Loading...
1986-10-06October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 8, 1986 at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room ~7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., and C. Timothy Lindstrom. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Peter T. Way. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Frederic W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Develop- ment. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 A.M. by the Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowie moved to approve Item 4.1, delete Item 4.2 for discussion at a later date, and accept the rest of the items on the Consent Agenda as information. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. Item 4.1. Right-of-Way Dedication for Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Approved as requested and outlined on a plat dated August 26, 1986, drawn by Roudabush, Greene and Gale, Inc., File No. 6951. "Proposal: Dedication of additional right-of-way on Route 606 at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Location: The dedication will be on Route 606 at the new entrance to the airport (terminal). Staff Comment: This proposed dedication is required as part of the improve- ments to the airport. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion is requiring this dedication in order to establish a deceleration lane at this entrance. Since this improvement is not directly related to an approved site plan, the agent for the Board of Supervisors cannot sign the plat until the Board has accepted this dedication. The Highway Department has reviewed and approved the plat showing this dedication. Staff recom- mends acceptance of this dedication." re: Item 4.2. Letter dated September 26, 1986 from Ray D. Pethtel, Highway Commissioner, "Charlottesville Bypass". Contents to be discussed at a later date. "I am in receipt of a September 11, 1986, letter from Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, Board of Supervisors, with which she enclosed a copy of the "Charlottesville/Albemarle Highway By-pass Committee Statement." In the letter she stated that the Board of Supervisors took official action to accept the report. As you are aware, the Department in developing construction plans for the widening of Route 29 has been receiving input from the county staff and has incorporated changes in the design to address county concerns where practi- cal and feasible. It is our goal, as yours, to minimize all negative impacts. Additionally, our transportation planning staff is actively working with the county staff to develop a microcomputer traffic assignment model that, hopefully, will provide a better analysis technique to evaluate the impacts of future development along Route 29 as well as the growth in through traffic. We anticipate approving a consultant contract in the near future that will provide the county staff the resources to accomplish this effort. At this time, however, it is our opinion that the current project to widen Route 29 will not adequately serve the future traffic needs in the Route 29 corridor. In the next year, as our staff and the county staff work together in developing the microcomputer model, perhaps a clearer picture of our long-range traffic concerns will evolve. During this effort, we will continue to analyze the desirability and impacts of bypasses as well as additional improvements to existing Route 29. It is my hope that we can develop a transportation plan that recognizes and adequately addresses statewide needs and at the same time incorporates local needs and desires. We look forward to working with the Board of Supervisors and county staff in resolving this critical issue." October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 2 0!7 Item 4.3. Memorandum dated September 29, 1986, from Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Execu- tive, entitled "Five-Year Vehicle Operation Costs - Sheriff's Department", received as information. "Several counties (Pittsylvania and Campbell) are attempting to get the State of Virginia to participate in the cost of replacement vehicles for their Sheriff's Department. The State now participates on a per mile basis at 20 cents per mile on the first 3000 miles per vehicle, then 15 cents on all miles over the first 3000 miles. The five year period on the attached schedules covers two years operation when the Sheriff's Department was responsible for law enforcement, one year operation when the transition took place, and two years operation when the Sheriff was responsible for only court security and paper serving. The second chart (miles driven by Sheriff's Department) shows a reduction in actual cost per mile from 31 cents in FY 83-84 to 11 cents in FY 85-86. This is due in part to use of all compact cars, lower speeds, and much lower costs of fuel. These costs are inclusive of operational costs plus the costs of replacement vehicles. This memo is for information only and requires no action. SHERIFF AUTOMOBILE OPERATION SURVEY SUBJECT: LOSS SUBSTANTIAL BETWEEN THE EXPENSES AND THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE USE OF VEHI- CLES TIME PERIOD July 81-June 82 July 82-June 83 July 83-June 84 July 84-June 85 July 85-June 86 Total FISCAL YEAR INCOME $112,016.00 198,067.08 79,611.63 108,918.00(1) 38~132.72 $536,745.43 FISCAL YEAR EXPENSES $244,315.26 241,270.15 191,482.04 21,084.65 23~404.68 $721,556.78 ACTUAL ANNUAL LOSS <$132,299.26> <43,203.07> <11!,870.41> 87,833.35 14~728.04 <$184,811.34> (1) Approximately $50,000 was reimbursement of prior year expenses by the State Compensa- tien Board. SUBJECT: MILEAGE DRIVEN BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT PER FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR TIME PERIOD EXPENSES + MILEAGE DRIVEN July 81-June 82 July 82-June 83 July 83-June 84 July 84-June 85 July 85-June 86 ACTUAL OPERATIONAL = COST PER MILE $244,315.26 919,808.0 .26 241,270.15 939,471.0 .25 191,482.04 602,672.0 .31 21,084.65 176,625.0 .11 23,404.68 176,434.0 .13 SUBJECT: OPERATIONAL COST OF THE VEHICLES USED IN THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT PER FISCAL YEAR TIME PERIOD July 81-June 82 July 82-June 83 July 83-June 84 July 84-June 85 July 85-June 86 REPLACEMENT GASOLINE, OIL PARTS, LABOR TOTAL OF VEHICLES AND OTHERS AND OTHERS INSURANCE AMOUNT 117,486.54 81,331.33 29,260.59 16,236.80 244,315.26 124,237.15 75,362.00 26,286.00 15,385.00 241,270.15 89,667.04 65,467.00 28,062.00 8,286.00 191,482.04 6,754.95 8,489.00 3,741.00 2,099.70 21,084.65 7,218.59 5,990.01 3,857.65 6,338.43 23,404.68 Item 4.4. Letter dated September 12, 1986, from Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, enclosing a copy of the 1985-86 Secondary Improvement Budget Fiscal Summary. Received as information. "In accordance with the Code of Virginia I am submitting to the Board of Supervisors a fiscal summary of the expenditures for improvements on the secondary system in Albemarle County. The attached listing indicates the expenditures by route. In instances where specific improvement projects were involved, the project number and a brief location description is included. Total expenditures for improvements on the secondary system during the last year amounted to $538,871.02. This leaves the improvement fund with a balance of $3,302,302.95. Although this is a large balance, projects currently under construction or advertisement should expend approximately $1.8 million of this money by the end of the current fiscal year. I anticipate that other projects, estimated to cost $1.5 million, will be advertised between this date and July 1, 1987. I request that this letter and the fiscal summary be distributed to the members of the Board of Supervisors. As in the past, I will be glad to answer their questions concerning this report at some future meeting if they desire." Item 4.5. information. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for September 23, 1986, was received as 018 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting_) Page_3_ Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: October 3, 1984. Mr. Lindstrom had read pages 6 through 11 and found two typographical errors, and Mr. Bowie had read pages 17 through 22. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the minutes read. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters. Relocation of Route 678 at intersection with Route 250 West in Ivy. The following memorandum from the County Executive, dated October 1, 1986, was received. "Attached is a proposed resolution of request to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDH&T) for the relocation of Route 678 with Route 250 West. The only change in the resolution from that suggested by the VDH&T is the assignment of responsibility for administering right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Roosevelt has suggested that this be accomplished by County staff which would avoid a public hearing by the Highway Department and move the project along more quickly. Staff is of the opinion that right-of-way clearance should be handled by the VDH&T since they have staff more familiar with this process. Although the process may take longer if the Highway Department personnel handles the right-of-way clearance, staff does not feel that the timing on this project is critical." Mr. Agnor discussed the proposed resolution, recommending that the resolution be favor- ably considered and the process get started for the construction of the roadway. He said that at one time it was thought that this project was important to the time frame of the development of the Meriwether Lewis School. The staff's position is that this project was planned a long time before the Meriwether Lewis School project was conceived, but it is a needed highway project and was given impetus by the Meriwether Lewis School plans. He wanted to emphasize that they do not believe the fact that the Highway Department has the hearing and takes more time to acquire the right-of-way is a critical matter. Mr. Dan Roosevelt said they would handle the right-of-way work if that is what the county wants them to do, but he is not certain they can keep away from the public hearing requirements. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution. motion. Mrs. Cooke seconded the WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan has proposed the relocation of Route 678 as it intersects with U. S. Route 250 West in Ivy, Virginia; and WHEREAS, based upon review by the Albemarle County Engineer and the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, the County of Albemarle has determined that the relocation of Route 678 near its intersection with U. S. Route 250 West is preferable to the reconstruc- tion. of the existing road and that the location proposed is the most feasi- ble alternative available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion is hereby requested to participate in the cost of construction and to administer the acquisition of right-of-way for the project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle will participate in the cost of construction, be responsible for the preparation of road plans and incur the cost of right-of-way acquisition for the project; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors requests that the Department of Highways and Transportation accept the new location into the State Secondary System once final design is approved, right-of-way obtained and construction is completed. There was no further discussion, so roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENCES: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters. Environmental Impact Assessment of a Western Bypass. The following memorandum, dated October 2, 1986, was received from the County Executive. "At your meeting on September 10, 1986, you requested staff to consider and give you suggestions as to how to develop a study regarding the impact a western bypass would have on the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. Staff has discussed the matter with several people and requested information and studies relating to highway impacts on reservoir watersheds. Staff would recommend that you consider appointing a committee or task force whose membership would consist of both city and county representatives similar to the Eastern Bypass Committee. This policy group would be charged with developing a scope of study for the impact assessment and direct the 019 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 4 preparation of the final report. While some of this information can be developed 'in-house', it is staff opinion that the majority of the report will necessitate outside expertise." Mr. Agnor discussed this issue with the Board. He suggested forming a study committee. This should indicate to the Highway Department that the locality is concerned enough to begin its own impact study. It would also mean that the information that is needed would require that information be received from the Highway Department on corridors that are being studied. And, it would provide this Board and the City Council with details of the information which would be used in terms of coordination and consultations with the State Highway Department. He said they had learned there are several people at the University who would be interested in assisting in such a study. He recommended that the Board consider creating this committee and made suggestions as to who should be involved on the technical committee which would be used as support. Mrs. Cooke asked how a committee could make a study of the environmental impact as related to the specific site if they don't know what that specific site is, and how is the information obtained? Mr. Agnor answered that if a committee comprised of the county gov- erning body and officials of this locality want to study the impact on our watershed, they would need to obtain from the Highway Department what corridors were being considered. Mr. Lindstrom said that since there are two routes known, the committee could consider a study of those and probably there would be some carryover of validity of those studies to the region. Mrs. Cooke then stated that the Highway Department keeps talking about a Charlottesville bypass and they seem to have specific routes in mind. If they have their environmental studies, could these studies be made available to the County? Mr. Agnor said the Highway Department will do its own study and it's public information. He understood that the Board's directive to the staff was to determine how the locality could have its own information. Mr. Fisher said the County must try to determine whether it should try to influence the location rather than wait until a route is selected. Mrs. Cooke asked why waste a lot of time, energy and money doing environmental impact studies. She doesn't understand why the Highway Department can't inform the county what is being considered. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mrs. Cooke, and said he was concerned about hiring an outside consultant when the route is not definite. He feels the committee should pressure the Highway Department to tell them where the bypass will be built and then do the study. Mr. Fisher stated that if the county has any influence as to locations, information will have to be obtained as to what would be the most damaging to the community. He feels the Highway Department will not do the impact study until they know exactly where the bypass will go, and that will be too late for the County to influence the location. Mr. Lindstrom said the City had expressed a skepticism about the extent of an environ- mental impact from a bypass built in a watershed. The County had an in-house report drafted which was not too convincing, so the information is not at hand to work with the City. He believes the City is receptive to support the County's concern and opposition to having a western bypass, if they can see some data to justify that position. He is in favor of asking the Highway Department where the road will be built, because he feels that at the point where the Department determines where the route will be, they will be so far committed that it will be very difficult to dissuade them. He feels that by going to an outside independent consul- tant, they will get the results they need and find out if there is a problem. He thinks that if this is not done, then the County can forget about having influence over what is going to happen. Mr. Henley said he would not support the study unless he knows the route. If the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority wants to study the environmental impact, that's fine with him. Mrs. Cooke said that there should be some way to require the Highway Department to do an environmental impact study before it determines where a route will go. Mr. Lindstrom said that even if the Highway Department does the study, he does not think it will be the quality of an assessment that the County can rely on. Mr. Lindstrom said that in his dealings with the Highway Department, he was informed that the Department is being pressured to build a bypass and in the western part of the County. In response to the concerns about the watershed, the Commissioner said that they know how to take care of those problems. Mr. Lindstrom doesn't want to rely on people who have not seen any kind of an environmental impact study. Mrs. Cooke said she does not necessarily want the Highway Department to do an impact study, but she does want a study of the locality being considered. Mr. Fisher said that the purpose of the Highway Department in any environmental study is to justify why the road is going to be built where it is to be built. It will be for state- wide transportation interests. If the locality does not do a study, the problems will not be dealt with adequately. He feels that what Mr. Agnor recommends is correct and he supports it. The first step should be to set up a joint committee with the City to talk about how to go about evaluating an impact. Mr. Bowie said there is no doubt in his mind that the Highway Department knows exactly what it is going to do, and there is no way to block them. But, he thinks the localities should try to work with them, He will support the formation of the committee to start working with the Highway Department. He feels that some kind of aggressive action is needed. 020 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting.) Paqe 5 Mrs. Cooke said she would support Mr. Bowie's statement, because she does not feel that anything done independently will make any difference. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board is abdicating its responsibility to the public. When this kind of committee is set up, it probably will not do a thing. He said that each Board member has a different perspective depending on where they are located, and that is the biggest thing that the Highway Department has going for it. He wants to work with the Highway Department, but feels as though they have already made up their mind. He thinks that precluding an independent study would tie the committee's hands. He believes the Highway Department proposals will be disruptive to this community and thinks the best thing they can do for the public is to actively and independently evaluate what is being proposed so citi- zens will know what's happening. Mr. Bowie mentioned that everyone is concerned about the quality of water. committee needs to be organized and operating. He feels the Mr. Lindstrom said if the quality of water is really a concern, a study needs to be done independently and in advance of the impact a major thoroughfare would have on that watershed. He doesn't see any other way to make the assessment and also to the meaningful and effective support of the City necessary to persuade the Highway Department. Mr. Henley said he doesn't have any problem with setting up the committee, but he is still opposed to trying to do it independently without working with the Highway Department. He said he would not support a consultant until a route has been picked and feels that the County will have more influence with the Highway Department if the Board works with them. Mr. Fisher said he thinks Mr. Henley is correct, but at some point there may have to be an independent evaluation. He stated that the Mayor has suggested that if there is going to be a comunity position on a western route, that it should be jointly done. He feels that they should at least get this started. Mr. Fisher suggested that instead of picking a new committee that the County appoint the same committee. Mr. Lindstrom asked that the composition of the committee that Mr. Agnor suggested be used but left open as to who will actually be on the committee. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to communicate to the City the Board's decision on this issue. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the appointment of a joint committee of the City and County to study how the assessment of the environmental impact of a western bypass might best be undertaken. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion so roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENCES: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters. Assessment Procedure: Roads to be Added to State System of Secondary Highways. The following memorandum dated October 2, 1986, was received from the County Executive: "In the first two projects undertaken by the staff to improve four roads for inclusion into the State highway system, it is evident that the assessment procedure will be required to complete one of the projects. When staff checked with the County Attorney's office on the time involved in the assessment procedure, they learned from Mr. Payne that it was his under- standing in drafting the resolution that the Board did not intend to commit itself to making assessments of property owners as a part of these projects, and authority to use it was not included in the resolution. Attached is a letter from Mr. Payne outlining the assessment procedure, its criteria, three'choices for proportionate shares of each lot involved, and an option for installment payments. It is recommended that staff be direct- ed to report to the Board on a case-by-case basis the need for the use of this assessment procedure, and that the discretionary decisions of propor- tionate shares and installment payments be considered when such a report is made to the Board. Including that directive in these four projects will give the staff needed guidance in the matter, without obligating the Board to use the assessment procedure." The memorandum from Deputy County Attorney Frederic W. Payne, dated September 25, 1986 follows: "In accordance with our discussion of this date, this will serve to outline my understanding of the status of assessments for the improvement of certain roads which the Board has agreed to help in bringing into the System and the procedure for making such assessments. It is my understanding that the Board, in adopting its resolution of Septem- ber 10, did not intend to commit itself to making assessments of property owners to provide for the road improvements called for in the resolution. On the contrary, the resolution provides that the County will participate in the cost of the improvements when one-half of the estimated cost is funded by 'one or more' of the affected property owners. This is not say that the Board has foreclosed the possibility of making such assessments, but I think it is fair to say that they have not decided to do so at this time. Rather, they have decided to allow the property owners to work this matter out among themselves, if possible. 021 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 6 As to the procedure which is applicable if the Board does decide to impose assessments, I have the following comments. The enabling legislation for such assessments is found in Virginia Code Section 33.1-72.1. This section authorizes the County to collect money, by voluntary contribution, by assessment in certain cases and by contribution from the County, to bring up to state standards roads which are not in the System. (While the statute authorizes the Highway Department to pay part of this cost, it is my understanding that the Highway Department takes the position that, for reasons not relevant to this discussion, this authoriza- tion does not apply in Albemarle County. We think this probably does not prevent the statute's being applied here except that the Highway Department will not participate.) The Board is not obligated to impose assessments on property owners, but it may do so if the following criteria are satisfied: 1) not less than 75 percent of the affected property owners agree, in writing, to the assessment; 2) no assessment shall exceed one-third of the assessed value of the property; and 3) none of the original developers retains a 'speculative interest' in any of the lots. Assuming that these criteria are met, the assessment is imposed so as to raise an amount equal to one-half the total cost of the improvements. The assessment applies to all parcels which abut (i.e., front on) the road, whether or not the owners of all parcels agree to it. As to the amount of the assessment, the Board has the right to choose one of three methods for determining what proportion of the total assessment is to be paid by each property owner: 1) by the proportion of the tax-assessed value of each parcel to the tax-assessed value of all the lots fronting on the road; 2) by the proportion of each lot's frontage on the road to the total length of the road; or 3) by an equal share for each lot. Which of these methods to use is left to the discretion of the Board. Under the statute, assessments maae for this purpose are to be collected as are other assessments for public improvements under Virginia Code Section 15.1-239 et seq.. In a nutshell, the assessment is reported to the taxing authority (i.e., the Director of Finance) and treated as are other taxes. Notice is given to the property owners assessed, and an appeal may be taken to the circuit court. The assessing resolution is to be recorded in the judgment lien docket and serves as a lien on the property. (Unless otherwise provided, the assessment is due immediately. The Board may, in its discretion, allow the lien to be paid in installments, payable at the same time as taxes, over a period no% to exceed 10 years, with interest not to exceed the judgment rate, i.e., as of now, 12 percent.) I would note that Section 33.1-72.1 does allow the Board to accept the entire amount necessary to be paid by one or more of the affected property owners and thereafter use the assessment process to reimburse them, without interest, for their 'fronting' the funds." Mr. Agnor discussed the four roads to be added to the state system of secondary high- ways. Mr. Agnor reminded the Board that after its Public Hearing, the people left with the impression that if the assessment procedure was needed, it was available by law. He said these citizens are carrying that same impression in the first two projects. One is still on track and that procedure will not be needed, but the second one (Milton Drive) will not be that easy. Mr. Bowie mentioned that in the paperwork there are two or three places with emphasis on the phrase "front on." He says this has become a point of discussion on Milton Drive where there are corner lots that have one side on a state road and one side on Milton Drive. The house fronts on the state road and the driveway, mailbox and house face that way. Do they have this obligation if they don't front on the road being repaired? The County Attorney's position is that the law says "yes." Mr. Payne said that Mr. Bowie was correct. Mr. Bowie said there is no indication that 75 percent or more of the people are willing to pay on Milton Drive. He believes that the people were told at the meeting that if they get half of the money, the County would get the other half. Mr. Lindstrom said his impression was that the Board was going to make the assessment process available if it were appropriate for a given project, and he thinks it should be available to these people. Mr. Fisher stated that it should be used only as a last option, and he would rather not get into that kind of administrative situation, but he will support it, if three quarters of the people want to do it. 022 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Payne said that the Board hasn't closed the possibility of assessments, but could take it up on an individual basis at an appropriate time in the future, if ever. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board has to set the individual assessment. Mr. Payne said "yes," and quite a few other decisions would have to be made by the Board at that time. There was no further discussion of this agenda item. Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters. Review of 29 North Reconstruction Plans. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to try to arrange for a briefing for the Board as to what's being proposed. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not bring plans with him, but said he was planning on bringing some designers from Culpeper to do this in detail on October 15. He said he could give the Board an outline of what's shown on the plans. Mr. Agnor said it was his understanding that a work session would be set with the Highway Department at this meeting if plans are available. Mr. Fisher suggested a 2:30 session on October 15 to review Route 29 North plans. Mr. Horne said that staff does not have plans either, but hopes to receive the plans in time to look at them before the briefing with the Board. He asked if Mr. Roosevelt had received any further information as to when they could get plans. Mr. Roosevelt said that he had not, but the plans in his office are available for use in his office. He said this set of plans has been marked by location and design section based on the consolidated recommenda- tions that have been sent forward to Richmond. They are the best information available at this moment, but they are not the approved Public Hearing plans. He said he is not happy with the situation now, but he thinks it is because the Department is in a transitional period where they are trying to shorten their preliminary engineering period. He said that one reason they have set up two pre-hearings on Monday and Wednesday prior to the Public Hearing is to allow citizens a chance to see the plans that will be presented at the Public Hearing. Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Armm and himself attended a meeting in Lexington on highways and the Governor and the Secretary of Transportation talked about shortening the process. Mr. Roosevelt' then gave a brief report on the project. He said that the Planning Office of the Highway Department has done its part in this project and will have no more activity in that process. Mr. Fisher asked how many lanes the bridge over the river will have. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the road narrows back to two lanes as it approaches the bridge. Mr. Bowie asked if there are four lanes going south with two left turn lanes, does that mean there will be six southbound lanes or will the four become two at that point. Mr. Roosevelt replied that the dual left lanes are in addition to the four. Agenda Item No. 6e. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roosevelt said that with the passage of the budget bill by the Legislature, there are now some preliminary figures on allocations, although projections are preliminary and will not be totally accurate until final allocations are determined in December. There will be an increase in revenue for the Primary System for the Culpeper District from approximately $5,400,000 to $9,200,000 in this fiscal year. This is an increase of nearly 80 percent. Next year they are expecting an excess of $14,500,000 or almost a 170 percent increase. The figures for the Secondary System will go from $1,052,000 to about $1,830,000 this year. Next year approximately $2,800,000 is anticipated. Mr. Roosevelt said that because of these tremendous increases in funds and the fact that the funds available in this current year are going to increase 80 to 100 percent, the Highway Department has scheduled a set of pre-allocation hearings and a final hearing as to what to do with this additional money. The Culpeper District meeting will be held on November 3 at 9:00 A.M. at the Culpeper District office. After the nine district hearings have been held, the Department will put together a revised program and there will be a final hearing now scheduled for January 15 at the central office meeting room in Richmond at 9:00 A.M. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the percentage for the allocation for gravel roads remains the same. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the percentage increase for the gravel roads is the same. It is $252,000 this year and it appears they will get another $190,000. Mr. Lindstrom asked what percentage is required, and Mr. Roosevelt said that it is approximately 5.3 percent of the total funds. Mr. Agnor asked, that in terms of the Culpeper hearing on November 3, if the BOard would like for the staff to review what presentation was made at the spring hearing and bring it back to them. Mr. Fisher said "yes," that maybe Free Bridge (Route 250 East) can be moved forward in priority. Mr. Roosevelt reminded the Board about the new funds that were approved in the last Legislative Session, and said that much of this money went into preliminary engineering and planning for projects that were not in the Six Year Plan or to move up projects that were in the plan. He said a large amount of money was put on the Route 29 project and also Free Bridge. Mr. Fisher brought the letter from Mr. Pethtel to the attention of the Board (see Item 4.2 on the Consent Agenda). He noted a sentence in the last paragraph on the front page which stated" . . as our staff and the County staff work together. . . ". He said that in reading that, he feels he should respond and tell the Highway Department that the Board wants O23 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Paqe 8 to work with them, and hopes they will provide the Board an opportunity to begin this dia- logue as soon as possible. Mr. Horne informed the Board that staff is currently very close to letting a contract on an M.P.0. project which was submitted last year as a County project to hire a consultant to help develop and train County and VDH&T staff to operate a microcomputer-based traffic forecasting model. They think this will be in operation within five or six months. Mr. Agnor brought out the fact that it will be used as projects are brought before the Board to be considered in terms of analyzing the traffic impact of specific projects. Mrs. Cooke said the Seminole Trail Fire Department had contacted her. They are con- cerned that the new bridge being constructed over the railroad tracks from Huntington Road to Free State Road will not be able to support the fire trucks that have to use it in case of an emergency to service that area. She asked if the Highway Department can put requirements on bridges owned by the railroad company so that the bridge will accommodate emergency vehicles. The Fire Department has to take an entirely different route to get to that area which slows their response time. Mr. Roosevelt said that there is no action that the Highway Department can take to require the railroad company to upgrade that bridge. He said the Highway Department has probably five or six times as many bridges as the railroad has that have lower weight limits and probably fire engines cannot cross. He noted that the one on Free State Road is espe- cially bad. He said that the railroad had recently done repair work there and brought the weight limit up to what it had been before, seven tons. Mrs. Cooke asked if a major housing development should take place in that area, would that be reason for the Highway Department to require the railroad to upgrade the bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department can not require them to upgrade it, but they do have a general agreement with most railways in this state. If the Department of Highways wants to replace bridges that the railroad currently maintains, they are willing to pay ten percent of the cost, but then the Highway Department has to be responsible for the maintenance of that bridge. He said there is no legal requirement for the Highway Department to upgrade the lower weight limit bridges that are in Albemarle and Greene Counties. Mr. Agnor said that the Jefferson Country Firefighter's Association has written Mr. Roosevelt to point out that there are a number of these bridges with a similar problem. The response has been to ask for a list to be put into the Highway Department's planning process so it can be dealt with in terms of funding. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt about a bridge on Route 20 North, which is the first bridge north of the Route 250/20 intersection (Bailey's Bridge). He said it is not a two lane bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said that bridge and another one-lane bridge north of Stony Point have both been recommended for funding. Bailey's Bridge is scheduled for the next construc- tion season. They are trying to work that with a sight distance improvement at the inter- section of Route 621. The plan is to build a new structure on the inside of the curve. Agenda Item No. 7. Set Public Hearing to extend Albemarle County Service Authority water service areas to include Parcel 09-20, Tax Map 60A - Burkett Estate Property for water service only. The following memorandum was received from the County Executive, dated October 2, 1986: "Staff has received a request from Ms. Bessie Flowers for water service only. Staff's review of this request indicates that the property needs sanitary sewer facilities as well. Staff would recommend adoption of a resolution of intent to amend the ACSA Project Service Area to provide 'limited service' (water and sewer to an existing structure only) to Tax Map 60A Parcel 20(9). We also recommend that the public hearing be set for November 5, 1986." The following memo, dated October 1, 1986, was received from Mr. John Horne: "The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors has forwarded to me the enclosed copy of a request by Ms. Flowers to extend ACSA service to a parcel located between Georgetown Road and Barracks Road. I have spoken to Ms. Flowers and it appears that she would need water and sewer service in order to occupy an existing older dwelling located on this parcel. It appears that this parcel along with five other parcels were left out of the jurisdictional area and remain zoned RA, Rural Areas, because they were not developed at the time of the amendment to the growth areas in the Comprehensive Plan and the amend- ment to the jurisdictional maps. I have yet to independently confirm the problems with the drinking water supplies on this parcel. In my discussions with Ms. Flowers, it appears that there are no sanitary facilities installed on this parcel. If the past problems with the drinking water supplies can be established, this Department would have no objection of limited service to this parcel to extend sewer and water facilities to the existing structure only. The actual action by the Board of Supervisors would be to amend the jurisdic- tional area to provide limited service to Parcel 20(9) on Tax Map 60A." Mr. Horne explained the situation to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom asked the acreage of this parcel. Mr. Horne responded that it is approximately two acres. 024 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) In response to questions from Board members, Mrs. Flowers said that she did not have a septic system on this property. She said that her sister had an outside toilet there. She stated that the water had been very good, but some children put chairs and other things in the well, and her sister couldn't get it cleaned. In the meantime, she had another well installed. The Health Department, however, said the water was not good for drinking. Mr. Fisher asked if the house is being lived in now. not. Mrs. Flowers responded that it was Mr. Fisher asked if it is in good repair, and Mrs. Flowers stated that she is planning to get it repaired and is planning to occupy it. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to set a public hearing for November 12, 1986 at 10:00 A.M. to amend the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Tax Map 60A, Parcel 09-20, for water and sewer service to the existing structure only. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discussion so roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENCES: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 8. Set Public Hearing to extend Albemarle County Service Authority water service areas to include Meriwether Lewis School site for water service only. The following memo, dated October 1, 1986, was received from the County Executive: "Attached is information regarding a request from the Albemarle County School Board to extend the service area of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) to the Meriwether Lewis School site for water service only. Staff recommends that you adopt a resolution of intent to amend the juris- dictional area of the ACSA to include Tax Map 58, parcels 69, 69A, 69B, 69G and 69H for water service only. We would suggest that the public hearing for this matter be set for November 5, 1986." The following memorandum, dated September 25, 1986, was received from Mr. John Horne: "I have received a copy of a request to the Board of Supervisors for exten- sion of the~ACSA jurisdictional area for water service only to the new Meriwether Lewis School property. Enclosed you will find a map indicating the property which is composed of a total of five parcels with the main parcel being Parcel 69 on Map 58. This Department is in receipt of site plans which seem to indicate that actual structures would be placed on Parcel 69 and Parcel 69G. It may, however, be more appropriate to approve water service to all the parcels being used as the site in order to provide future flexibility if school structures are to be place on some of the other parcels. Extension of water only service to these parcels for the school facilities would, in the opinion of this Department, not set a precedent for future extensions on the west side of Route 676 for development activities. This extension would be for a clearly needed public facility which could logi- cally be treated as a separate case from a private request in this area. This Department, therefore, has no objections to this request." Mr. David PapenfUse said that the School Division wants the water service basically for fire protection, and they think it is a safer water source for the children. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to set a public hearing for November 12, 1986, to amend the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Tax Map 58, Parcels 69, 69A, 69B, 69G and 69H for water service only to the new Meriwether Lewis School site. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENCES: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Rio Woods Site Plan. Mr. Fisher stated that he had a letter from Mr. Don Wagner, dated October 6, 1986, requesting withdrawal of this appeal. Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Commonality of Personnel Policies. sented the following memo dated October 2, 1986: Mr. Agnor pre- "The School Board has adopted a resolution addressing the principle of consistent treatment of employees which is the same as the policy which you adopted, except for the final sentence. Attached are the two statements for your comparison. In my opinion, the differences in the last sentence are not significant. you prefer that the two be identical, I recommend revision to incorporate the School Board's version because: If (1) Their statement indicates the Boards agree to work cooperatively, and I, therefore, assume the responsibility of the Superintendent and County Executive does not have to be stated; and 025 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 10 (2) The School Board showed more concern with the wording, and any further changes may prolong completion of adoption of the state- ment.'' Mr. Agnor said this is in response to Mr. Way's question about the status of the School Board's adoption of this policy. Mr. Agnor recommended that the policy be left alone or the Board should adopt the School Board's version. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought it was more likely to happen the way it is worded by the Board of Supervisors, but it really didn't make any difference to him. Mr. Bowie said he would support adopting the School Board's version. Mr. Henley said he would support the School Board recommendation and thinks it is a step in the right direction. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to adopt the following resolution. motion. Mr. Henley seconded the RESOLVED, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and School Board agree with the principle that employees of the local government and school division are all County employees, and, as such, should be treated consis- tently, where appropriate and consistent with local policies and State statutes, with regard to salaries, benefits, and other personnel policies. The Boards agree to work cooperatively with each other towards achieving such consistent personnel policies where appropriate. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENCE: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 11. Appropriation: White Hall School. The following memorandum, dated September 30, 1986, was received from Mr. Ray Jones, Deputy County Executive. "For the past several months, the County Attorney's Office and the attorneys for the purchaser of the White Hall School have been finalizing the sale. Sickness and vacations in both law offices has delayed the closing. Initially, the Poats family was to relinquish their rights in the 0.7 acre in a single joint deed which transfers the rights of the County to the purchaser. However, it was decided to prepare two deeds. The first deed is to convey the rights of the Poats family in the 0.7 acre tract to the County, and the second deed is to convey the entire 2.7 acre parcel to the purchaser. This procedure requires an appropriation of $2,500 to buy the Poats' family's interest in the 0.7 acre tract. Then the entire proceeds of the sale ($47,699.99) to Clifford Land Trust would go into the Capital Improvement Fund Balance. Respectfully, you are requested to appropriate $2500 to purchase the Poats' family's interest." Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to adopt the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $2,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 1-1000-11010-702000 entitled Purchase of Property - White Hall School; AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. There was no further discussion. called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Roll was AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. NAYS: None. ABSENCES: Mr. Way. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 12. Donation of Garden Bench in Memory of T. Munford Boyd. The follow- ing memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, dated September 22, 1986. "The Charlottesville-Albemarle Bar Association has requested permission to donate a Rothesay garden bench with Wimbledon bench/coffee table. They will be located adjacent to the Courthouse and in front of the former County Office Building at Court Square. This is being done in memory of T. Munford Boyd, attorney, and professor at the University of Virginia Law School for many years. The benches and location were discussed with and approved by Judge Gerald E. Tremblay. Staff requests your approval of the project. Ail acquisition costs shall be provided by the Bar Association, and the installation will be made under the direction of Bill Sullivan." 0?_.8 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked if it was the same style as the other benches. that it was the same style, but a different manufacturer. Mr. Agnor answered Mr. Fisher commented that he supports this donation. However, it seems to him the Board should put in a clause in this and every case where people are placing something on public property to reserve the right of the County to relocate or to remove it if at some point it becomes necessary. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve a request by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Bar Association to donate a Rothesay garden bench in the memory of T. Munford Boyd, to be located in front of the former County Office Building at Court Square. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENCES: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 13. Report: Clean Water Action Project. Mr. Agnor said that the Board had asked for information on the organization known as the Clean Water Action Project and also a recommendation on the phosphate detergent ban being considered for the next session of the General Assembly. Mr. Bill Norris, Watershed Offi- cial, has prepared a response to both questions, which Mr. Agnor summarized for the Board: "The following information regarding the Clean Water Action Project and the phosphate detergent ban has been compiled as per your request of September 18, 1986. I. Clean Water Action Project The Clean Water Action Project identifies itself as a 'nonprofit organiza- tion employing a full-time professional staff for research, lobbying, citizen organizing, and canvassing.' The 'Project', first established in the early 1970's as a citizens group, is based in twelve states with local offices in Washington, D. C., Richmond, Va., Norfolk, Va., and Baltimore, Md. The Clean Water Action Project is a national organization which works for safe, clean drinking water and to protect citizens from harmful exposure to health threatening toxic chemicals in our waters, communities, and work- places. Acting under the umbrella of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which is the organizing agency for support of the phosphate detergent ban in Virginia, the Clean Water Action Project is seeking support from local citizens in its efforts to: a) b) Prevent and cleanup pollution of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries by providing funding for various Bay watershed-wide efforts, i.e. a phosphate detergent ban; and Protect drinking water supplies by enforcing pollution control and toxic cleanup laws. Contributions, which are solicited door to door by volunteers and Project members, are designated for use for research and to organize, canvass, and lobby elected officials and appropriate authorities. Correspondence from Mr. Richard M. Johnson of the Richmond office of the Clean Water Action Project indicates that they view the passage of resolu- tions in favor of the ban on phosphate detergents in Virginia as being a key ingredient in the statewide push for the ban. Mr. Johnson has made a personal plea to the Charlottesville City Council in an effort to gain support for such a statewide ban. II. Phosphate Detergent Ban There is currently a statewide effort underway to gain support for the passage of a statewide phosphate ban. Senate Bill No. 248 offered on January 21, 1986, by Senator Joseph V. Gartlan is currently before the Senate Committee on Education and Health. This bill would prohibit the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of 'any cleaning agent that con- tains more than 0 to 0.5 percent phosphorus by weight expressed as elemental phosphorus' with certain exceptions. A review of the available data shows that a phosphate detergent ban could provide an immediate reduction in phosphorus levels reaching the Bay and could be enacted in a matter of months and used as an interim control strategy while the more expensive and time consuming sewage treatment plan improvement program was being enacted and completed. A phosphate detergent ban in Virginia should be considered as part of the overall nutrient control strategy to improve the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries and should be supported." Mr. Lindstrom said he was unable to make arrangements for anyone to come from the Clean Water Action Project. 