees with those of the County. He said he does not think a six year plan
exists, unless the County and the VDoT have agreed upon one. Rather than
proceed with its own plan, he said, the VDoT has the same recourse the County
does: to go to the Highway Commissioner with an appeal.
Mr. Ogle said the State Code does not provide the VDoT with the option of
appealing to the Highway Commissioner. He said the VDoT'has taken the posi-
tion that the Six Year Plan it has approved is the plan it will act upon,
unless the County appeals to the Highway Commissioner. He said the YDoT does
not exclude public participation in the early stages of project development.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the VDoT could defer its designing and planning
process, since this project is such a minor part of the Six Year Plan, until
July 13, to allow the County to learn more about the impact of the scenic
river legislation. Mr. Ogle said the planning for this particular project
could be deferred, but the VDoT would have to have a six ii. Year plan and budget
in place by July 1, 1988. He gave his word that the VDoT will take into
consideration the new legislation. ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County and the VDoT can ~dopt the Six Year
Plan as recommended by the County, with the proposal to c~pnsider amending the
Plan later to include Route 671. This will give the VDo~:~ an approved Six Year
Plan and it can go ahead with the other projects. !i
Mr. Roosevelt said the VDoT wants the Board to take !action on this Six
Year Plan today, but it cannot force the Board to act. ~f the Board wishes to
defer action and ask for additional information, he said,~.! the VDoT will do its
best to supply that information. He said counties have operated without
approved six year plans; it is not easy, but it can be done. If the Board
delays its decision, he said, it will make adopting a budget and going through
the budget hearings difficult.
Mr. Lindstrom said he personally does not wish to delay the decision
beyond next month. Mr. Roosevelt asked that Mr. Lindstomlgive him his ques-
tions in writing and said the answers will probably have lbo come from the
Attorney General's office. Mr. Lindstrom said his questi6n is how the County
can proceed to administer the scenic river designation as!intended by the
General Assembly before the advisory board is appointed. 'He said he thinks
the advisory board should be involved with the VDoT in th~ planning process;
the board may think the proposed improvements make no sen~e at all.
Mr. Roosevelt said there will be time for the advisory board, once it is
appointed, to present its opinion on the proposed improvements. He said he
thinks this advisory board will be no different from committees established t(
protect historic sites. The VDoT will receive comments fCom the advisory
board, weigh them and present them at a public hearing. ~This advisory board
will not have the power to kill highway projects crossing~ithe river, he said.
Mr. Horne said the VDoT spends a lot of money in thei
engineering. As a possible compromise, he suggested that:
County agree to assign a small amount of funding to this ~
to design a specific bridge or alignment, but enough to a]
look at alternative alignments, different approaches to ti
bridge designs that may be more compatible with the scenic
stage of preliminary
the VDoT and the
~roject, not enough
low the engineers to
Le bridge and other
river designation.
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
307
Mr. Lindstrom said he is willing for the VDoT to replace the bridge; his
problem is with the routes VDoT is considering as approaches to the bridge.
Mr. Roosevelt said the funding is a separate issue from the priority
list. Mr. Horne suggested that the project be included on the priority list,
but funded at a low enough level to insure that it does not go far into the
design phase.
Mr. Ogle said the VDoT is liable for any accidents that occur on the
bridge or the roadway approaching the bridge. Any time the VDoT expends funds
for an improvement, he said, the VDoT has the responsibility to develop that
project in accordance with existing standards. There are times when some of
those standards can be waived, he said, but he and others of the VDoT strongly
believe that the approaches must be considered as part of the Moormans River
Bridge project. He said he does not think the approach to the bridge is safe.
Nor does he think the VDoT should design just a bridge and leave a 90 degree
curve within fifty feet of the end of the bridge. He said the VDoT asks that
the Board agree to include the Route 671 project and allow the VDoT to proceed
with the planning process.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the County participated fully in the process for
the six year plan. He said the VOoT may want the Board to act on the request
immediately, but the Board has just received the news about the scenic river
designation. He said he is not ready to make this decision. Mr. Lindstrom
agreed, saying the Board needs more time to consider its options.
Mr. Ogle said the VDoT believes it has a six year plan and it will
proceed with this plan if the Board does nothing today.
Mr. Perkins said it seems to him that t~e bridge on Route 671 will be
built, either with the cooperation of the CoUnty, or without it. He said the
representatives of the VDoT are public servaqts and must be flexible enough to
listen to the wishes of local citizens and l~hal boards. In this case, he
said, most of the residents realize that the!~bridge must be replaced sometime
in the future; what they want is a delay of ~wo to four years to give them
time to have the standards used by the VDoT Changed. He said he likes Mr.
Horne's suggestion: that VDoT be encouraged~to develop compromise designs.
Mr. Ogle said the VDoT will be flexible'concerning the approaches to the
bridge. Mr. Perkins suggested that the approaches be improved, but not to
accommodate a 45 mile per hour speed limit, which the VDoT is planning to do.
Mr. Ogle said the VDoT welcomed Mr. Perkins'Sl. suggestions, but might find it
difficult to delay the project two to four years, due to the condition of the
bridge.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and Seconded by Mr. Bowie to defer
action on Mr. Roosevelt's letter of May 16, 7988, until July 13, 1988, and to
request the following information: a) the Cobnty Attorney's opinion on the
effect of scenic river legislation with regar~ to this project and how the
County, as the designated agent, implements S~ch legislation; b) the County
Attorney is to seek an opinion from the Attorney General on how this legisla-
tion fits together with Highway Department policies, and the consequences of
the legislation; c) if an agreement cannot be!reached, beyond an appeal to the
Highway Commissioner, what the Board's legal ~ptions are to get the rest of
the Six Year Plan approved; and, d) how the C~unty can proceed to administer
the scenic rivers designation and take that felly into consideration as
intended in the legislation prior to having a~committee established. 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.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Georgetown Road Sidewalk Replace-
ment.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum, dated May 31, 1988:
308
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
"Improvements to Georgetown Road, between Inglewood Drive and Old
Forge Road are currently being scheduled for design in the near
future by the VDoT. This improvement will necessitate the relocation
of portions of the existing asphalt sidewalk along Georgetown Road.
Since the sidewalk exists under State permit, although not maintained
by VDoT, VDoT's policy is to share on a 50-50 basis in the replace-
ment costs of the sidewalk. They have also agreed to maintain that
portion of sidewalk which they replace.
The County's share of the sidewalk replacement costs is $1475, funds
for which are proposed in our upcoming Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). Staff recommends that the Board authorize the replacement of
the sidewalk along Georgetown Road as proposed in Project No. 0656-
002-221,C501 and agree to finance the County's share of the cost in
the amount of $1475. Action regarding this matter is needed before
design of the project can proceed."
Mr. Agnor also presented the following, a letter from Mr. Roosevelt to
Mr. John T. P. Horne, dated April 6, 1988:
"This will confirm our conversation of April 5, 1988, concerning
construction of sidewalk on the above captioned project. This
project is the safety improvement on Georgetown Road between Ingle-
wood Drive and Old Forge Road.
The Department has agreed that because the County has an asphalt path
in place along Georgetown Road justification existsi~for the con-
struction of a sidewalk as a part of this project and its maintenance
within the right of way of the project once construction is complete.
Since the sidewalk exists at this location under permit, however,
cost for construction of the sidewalk will be covered by the Depart-
ment's policy concerning sidewalks and storm sewers~in counties,
cities and towns.
This project begins at Station 16+00 and runs to station 25+00. Due
to the project the existing asphalt path will have to be relocated
between Station 17+00 and Station 18+00. This reloDation can be
accomplished within the existing right of way. Thei.,existing path
must also be relocated between Station 21+40 and Station 23+40. In
this section an additional easement will be necessary for construc-
tion of the sidewalk. My estimate of cost to rebuild these sections
is shown below. ~
$ 1,950
Concrete Sidewalk (120')
Station 21+40 to Station 22+60
Asphalt Sidewalk (180') $ 1,000
Station 22+60 to Station 23+40
Station 17+00 to Station 18+00
Easement S 7,00p
TOTAL $ 9,95i
I am recommending the section of sidewalk to be constructed adjacent
to the curb and gutter be concrete. The other sections will be
replaced as asphalt to match the existing pathway..~
Policy on cost participation for sidewalks was recehtly changed to
designate right of way costs as a project cost rather than a County
cost. Based on this change in policy the cost shar~ for the County
and the Department will be as follows:
COUNTY VDOT
Concrete sidewalk $ 975 $ 975
Asphalt sidewalk $ 500 $ 500
Right of Way S7~000
TOTAL $1,475 $8,475
Please recognize that the additional easement is required only to
construct the sidewalk; without the sidewalk no easement will be
needed.
