1987-04-08. 368
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page ~)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, ~was
on April 8, 1987, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
trlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 10:09 A.M.),
~srs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve 4.1 and to
the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Mr. Way seconded the
:ion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
gS: MeSsrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
IA~S: None.
~B~ENT: Mrs. Cooke.
~ Item 4.1. Street Signs - Langford Subdivision. Street signs were purchased for
~a~gford Subdivision by the developer in 1979. Some of those roads are now maintained by the
"-Lte. The following resolution was adopted in order to afford future State maintenance of
~se signs:
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the
following roads in Langford Subdivision:
Churchill Lane (State Route 1631) at its intersection with 1-64 front-
age road (F-177);
Langford Place (State Route 1630) at its intersection with 1-64 front-
age road (F-177);
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 Transpor-
tation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above
mentioned street signs.
Item 4.2. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated April 1, 1987,
entitled "Status Report on 1987 Reassessment Reviews," received as information as follows:
"In December 1986, the Real Estate Division of the Finance Department mailed
out 25,691 notices of new appraisals on the taxable real estate in Albemarle
County. The appraisals are effective for tax purposes for the tax year
1987. Three meetings were held during the month of January and February
1987, for the citizens to discuss their appraisals with staff.
The following data summarizes the citizen responses to date:
Number Percent
Total Notices Mailed 25,691
Telephone Calls-Office Staff 525
-Appraisal Staff 263
Office Visits by Citizens with Appraisers 104
Appraisers Field Review 135
Adjustments in Value by Appraisers 90
Appeals to Board of Equalization 5
100.00
2.05
1.03
0.41
0.53
0.35
0.02
The Board of Equalization will conduct its review of the five requests on
April 2, 1987."
Item 4.3. Letter dated March 26, 1987, from Senator Paul Trible, concerning the Coun-
ty's request for extension of the HUD Moderate Rehabilitation Program Grant, received as
information. Senator Trible said he would be pleased to write HHS in support of the County's
request.
Item 4.4.
tion.
Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for March 24, 1987, received as informa-
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 2)
369
Item 4.5. Superintendent's Memo No. 7, from Mr. S. John-Davis, Superintendent of Public
Instruction, dated March 25, 1987, entitled "Emergency Regulations - Literary Fund," received
as information.
Item 4.6. Superintendent's Memo No. 8, from Mr. S. John Davis, Superintendent of Public
Instruction, dated March 25, 1987, entitled "1986-87 Employer Contribution Rates for Virginia
Supplemental Retirement System (VSRS)," received as information.
Item 4.7. Copy of "County of Albemarle - Report on Audit for the Year Ended June 30,
1986, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court" from the Auditor of Public Accounts,
received and on file in the Clerk's Office.
Item 4.8. Copy of "City of Charlottesville - Report on Audit for the Year Ended
June 30, 1986, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court" from the Auditor of Public
Accounts, received and on file in the Clerk's office.
Item 4.9. Notices from State Corporation Commission dated March 16 and March 20,
1987, re: Petition of Reynolds Metals Company for a declaratory order that it is entitled to
refunds from Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc., received as information.
Item 4.10. Copy of "Columbia Gas System Annual Report, 1986," received and on file in
the Clerk's office.
Item 4.11. Memorandum dated April 1, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County
Executive, re: Regional Public Session of Virginia Fire Services Board, in which he noted
that a meeting will be held in Culpeper on April 23, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., to provide governing
bodies the opportunity to express their local needs for fire service, received as
information.
Item 4.12; Copy of Letter dated March 23, 1987, from Delegate George F. Allen to G.
William Thomas, of HUD, re: Albemarle County Low Income Housing Rehabilitation Program,
received as follows:
"As you know, Albemarle County was awarded a grant by your department to develop
240 low income housing units under the Moderate Rehabilitation Program. The effort
to locate and identify landlord-tenant relationships that could benefit from this
salutary process has just recently received necessary leadership. Specifically, a
low income housing coordinator has been placed in charge of this effort.
As you are also aware, the grant expires on June 30, 1987. I would sincerely
appreciate, if possible, that this grant be extended for one year. The reasons
generally and specifically are two:
1. Albemarle County needed some time to determine an effective and efficient
way to "market" these grants. This is and was a new concept for the local
government to handle. Albemarle County has, with the assistance of your
program manager, Charles Gardner, begun a concerted and well directed effort
to effectuate the goals of this program. However, it is doubtful that the
entire goal can be achieved in the next few months. More active outreach is
finally being performed.
2. Albemarle County has reached an agreement with a non-profit concern to
rehabilitate and develop the old Scottsville School for housing of the elder-
ly. 34 housing units would be created in this brick and block school. Unfor-
tunately, one requirement necessary for this project is one-half completion of
the Scottsville levy along the James River. Such half completion is not to be
completed until July of 1987, after the present deadline of this Program.
With a one year extension, this project can be achieved.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that you deem it prudent and
desirable to extend the Moderate Rehabilitation Program in Albemarle County for one
year.
Thank you for your always kind and thoughful assistance and care."
Item 4.13. Copy of letter dated April 2, 1987, to Munsey S. and Jean S. Whelby, stating
that Woodstock Hall Tavern was entered on the National Register of Historic Places on Janu-
ary 29, 1987, received as information.
Item 4.14. Notice from Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, dated April 1, 1987, noting
that an application had been filed with the State Corporation Commission to revise its rate
schedule to its industrial customers, received as information.
Item 4.15. Copy of News Release from the National Park Services, re: "Shenandoah
National Park Proposal for Gypsy Moth Management Actions for 1987," received as follows:
"Gypsy moth populations in Shenandoah National Park have reached the level
that management actions are needed to control these exotic pests in some of
370
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
the Park's visitor use areas. Park Superintendent Ronald N. Wrye states
that, 'the National Park Service finds it necessary to exercise the full
range of control techniques this year in order to protect these areas from
severe impacts. Extremely high gypsy moth larva populations are expected
this spring in Mathews Arm Campground, the Dickey Ridge Developed Area, and
the Elkwallow Picnic Area. These areas must be treated in order to keep
them open for public use and to protect area resources from high levels of
tree mortality.'
The Park's first Gypsy Moth Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan was
approved in 1984. In 1985 and 1986, several IPM strategies were used to
deal with the presence of this pest. This year, according to Superintendent
Wrye, the aerial and ground application of biological pesticide is pro-
posed to be included in the control program.
The Park's proposed gypsy moth annual management activity program contains
the following actions:
(1) Protection of Foila~e and Related Resources: This entails the treat-
ment of approximately 20 acres in the Dickey Ridge Developed Area with
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a biological pesticide. Treatment will be
done with ground spray equipment. Approximately 1800 acres encompassing the
Mathews Arm Campground, Piney River Developed Area and Elkwallow Picnic Area
are scheduled to be aerially treated with Bacillus thuringiensis.
(2) Reduction of Artificial Spread: The allowable length of stay in the
Campground may be reduced from 14 days to 2 days during critical time
periods to reduce the risk of gypsy moth life stages being carried by
campers to uninfested areas.
Campers will be required to inspect their equipment and vehicles prior to
departure. All gypsy moth egg masses located will be removed.