027 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 12 Mr. Fisher said what convinced his VACo committee to support the ban was the results of the Maryland experience with the ban. Just by adoptitng the ban, there was a substantial reduction in the amount of phosphorous loading going into the streams and Bay without any major capital expenditure. The only other choices were for all the other cities and counties and towns to come up with millions of dollars in expenditures to increase treatment facili- ties so they could remove some of the phosphorous, and that would take approximately five years to accomplish. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution. Mr..Bowie seconded the motion. WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program found nutrient enrichment to be a major threat to the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries; and WHEREAS, research indicates a significant source of the nutrient phosphorus entering the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from point sources is laundry detergents and cleaning agents; and WHEREAS, Virginia has identified a "tentative" goal of reducing phos- phorus loadings to the Chesapeake Bay by twenty percent below 1980 levels; and WHEREAS, it is estimated that a phosphate detergent ban would reduce the phosphate loadings from sewage treatment plants by twenty to thirty percent; and WHEREAS, phosphate detergent bans have been passed in Maryland and the District of Columbia, which together with Virginia, surround the Chesapeake Bay; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, supports the adoption of a phosphate detergent ban in the Commonwealth of Virginia as part of a nutrient control strategy to improve the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. There was no further discussion. ing recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow- AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENCES: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 14. Water Testing: Public Facilities. October 3, 1986, was received from the County Executive. The following memorandum, dated "In the spring of 1985, there were concerns raised about the water quality from the well serving Stone Robinson School. From those discussions, staff recommended and you concurred, with the monthly water testing (rather than quarterly) of well systems at all County facilities. Staff had also indi- cated at that time, that once baseline data had been established for a year and no significant water quality problems arose, we felt it would be advis- able to return to quarterly water tests. Over this past year, the Education, Parks and Recreation, and Staff Services departments have conducted monthly tests and no water quality problems have been identified. Staff would therefore recommend that all water testing return to a quarterly sampling and testing frequency." After Mr. Agnor briefed the Board on the County water testing program, Mr. Lindstrom asked whether there were any County facilities that were close to land uses that may cause possible groundwater problems. Mr. Agnor said he was not aware of any. He said the testing included everything that the County had in the way of wells. The only property that testing has not been expanded to is the jointly-owned Ivy Landfill. Mr. Lindstrom asked if quarterly testing was done at the Landfill, and Mr. Agnor said "yes." Mrs. Cooke offered motion to accept the staff's recommendation that all water testing return to a quarterly sampling and testing frequency rate. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENCES: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 15. Culpeper County - Request for Zoning Legislation. memorandum, dated October 2, 1986, was received from the County Executive: The following "The County of Culpeper has requested Albemarle to support the Virginia Association of Counties endorsement of legislation which would allow sunset zoning. Culpeper County is proposing this legislation in order to eliminate speculative zoning requests by placing time limits on a rezoning request. Presumably, if development of the property has not occurred within the time constraints required, the property's zoning would revert back to the origi- nal zoning category it held prior to the rezoning request. O28 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 13 While unfamiliar with the advantages and disadVantages of sunset zoning, staff would note that an applicant could possibly proffer such a time limitation if the concern of zoning speculation in a particular area were an issue." Mr. Fisher said he did not quite understand how it would work or whether there would be legal problems. He said that some of the other counties have indicated that there are other ways of accomplishing this, such as conditional zoning. He said sUnset zoning is supposed to discourage speculative rezoning requests. Mr. Fisher said he would not recommend that the Board take a position to support this request at this time. The Board of Supervisors decided to take no action at this time to endorse legislation to allow sunset zoning at the local government level. Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Bicentennial of the Constitution. The following memorandum, dated October 2, 1986, was received from the County Executive: "Attached for your review and consideration is a staff report outlining the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U. S. Constitution, and the process for becoming a designated 'Bicentennial Community'. As the report indi- cates, a local committee, appointed by the Board, would be responsible for planning and implementing Bicentennial events over the three year period 1987-1989. During this time the Federal Commission will act as a clearinghouse for Bicentennial activities, while the Virginia Commission will be encouraging the formation of local committees by providing ideas and suggestions for Bicentennial projects. The local committee will secure designation as a Bicentennial Community by submitting an outline of their plans to the Virginia Commission. Included in this report are recommended actions for the County to take in appointing a local Bicentennial Committee. Highlights of the recommenda- tions are: Establish a Charlottesville/Albemarle Committee on the Bicentennial consisting of no more than 10-12 members, half appointed by each jurisdiction. 2. The Committee should be representative of the following groups: 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 County/City government Local judicial system School system Historical Society Chamber of Commerce and/or Visitors Bureau Monticello/Ash Lawn University of Virginia Local historians Civic groups Citizen representatives e The Committee should be responsible to the Board and City Council with all projects and plans subject to Board and Council approval. The Chairperson should be responsible for submitting the application for Bicentennial designation to the Virginia Commission with prior approval of the Board and Council. The local Bicentennial Committee should meet with members and/or staff of the Virginia Commission. The Charlottesville City Council has received a similar staff report on the Bicentennial Commission and, although no official action has been taken, Council has agreed to the concept of establishing a local Bicentennial Committee." Following is a memorandum from Mrs. Roxanne White, Administrative Assistant, dated October 1, 1986: "The purpose of this memorandum is to provide background information about the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, to outline the process of becoming a designated 'Bicentennial Community', and to submit recommendations for the creation of a local Bicentennial Com- mittee. The Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution was established by an Act of Congress to promote and to coordinate activities across the country in celebration of the 200th Anniversary of the United States Constitution. The purpose of the three-year celebration is to give the people a deeper understanding of the Constitution, the freedom it guarantees and the civic responsibilities it requires; in short, as stated by the Chairman, former Chief Justice Burger, to provide 'a history and civics lesson for all of us'. Although national events and publicity are planned, the major function of the Federal Commission will be to encourage state and local commissions October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 14 to sponsor commemorative events, and to act as a clearinghouse for informa- tion and activities across the country. The Commission has recommended that activities scheduled during the Bicen- tennial years reflect the following framework: 1987: Framing the Constitution: Celebrations should focus on events leading up to the Convention in Philadelphia in 1987. September 17 is expected to be the highlight, and possibly a national holiday. 