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
309
Before proceeding with the design of this project, I request the
County's position concerning replacement of the sidewalk. If the
County wishes the sidewalk replaced they must agree by resolution to
finance their share of the cost. Your early resolution of this
matter will be appreciated."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to authorize
the replacement of the sidewalk along Georgetown Road as proposed in Project
No. 0656-002-221-C501 and to finance the County's share of the cost in the
amount of $1475. 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.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters: Secondary Improvement Budget:
1988-89, set public hearing on.
SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1988-89
ROUTE LOCATION
County Wide
County Wide
County Wide
County Wide
County Wide
625
631
County Wide
At James River
From: Route 1103
To: 1.0 Miles South
Of Route 780
631 From: Route 650
To: 0.3 Miles East
Of Route 29
601 At Buck Mountain
Creek
660
671
678
727
777
693
DESCRIPTIOM OF WORK
Install Pipe in Entrances
(Construction)
New Signs amd Signals
(Constructipn)
Seed and FeMtilize Completed
Projects (CPnstruction)
PreliminaryilEngineering
On New ProjScts
Review of Subdivision and
Site Plans ~Preliminary
Engineering)
New Additions to the System
(ConstructiOn)
Operate Hat'on Ferry
0631-002-224, C501
Construct F~ur Lane Divided
Roadway on New Alignment
(Right of W~y & Construction)
0631-002-128, C503
Widen to Fi~e Lanes With
Curb & Gutter~ (Construction)
0601-002-225, C501, B653
Bridge and ~pproaches on
New LocatioJ
At South Fork of the 0660-002-185, C501, B644
Rivanna River Bridge and jpproaches on
At Moormans River
From: Route 250
To: Route 678
From: Route 627
To: Route 795
From: Orange C. L.
To: Dead End
From: Route 635
To: Route 695
New Locatiofi (Right of Way
and ConstruOtion)
0671-002-19~, C501, B646
Bridge and ApprOaches on
New Locatio~ (Right of Way)
0678-002-22~, C501
Reconstruction New Location
(ConstructiOn)
0727-002-18~, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface~Treatment
(Constructi~n)
0777-002-P2~, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface ~reatment
(Construction)
0693-002-P2~, N501
Grade, Drain~, Stabilize and
New Surface iTreatment
(Construction)
ALLOCATION
$ 12,000
13,000
6,000
30,000
9,530
80,000
10,000
900,000
340,000
100,000
300,000
170,000
86,000
122,000
370,000
218,000
310
785 From:
To:
627 From:
To:
674 From:
To:
0.2MN
Rt 649
1.40 M N
Rt 649
0.5MS
Rt 727
Route 708
Route 810
0.25 M W
Rt. 673
662 From: 0.2 M W
Rt 660
To: 1.0 M W
Rt 660
682 From: Route 250
To: 1.7 M S
Rt 787
601 From: Route 678
To: Route 653
676 From: Route 660
To: Route 601
810 From: Route 614
To: 0.9 M N
Rt. 810
649 From: Route 830
To: Route 819
795 From: Route 734
To: Route 620
620 From: Route 795
To: Route 618
729 At Route 250
810 From: 0.15 M
S 1211
To: Route 1211
743 From: Route 657
To: Route 631
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
0785-002-203,N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
(Construction)
0627-002-229, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
(Construction)
0674-002-231, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
(Preliminary Engineering &
Construction)
0662-002-230, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
(Preliminary Engineering)
New Project
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
(Preliminary Engineering)
Apply Plant Mix to Surface
Treated Road (Construction)
Apply Plant Mix to Surface
Treated Road (Construction)
Apply Plant Mix to Surface
Treated Road (Construction)
Apply Plant Mix to Surface
Treated Road (Construction)
Apply Plant Mix to Surface
Treated Road (ConstructiOn)
Apply Plant Mix to Surface
Treated Road (Construction)
New Project
Improve Intersection
(Preliminary Engineering)
New Project
Improve Vertical Curve
(Preliminary Engineering)
0743-002-153, C502
Widen to Four Lane
Curb & Gutter
(Preliminary Engineering.')
10,000
20,000
20,000
17,000
10,000
50,000
60,000
36,000
70,000
102,900
200,000
10,000
10,000
20,000
631 From: Route 743 0631-002-185, C501 25,000
To: Route 29 Widen to Four Lane
Curb & Gutter
(Preliminary Engineering)
708 At 631 Improve Sight Distance 10,000
Intersection (Preliminary Engineering~
743 At 606 Improve Sight Distance i 10,000
Intersection (Preliminary Engineering]
601 At 250 Improve Intersection 10,000
Intersection (Preliminary Engineering)
743 At 1315 Construct Right Turn Lane 20,000
Intersection (Construction)
743 At 663 Improve Intersection 10,000
Intersection (Preliminary Engineering~
656 0.1 Miles South Improve Drainage 25,000
of Route 743 (Preliminary Engineering~'&
Construction)
TOTAL ~
$3,522,430
Mr. Roosevelt said that Mr. Robert Tucker, Deputy County Executive,
requested that eight projects on the Six Year Priority List be considered for
revenue sharing funds. He said the YDoT studied four of these projects to see
if they are eligible to be in the Six Year Plan. He said ~he VDoT will agree
to include the Park Road and Greenbrier Extended projects ~or state funding
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
311
provided that steps are taken to proscribe access to these roadways so they
can be used for through traffic. He said six of the eight projects are
eligible for revenue sharing funds; however, these six projects amount to over
one million dollars. He asked that the Board select a priority list from
these six projects that totals one million dollars or less. If revenue
sharing funds are to be used, Mr. Roosevelt said, all the funds needed must be
approved within one year. He said the VDoT has decided that Peyton Drive and
Berkmar Drive are not eligible for secondary funding. He said the following
six roads are eligible for the funding: improving a vertical curve on Route
810 near Crozet Elementary School; improving the sight distance at the inter-
section of Routes 708 and 631; improving Barracks Road between the City limits
and Georgetown Road; improving the intersection at Routes 729 and 250; and,
the Park Road and Greenbriar Drive Extended projects.
Mr. Roosevelt said the VDoT accepted the estimates for all the projects
except the Barracks Road project. He said the VDoT now thinks this project
will cost around $600,000, not $300,000, and apologized for the increase in
the estimate.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what happens if the actual cost of the projects
exceeds one million dollars. If the VDoT has accepted the project and the
estimate, Mr. Ogle said, it is committed to finishing the project. Unless the
Board wishes to identify another source of funding to be used to finish the
project, he said, the funding will become part of the secondary roads improve-
ment budget.
Mr. Roosevelt said he conferred with Mk. Home and they agreed to recom-
mend that the priority list for use of revenue sharing funds be comprised of
the projects on Routes 810, 708, 654 and 729~and that these projects be
dropped from the secondary road improvements budget. He said these projects
totalled $990,000.
Mr. Bain asked why the VDoT considered these projects more important than
the Park Road project. Mr. Roosevelt said he is not sure the improvements can
be made to Park Road for the $150,000 estimated. He said the VDoT had intend-
ed to build the road straight through from R~ute 691 to Route 240, but he has
received letters from citizens saying they f~elt this is the wrong route. He
thinks the VDoT must consider alternative alignments, which will cost more
than $150,000. He recommended that $10,000 ~e budgeted for these alignment
studies and, in the future, use revenue sharing funds for the project.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom andi~!seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve
the following priority list for use of Reven~e Sharing Funds:
Route Location Description Allocation
From: 0.15 M S 1211 New ProjeCt
To: Route 1211 Improve V~rtical Curve
At 631 Intersection Improve Sight Distance
Barracks Road
At Route 250
810 $100,000
708 $100,000
654 $600,000
729 New Improvement $200,000
(Improve intersection)
There was no further discussion. Roll yas called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Roosevelt said deleting the above p~ojects from the Secondary Roads
Improvement budget added $30,000 to the budget. He recommended that $10,000
of this amount go toward funding the highway istudies needed for the Park Road
project and the remaining $20,000 go toward ~he Greenbriar Road project for
preliminary engineering.
Mr. Lindstrom said the funding reserved ifor the Moormans River Bridge
project figures heavily in the Secondary Roads Improvement budget. He said he
thinks this item should be deleted and asked ~if its deletion would lead to the
impasse it presents for the Six Year Plan. Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks
enough money has been allocated to the project for the VDoT to continue with
312
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
preliminary engineering for the next year. While the VDoT may be able to work
without the $170,000 set aside for the project in the secondary roads budget,
he said, he is not prepared to recommend how the money should be spent.