(3) Population Monitoring: Gypsy moth population levels will be monitored
each year. This information will be used to evaluate potential resource
impacts and to determine what control actions will be needed.
(4) Habitat Management: Whenever possible, the developed zones in the Park
will be managed to reduce the preference of these areas as gypsy moth
habitat. This may include the reduction of the total number of trees, their
distribution in these zones, or the removal of preferred food trees and
subsequent replacement with tree species that caterpillars will not feed on.
The overall objective will be to reduce the likelihood of gypsy moth larva
populations reaching such high numbers in the future."
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes:
December 3 (Afternoon), 1986.
June 5 and June 12, 1985; February 12, and
Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of June 5, 1985, page 13 to the end, and February 12,
1986, pages 1 through 9, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Way offered motion to approve those minutes which had been read. Mr. Bowie seconded
the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters. Update on 1986 Road Study. The following memo-
randum, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated April 2, 1987, was received as
follows:
"Attached is an update regarding the four secondary roads which the staff
was assigned the task of attempting to gain acceptance into the State system
(North Berkshire Road, Peyton Drive, Milton Drive and Dunromin Road). You
will note that neither North Berkshire nor Peyton Drive adjoining property
owners have responded to our request for participation in funding the
improvement of these roads. We have received many calls recently however
regarding the need for improvement of Peyton Drive, and will discuss the
disposition of this street with you verbally on April 8.
The section of North Berkshire Drive in question abuts only two property
owners (both absentee owners) but is located between two sections of North
Berkshire Drive which are currently in the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation's system. While it serves as a through street it has not been a
problem (maintenance, snow removal, etc.) to our knowledge. This will also
be discussed verbally at your April 8 meeting.
Milton Drive has eleven out of thirteen abutting property owners willing to
participate in the upgrading of the roadway. This leaves two property
owners who would need to be assessed for their equal share ($1,130.77/lot).
Board guidance on proceeding with an assessment is needed.
There are some additional problems, however, that should be resolved before
proceeding with an assessment:
371
April 8, 1987 (.Regular Day Meeting)
(Pag~ 4)
A portion of Milton Drive, beyond the proposed cul-de-sac, should be
considered for vacation. As it exists, the dedicated portion of Milton
Drive abuts a 915 acre tract of land. It appears, however, that the
best access to this 915 acre tract is from U.S. 250 East.
Lots 7, 9, and 10 (see attached plat) will require dedication of a
portion of each lot for the construction of the cul-de-sac as well as
some minor drainage easement dedication.
Should the Board wish to proceed with the improvement of Milton Drive, staff
would recommend that you adopt a resolution of intent to vacate a portion of
Milton Drive as described on the adjoining plat. Although an April 1
deadline for obtaining all necessary funding and right-of-way from property
owners was set when you authorized these projects, the problems are fairly
complicated, and that target date will require adjustment. A completion
date of June 30, which was also set, may be attainable, and remains a
project date for staff's target."
The following memorandum to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., from Mr. Michael H. Armm, Direc-
tor of Engineering, dated March 30, 1987, was also received:
"On September 10, 1986, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution appro-
priating funds to pay one-half of the actual cost of construction for four
roads in the County. I wish to bring you up-to-date as to the status of
each of the four roads.
1) North Berkshire Road
There are only two properties which adjoin the North Berkshire Road project.
There has been no response to the September 12, 1986, letter to these
property owners from Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
2) Peyton Drive
Peyton Drive is abutted by six properties. There has been no written
response from any of the six properties regarding the resolution passed by
the Board. I have, however, received a telephone call from Mr. Jim Hill
regarding this project. Mr. Hill has asked if this road could in fact be
vacated rather than improved. Another phone call was received from the
owner of a third parcel abutting Peyton Drive also requesting that the
right-of-way be abandoned and the road be physically closed. In my recent
discussion with you, I believe you have brought up several good points that
this road is critical for through traffic movements and a public transit
route. It may be feasible to vacate Peyton Drive if and when Commonwealth
Drive is extended through to Greenbrier Drive. In summary, there has been
no interest by any of the landowners in taking part in a road reconstruction
project.
3) Milton Drive
The County has received funds for the reconstruction of Milton Drive from
eleven of the thirteen abutting property owners. The sum of money put up by
the eleven owners is equivalent to 50 percent of eleven-thirteenths of the
estimated project cost. This leaves the necessity to assess two of the
thirteen property owners at this time. Based on the three forms of assess-
ment outlined in Mr. Fred Payne's letter to Mr. Guy Agnor, dated September
25, 1986, I would recommend that the amount of the assessment be paid by an
equal share for each lot. The eleven property owners who have already taken
part in this project have requested that this method of assessment be used.
In supplying funds to the County they have split this amount equally among
eachilot. After reviewing Mr. Payne's letter and speaking with neighbors
along Milton Drive, I believe this would be the most equitable method of
assessment. I have included with this memo a plat of the Milton Drive
subdivision showing which lots need to be assessed by the Board.
4) Dunromin Road
I am happy to report that this project has completed construction within the
engineering estimate. The 50 percent share has been paid by the abutting
property owners. We are waiting for the signature of one of the property
owners on a drainage easement prior to this road being accepted by the
Virginia Department of Transportation."
Mr. Tucker discussed briefly with the Board the four secondary roads attempting to gain
acceptance into the State system.
Mr. Bowie asked if property owners had agreed to dedicating the right-of-way for the
cul-de-sac on Milton Drive. Mr. Tucker answered that the engineering staff has discussed
that there will be a need for some dedication, but the final engineering has not been done.
He pointed out where the proposed cul-de-sac will be and discussed the best access route.
Mr. Agnor stated that he thinks that proceeding with assessment of the two landowners on
Milton Drive who are unwilling to pay would follow a Public Hearing on abandonment of that
part of the roadway. He asked if the Board wanted to review the assessment process.
372
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Bowie said that at his last contact with the Milton Drive residents, he had the
impression that there was no problem with the cul-de-sac. Mr. Tucker said staff is only
worried about the absentee owners.
Mr. Fisher asked what time period the property owners would have to pay the assessment.
Mr. Tucker said it can be done over a period of time on a monthly basis.
Mr. Fisher asked if the absentee owner lots are developed. Mr. Bowie said that Lot 9 is
vacant and may not be developable, but the other one is occupied.
Mr. Fisher said if everyone else is willing to pay the funds and the process is avail-
able, the County will pay half of the assessment. He suggested moving forward with this
project, and asked Mr. Bowie's opinion. Mr. Bowie said he would rather not get into the
assessment until problems with the cul-de-sac have been worked out. Mr, Tucker said the
Board could proceed with the vacation of a portion of Milton Drive as long as Lot 11 is
provided with access. There has to be a public hearing, anyway.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion that the Board hold a public hearing to vacate a portion
of the right-of-way of Milton Drive from the end of the proposed cul-de-sac to end of the
property line of Lot 11, leaving an easement for Lot 11, with the resolution of building the
cul-de-sac for a later date, and also proceeding with the necessary assessments. Mr.
Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Mr. St. John said the staff has found that this subdivision was platted before there was
a subdivision ordinance in effect. Therefore, there was never any governmental approval of
the plat before it was recorded, so the mere recording of the plat does not constitute a
dedication and acceptance of the road right-of-way. The County has never accepted this road
as being dedicated to public use. Instead of the Board vacating a portion of the plat, it
might be best to affirmatively accept the dedication of the part of the right-of-way neces-
sary. He said the resolution can be drafted to do one or the other. He pointed out that if
an ordinance is drafted there must be a public hearing, but if there is a resolution ,of
acceptance, that can be done just by resolution.
Mr. Tucker asked who actually owns the right-of-way, and Mr. St. John responded that the
landowners own to the center of the road, but it had been dedicated by the owners who owned
it when the subdivision was platted. That has never been revoked and cannot be revoked. In
a situation where recordation does not constitute conclusive acceptance by the governing
body, then there has to be some act by the governing body affirmatively accepting the dedica-
tion. He reminded Board members that there is an approval system where the agent's signature
goes on the plat, and that constitutes acceptance. Mr. St. John said if the public has been
using the road, and there is a de facto acceptance already, it could be abandoned, but that
decision has to be made.
There was no further discussion.
ing recorded vote.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Tucker next discussed North Berkshire Road and said that this roadway is a connector
road which is in the County, but is tied into the City. There is one portion between two
property owners that has never been taken into the State system. He stated that the. road had
not deteriorated, and it would take only a small amount of money to bring it into the system.
Staff has had no response from the two property owners for their 50 percent share. The staff
recommends that the road be brought into the system at the total amount of $3800.
Mr. Tucker said it would cost between $16,000 and $17,000 from the property owners and
the same amount from the County to improve Peyton Drive. But, staff has had no response from
the property owners. He mentioned several alternatives for improvement, and said it is a
very important connector road. He said staff has received a letter from the Highway Depart-
ment stating that revenue sharing funds can be used with the County's funds to upgrade roads
that are not now in the Six-Year Plan. Peyton Drive and North Berkshire Road may be eligible
for that type of sharing. Mr. Jeff Echols, Assistant Resident Engineer, said that under the
revenue sharing fund law, roads that qualify to be added to the system could be eligible for
the use of revenue sharing funds. Since North Berkshire and Peyton Drive are through roads,
it does appear that that may be an option. He will let Mr. Tucker know later. Mr. Fisher
stated that these two roads have been a problem for a long time, and this may be a way to get
them into the state system. He would like to do it.
Mr. Tucker said he has received several calls about improvements for Peyton Drive. Mr.
Agnor commented that the calls are not a part of any kind of campaign, but it is just the
fact that the road is in bad shape.
Mr. Bowie said his normal reaction is that the people who live on the road should pay,
but this is different because this is a connector road.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that these are not typical residential owners, so he feels they
do not have the same kind of interest that owners would have. He said people who drive this
road are afraid of damaging their cars.
Mr. Lindstrom moved to request the Virginia Department of Transportation to place these
two projects in their revenue sharing program. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
373
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
_~qe 6 )
Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Tucker for his work on the projects, and Mr. Lindstrom thanked
him especially for his work on Dunromin Road. He said the people were happy to get the
construction completed.
Agenda Item No. 6a.
Bellair Homeowners.
Highway Matters:
Presentation by Lockwood Frizzell on behalf of
Mr. William Roudabush said he is a member of the Bellair Homeowners Association and
member of the Board of Directors. He is representing the homeowners instead of Lockwood
Frizzell who was to appear before the Board to see if a study could be initiated of the
traffic problems at the entrance to Bellair. He said there are intersections in every
direction, drivers gets confused, and it's getting worse with the change of the use of
property across Route 250. He asked the Board to initiate some sort of traffic study to see
if anything can be done with remarking of the intersections, signalization, or something to
redirect and guide the traffic in a more efficient manner. He remarked that sometimes it is
fifteen minutes before there is a break in traffic so one can get onto Route 250 East the
Bellair entrance. He does not know the accident rate at that location, but he does not want
to wait until there is a bad accident to look into the possibility of doing something. He
stated that the homeowners would be willing to work with the staff and Highway Department to
look into possibilities and work out a solution. One thing that was discussed at a Home-
owners' meeting recently was the installation of flashing lights to warn people they are
approaching a dangerous intersection.
Mr. Fisher said when this was discussed a few years ago, one of the options mentioned
was to discourage or even deny left turns by east bound traffic wishing to go under the
railroad on Old Ivy Road. Another possibility would be to make Old Ivy Road one way. He
thinks the situation needs to be looked at, especially since the Piedmont Tractor property is
now being redeveloped to a more intensive use, and there is also a lot of new development
further out on Route 250. Traffic generation is much greater than it was five years ago. He
thinks that someone should be contacted in the Department of Transportation to see what can
be done to improve the traffic flow at this intersection.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to request the Highway Department to see what can be done
to improve traffic flow at the intersection/entrance to Bellair Subdivision. Mr. Way second-
ed the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Echols said the Department has already written to their traffic engineer about this
section of Route 250 for an accident update and review of the area along the stretch from the
Route 29/250 Bypass out past the Boar's Head Inn, so they are currently in the process of
updating their information.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters from the Board and Public.
Mr. Bowie inquired again about the bridge on Route 20 North at "Bailey's Curve" and the
bridge further out Route 20 North at Bell's Store. He asked if these projects are still in
the Highway Plan. Mr. Echols responded that "yes," they have both been funded and field
inspections have already been held. He said that at Bailey's Curve at Route 621, they will
build a new drainage structure and improve the sight distance at the intersection of Route
621. It will run several tenths of a mile. Hopefully, construction will start this summer.
Mr. Echols said that the bridge north of Stony Point on Route 20 is a similar type project
and the work will probably begin in about a year.
Mr. Fisher asked about the right turn lane at the corner of Barracks and GeorgetOwn
Roads. Mr. Echols said that project would hopefully go to construction in 1988.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any plan to pick up trash from the Highway rights-of-
way. Mr..Echols said it is periodically done. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned a section running
from the entrance at Colthurst Subdivision into Old Salem Apartments which he thinks is worse
than most. Mr. Fisher brought out the fact that the employees who operate the Ivy landfill
help police Route 637 toward the south so the Department of Transportation gets some help.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what the procedure is if a citizen wanted to get a gravel road into
the State system. Mr. Echols explained that there has to be a minimum of 50 vehicles on the
road a day to qualify. If that is the case, when the person calls the Department of
Transportation, they are instructed to contact the property owners along the road and make
sure people are receptive to the idea. After all the property owners agree, the Department
has a deed approved, meets with them, stakes out the right-of-way, gives them deed forms and
tells them who they need to deal with.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if that is required if there is a lengthy road, and everyone agrees
except for one section. He wondered if the Highway Department would have to do the whole
road or if they could just do a portion. Mr. Echols said they can do only a portion as long
as it is continuous. They have at times taken the right-of-way from one side of the road, if
there are property owners who are not willing or interested in having the road upgraded.
374
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Way discussed a section of road just before the property line of Daniel Van Clief's,
where there is a long hill with four curves and probably eight driveways. He said several
people have talked to him about it, and he had personally almost run into the back of a
school bus. At the bottom of the hill, there is a one lane bridge. He wondered if it would
be possible to at least put up curve signs. Mr. Echols said he would look into this.