1988: Ratifying the Constitution: the dates of ratification. Celebrations will be planned around 1989: Establishing a Government: Commemoration activities should focus on the historical development of the three branches of government under the Constitution. On the state level, Commissions are forming in all fifty states; the Virginia Commission, chaired by A. E. Dick Howard at the University of Virginia Law School, has been active since August, 1985. The Secretariat for the Commission is located at the Institute of Government at the Univer- sity of Virginia, and is directed by Professor Timothy O'Rourke and his staff. In addition to encouraging the formation of local committees across the state, the Virginia Commission will offer a statewide public awareness campaign using public service time on radio and television to highlight key provisions of the Constitution, and to remind citizens of the prominent role of Virginians in the drafting of the Constitution and the formation of the new government. As part of their effort to encourage a widespread celebration, the Commis- sion is also sponsoring regional conferences around the Commonwealth to help local groups plan and implement Bicentennial projects. These conferences will begin in December, and should be a valuable resource of information and ideas to any local committee. The Virginia Commission will publish a booklet 'The Ideas Package' next month, which should also be a useful guide for groups thinking about projects and events in 1987. On the local level, counties, cities and towns are being encouraged to join the celebration by becoming designated 'Bicentennial Communities'. A Bicentennial Community is one that 'establishes a committee representative of the community; incorporates a commemorative program to educate its residents about the meaning and significance of the Constitution; and receives official designation from the Federal Commission'. The process of becoming a Bicentennial Community is a fairly simple one, consisting of the following steps: 1) The local governing body appoints members to form a Bicentennial Committee. 2) The local committee submits the application form to the Virginia Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, listing Committee members and indicating plans for Bicentennial events. At the time of the application, projects or events do not have to be formalized; proposed ideas are acceptable. 3) The application, if approved by the State Commission, is sent to the Federal Commission for official designation as a Bicentennial Communi- ty. The Virginia Commission emphasizes that localities should not feel over- whelmed at the prospect of becoming a Bicentennial community. Local commit- tees may determine how and to what extent they want to participate. The Federal and the Virginia Commission do not prescribe specific projects and do not expect elaborate celebrations. Rather, localities are encouraged to sponsor events relevant to their history and their population, and to incorporate the Bicentennial into already existing events, e.g. the Albe- marle County Fair, the Dogwood Festival, Fourth of July celebrations, the Casa Italiana Student Exchange Program. Given the supportive framework of the National and the Virginia Bicentennial Commission and the wide discretion given to the local committee in deter- mining the extent and nature of local involvement, the following recommenda- tions are submitted for your consideration. Establish, in conjunction with the City of Charlottesville, a Charlottesville/Albemarle Committee on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution. This committee,will be responsible in planning and organizing local events for the Bicentennial years, 1987-1989, and should consist of no more than 10-12 members. Each governing body will appoint half of the members. The Bicentennial Committee should be representative of the following groups: '(see memorandum from County Executive) This Committee should be able to designate additional persons or groups to work with the Committee as deemed necessary. O3O October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 15 The Committee should be responsible to the Board of Supervisors and City Council. Any specific activities, plans, or programs developed by the Committee should be reported to the Board and Council for approval. The Chairperson of the Committee should be responsible for submitting the application for official Bicentennial Community designation to the Virginia Commission. This application should be approved by the Board and Council prior to submittal. The Bicentennial Committee should meet with members and/or staff of the Virginia Commission. The staff has indicated a willingness to do this, and would be a valuable resource for suggestions and project ideas." Mr. Fisher said he had discussed this with the Mayor and he believes City Council thinks this should be done jointly and feels, as he does, that this community should participate. He recommended that the Board approve this as a process, notify the City, and try to get started with appointing members. Mrs. Cooke suggested that the Bicentennial Committee be made up of the following repre- sentatives: one each from the City and County government, and one from the following: the judicial system, historical society, Chamber of Commerce, Monticello, Ash Lawn, and Univer- sity. She said this would cover everything and eliminate the civic group participation. Mr. Fisher suggested that one person from each school system be included. Mrs. Cooke agreed. Mr. Bowie offered motion to establish a local committee on the Bicentennial of the Constitution with membership as noted above. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENCES: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Realized Revenues vs. Estimated Revenues (Five'Year Report). A report from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, and Robert J. Walters, Jr., Deputy Director of Finance, dated October 1, 1986 and entitled "Revenue Comparison", was received and is on file. The report compares actual collections against expected collections from 1981/82 to 1985/86: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SUMMARY REVENUE COMPARISON FOR FISCAL YEARS 1981/82 TO 1985/86 OBJECT DESCRIPTION 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 5 YEAR SUMMARY SUMMARY SUMMARY PERCENT PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE VARIANCE TOTAL VAR GENERAL FUND: GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES: OTHER LOCAL TAXES PERMITS, FEES, LICENSES FINES AND FORFEITURES USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY SERVICES AND RECOVERED COST NON-CATEGORICAL AID-STATE SHARED EXPENSES-STATE CATEGORICAL AID-STATE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES-FED $ 94,539,939 $ 98,964,155 $ 4,424,216 4.68 41.86 35,212,388 40,092,175 4,879,787 13.86 46.17 2,022,602 2,088,967 66,365 3.28 0.63 272,504 340,205 67,701 24.84 0.64 4,887,932 6,267,106 1,379,174 28.22 13.05 2,691,256 3,310,683 619,427 23.02 5.86 1,442,300 1,515,058 72,758 5.04 0.69 5,238,929 5,133,783 (105,146) -2.01 -0.99 6,920,086 6,073,100 (846,986) -12.24 -8.01 44,012 56,326 12,314 27.98 0.12 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $153,271,948 $163,841,558 $10,569,610 6.90 100.00 SCHOOL FUND: USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY SERVICES & MISC. REFUNDS CATEGORICAL AID-STATE CATEGORICAL AID-FEDERAL $ 114,280 $ 183,862 $ 69,582 60.89 -4.45 10,671,712 10,842,539 170,827 1.60 -10.91 42,159,031 41,166,181 (992,850) -2.36 63.43 4,372,036 3,559,087 (812,949) -18.59 51.93 TOTAL SCHOOL FUND $ 57,317,059 55,751,669 (1,565,390) -2.73 100.00 (Mr. Payne left the meeting at 11:09 and returned at 11:11 a.m.) Mr. Jones summarized the report. He said that software was ordered and they now have about four years of data that can be drawn from already in the computer. The software is designed to make cash flow projections, help with cash management, and will help in estimat- zng real property and personal property collections. Mr. Agnor said that the software program was not developed by Albemarle County. It was developed and tested for the Municipal Financial Officers' Association. He said the staff believes it will serve the County's needs. Mr. Lindstrom thanked Mr. Agnor and Mr. Jones for putting this information together. He thinks the money has been needed to provide services to the community. If significantly more 031 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 16 is raised than is needed for the budget process then he feels that the-County has not repre- sented the budget process as well as it should have. In this community, with the kind of growth and economy that has occurred, it is difficult. He said that the County has been fortunate to have this relatively Painless way of raising money for capital improvements, but he doesn't think people are aware Of the tremendous and increasing demand for capital projects. He noted that a substantial amount of money for capital projects has been raised in ways that haven't been specifically obvious to the public, although it has been raised through tax collections. He said that coupled with the fact that although the tax rate has not been raised, the amount of taxes paid has gone up substantially due to reassessments. Because of these two things, he feels that budget estimates should be tightened if possible. Mr. Bowie agreed and said theicharts in the reports were excellent. Mr. Fisher said it appears that collections have gone up from approximately 97 percent to 98 percent over this period of time. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Jones answered "yes." Mr. Fisher said this meansithat the County is collecting one-third of all of the formerly uncollected taxes in the Year that they are levied. Mr. Jones said this is all based on the current year's assessment. He said they are~collecting 97 to 98 percent on the first billing during the non-penalty period. Mr. Agnor said that it had been anticipated that the "set-off debt collection" through the state would generate a lot of money. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the credit card availability has increased collections. Mr. Agnor said "no," that it is more of a convenience, but it hasn't had any effect on theJCounty in terms of the budget. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that on the last page of the report, tax collection percentages for mobile homes are considerably different. Mr. Jones said that has improved. Mr. Jones said that prior to the period in this report, the state changed the law and the assessment process for mobile homes changed. They are now assessed as if they were permanent real estate, but the personal property tax rate is used. Agenda Item No. 18. Other Items Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Agnor discussed the agreement with the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company and said it requires Board approval so that the Chairman should be authorized to sign it. Mr. Fisher said the agreement should specify what equipment is being bought and Mr. Agnor replied that the money is for improvements to the Stony Point Fire Station. "THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this tenth day of October 1986, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. ("Stony Point"); ~W I T N E S S E T H: That for and in consideration of the operation by Stony Point of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during the period of this agreement and the expansion and improvement by Stony Point of its fire station for use during the period of this agreement, the County shall pay to Stony Point Forty-eight Thousand Dollars ($48,000.00), which shall be paid as follows: $48,000.00 from the 1986-87 advance allocation fund to be drawn by October 15, 1986, leaving a balance of $112,000.00 in the fund. This advance of $48,000.00 brings Stony Point's indebtedness to $104,000.00, which shall be paid back as follows. Thereafter, the sum of Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($20,800.00) per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to Stony Point, for a period of five (5) years, beginning with fiscal year 1987-88 and extending through fiscal year 1991-92, from the County's annual grant to Stony Point, so that at the end of the fifth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of One Hundred Four Thousand Dollars ($104,000.00) will have been withheld. If at any time during the term of this agreement, Stony Point is no longer in the business of providing fire-fighting services involving the use of the fire station and the property upon which the fire station sits, identified as Albemarle County Tax Map 48, Parcel 18D (the "Property"), Stony Point covenants that it will convey its interest in the Property, as a volunteer fire company, including all appurtenances thereto and improvements thereon, to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its assigns use the Property for fire-fighting purposes." Mr. Bowie offered motion to authorize the Chairman to execute the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company Agreement. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENCE: Mr. Way. Mr. Agnor said the staff was asked to look at a request from the Virginia Association of Counties as to whether they would use, if the Association made provisions for, a computer information system. This would be a centralized system in .the VACO office in Richmond. It 032 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 17 would be accessible by phone call or letter asking for information on an item of concern. This question would be fed into a computer, and it would provide the information on other localities that had dealt with it and who to contact in terms of getting the information. He said that most local government departments have need for assimilation of that type of information through their state associations. There is no cost to the locality. VACO would pick up the expense. Mr. Agnor indicated to Mr. Dick Hall-Sizemore that Albemarle County's use would probably be limited. Mr. Fisher commented that he did not think the VACO Board 'had considered this idea. is something the regular staff is exploring. ~ It Mr. Agnor asked for a'briefing from the County Attorney about drug seizures. He said that in Mr. St. John's research, he found that the effort .that was made last year had been cut off by the General Assembly with legislation that went into effect the.first of July this year. He said that there was a section in the State Code that allowed motor boats and vehicles seized in drug raids to be used for local law enforcement purposes. Mr. St. John indicated that that section of the State Code is nOt constitutional. But having already been adopted by the General Assembly, there was no reason it could not be amended to include monies that were also seized as a result of drug sales. After the General Assembly was advised that the early enactment of that section of the code was not in compliance with the Constitution, they added a provision not to allow access to funds or even to proceeds of any assets that were seized in drug sales. They changed it to read that only motor vehicles and boats could be used by court order and then for only 90 day periods of time after which time they would be disposed of as any other property, and the proceeds would go to the State Literary Fund. Mr.. Agnor said he had appeared before a VACO committee and asked them to put that legislative request on hold. The only solution to this is to ask for a constitutional change that would allow proceeds to be used for local law enforcement purposes. The VACO committee felt that the emphasis they could give was that the funding of local law enforce- ment agencies for drug purposes in terms of either national, state or local program should be funded through the 599 funds to local police departments and through the Compensation Boards to local sheriff's departments and not try to seek an amendment, because that would open up other questions about revenues to the Literary Fund. Mr. Agnor recommended that it be dropped from the requests to VACO for legislative support. He Said this was initiated several years ago at the request of the State Sheriff's Association, and~it has been batted around in several localities, but none of them are of a mind to try..to get a constitutional change. ~' : ~"-'-' Mr. Bowie said he had appeared several times to testify on this ~articular point. Unfortunately, the General Assembly law was unconstitutional, and they made it constitutional by giving nothing. He thinks it is dead as a legislative matter, and there is not enough support for a constitutional amendment. Mr. Tucker spoke about 'two other legislatiVe requests. They dealt with impact fees and the family division problems. He has learned that Prince William and Fairfax Counties have had problems with the family-division matter, and they have done a lot of work trying to find solutions. Basically, the committee has asked that those localities who have had problems go back and document them in order that some language can be developed and supported before the General Assembly. (Note: Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 11:45 A.M.) Mr. Tucker said the impact fees were supported by the committee and Prince William, as well as others. He stated that this is one of the areas the Commission on Transportation for the 21st Century is promoting in raising revenue, but for roads only. He said that what the counties are proposing is that the impact fee for new development could be utilized for any new services. Mr. Fisher said that there are two different kinds of proffered zonings available in the state. The kind that's available in Northern Virginia allows the counties to accept cash as one of the proffers for a rezoning, and that cash has to be dedicated for the use of fixing public facilities that have to be expanded because of the development. That is a form of proffered zoning that is not available to the other counties in Virginia. Mr. Fisher said the committee has recommended that both forms of proffered zoning be enabled to all counties .if they want to use it. Mr. Tucker said the other proffer available in Northern Virginia allows them to accept road improvements as part of a proffer. Mr. Agn°~ said the staff now has preliminary floor plans of the band room area from the 'architect. The Municipal Band has been notified in terms of their lease that they need to vacate the band room itself. He said the staff had received a letter recently from the Municipal Band asking for a three year delay. He then met with Mr. James Simmons, and he indicated that the accommodations are satisfactory to them. He expects this request to go to bid in November and will bring the bids back to the Board'i~ December. They hope~to award a contract for construction to start in the winter. Mr. Ed Bauer proposed a topic for the Supervisors' meeting next week'With 'the School Board. He said the topic is why there is not a goal for the school division that deals with the quality of education. He commented that at its last meeting, the School Board adopted a set of goals for the school division. They adopted five of them which dealt with making consistency in the curriculum throughout the~schools, analyzing the guidance program, having better salaries and incentive programs for the teachers and administrators, implementing the capital improvement plan and increased minority hiring. Superintendent Overstreet said the first thing they intended to do with these goals was to set individual performance goals for each of the administrators in the school division. Mr. Bauer said it seems to him that something about quality education should be the number one priority in a school system's 033 October 8, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Paeg~18 goals. He would like to see Albemarle County as one of the outstanding school systems in the country as far as the academic content of its curriculum. Mr. Fisher said he thought Mr. Bauer had posed a good question, but he doesn't know how you tell whether or not you have quality. He said everybody tries to find a merit test by which to determine the quality of education. He noted that practically everything that he has looked at has been somewhat subjective. But, he doesn't think it should be ignored. Agenda Item No. 19. Executive Session: Property Matters and Personnel. At 11:53 A.M., motion was made by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Henley to adjourn into executive session to discuss property and personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley. NAYS: None. ABSENCES: Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:40 P.M. Agenda Item No. 20. With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Bowie offered motion to adjourn until October 15, 1986 at 2:30 P.M. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley. NAYS: None. ABSENCES: Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. CHAIRMAN