Mr. Horne said the next big project in the Six Year Plan is improvements
to Airport Road. Mr. Roosevelt said the VDoT has already allocated money to
every project on this list that can be financed within the next six years with
secondary roads funds. If the Board wishes to add Airport Road, there will
not be enough money to do much but develop plans for the road, he said. Mr.
Horne said these plans would be valuable to many people, since a lot of
development is expected to occur in this area.
Mr. Bain suggested that the funding be applied to the improvements
suggested for Route 631 from Route 743 to Route 29 North. Mrs. Cooke said she
supported this suggestion.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to delete
Route 671, Moormans River Bridge, $170,000, from the SecOndary Road Improve-
ments Budget presented by Mr. Roosevelt and add the funds to a project for
Route 631 from Route 743 to Route 29 for a total allocation of $195,000.
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.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to add
Park Road, $10,000 for a preliminary Engineering Study, and Greenbriar Drive,
$20,000, to the Secondary Roads Improvement Budget and delete Route 729 at
Route 250, $10,000; Route 810, $10,000; and, Route 708 at, its intersection
with Route 631, $t0,000. 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.
Agenda Item No. 6e. Highway Matters: Public Hearing: Bennington Road
Street Vacation. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 24 and May 31,
1988.)
Mr. Home said this request was discussed at the May!i 11 meeting and
ordered advertised for public hearing. ~
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyon~ wished to address
this issue. ,.
An unidentified man said he wants to know if the public will be denied
use of this easement once the right-of-way has been vacatAd. Mr. Way answere¢
"yes". ~
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the
following ordinance to vacate a portion of a certain plat~of Lots 15-14, Block
I, and Lot 5, Block J, of Hessian Hills. 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.
AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF A CERTAIN PLAT OF LOTS
15-14, BLOCK I AND LOT 5, BLOCK J OF HESSIAN HILLS RECORDED IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF !ALBEMARLE COUNTY
IN DEED BOOK 388, PAGE 519
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
313
BE IT ORDAINED that the said plat as captioned above, be and it
is vacated as to that portion of Bennington Road as shown in hatch
marks on the plat attached to this ordinance.
Provided, that the foregoing vacation is subject to the reser-
vation of any easements for installation or maintenance of utility
lines.
Provided further that this vacation shall in no way vacate any
other portion of the said plat.
The County Engineer shall make a recordable plat if required to
do so by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, and the Clerk to the Board
shall cause a certified copy hereof to be recorded in the said
Clerk's Office to be indexed in the names of the current owners of
the properties adjacent to the portion of Bennington Road hereby
vacated.
This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption but shall not be
made a part of the Albemarle County Code.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Secondary Improvement Budget 1988-89, set public
hearing on. The Board returned to this item when it was brought to the
attention of Board members that they had forgotten to set a public hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to set a public
hearing on the Secondary Roads Improvement B~dget for 1988-89 for July 13,
1988. 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. ~
Agenda Item No 6e Other Highway Matters ~
Mr. Bain asked for the status of th~[_i~rovements to the intersection of
Route 250 West and Route 678. Mr. Roose~elt/ithe~i~ VDoT is reviewing plans for
these improvements and recommended that ~ome ~major changes be made to these
plans. He said the VDoT is asking the CPunt~ to buy the right-of-way, because
if the YDoT were to buy the right-of-way!, there would have toG ~ .mc ~~
and the project might not be completed i~n tzge for the start of the new school
year. ~ ~
Mr. Roosevelt said the VDoT held a public hearing on the spot safety
improvement projects planned for several locations on Route 631. He asked the
Board for a resolution approving the project Dnd offered to provide any
information the Board needs to reach a ~ecisi~n.
Mr. Bain asked if the improvementsi proposed at the intersection of Route
631 and the SPCA road are tied into the~ four~.ilaning of Rio Road back to Route
29 North. Mr. Roosevelt said "no"; wha~tever .improvements the VDoT made at
this intersection would be lost once the fou~Ulaning was built. He said
something needs to be done now anyway, ig~becauJe there is no sight distance at
this intersection. '~i'
Mr. Roosevelt said he is concerne~ abou~ the improvements proposed for
the intersection of Route 631 and the 9ntranc~ to Pen Park and their impact
upon the property of landowners across!from and adjacent to the entrance. He
said these property owners asked the VDoT at ~he public hearing to consider an
alternative to these improvements one~ that w~uld not affect their property
quite so much. He said he thinks the ~DoT cam reduce, but not eliminate, the
impact of these improvements upon the !landowners, but the project would have
to be extended to the west by about 4~0 to 50~ feet, which will increase the
cost of the project. He asked if the Board will support this more expensive
alternative.
314
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Lindstrom asked if more property would be affected by the extension.
Mr. Roosevelt said "yes", but the property involved would be the Dunlora tract
currently undeveloped and he thinks the VDoT could improve the intersection of
Route 631 and the Dunlora entrance as part of this project. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if Mr. Roosevelt would provide a sketch of this alternative and an
estimate of its cost.
Mrs. Cooke said she travels Route 631 frequently and agrees the intersec-
tion of Route 631 and the entrance to Pen Park is dangerous. But, she said,
these houses have been across from the entrance for years and are almost
County institutions. She said she thinks the Board and the VDoT should do
anything they can to lessen the encroachment of the roadway upon these proper-
ties.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to see the plans for the proposed improve-
ments to the intersection.
Mr. Bain asked when the VDoT planned to begin building these improvement.
Mr. Roosevelt said probably next spring. Mr. Bain asked iif going to the
alternative would delay the project. Mr. Roosevelt said "yes".
(Note: The Board recessed at 11:14 A.M. and reconvened at 11:23 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion of Proposed Lot Regulations under
ZTA-87-03.
Mr. Home presented the following memorandum, dated May 9, 1988:
"At their meeting of April 26, the Planning CommissiOn discussed the
recent denial of ZTA-87-03 by the Board of Supervisors. The staff
explained to the Commission that without some resolution of the
issues that were being addressed by these proposed amendments, there
would be severe problems in both the RA, Rural Area~ and Urban
Residential zones. It was the consensus of the commission that the
proposed amendments should be resubmitted to the Board of Supervisors°
with the following options:
(1)
That the changes in lot frontage take plac9 in all zones
except the RA zone; or, if that is not acceptable, then,
(2) Ail other amendments can still go forward Dxcept those
dealing with cul-de-sacs.
The staff of this department would favor option number one above in
that the reduction in frontage on cul-de-sacs is a very important
design feature in the urban residential zones and will begin to cause
severe design problems if not addressed. Option two!!!would at least
adopt some definitional changes that are important, but is not as
preferable as option number one.
Prior to rescheduling these to come before the Board iof Supervisors,
staff would like some direction from the Board as to~the most prefer-
able package of amendments. Staff understands that the Board has
voted on this matter, but would like to emphasize that there are
other issues involved with these amendments over andl!above the lot
frontage on cul-de-sacs in the RA zone. Staff would!~be happy to
discuss this matter further with the Board of Supervisors at their
earliest convenience."
Mr. Bowie said it does not make sense to him to havei~idifferent require-
ments for road frontage around cul-de-sacs 'in rural areas ~than what is
required for the rest of the County. Until this proposed~lamendment,~ he said,
the' road 'frontage requirements were the same.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the amendment would allO~ growth in the
areas the Board wants to see grow. He said he will support the staff's
recommendation.
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
315
Mr. Bain said the last two times the Board has voted on this lot regula-
tion, the vote has been tied, and he does not think things will be different
today.
Mr. Home said the worst thing that could happen would be for the road
frontages around the cul-de-sac to remain the same in all areas of the County.
He said this is creating a problem in the growth areas, areas in which the
staff would like to be as flexible as they can, so people will be encouraged
to build in these areas. He said he suggested excluding the rural areas from
the new lot regulation as a compromise.
Mr. Perkins asked how many lots would be lost as a result of this new
regulation. Mr. Horne said it was difficult to estimate, but in a large
subdivision, with many cul-de-sacs, the developer mightl~o~e ten to 20 percent
of the lots. He said developers have ways of getting around this frontage
requirement, such as using a private road with access easements. Mr. Perkins
said he is concerned that developers, in order to circumvent the new regula-
tion, will build more roads and damage the environment even more, just to
prevent a few houses from being built in the rural areas of the County.