Mr. Bowie asked if a curve near Keswick where the visibility has been improved would be
reseeded? Mr. Echols said the seeding had not taken very well and would be done again.
Agenda Item No. 7. Presentation: Southern Urban Area Waterline Extension.
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), was
present. He explained that for the past number of years, the ACSA has been dealing with the
problem of getting water service to the urban ring just south of Interstate 64. In their
study of Avon Street in the Comprehensive Plan, they determined that the most logical option
was a regional approach to providing water to this area. He mentioned that over the past few
years quite a few developments have been approved in the urban areas to the south of the
City, and each project had just enough water to satisfy the immediate needs. Some projects
presently on the drawing board can solve their immediate needs, but it will be costly and
would be a hodge-podge of water improvements around the southern area. About two years ago,
the ACSA asked the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) to study what improvements are
necessary for a regional solution for its urban water system. The RWSA issued the Southern
Loop Water Report about a year ago which called for the construction of a water line. Mr.
Brent pointed out the layout of the water line on a map for Board members to see and noted
that on Avon Street Extended, it is proposed that a four million gallon storage tank be
built.
The ACSA then began negotiating with the City as to how the project could be funded.
They have now reached an agreement with the City that the western leg of the water line be
built first, and rather than a four million gallon storage tank on Avon Street, there will be
a two million gallon tank with reserve space for another two million gallon tank. The
eastern leg will be built at a later date. The City of Charlottesville will bear the cost of
the water line beginning on Observatory Mountain. When the water pipe crosses into the
County, the City stops paying and the ACSA begins paying. One of the conditions in the
contract is that the ACSA will pay for the connector back into Fifth Street only if it is
determined by the engineer to be essential to get water into the pipeline to move it to the
tank. For now, the pipeline stops at Avon Street, but at a future time, when it's determined
that the eastern leg of the project is needed, the ACSA has agreed to participate in that
line with the City. Most of the pipe is in the City limits, and the City will be the initia-
tor of this project because the ACSA will get only a limited amount of the water flowing in
this direction. Two-thirds of the water will flow to the County and one-third of the water
will flow back into the City. Three-fourths of the water in the tank will flow to the County
and one-fourth will flow to the City.
In the final calculation, roughly two-thirds of the cost of the project, or 70 percent,
will be paid by ACSA, with the City pay the other one-third. He said this will allow develop-
ment to proceed in the Avon Street Extended area, and he discussed how this area is expand-
ing. Mr. Brent summarized the report by saying that the western leg and one of the tanks
will be built immediately and the eastern leg will be built at some point in the future.
Mr. Way asked how far south the line goes on Avon Street. Mr. Brent showed the Board
members an aerial photograph that showed where the lines and and storage tank are to be
located.
Mr. Fisher asked about recovery of the funding being put into this project. Mr. Brent
responded that the first phase of the project, which is the western leg and the storage tank,
is approximately $2,000,000. The Albemarle County Service Authority has some resources
available to put into that project immediately. He also said that they will issue bonds, and
the Rivanna Authority will be servicing all the debt. He anticipate that the ACSA will be
paying for their portion of the project through an increase in both new connection fees and
user fees. He said that there is not a good summer's day supply of water in storage now. He
believes this project will be justified on the need for storage if nothing else.
Mr. Agnor reminded the Board that the Four-Party Agreement made provision that either of
the two customers of the Rivanna Authority could request a project, and then it would be up
to the customer who asked for it to pay for it. In this case, the County initiated the
request, but the benefits are for both customers, so negotiations were carried on between the
two utility users. The Rivanna Authority waited until negotiations had occurred and took a
look at its overall impact to the Rivanna restructuring. He believes the Rivanna rates will
be adjusted by a small amount.
Mr. Brent said the City and ACSA will be billed in a lump sum rather than allocating it
on a per thousand gallon basis. He estimates that in two years, when the western leg is
likely to be in place, if it is split with half of the money on new connection fees and half
on user fees, it will probably add 35 to 40 cents a month to the typical residential
customer.
Mr. Fisher asked if all of the lines and storage tank will be within the current service
areas. Mr. Srent answered "yes."
Mr. Fisher asked if this project needs to be incorporated into the Four-Party Agreement.
Mr. Agnor said, "no." Mr. Brent said the contract between the Albemarle County Service
Authority and the City will establish the pay-back mechanism through the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority.
(Mrs. Cooke arrived at 10:09 A.M.)
375
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 8)
Mr. Lindstrom asked how much of the County has been photographed on aerial photographs.
Mr. Horne replied that the entire County has recently been flown for black and white
reproducible photos on the same scale as the tax maps. Mr. Lindstromtthen inquired as to who
furnished the aerial photographs, and Mr. Horne replied that it was Life Management, Inc.
Agenda Item No. 8. Leaf Collection Feasibility Study, Discussion of. The following
report dated April, 1987 was prepared by the County Engineering Department:
"At the November 12, 1986, Board of Supervisors' meeting, the issue of
debris, brush, and leaf burning was raised. A request was made to study the
feasibility of leaf collection within the densely populated areas of
Albemarle County, with the intent to alleviate the hazards and conflicts
which accompany leaf burning. Following are the conclusions from the
preliminary study.
Background information was compiled from two government-run leaf collection
systems - the City of Charlottesville and Arlington County. The information
included such things as area and households served, scheduling, equipment
and maintenance, cost estimates, labor crews, and mulch/compose operations.
Letters were sent to private trash haulers to determine the potential
interest of those haulers to become involved in leaf collection. Only one
expressed a strong desire to get involved. A second one showed some inter-
est but didn't follow up with it.
Albemarle has a number of options regarding the extent, if any, to which it
will involve itself in a leaf collection operation. As mentioned at the
Board meeting, a major aspect of the problem is the burning of brush. To
alleviate this problem, it would be necessary to pass an ordinance forbid-
ding brush and debris burning in those areas of concern. People would then
haul or hire private haulers for disposing of brush from land clearing.
In order to control leaf burning, the County's involvement options become
more complex. If an ordinance forbidding brush, debris, and leaf burning is
passed, brush and bagged leaves dumped in the landfill will shorten the life
of the landfill. An accompanying ordinance could forbid the dumping of
bagged leaves in the landfills. In this case, the County could see that
residents have an alternative.
Since service district taxes are not authorized in Albemarle, a problem of
financing a county-run leaf collection system exists. This, in addition to
the logistics of setting up such a system, necessitates the involvement of a
private company.
If the ordinances are passed, and the County decides its involvement ends
there, one can assume that eventually "free enterprise" will take over, and
private companies will see, and fill, the demand for leaf collection
services. However, a large capital investment is necessary to provide such
a service, and it may take several seasons after the passage of the ordi-
nances before private companies are confident enough to make the necessary
investments.
A representative of the one trash hauler showing interest expressed such a
concern. In order to invest in equipment, and possibly land, for a compost-
ing area, they would like a guarantee of the number of household units to be
served. To accomplish this, Albemarle County may want to serve as a facili-
tator by contracting with citizens, taking bids from private haulers, and
then contracting with the private company for the number of interested
households. (Some individuals may not be interested in leaf collection,
electing instead to develop their own compost piles.)
If Albemarle County involves itself to the extent of being a facilitator in
contracting, the County must then decide its role regarding the dumping
and/or composting of the collected leaves. If leaves are picked up bagged,
the equipment investment would be lower, but the problem of those bagged
leaves being dumped in the landfill would exacerbate landfill problems. If
the ordinance forbade such dumping, an alternative, such as land for compos-
ing, must exist.
The trash hauler expressed interest in being responsible for a composting
site themselves. They would purchase land for this purpose with the expec-
tation of some additional revenue through the sale of mulch. Alternatively,
the County may elect to provide a composting area, or an agreement may be
made to use the site used by the City of Charlottesville. These latter
alternatives would mean more administrative involvement by the County.
Another variable regarding the collection service and the ordinances passed
involves the geographic areas to be affected. One option may be the "urban
area" as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. This area, however, includes
some land not yet highly developed, meaning that leaf burning may not yet
present a problem. Instead, the County could develop a map of "high density
areas" to be revised periodically as more land is built up.
In short, Albemarle County must decide the extent to which it is willing and
able to get involved in a leaf collection service. If the leaf burning
problem is not deemed to be extremely severe, the "free enterprise" route
may be the way to go. As private entrepreneurs begin to meet the growing
demand for leaf collection services, the supply of the service should meet
the demand. Involving the County as a facilitator could improve the pro-
cess.''
378
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 92
Mr. Tucker summarized the preliminary report from the Engineering Department. He said
staff needs to know if the Board concurs with the suggestions before it does any further
study. Staff would like to get something accomplished as early in the spring as possible so
that people will know ahead of time if an ordinance is adopted.
Mr. Fisher asked what happens at the landfill if someone shows up with a truck full of
leaves. Mr. Tucker said that there is nothing that can be done now, but if there was an
ordinance, dumping leaves could be prohibited.
Mrs. Cooke said she feels that it is not at all appropriate for the County to get into
the business of providing a hauler for this service. She feels that an ordinance should be
established to prohibit leaf burning. She thinks that once this is done, private enterprise
will capitalize on it, and the business will become competitive. She said that she gets
calls about people piling up leaves and letting them smolder for days. She thinks that this
is irresponsible and believes the individuals need to decide how to get rid of his leaves.
Mrs. Cooke brought out the fact that the County does not have trash pickup, so people have
made a business of this. Wherever there is a need, someone will come forth with a service.
She does not think the County should even consider this.
Mr. Tucker said the question from the staff is whether to proceed in developing not only
an ordinance concerning burning of brush and debris, but also leaf burning.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks there may be a problem with developable land immediately
adjacent to built up areas where the developer may be burning stumps, etc., and the people on
the next property are not allowed to burn anything. Mr. Fisher commented that he is in favor
of trying to find a way of dealing with leaf burning in the highly developed urban areas.
But, he also wants to know how collection of leaves will be dealt with at the landfill, and
with the collection center approach that is being considered for different parts of the
County.
Mr. Bowie asked about service district taxes. Mr. Tucker said the General Assembly has
to give authority for any kind of special district taxes. Mr. Bowie also said that there
would have to be a definition of a high density area. He stated that he went through the
letters received and looked at the ordinances which now exist and found that everything that
some people are doing now is in violation of the current ordinance. He feels that the
ordinances already in existence should be enforced instead of creating new ones. He
mentioned also that he did not want to pass an ordinance where there is no solution. If the
citizens cannot burn their leaves, or put them in a dump, they will probably throw them on
the highway. He feels a deeper solution needs to be worked out other than just passing an
ordinance.
Mrs. Cooke stated that everyone needs to be responsible for his own problems.
government cannot solve everything.
The
Mr. Fisher said basically the County has an ordinance that permits burning under con-
trolled circumstances. That is hard to regulate.
Mr. Tucker said no one is designated to enforce that particular Code section. He said
the Fire Prevention Officer has been called primarily to enforce that sort of thing. The
County would have to "staff up" to have people available at all hours for enforcement.
Mr. Fisher asked if it would be easier to enforce a "no-burning" ordinance. Could the
police do that without having someone in particular designated? Mr. Agnor said they could be
assigned that responsibility, but sometimes that is not perceived as being a function of the
police, who are really dealing with crime. He feels that most people who violate the ordi-
nance do it out of ignorance and they are not trying to violate the ordinance. Usually, they
correct it when it is called to their attention. However, it is easier to enforce an ordi-
nance that states that there will be no burning.
Mr. Fisher said he is not ready to support any ordinance until he sees a draft of an
ordinance and a map. He then suggested that staff draft an ordinance, a map, and information
on the landfill issue for the Board's consideration. Mr. Bowie said he would also be inter-
ested in how the ordinance would be enforced, such as more manpower, more police officers,
inspectors, etc. Mr. Tucker said there is no staff for this. It is a seasonal problem. Mr.
Bowie asked if the staff could get information on service district taxes in that package,
also?
Agenda Item No. 9. Resolution: Clean Community Commission.
Mr. Agnor said that each year the local governments have available to them grants from
the State Division of Litter Control. Each year a resolution is presented indicating that it
is the County's intent to combine with the City to request those funds and to authorize the
Clean Community Commission to plan the program, administer the funds and be the recipient of
the Division of Litter Control allocations. This has to be accomplished before the month of
May so an application for funds can be made. The staff is recommending that the joint effort
with the City be continued.
Mr. Roger Flint was present to answer questions from the Board. He thanked the Board
for its support of the Clean Community Commission and wanted to remind them that the funds
are all from private sources. He asked that credit be given to the Albemarle County Parks
and Recreation Department for its help. He challenged the Board members to join them in
Saturday's annual cleanup "to pick up a new habit." He said the new habit would be to take
a trash bag, get with some people, and go out and pick up litter in the County. He stated
that this year they have added rivers to their cleanup project. He mentioned that the
Piedmont Environmental Council is trying to get certain rivers designated as scenic rivers.
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
377
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
recognizes the existence of litter problems within the boundaries of
Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provides, through the
Department of Conservation and Economic Development. Division of Litter
Control, for the allocation of public funds in the form of Grants for the
purpose of enhancing local litter control programs; and
WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered the Regulation and the Applica-
tion covering administration and use of said funds;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia:
Hereby expresses the intent to combine with the City of Charlottesville
in a mutually agreed upon and Cooperative Program, contingent upon approval
of the ~Application by the Department of Conservation and Economic Develop-
ment, Division of Litter Control, and contingent upon receipt of funds; and
Hereby authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commis-
sion (CAC3) to plan and budget for a cooperative litter control program,
which shall represent said Program for all localities named in this resolu-
tion; and
Further authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community
Commission to apply on behalf of all of the above named localities for a
Grant, and to be responsible for the administration, implementation and
completion of the Program as it is described in the attached Application
Form LC-G-l; and
Further accepts responsibility jointly with the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Clean Community Commission and the City of Charlottesville for all
phases of the Program; and
Further accepts liability for its pro rata share of any funds not
properly used or accounted for pursuant to the Regulations and the Applica-
tion; and
That said funds, when received, will be transferred immediately to the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission or if coordinated by
the Planning District Commission, said funds will be sent directly to the
Planning District Commission by the Department. All funds will be used in
the Cooperative Program to which we give our endorsement and support.