Mr. Way said he is against excluding the rural areas from the amendment,
but he thinks the County will suffer in the long run unless the new regulation
is allowed to work in the growth areas of the County.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and~seconded by Mr. Bain to accept
Recommendation #1 in Mr. Horne's letter dated May 9, 1988, stating that the
changes in lot frontage take place in all zones except the RA zone. There was
no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion of Land Development Code Booklet.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum, dated May 27, 1988:
"During your discussions of the revisions to the County Code, staff
was asked to look at the possibility ofila Development Code or Ordi-
nance. The document envisioned would c6ntain in one binding the
regulations for zoning, subdivision, erosion and runoff control/
stormwater detention, etc. for easy pubtic distribution.
After discussions with the County Attorney's Office, Zoning, and
Planning and Community Development Departments, it is staff opinion
that a consolidated land development document could be a separately
maintained book which assembles the Cod~s related to land development
into a single binder with separate chapters on zoning, subdivision,
soil erosion, etc. but does not integra~e the various ordinances into
a single document (master ordinance) bedause of their differing
enabling legislation.
Staff proposes that the Development Information Office be charged
with coordinating and gathering the appropriate ordinances for
preparation of a Land Development Code Booklet.
Comments or suggestions on this proposal would be helpful. Your
approval to proceed is requested."
Mrs. Cooke said she thinks this is a go~d idea. Mr. Lindstrom said he
thinks it would be better to have a completely integrated code, so developers
would know all things they have to do and the Board would understand all the
ramifications to an amendment. He said he knows this would be a massive
undertaking.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be possible for the staff to work on this
project with a company, that has extensive experience in indexing and
cross-referencing. Mr. Agnor said the staff Works with the various ordinances
316
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
and regulations daily and can quote them from memory. He said he believes
someone familiar with the ordinances could do a better job of indexing and
cross-referencing a development document than someone hired to handle the
project.
Mr. Bain said he is concerned about the possibility of mistakes in the
document. If applicants come before the Board and say they relied on this
document when planning a development, can the Board hold them to the require-
ments of the ordinances, despite any mistakes that may have occurred during
preparation of the new document, Mr. Bain asked. Mr. St. John said any
mistakes in the document would not excuse applicants from following the
actual, adopted regulations.
Mr. Agnor said the staff can request proposals from publishers to get an
idea of the time and cost involved in such a project. Mr. Lindstrom said he
thinks this is a good idea and added that he would like to see this document
as comprehensive and as easy to use as possible. Mr. Perkins said he thinks
the staff should handle this project themselves, rather than hiring someone
else to do it.
Agenda Item No. 9. Request from the Thomas Jefferson Health District to
approve Environmental Health Fees.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum, dated May 31, 1988:
"Effective July 1, 1988, Health Departments across the State will be
charging a fee for septic tank and private wells applications/inspec-
tions. While revenues generated from these inspection fees are
considered local government f~nds, they may be utilSzed by the local
health department to help off-set the operational c~sts of the
inspections, if such authorization is given by the local government.
Dr. Susan McLeod, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Health District,
is requesting such approval and staff concurs with Chis request. The
FY 88-89 Health Department budget was prepared on t~ basis that
these fees would be revenue to the Health Departmen~."
Memorandum dated May 26, 1988, from Dr. Susan McLeo~ Director, Thomas
Jefferson Health District, was received as follows:
"The health department cannot handle revenue generated from the fees
for septic tank and well applications, which become !effective on
July 1, 1988, in the same way we handle revenue generated by other
fees. The official interpretation of the authorizing legislation and
the requirements of the state budget bill preclude our usual prac-
tice.
The budget impact statement which I gave the Board ~bout seven weeks
ago showed the total revenue from these fees being qsed to offset our
operational costs. The attached memo indicates thaC~I must have the
county's specific approval to use'the county's sharP'of the funds,
approximately $18,000. I am requesting that approval. (The addi-
tional sanitarians to be funded by the state share h~ve not been
allocated to this district.)
The exact amount of state funds available to the district for the
county health department activities is still uncertain. Although it
looks as if we will have more than the amount anticipated seven weeks
ago, we now know that the cost of the same level of ~ctivities in the
county will be greater than we projected earlier. For this reason,
it is imperative that we be granted use of the county's share of the
environmental permit fees to avoid significant reduction in services.
We are working to assure maintenance of the level of!services previ-
ously provided within the appropriation the county was able to
provide. If changes are needed once all the data isiin, you will be
notified. ~
Because these funds will be placed in our budget, I 9elieve that your
written approval of our use of them, not a separate ~ppropriation, is
all that is needed. They will then be used to support our total
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
317
program like other local funds which have been appropriated in excess
of those matched by the state."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to authorize
the Health Department to use environmental health fees for septic tank and
private well applications and inspections. 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.
Agenda Item No. 10. Set public hearing to amend Section 5-3 of the
County Code to include Amusement Ride Inspection Fees.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum, dated May 24, 1988:
"The State has recently adopted a Code entitled Amusement Device
Regulations as a part of the Virginia Statewide Building Code.
Currently, our inspections fee schedule does not provide a fee for
these types of amusement ride inspections.
Section 600.6.1 of these new regulations provides that a fee schedule
may be adopted by the Board of Supervisors, provided that the fee
schedule set by the State is not exceeded. That schedule is as
follows:
TYPE OF AMUSEMENT RIDE*
FEE CAP/PER RIDE INSPECTED
Kiddie Ride
Major Ride
Spectacular Ride
$ 15
$ 25
$ 45
*Definitions of these rides are provided within the
code regulations.
Staff recommends that you set a public hearing for July 13, 1988, for
amendment to County Code Section 5-3 to include the above listed fee
schedule for amusement ride inspections.!"
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to set a public
hearing for July 13, 1988, to emend and reenact Chapter 5 "Buildings" Section
5-3 providing a fee for inpsecting Amusement Rides. 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 announced that the Board will move to Agenda Item No. 13 to try
and finish the appropriations before lunch.
Agenda Item No. 13a. Appropriations: Gypsy Moth Coordinator Grant.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum, dated May 24, 1988:
"Attached is an appropriation form request for the Gypsy Moth Coordi-
nator Grant we recently received from the State's Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services.
This grant will cover all salary and fringes, equipment and travel.
The County must provide office supply ne~ds, office space and cleri-
cal assistance (this position will be lo~ated in the Cooperative
Extension Office). The grant amount is ~10,905 and will extend
through the current Federal Fiscal Year Of September 30, 1988, at
which time we will apply for another gra~t.
Staff requests your approval of this appropriation."
318
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Lindstrom said the gypsy moths have become such a problem in Pennsyl-
vania that they have killed thousands of acres of trees.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve
the requested appropriation by adopting the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
Fiscal Year: 1987/88
Purpose of Appropriation: Funding of Gypsy Moth Grant.
Expenditure
Cost Center/Category
1123034010100100
1123034010200100
1123034010200200
1123034010200500
1123034010200600
1123034010200700
1123034010201100
1123034010550101
1123034010541300
Description Amount
Compensation
FICA
VSRS
Health Insurance
Life Insurance
Dental Insurance
Workers Comp Insurance
Travel-Pool Car
Other Operating Supplies
TOTAL
8,185.00
620.00
1,000.00
300.00
100.00
25.00
100.00
500.00
75.00
$10,905.00
Revenue
2123033000330001
Description
Grant Funds - Federal
TOTAL
Amount
$10~905.00
$10,905.00
There was no further discussion. Roll was called a~d the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Linds~rom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. i
Agenda Item No. 13b. Appropriations: Social Service Programs.
Mr. Agnor said the Social Services Department haS received additional
state and federal revenues during the year which require a local match of
$12,693. He said staff reco~ends that the Board approve this appropriation
request of $40,263 which provides the local match through a transfer of funds
from the VPA-Administration Compensation account, thereby not requiring an
additional appropriation of local funds.
Motion was 'offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve the
requested appropriation by adopting the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
Fiscal Year: 1987/88
Purpose of Appropriation:
Expenditure
Cost Center/Category
1100053020570200
1100053020570400
1100053020570800
Additional Funding o'f Social Services
Programs
Description Amount
Auxiliary Grants-Aged
Auxiliary Grants-Disabled
Regular Foster Care
$ 2,500.00
5,300.00
21,600.00
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
1100053020571104
1100053020571101
1100053020571103
1100053040571001
1100053040571100
1100053010100100
Child Care
Companion Services
SSBG-Purchase of Services
ESP-Day Care
ESP-Other Services
VPA-Compensation
TOTAL
319
4,300.00
13,600.00
4,216.00
1,500.00
300.00
(13~053.00)
$40,263.00
Revenue Description Amount
2100024000240102
Public Assistance/Welfare
TOTAL
$40~263.00
$40,263.00
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.