Hereby requests the Department of Conservation and Economic Develop-
ment, Division of Litter Control, to consider and approve the Application
and Program, said Program being in accordance with Regulations governing use
and expenditure of said funds.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie.
by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Set Date to Amend the Tax Relief for Elderly/Handicapped Ordinance.
Mr. Agnor noted that a change is recommended in Section 8-26(b) and Section 8-28(a) of
the County Code in order to align these sections with revisions to the State Code. These
changes relate to how a handicapped citizen is declared eligible for relief. Mr. Agnor
recommended that the Board consider a public hearing to amend this ordinance for the May 13,
1987, Board meeting.
Mr. Way offered motion to set a public hearing for May 13, 1987. Mr. Lindstrom seconded
the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: VSRS Early (55/30) Retirement Plan. The following
memorandum from Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Director of Personnel, dated March 10, 1987, was
received:
"The General Assembly passed legislation effective March 1, 1987, which
would allow County employees who are 55 years of age and who have 30 years
of service under the State Supplemental Retirement System to retire with
full benefits. Previously employees had to be 60 years old with 30 years of
service to qualify for unreduced benefits. The actuaries have concluded
that this change will not increase the basic rate contributed by local
governments. The change is an optional one and employers must notify VSRS
of their election concerning this benefit.
Effective with fiscal year 1986-87, Albemarle County implemented a voluntary
early retirement incentive plan. Essentially, this plan adds five years (of
the number of years to age 65, if this comes first) to the years of service
378
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
____lPaqe 11)
the employee has under VSRS. The plan then pays the difference between the
benefit calculated at each of these points plus the equivalent of the
employee cost of medical insurance. The sixty-fifth birthday was used
because it is at this point that one qualified for social security benefits.
The plan was an incentive for employees to retire prior to the time that
they would receive full social security. Since social security regulations
are not changing, I see no impact of the new VSRS legislation on the Coun-
ty's early retirement plan except, perhaps, that more employees may find it
possible to apply for benefits under the plan. Since all applications for
the plan must be submitted by December 1, we still have time each year to
budget necessary funds.
I recommend that the Board elect to allow its employees to retire at age 55
with 30 years of services with unreduced benefits under the new legislation
affecting VSRS. I would be happy to discuss this with you further at your
convenience."
Mr. Agnor described briefly the plan and said the ultimate result is that there can be a
savings to the locality. Mr. Fisher asked if the 30 year requirement limits the number of
people who would be tempted to take advantage of this, and Mr. Agnor answered, "yes."
(Note: Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 10:44 a.m. and returned at 10:49 a.m.)
Mr. Way offered motion to authorize the staff to notify the Virginia Supplemental
Retirement System that Albemarle County will allow its employees to retire at 55 years of age
with 30 years of service. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Advance Allocation: Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department.
The following memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated April 3,
1987, was received:
"Background - Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company had two previous advanced
funding allocations. The first was in the amount of $100,000 for a fire
truck costing $110,000, with a repayment of $14,500 per year, which was paid
down to $56,500 in FY 84/85. In FY 85/86, a second grant was made in the
amount of $150,000 on an approximately $200,000 fire house. The second
grant increased the annual repayment to $16,000. Currently, the outstanding
balance is $144,000 to be paid out in nine more years.
At your March 18, 1987 meeting, you deferred an additional request from the
Jefferson Country.Firefighters' of $35,000 on a brush truck, which is badly
needed by the Earlysville Fire Company. Your concerns were extending the
years on the contract in lieu of increasing the annual repayment, and
including the list of items covered by the contract.
Staff has discussed this concern with members of the company. Attached is a
letter from the President, Mr. Huckstep, which addresses the situation.
They are requesting that you consider an agreement which adds one year to
the agreement from nine years to ten years, and increases the annual payment
from $16,000 to $17,900. The alternative would be an annual repayment going
from $16,000 to $19,889 which would place a hardship on them. However, due
to the urgent need of the brush truck, they are reluctantly willing to
accept the hardship, if necessary, in order to fulfill the needs of the
community.
Recommendation - Staff believes their compromise offer of increasing the
agreement to ten years with a repayment schedule of $17,900 per year is
reasonable. Staff is very aware of the increased operating costs,
especially insurance costs and repairs and replacements of supplies and
equipment. Also, this is one of the several outlying companies that has
developed a 'first responder emergency rescue calls' service to their
community.
It is recommended that you authorize the Chairman to execute a contract to
be developed by the County Attorney, based on increasing the advance by
$35,000 to $179,000 to be repaid at the rate of $17,900 per year over the
next ten years."
Mr. Agnor stated that the agreement has not been prepared yet.
the lask of preparing an agreement and then having to amend it.
Staff wanted to avoid
Mr. Fisher indicated that he wants the Fire Department to have what it needs. However,
he feels that if money is borrowed for more than ten years for a piece of rolling stock, the
equipment may have to be replaced before it is paid for. He is concerned that loaning one
fire department such a large amount of money will take away from the other departments being
able to borrow what they need. He believes that ten years should be the outside limit for
free borrowing. He does not think that more money can be borrowed without expecting the
repayment amount to go up, but he can go along with this compromise.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to authorize the staff to draw up an agreement increasing
the present agreement with the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department to ten years with a
repayment schedule of $17,000 per year and to authorize the Chairman to execute the contract
3?9
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
to be developed by the County Attorney, based on increasing the advance by $35,000 to
$179,000 to be repaid at the rate of $17,900 per year over the next ten years. Mrs. Cooke
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Resolution: James River Water Supply Plan. The following memoran-
dum from Mr. William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official, was received:
"The General Assembly several years ago passed legislation that requires the
State Water Control Board to prepare plans and programs for the management
of the water resources of the State. Eleven water basin plans are being
developed for the State, as per this legislation.
The plan for the James River Area has been developed by the Water Control
Board staff with the assistance of local and regional representatives.
Locally those serving as advisors on the 'Rivanna' and 'Upper Middle James'
committees were George Williams, William Brent, John Berberich, and myself.
The plan is an inventory of existing facilities, statistics on population
and water demand projections, evaluation of sub-basins to meet water supply
demands to the year 2030, projections on water surplus or deficit in the
sub-basin areas, and local jurisdictional plans or recommendations to meet
projected water needs. The plan adequately reflects this community's
planning for future water supply in the area, i.e. the Buck Mountain project
and expansion of treatment capacity of the South Rivanna plant.
Ail of the eleven plans are scheduled to be presented to the Water Control
Board in June. Prior to that occurring, endorsement of the plans are being
requested from local jurisdictions. Attached for your consideration is a
resolution addressing such endorsement. It includes two issues deemed
important by our local representatives who assisted with developing the
plan. Those issues are:
First, the plan establishes the safe yield of the South Rivanna Reservoir at
10.4 MGD assuming a downstream release of 8.0 MGD. Exception was noted to
this during the course of the plan review and the final report notes that
the RWSA and the localities recognize a 12.0 MGD safe yield from the South
Rivanna Reservoir. (Different safe yield determination techniques are the
cause of this disagreement).
Second, the issue of minimum instream flow is not addressed in the report.
Since there are currently no state wide policies with regard to instream
flow, this is probably logical. However, should stringent minimum instream
flow standards be established, it could alter the use of streams for water
supply purposes and could create economic hardships on future water supply
reservoirs.