Agenda Item No. 13c. Appropriations: Comprehensive Transit Service
Study.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum, dated May 31, 1988:
"At your December, 1987 meeting staff notified you of the City,
County, University Planning and Coordination Council's (PACC) request
for County participation in the funding ,of a comprehensive transit
study for this area.
Phase I of the study will examine current and future transit needs,
fee and fare structure of systems, funding sources, cost impacts/
potential savings, inefficiencies in duplication of services, etc.
The report will consider a wide range of~alternatives for coordina-
tion or consolidation such as schedule coordination, coordinated
fare/transfer system, formation of a transportation district com-
mission, formation of a transit advisorygroup and others.
We indicated to you in December that once the cost of the study had
been received we would make recommendatidn to you regarding contin-
uing with the study. The amount from the lowest bidder for this
study is $60,000. It is staff's recommendation that our share of the
study be $20,000 in order to be an equal~participant in the study.
If the City, County and University are w}lling to support the imple-
mentation of recommendations to be proposed in Phase I of the study,
a detailed implementation plan and schedule would be initiated in a
Phase II report. Depending upon the recommendations, we may or may
not participate in the implementation phase of the study.
Staff recommends your allocation of $20,~00 from the contingency
funds in the 87-88 Board budget as our s~are of Phase I of the
Comprehensive Transit Service Study. Th~ unencumbered balance of the
contingency funds is $113,222 as of Apri~ 30. Should you have any
questions concerning this matter, prior ~o bur June 8 meeting, please
contact me." ~
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and smconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve
the allocation of the funds requested. There was no further discussion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
320
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
Not Docketed. At 12:04 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and
seconded by Mr. Bowie to move into executive session to discuss personnel
matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:54 P.M. with Mr. St. John
being absent at this time.
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: School Board Appointee. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on May 28, 1988)
Mr. Way said he has been asked to read the following memorandum from the
Albemarle Education Association into the record:
"The Albemarle Education Association recommends the appointment of
Mr. Charles Martin to the at-large seat on the School Board. Mr.
Martin has demonstrated diligence, openness and a cdmmitment to the
position he has been filling during Mr. Baker's unexpired term. He
brings a broad background knowledge of the needs of Albemarle's
children because of his experience with the Juvenile~ Court system.
While we are not on agreement with him on every issue, we find Mr.
Martin's positions are made after careful study. Helis willing to
listen to different viewpoints. We urge you to appoint Mr. Martin to
a full term on the School Board."
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to
speak concerning this appointment. Since no one wished to address this issue,
Mr. Way closed the public hearing and said the Board mustiwait seven days
before making an appointment. He asked Mr. Martin if, for the record, he is
willing to continue serving on the School Board. Mr. Martin said "yes".
Mr. Lindstrom said he wants to make some general comments concerning
candidates who wish to serve on the School Board. He said relations between
the Board and the School Board have deteriorated over the<ipast year, because
of disputes over the schools budget. He said he thinks anyone who wants to
serve on the School Board should be willing to go throughilthe schools budget
line by line and become completely familiar with it. Mr. Lindstrom said he
thinks the Board is committed to funding as much of the s~hools budget as the
School Board and the schools staff finds necessary. But, ilhe said, the School
Board must restore the confidence of this Board in its promise that the
funding requested is necessary.
Mr. Martin said he appreciates Mr. Lindstrom's comme~ts and said he is
more than willing to study the schools budget. He said i~ takes a certain
amount of experience to know whether a particular amount ~isted in a budget is
inappropriate and sometimes members of the School Board r~ly on the schools
staff to give them such information. ~
Agenda Item No. 15. Video Presentation of Low-Cost ~ousing Project in
Nelson County. I
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
321
Mr. George Krieger addressed the Board (presenting the video simultane-
ously) and said the Nelson County Community Development Foundation is a
non-profit organization serving the residents of Nelson County who have low or
moderate incomes. He said substandard housing is one of the most pressing
problems facing citizens in Nelson County. To address this problem, Nelson
County donated 55 acres, the Foundation raised $40,000 from the private sector
to help purchase mortgages for families; and, the Housing Development Authori-
ty set aside $1.2 million in mortgage funding. He said the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission helped the Foundation receive a grant from the
State to fund the infrastructure of the subdivision.
Mr. Krieger said members of the Foundation decided that modular homes
would be less expensive than stick-built homes. Three companies that build
modular homes competed in the bidding process; Nationwide Homes was selected
to build most of the homes in the subdivision. He said the Foundation will be
able to buy two-piece modular homes and hire a local contractor to build the
homes for about $33,000 each. He said this works out to a $230 a month
mortgage payment, with a special interest rate of eight percent provided by
the Housing Development Authority. He said the Foundation used private
donations to buy an even lower interest rate of 7.375 percent.
Mr. Krieger said the Foundation requires that families be working, low-
and moderate-income families in order to be eligible for this program. Fami-
lies must also come up with a downpayment of $850 and have a good credit
history. To date, he said, the Foundation has sold nine of the homes and has
25 left to sell. He said the Foundation asks families to donate 200 hours of
community service in return for the $12,000 worth of "free value" made possi-
ble by the County's providing the roads, water line and septic systems. He
said the families must furnish this community service within the first three
years after they have bought the home. The community service may include
assisting with construction, cleaning up around the site, seeding and fertil-
izing their own lawns, anything that will improve the value of their property.
If the family sells the home within five years after moving in, they must pay
the Foundation all or a percentage of the $12,000 free value . He said this
measure was taken to discourage speculation ~nd to encourage the families who
buy the houses to stay there a while, i
He said the Foundation acts as the subcontractor of this project for the
County, to keep from overburdening the Count~ staff. He showed slides of the
site, the roads, and the erection of several.!modular houses. He said each of
the houses are equipped with electric baseboard heat and a chimney for a wood
stove. The homes each have about 1000 squar~ feet of living space, with three
bedrooms. Each of the lots, which measure a~ound three-quarters of an acre,
has been left in a natural state except for what was cleared for the septic
tank and the house itself, he said. The hom.~owners can use the time required
for community service to clear the rest of their property.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was any existing residential development in
this area. Mr. Krieger said "yes", but the Foundation encountered little
opposition against the project from the residents. In fact, he said, some
residents supported the subdivision in the hQpes of having the waterline
extended further someday.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how much the subdivision cost Nelson County. Mr.
Krieger said Nelson County contributed $93,0~0 to the project, but he does not
think any of this contribution took the form iof cash. Of this $93,000, he
said, Nelson County contributed $20,000 wort~ of waterline pipe, $18,000 worth
of property and the balance in waived inspect,ion fees. He said private groups
contributed about $40,000and he thinks the cooperation between the private
and public sectors was vital to the success ~f this project.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how long families have lived in these houses. Mr.
Krieger said the first family moved in about !three weeks ago and two more
families are moving into two other houses. By the first of August, he said,
most of the nine families should have moved iDto their houses.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how much less expensive modular houses are than
stick-built houses. Mr. Krieger said the lowest bid he received for stick-
built houses was $34,000, as opposed to $31,000 for the modular homes. He
said the Foundation is considering different floor plans in an attempt to
322
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
lower the cost for stick-built houses, because the Foundation would like to
work with local builders as much as possible. However, he said, the Founda-
tion's first priority is to provide affordable housing for low- and moderate-
income families.
Mr. William Warner, a Senior Planner with the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission (TJPDC), addressed the Board and said much of the credit
for this subdivision in Nelson County must go to Ms. Debra Abbott of the
Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA). He said it was Ms. Abbott's
idea to set up the Foundation in Nelson County. He said the citizens of
Nelson County also contributed many hours of work to make this project suc-
cessful. He said the Jordan Development Corporation is the equivalent of the
Foundation in Albemarle County. With the proper incentives from County
government, Mr. Warner said, the Jordan Development Corporation could be a
valuable resource in alleviating the housing problem in the County.
Ms. Debra Abbot, of the MACAA, said she is proud of the Nelson County
project. She said the father of community foundations told MACAA repre-
sentatives that there was not enough money or interest in a rural community to
accomplish such a project. She said the Foundation is happy to have proven
this expert wrong. She said the cooperation between local government, State
government, private business and the citizens of Nelson County made the
project successful. She would like to see some effort made for low-income
housing in Albemarle County.
Mr. Way thanked Messrs. Krieger and Warner and Ms. ~bbott. He said he
saw a presentation similar to this about a year ago at the Planning District
Commission, and, as a follow-up to this presentation, he.~ould like a presen-
tation from Mr. Collins of the University on some of the~'.suggestions mentioned
in his report on housing for low-income citizens. It would give this Board a
possible starting place for a discussion of this idea.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the staff to work on an outline~
.~of how a project like
the one in Nelson County could be adapted to Albemarle C~unty. He said it is
clear to him that the County needs more housing for low-~and moderate-income
.families and the private sector can not meet this need. -~With all due respect
to the work Mr. Collins has done, he said, he thinks it is time to stop
studying the problem and start doing something about it.
~I He said he has an
· aversion to large projects and does not want to get into~m, ny housing project
large enough to be a future ghetto.
Mr. Way said he is interested in hearing more about ~some of Mr. Collins'
recommendations. Mr. Bain said he would like for the st~ff to consider the
feasibility of a program to help low- and moderate-incom~ families own their
own lots and mobile homes, which is something Mr. CollinS! recommended. Mr.
Warner said the Planning District Commission staff would ~e happy to help the
County staff develop a proposal. Mr. Bowie suggested the! staff go to other
people who have started such projects and find out how these projects work
from them. He said he does not think it-is necessary to "reinvent the wheel"
for this project.
Mr. Way asked if the staff could have a report by next month. Mr. Agnor
said "yes"
Since action must be taken during this meeting on Agenda Items 11 and 12,
the Board moved on to this part of the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 11. Report on Hazardous Communicati6ns Program.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum, dated Sune 3, 1988:
"You were advised last fall that the County as an employer was
developing a program to meet the requirements of Federal and State
regulations in the storing, handling and use of hazardous materials.
The regulations are referred to as the 'Employee's R~ght to Know
Law'. The program involves training of employees, a~signment of
responsibilities to supervisors, chemical labeling, %nventorying and
managing record systems on a number of products. ~
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
323
Attached is a Personnel Policy and Procedures document which
addresses the regulations of this program. Mr. Bob Brandenburger,
County Safety Coordinator, will review the elements of the program
and the attached policy at your June 8, 1988 meeting.
Approval of the policy and procedures is recon~nended."
Mr. Bob Branderburger, County Safety Coordinator, presented the policy as
set out below. He said the policy will insure that all employees have the
health and safety information they need for all hazardous substances they use
or handle in the course of their normal work.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt
the following policy as presented. 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.
"Hazard Communications Policy and Procedures
Purpose
It is the intent of the Board to ensure~that all employees have a
right to know the health and safety information for all hazardous
substances that they will use or handle in the course of their normal
work. The expressed purpose of the Hazard Communication Program is
to provide a safe environment for all i~dividuals through procedures
that will identify and evaluate all hazardous substances and subse-
quently provide information and training to all individuals that will
allow the safe use of any hazardous substance
Staff Responsibilities
The County Executive Shall oversee this program and delegate
responsibilities relating to this hazard communication program to the
Safety Coordinator. Each department head, director and supervisor,
or their designee, shall be responsible for implementation of the
program in their work areas and related activities under their
supervision. Questions concerning this.program should be directed to
the Safety Coordinator in the Personnel Office.
Program Elements
Hazard Communication Plan
Each department shall maintain an up-to-date Hazard Communica-
tion Plan. The plan shall contain:
a. An outline of the County's hazard communication program;
b. List of hazardous chemicals located in various work places;
c. Copy of Material Safety Data S~eets for hazardous
chemicals;
d. Copy of generic labeling information for hazardous
chemicals where labeling is inappropriate.
2. Hazardous Chemical Inventories
The Hazard Communication Standard requires the establishment and
maintenance of a hazardous chemicallinventory for each work area
in which hazardous chemicals are stared or used. Any substance
which is capable of producing adverse effects on the health and
safety of human beings is considere~ to be a hazardous chemical
and shall be listed on the inventor~. All chemical products
produced or used in Albemarle Count~ which have health or safety
warnings on their labels shall be i~cluded in the inventory.
It shall be the responsibility of the director (or designee) of
an office to ensure that all hazarddus chemicals in facilities
324
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
under his or her supervision be inventoried by work location and
that copies of the inventories be sent to the Personnel Office.
The hazardous chemical inventories shall be updated annually by
May 1 of each year. Computerized inventories shall be sent from
the Personnel Office to all work locations using or storing
hazardous chemicals. Additions, deletions, and corrections to
the inventory shall be made directly on the supplied computer
printout. The updated inventory shall be returned to the
Personnel Office by the date stipulated. Updated inventory
lists and applicable MSDSs will be provided for each work site
to be placed in the MSDS book.
Product Labels
At each work location, the person responsible for receiving
materials shall verify that all incoming containers of chemicals
or chemical substances are properly labeled by, the manufacturer
with the following information: ~
a. Name of chemical/chemical substance;
b. Appropriate hazard warning;
c. Name and address of manufacturer, vendors, or responsible
party.
No hazardous chemical will be released for use until the con-
tainer has been checked for the above information. Product
containers with incomplete labels shall be refused and returned
to the vendor.
Original labels will not be removed from any container received
for use; and if materials are repackaged, the new containers
will be labeled with content information.
Secondary containers are to be labeled with either an extra copy
of the original manufacturer's label or a facsimile which
clearly indicates the chemical name and the appropriate hazard
warning.
The only container not requiring a label shall be when the
entire transferred chemical/chemical substance~is to be used
immediately by the preparer.
If any label becomes illegible through use or spillage, a label
must be added with the information required inlsubsection a, b,
and c above.
Material Safety Data Sheets i
A Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) is a technical bulletin
detailing health and safety information about hazardous chemi-
cals. A MSDS tells employees about the hazards of chemicals
used in their work locations and the safety precautions that
should be taken when handling them. Data sheets for all hazard-
ous chemicals to which Albemarle County employees may be exposed
shall be kept on file in the Personnel Office, ~and copies of
applicable MSDS's shall be available at each work location in
the notebook entitled Material Safety Data Sheets
The Safety Coordinator shall be responsible fo= obtaining MSDS
sheets, verifying their completeness and distributing MSDS
notebooks to work location. The director (or ~esignee) of an
office shall be responsible for ensuring that ~he appropriate
MSDS notebook is available to employees in wor~ areas where
hazardous chemicals are used or stored. Employees can find a
list of all hazardous chemicals used or stored Mt their work
locations in the MSDS notebook. Employees who ~re unable to
find the notebook should contact the Safety Coordinator for
assistance. Before a new chemical is introduced to a work
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
325
location, an MSDS shall be made available for review by the
affected employees.
When hazardous chemicals are ordered it shall be specified on
the purchase order that the chemicals are not to be shipped
without corresponding material safety data sheets. Any MSDS
received that has not been verified by the Safety Coordinator
will be forwarded to the Personnel Office.
a. Obtaining Material Safety Data Sheets
If there is a substance for which there is no MSDS
available in the MSDS notebook, or if a supervisor is
uncertain whether a material is hazardous, the Safety
Coordinator shall be notified. The following informa-
tion should be given:
complete chemical/product name;
manufacturer's name;
manufacturer's complete address;
manufacturer's phone number (if available).
A representative of the Personnel Office will contact
the manufacturer/distributer requesting a MSDS for
that chemical/product.
If the distributor does not respond within approxi-
mately 21 days, a follow~up letter will be sent.
In the event that no MSDS is sent by the distributor
after repeated requests, purchasing will be requested
to stop all purchases from the distributor; and, if
appropriate, the Safety Coordinator will contact a
Virginia Occupational Safety and Health (VOSHA)
representative for further action.
b. Information
The MSDS must provide information on:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
physical and chemical characteristics of each hazard-
ous chemical;
known acute or chronic health effects;
exposure limits;
whether the chemical is considered to be a carcinogen;
precautionary measures;
emergency and first aid procedures; and
the identity of the organization which prepared the
MSDS.
5. Hazardous Non-Routine Tasks
Periodically, employees are required to perform hazardous
non-routine tasks. Prior to starting work on such projects,
each affected employee will be given information by their
supervisor about the hazardous substances to which they may be
exposed during that activity. Each department will maintain a
list of non-routine tasks and provide a copy to the Safety
Coordinator. Information given to the employees should include:
specific physical/chemical hazards;
protective and/or safety measures the employees can take;
measures the County has taken to reduce the hazards,
including ventilation, personal protective equipment,
administrative controls, and posted emergency procedures;
and, ~
if the supervisor/department m~nager or any employee has a
question concerning hazardous materials they may encounter
in a non-routine task, they should contact the Safety
Coordinator for assistance in ~ssessing the problem.