Your approval of the resolution is requested, and recommended."
Mr. Bill Norris discussed the plans that were proposed by the State Water Control Board
primarily for the management of the water resources of the State. He stated that local input
was used from all the agencies involved.
Mr. Norris said one item not mentioned in the plan is that of a "minimum instream flow
standard" for the State. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Norris for a definition of "minimum instream
flow." Mr. Norris said that would be a standard setting the amount of water which has to be
in any stream, at all times of the year, below an impoundment. Mr. Fisher asked if there is
not already such a rule for this. Mr. Norris said that there are already rules based on low
flow (basically drought) numbers. This is just another rationale for calculating that
number, and it is calculated in such a way that so much water would have to be released from
the South Rivanna Reservoir that it could not be used for a water supply, and the same thing
could happen to the proposed Buck Mountain facility.
Mr. Fisher said he understands that a stream cannot be blocked keeping all the water and
leaving a dry bed below that point. Mr. Fisher said he did not understand how that is
changed with this proposed rule. Mr. Norris said at this time, the low flow release is
calculated by taking an average of the flow over a ten-year period of time. Mr. Agnor said
he has discussed this with State staff, and they are recommending that the low flow be based
on an average annual flow rather than the seven-day, ten-year low flow which is a much
different process. Mr. Agnor said that the state is looking at thirty percent of the average
annual flow of every stream in the State, and the South Rivanna Dam was built on the basis
that water would be released through that dam on a seven-day, ten-year low flow average,
which is a big difference in quantities. Mr. Fisher asked if that is why there is a differ-
ence on the safe yield. Mr. Agnor answered, "no," the safe yield is based on the number of
gallons collected and stored over the entire water basin.
Mr. Agnor said the instream flow issue is not a part of the plan now. The Rivanna Board
thought it should be mentioned now so as to be on the offensive rather than the defensive at
a later time. The Rivanna Board felt it should be focused on as an issue that the locality
is concerned about on future water supply planning. He called attention to the statement in
the resolution that this issue could cause an economic impact on future water supply plan-
ning. This regulation could require so much storage of water for reservoir purposes that it
would not be financially feasible to build a reservoir capable of handling the average annual
38O
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
~Page 13)
flow. He said that it is feasible to comply with a seven-day, ten-year low flow minimum
instream standard, and if the state should adopt that, the Rivanna Board would be agreeable
since the South Rivanna Reservoir was built to that standard.
Mr. Fisher stated that it sounds as if the State is saying first, they think there is
less water coming into the reservoir than the Rivanna Board thinks, and second, more water
will have to be released than the dam was designed for, both of which could work against this
community from the standpoint of a water supply. Mr. Norris explained that both the existing
supplies and the Buck Mountain Reservoir were designed on a seven-day, ten-year low flow
capacity.
Mr. Fisher suggested that the two statements be put in the "Resolved" section of the
resolution as exceptions, instead of having them in the "Whereas" section. Mr. Bowie said he
agreed with that suggestion. He has been concerned through the whole process that if the
State continued to underestimate the size of the Reservoir, they may ultimately say the
County cannot use the Buck Mountain Reservoir for a water supply when it is ultimately
constructed. He asked if it is to the localities advantage to have the 12 MGD recognized
instead of 10 MGD. Mr. Norris said "yes"; all local planning has been based on the 12 MGD.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for the reasoning behind the change in the instream requirement?
Mr. Fisher said that Hampton Roads and Richmond need more water. Mr. Norris replied that a
proposal was submitted to the State, and they are looking at how water can be distributed
from places that have a surplus to other areas which either do not have water or have not
done advance planning to be sure that they do in fact have water. Mr. Fisher said he hoped
that Charlottesville City Council will join the County in making as strong a statement as
possible. Mr. Norris said he is going to make a joint submittal to the City. The City
Public Works Department has made a similar presentation based on the Rivanna's concerns and
the same resolution. But, he does not think that action has yet been taken.
Mr. Fisher suggested that under the "Now, Therefore Be It Resolved," section of the
resolution, it be noted that the Board of Supervisors takes exception to the two items, and
with these two exceptions, the Board approves the plan.
Mr. Agnor reminded the Board that the "minimum instream flow" is not a part of the new
plan, but Mr. Fisher said he felt it should be stated that the County believes the low flow
should be the ten-year low flow.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the follOwing resolution:
WHEREAS, the Virginia Water Control Board is developing water supply
plans for each river basin in the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Water Control Board has developed a draft of the
James River Water Supply Plan; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has had the opportunity to provide input and
comments into the planning process through local representatives on the
advisory committee,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Super-
visors takes exception to the 10.4 MGD for the safe yield of the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir reflected in the plan and recognizes 12 MGD as being the
current safe yield; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors expresses concern that
the minimum instream flow standard being considered by the Virginia Water
Control Board could affect future water supply planning, and recognizes the
10 year low flow standards currently in use as the minimum instream standard
for the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir;
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors agrees that the plan
appears to be reasonable and should be used as a guide for any water supply
implementation program undertaken within Albemarle County.
There was no further discussion.
ing recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14.
Law.
Set Public Hearing Date to include Huntwood under the Dog Leash
Mr. Agnor noted that a petition had been sent to the Board from the residents of
Huntwood requesting that the dog leash law be expanded to include Huntwood. He said a map
has been prepared showing some of the areas where the dog leash law is in effect, and also
showing the location of Huntwood. He feels Huntwood is a very small area in the much larger
urbanizing area. He pointed out areas close to Huntwood where there is no leash law and said
he thinks the leash law would be difficult to administer and enforce in Huntwood.
Mr. Fisher commented that the issue is whether or not to set a Public Hearing, and if
so, for what area.
Mrs. Virginia Dofflemyer stated that the Huntwood covenants were changed to provide for
dog leash requirements by a majority vote of residents at a recent meeting. There were 31
votes cast for an ordinance, with three voting against. The homeowners are requesting the
Board to enact the dog leash ordinance so the animal control officers can enforce the
requirements. She said the major problem in Huntwood is not with their own property owners,
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paq~ 14)
28!
but with people living in rented properties. Their Board of Directors has no legal responsi-
bility to enforce animal control. She said they do not seem to have any problems with dogs
coming from other areas. They feel that if a leash law is enacted, people will walk their
dog in the common area.
Mr. Way asked about the map that was attached and asked if Mrs. Dofflemyer had numbers
available. She replied there are 60 units, with 58 being occupied. She said ballots were
mailed to all homeowners. She stated that there were 41 signatures in favor and about six
against.
Mrs. Cooke said she would like to make a motion to take this to Public Hearing and she
will support this request. She commented that she lives in an area with a dog leash law and
has lived in an area where there was none. She can say, without reservation, that life is
far more pleasant now with the dog leash law. When pet owners are not responsible for their
pets, then laws have to be passed to control pets. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to set a public
hearing for May 13 on this request. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher brought up a related item that is not on the agenda. This is a request from
the people in the rural parts of his district who are fed up with being attacked by dogs
while running or walking on the public roads. He is beginning to think more and more that
some broadening of this whole thing should be considered. He said he will probably ask that
this be discussed again in the near future, and he will ask a lady who has been attacked
several times while running on her own lane, to appear before the Board. He believes that
the County has some serious problems with this issue.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that he has also been bitten while on his own road. He takes it
as a personal problem that should be dealt with by the dog owner. He thinks there will be a
problem policing this kind of ordinance when the ordinances that are already in existence are
not being effectively administered.