326
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
6. Unlabeled Pipes
Occasions arise when employees must repair plumbing and pipes.
No employee is to repair or replace any unlabeled pipe until the
contents of the pipe are determined and precautionary steps
relating to the hazardous chemical can be implemented. This
does not apply to water pipes as long as no other safety hazards
are apparent (such as hot water/steam or electricity).
7. NOtification of Contractors
It shall be the responsibility of the appropriate supervi-
sor to provide contractors under his or her supervision
with the following information in writing; prior to the
starting of work:
Hazardous chemicals to which employees of the contrac-
tor may be exposed while on the job site;
Precautions that they can take to lessen the possi-
bility of chemical exposure.
It is the contractor's responsibility to provide his
employees with this information.
Construction contracts shall include a requirement for
contractors to provide Albemarle County with information on
hazardous materials they will use. Prior to the start of
construction, the contractor should furnish the appropriate
department head a list of chemicals that may be brought
onto the job site. If an additional cheminal, not on the
initial list, is brought onto the job site~ department head
shall be given prior notification. When requested, the
contractor shall furnish MSDS's for any chemicals to
brought onto the job site. This informatibn must also be
provided to the Safety Coordinator.
8. Employee Training.
New employee orientation: Prior to startihg work, each
Albemarle County employee assigned to an area where hazard-
ous chemicals are used shall receive a health and safety
orientation. During the orientation, the employee shall
receive information and training as follow~:
1. An overview of the requirements contained in the
Hazard Con~nunication Standard;
2. Location and availability of the Albemarle County
written Hazard Communications Program;
3. Types of chemicals present in the workplace;
4. Physical and health effects of the ha~'ardous chemi-
cals;
5. Methods and observational techniques Used to determine
the presence of hazardous chemicals i~ the work area;
6. Control/work practices and personal p~otective equip-
ment used to lessen or prevent exposure to hazardous
chemicals;
7. Steps Albemarle County has taken to lessen or prevent
exposure to hazardous chemicals;
8. General safety emergency procedures to follow if
employees are exposed to hazardous chemicals;
9. Inslruction in how to read labels and ~eview Material
Safety Data Sheets to obtain appropri~te hazard
information. !.
Employee Specific Chemical Safety Training:~ Department
heads, supervisors, or their designee, wil~ implement a
training program with emphasis on hazardou~ materials found
in their specific work place. The employe~ shall receive
information and training on:
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
327
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Chemicals present in the workplace operation
Container labeling
Health hazards
Reduction of exposure through control/work practices
and personal protective equipment
Chemical storage and waste management
Physical/chemical characteristics
Reactivity data
Fire/explosion hazards
Observation techniques and methods used to determine
the presence or release of hazardous chemicals/vapors
in the work area and
Emergency procedures in event of exposure and/or
spill.
Each department head, or director, is responsible to insure
that all of their personnel attend this program and to
maintain accurate attendance records.
After attending the general orientation training class,
each employee will sign a form to verify that he/she
attended the training and received written materials
relating to the regulation on Hazard Communication. The
form will be forwarded to the/Safety Coordinator for review
and placement in the person's personnel file. Prior to a
new hazardous chemical being introduced into any section of
Albemarle County, each employee of that section will be
given information as outlinediin paragraph 8.b above."
Agenda Item No. 12. Renewal of Blue Cross/Blue Shield Contract.
following memorandum dated June 3, 1988, was received from the County
Executive:
The
"The Key Care Plan of Blue Cross/Blue Shield implemented by the
County in January, 1986 is completing its second full year of ser-
vice. The Key Care program is working, there is a continuing shift
away from more expensive medical services, such as in-patient hospi-
tal care to more out-patient care, and there is also a greater usage
of the less expensive Key Care provider;
While these are positive trends, there has been an increase in total
utilization of medical services and a greater inflationary factor
than planned for in the current year. The 1987-1988 Key Care program
was budgeted at an 11 percent increase Over 1986-1987. It was felt
this was prudent as we began this 1987-1988 fiscal year with a
surplus of $76,000 in the Key Care Program.
During budget preparation for 1988-1989, Blue Cross/Blue Shield
estimated the Key Care program rates would increase 16 percent. This
16 percent was shared with the County paying 50 percent and the
employee paying 50 percent. The following rates were budgeted for
the employee coverage:
$ 9.06/Month (Employee share BC/BS)
$65.00/Month (Employer share BC/BS)
Subsequent to the budget's submission and approval, the following
changes have occurred:
1. Usage has increased this year land Blue Cross/Blue Shield
is forecasting a deficit of $99,000 at the end of the
1987-1988 fiscal year.
2. Blue Cross/Blue Shield is projecting a higher 15.9 percent
inflationary trend. Adding this to the $96,000 deficit and
other minor increases would require a 34.9 percent increase
over 1987-1988 rates. Under the current budgeted figures
for 1988-89, the employee would have to absorb this
328
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
increase, resulting in a monthly cost to the employee as
follows:
Current
1987-1988
Budgeted
1988-1989 (16%)
Forecasted
1988-1989 (34.9%)
Employee 3.93 9.06 21.51
Employee and 29.67 38.92 56.24
Minor
Employee and 120.78 144.61 179.14
Family
Recommendations:
The negative impacts of the deficit this year added to a higher
inflationary requirement will place an inordinate burden on many of
our employees. It is highly possible that an employee would have a
decrease in spendable income as the premium increases would offset
any salary increase. The following recommendations are made:
In reviewing all the planning factors and current usage, an
increase of 30 percent over 1987-1988 is considered prudent
and reasonable to fully fund the plan next year and elimi-
nate the deficit projected for this year.
In keeping with the Board's philosophy of~sharing the
increase with the employee on an equal basis, the employer
and employee each pay 50 percent of the increase. The
County's share of medical costs per employee would be
$69.82/month versus the $65/month budgeted.
Funding of $90,519 be authorized to cover~the County and
School Division share of the increase.
Modifications for the Key Care program and/or alternative
programs were considered but are not recommended at this
late date. A major review and bidding for employee health
insurance is programmed to be conducted this coming year.
This will allow for adequate review of all alternatives
prior to 1989-1990.
These recommendations should result in a fully funded Key Care
program for 1988-89 and continue with employee sharing of the costs."
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to accept
the four recommendations in the County Executive's memorandum. 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.
At 3:04 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 3~13 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 16. Work Session - Capital Improvement Program for FY
1988-89 through 1992-93. Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Way suggested
that the Board hold a brief work session today and schedule a second work
session later. After some discussion, it was decided to hold a second work
session at 3:00 P.M. on June 29, 1988.
The Board received the following memorandum from Mr. iGuy B. Agnor, Jr.,
dated June 3, 1988:
"Attached is a copy of the Five Year Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) budget recommended by the Planning Commission ~otaling $66
million in projects, of which $54.6 million is the Cqunty share.
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
329
The projects recommended to be funded over the next five years
require $31.3 million in local funds as follows:
88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 Total
Recommended 6.179 13.267 3.893 6.831 1.133 31.303
Current Plan 5.853 3.801 5.508 0.695 15.857
Difference +0.326 + 9.466 -1.615 +6.136 +1.133 +15.446
In order to fund the Planning Commission's recommendations it may
require that $20.6 million be provided from borrowed funds, depending
upon whether or not other sources of revenues are considered. These
borrowed funds may be from additional Literary Fund Loans, Public
School Authority Bonds, General Obligation Bonds, Temporary Borrowing
or some combination thereof.
Attachment 1 delineates existing resources, some additional sources
of funds, borrowed funds, and the annual Debt Service for the bor-
rowed funds. The annual debt service (repayment - principal plus
interest calculated at 6 and one-half percent) would begin in the
second year (89-90) at $345,~000 and increase to $2.266 million in the
fifth year (92-93). Over the five year.period, it could require
$5.915 million in resources. Normally, the annual Debt Service is
shown in an operating budget and is presented here for your informa-
tion
only.
Attachment 2 uses the same existing and'.iadditional sources of funds
as listed on Attachment 1, and delineates new sources of funds in
lieu of borrowed funds. These sources could be a three percent meals
tax, or twice a year collection of real,estate and/or personal
property taxes. The meals tax could generate $1.04 million each
year, the one-time windfall from real estate taxes would be $9.4
million, and from personal property taxes $4.4 million. Depending
upon the time for adding these resources, the revenues could provide
sufficient funds to balance the five year program. The obvious
advantage of this funding program is th~ elimination of the addi-
tional debt service costs shown on AttaChment 1, making the $5.915
million in debt service available for other purposes.
Staff is aware of several projects in t~e Planning Commission's
Capital Improvement Program jointly funded by the City and County
that are being deferred for funding by the City. Staff will make
adjustments in the timing of these projects for your review at the
work session on June 8."
Mr. Horne presented a corrected version ~f the recommended Capital
Improvement Program and estimated resources flor FY 1988-93. He said the new
spreadsheet contained some projects with threa levels of cost: the third
level is the recommendation by the County Ex~tutive, the second level is the
recommendation by the Planning Commission an~ the first level is the original
request.
Under "Roads" on page three of the spreadsheet, Mr. Home said, the cost
of the Route 810 project should be changed frDm $45,000 to $100,000, with the
County share changing from $45,000 to $50,000~ This changes the amount
requested to $50,000. i
Mr. Home went on to explain other secti6ns of the Capital Improvements
Program. In the case of schools projects, he~said, there were two estimates:
that of the School Board and that of an architect. Many times, he said, the
estimate of the architect was higher than tha~ of the School Board. Mr. Home
said the Commission believed it was prudent t~ show a higher per square foot
funding than the School Board estimated. Mr.'Lindstrom said it is difficult
to reduce an architect's estimate unless the design of the building is changed
fundamentally. Mr. Home said the higher estimate is included because the
Board has often had to add funding during the~middle of the project, when it
became clear that the cost of the project would exceed the estimate of the
School Board.
330
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Bain pointed out that the architect overestimated the cost of the
Broadus Wood project and this architect is also in charge of the Crozet School
project.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Planning Commission based its decision to
include the higher estimate on anything other than what has happened in the
past and if these reasons were mentioned anywhere in the Planning Commission's
recommendations for the CIP. Mr. Home said no rationale was given, but the
members of the Planning Commission used the higher estimate provided by the
architect because they believed it would be better to for the project to cost
less than the estimate so theBoard would not have to provide additional
funding in the middle of the year. Mr. Bain said this approach may encourage
the architect to spend more than what is needed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff has looked over the figures for the
schools projects and compared them with other construction projects. Mr.
Agnor said "no". Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it would be helpful if someone
from the staff studied the figures leading to both estimates and tested their
accuracy, perhaps relating these figures to a similar project currently
underway in the County. Mr. Agnor said it would be difficult to do such a
comparison because there are no such similar projects.
Mr. Perkins said he would rather see a project under-funded than over-
funded. He said he thinks this will constrain the architect to design a
school within reason; over-funding might encourage an architect to gold-plate
everything.
Even if the higher estimate is right, Mr. Bowie said, he thinks anything
above what the School Board requested should be put in a ~contingency fund.
Mr. Perkins noted that the School Board has completed a study of elemen-
tary school needs in the northwest quadrant of the Countyand how this relates
to the Crozet project. He said the School Board has projiected the enrollment
through FY 1992-93 and he asked what additional information the School Board
needed. Mr. Horne said the school staff is considering ~number of options in
the northwest quadrant such as building a new school in Fi~ee Union, hiring
teachers' aides, and changing the size of the classroom. He said the School
Board has not decided which option it will use.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has a problem with the School 'Board's part of the
proposed CIP. He said the Board is being asked to consider major funding
options without knowing what the School Board will recommend. He said he does
not wish to act upon this budget without knowing this information. Mr. Robert
W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, said the School Board would not make
a decision until September, 1989.
Mr. Perkins said the highest elementary enrollment predicted by the
Schools is 5,020 students by 1991-92. If there are to be' 22 students per
classroom in the elementary, he continued, there will need to be space for 204
additional students. If all the new schools proposed by ~he School Board are
built, there will be space for an additional 1,500 students,., he said. He said
he does not understand why the County needs the extra schools. If the School
Board were to choose the option of allowing 25 students per classroom, he said
the school buildings now in existence could hold 5,265 students, 240 students
more than the highest enrollment projection.
Mr. }Iorne said the School Board convinced the Planning Commission that
whichever option the School Board chooses to use in dealing with growth in the
northwest quadrant of the County would have little effect ion the Crozet
School. He said the Planning Commission recox~nended that ithe Board allow the
site to be acquired and the building designed in the firs~ year of the CIP.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it's time to consider rgvising the CIP
process. He said he thinks there are school projects loo~ing that could add
$10,000,000 to the budget, yet the Board does not know wh~ these projects are
being proposed or where they will be located. He said he ~does not want to
make decisions on split tax collections and meals_ taxes i~ the absence of this
information.
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
331
Mr. Agnor said the staff has discussed changing the CIP cycle, but that
will not help the Board this year. He said the Board needs nine year projec-
tions with a five year plan.
Mr. Bain said he does not think the School Board will come to the Board
with the proposal to build a new school in Free Union. Mr. Lindstrom said he
thinks the School Board feels there will be more students than the schools
currently proposed can hold. He said he would like to learn how the School
Board proposes to handle this capacity problem before he makes a decision. He
added that he would lik~ an update from the Schools staff on enrollment
projection and CIP projects. He said he also wants to know if the alternative
training program will be held at Murray School and suggested that the Schools
staff consider holding the program at Rose Hill School after it closes.
Mr. Perkins said he would like the school staff to consider redistricting
as a way to deal with the growth in enrollment. He added that the situation
in Crozet was once a parity situation and now it is an enrollment issue.
Mr. Tucker asked if the staff should defer acquiring the property for the
Crozet replacement school until the Board and the School Board have met
together. Mr. Way said the only question about Crozet is whether it will be
built to hold 600 or 450 students. He said the staff should go ahead with the
land acquisition.
Mr. Agnor suggested meeting with the School Board during a work session
and asking these questions before the publiclhearing is held on the Capital
Improvements Program. Mr. Way asked Mr. Agnor to arrange a meeting between
the Board and the School Board and the school staff at 1:30 P.M. on June 29,
1988.
Agenda Item No. 17a. Appointments: Albemarle County Service Authority.
No name was offered.
Agenda Item No. 17b. Appointments: Community Services Board. Motion
was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by M=. Bowie to appoint Ms. Lois Ann
Brown to the Community Services Board of Directors for a term which will
expire on June 30, 1990, fill out the unexpired term of Mr. Lewis R. Fibel,
deceased. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17c. Appointments: Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study
Committee. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindst~om and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to
appoint Dr. James W. Walker of 147 Harvest Drive and Mr. S. William Heischman
of 200 Colonnade Drive. 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.
Agenda Item No. 17d. Appointments: Library Board. Motion was offered
by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to appoint Ms. Mary V. Mikalson to
the Jefferson Madison Regional Library Boardfor a term beginning July 1,
1988, and ending June 30, 1992. 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.
Agenda Item No. 17e. Appointments: Piedmont Com~nunity College Board of
Directors. No name was offered.
332
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Agenda Item No. 17f. Appointments: School Boar~'. Mr. Way said this
appointment will be made on June 15, 1988, seven days after the public hear-
ing.
Agenda Item No. 17g. Appointments: Social Services Board. No name was
offered.
Agenda Item No. 17h. Appointments: Transportation Safety Committee. No
name was offered.
Mr. Agnor noted that City Council had taken action on Monday night to
reappoint Mr. Francis Fife to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Motion
was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to reappoint Mr. Fife to
another term which will expire on May 1, 1990. There was no further discus-
sion. 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. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mr. Bowie announced that the Audit Committee will meet June 13, 1988, to
inform the auditors of any specific things the Committee would like investi-
gated. He asked members of the Board to send any suggestions, in writing, to
either him or Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Bowie said the budget does not include any adjustment to the salaries
of members of the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the members of the
Board decided to take only the base salary. Mr. Agnor said adjustments to the
salary, based on four and one-half percent inflation rate~ were a part of the
County Code, and can only be changed through an ordinance~amendment.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by,Mr. Bowie to set a
public hearing on an increase in the Board's salary to reflect the same base
increase of four and one-half percent granted General CoUnty employees, 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. Lindstro~, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Way said the Board needed to send a representative to the NACo Annual
Conference. He said Mr. Bowie, who has attended several ~of these meeting with
the former Chairman, Mr. Gerald Fisher, has volunteered t~ represent the
Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to appoint
Mr. Bowie as the County's voting delegate to the NACo Annhal Conference.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the~motion carried by
the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 19. Executive Session: Personnel. At 4:15 P.M., motion
was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adjourn into executive
session to discuss personnel matters. There was no further discussion. Roll
was called and the~motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom~ Perkins and Way.
None.
June 8, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) 333
(Page 37)
The Board reconvened into open session at 5:55 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.