Mr. Fisher brought out the fact that the lady he had mentioned was a retired person.
Mr. Henley said that Augusta County has had an outright County-wide leash law for years.
Agenda Item No. 15. Presentation: Subregional Watershed Detention Basin (Crozet area).
Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer, said this presentation was requested by the Board of
Supervisors after the Rivanna Authority removed the Lickinghole Creek Impoundment from active
consideration as a Rivanna-financed project. He said the original project was done by
Frank X. Browne and Associates, but after meeting with County staff and members of the
Rivanna Authority, they considered scaling the project down from the large regional detention
pond to several subregional basins. Locations A, B, C and D were thought up by Frank Browne
after reviewing geographic and topographic maps of the area. It is intended that small
basins be used to pick up runoff from several tracts where there is a good downstream point
to actually construct a pond, and then on-site controls (similar to those being used in the
urban area at this time) would have to be used to pick up the rest of the runoff. Mr. Armm
said the Board will have to make a decision as to whether or not they will accept subregional
basins and on-site controls in lieu of the large Lickinghole Creek Impoundment that had been
planned.
Mr. Armm said Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official, has put together a
report based on this comparison of small basins, including some cost-effective calculations,
on the drainage areas tributary to these. Mr. Fisher said the Board has not seen the report.
Mr. Norris said it was an internal memorandum written for the Rivanna Authority, and was
never distributed. This was originally a 314 Clean Lakes Project,and because of the cost of
the project, other calculations were made by staff. Mr. Fisher said that none of the runoff
along Route 240 or from the existing industrial and commercial development goes into any of
these basins, so he does not see that anything i~ accomplished.
Mr. Norris said~ 4~ ~ ...... ~+ ~m ,,~4, ~=m~ 4, ~ .... a ~ ............... ~h
Lickinghole Creek basin and a lake of approximately 30 acres that gets runoff from an 8300
acre watershed. These four subregional basins would drain a total of 300 acres. These are
basically sedimentation basins that are similar to on-site controls presently being used in
other parts of the County. Industrial sites have not been identified because the staff felt
the industries would probably have enough land so that on-site controls could be
accommodated.
Mr. Agnor said the question is whether Lickinghole Creek is intended to handle the
drainage from property that is expected to develop in the future and its runoff problems or
is it intended to cure problems from existing properties. He understood the Lickinghole
Creek project was selected to control the runoff in the Crozet growth area. As drawn, it
actually handles a much larger area, including agricultural land all the way into the moun-
tains. That is why the cost became ineffective. Mr. Fisher said he thought the Lickinghole
Creek Project was the only effective solution for what is already in place in Crozet.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board redefined the growth area in Crozet so that it specifically
conforms to the South Fork Rivanna watershed because of that problem. He said that some
significant-sized areas, parts of which are developed to some extent, were deleted because
they did not fit in that watershed. He said that Crozet is the only part of the County
designated as a growth area that lies in the watershed. Use of sedimentation ponds for
runoff is a controversial issue as to the actual effectiveness and desirability of having
such ponds.
382
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
[~_a ge 153_
Mr. Armm quoted from the Ecol Sciences Report a statement that says that in terms of
location of regional subbasins: "Subbasins with a high amount of cropland were identified as
the best candidates because runoff from cropland contains particulate phosphorous which can
be readily removed in the sedimentation pond or runoff from developed land contains more
soluble phosphorous which is not necessarily removed in the sedimentation pond." He thinks
that if the County chooses to use subregional basins, they should not be set up to pick up up
subdivisions, but where they can pick up runoff from existing cropland.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to see the report written by Mr. Norris, and have a chance
to read and study it and look at the numbers. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the memo includes the
cost analysis of the Lickinghole Creek Impoundment as originally proposed. Mr. Norris
answered, "yes."
Mr. Bowie asked, since these are only examples, could some basins be constructed toward
the rural area where they would be more efficient? Regardless, does this report include some
scaled down version of Lickinghole Creek and nothing else. Mr. Norris said that this is not
in this report, but several options have been investigated by the staff.
Mr. Fisher said everything in the Comprehensive Plan has been designed around this 30
acre lake. If something different is proposed, it will have an enormous effect on the whole
planning for development of the Crozet area. He wants a chance to study what the staff has
done. Mr. Agnor said that this idea is being sent to the Planning Commission for its review
including the statistics. The project would then come back to this Board as a part of the
revisions to the Comprehensive Plan that are now being formulated. He thinks the Planning
Commission wanted some suggestions as to which direction to take. He said that the staff is
trying to generalize now, because the specifics get really complicated.
Mr. Fisher said he feels that this project is critical to everything that is being
planned. He does not want to just use what he hears on the latest newscast, but the state is
trying to take water away from this area, and the County must be very careful about every-
thing that is done to protect the water supply. With the sewage collection system being
installed in Crozet, he feels the County will see apartments and other things constructed in
that area as the market ripens. It is not just single-family houses that are going to be
springing up, but the whole area will become a major source of outflow runoff. Mr. Fisher
said he is very upset, and is very concerned about moving away from the larger basin in the
growth area. The only thing consistent with such a'change would be a substantial change in
the Crozet plan.
Mr. Lindstrom said part of the problem is just consistency of the County's own regula-
tions. When the study of the Reservoir was done, it showed that residential development
contributed a significantly greater amount of phosphate runoff, and that is why the
Comprehensive Plan was changed. That is why there has been a battle against the residential
development occurring in other areas not in the watershed outside of what was being planned
for. He said that is part of the concern about construction of major new roads. Not only
the impact of the road itself, but the land use implications. If this is the best that can
be done about a major growth area in the County, he thinks the Board will have a tough time
defending its position because it will be acting contrary to the Betz study on which all of
the planning for watershed protection was based.
Mr. Fisher said he is willing to look at new information. Mr. Lindstrom commented that
he does not care how the problem is dealt with, but the Board has to deal effectively with
the problem or it is giving a lie to all the work that it has done. It will undercut the
Board'.s position.
Mr. Norris suggested that staff make a joint submittal to the Board and the Planning
Commission so the Commission can start reviewing the same information. Mr. Horne said that
the Commission is very interested, but he supports the idea of the Board giving some direc-
tion to the Commission. When the Board gets the total report, it will find that the decision
will have to be made on how much it is willing to pay for this protection.
Mr. Ed Bauer, a Crozet citizen, asked to make a statement. He said the idea for these
subregional basins came up originally when EPA saw the cost of a regional basin going from
$600,000 to $1,500,000. He recalls that they suggested that subregional basins could be more
efficient. EPA concluded that the basins would take an insignificant amount of the phospho-
rous and particulates out of the water, so the Rivanna Authority rejected the idea. He
understands that now, nobody thinks these subregional basins should be built. He feels the
question that the Planning Commission has to deal with is whether or not the Board is willing
to spend $1,500,000 for the Lickinghole Creek Project. Mr. Fisher said the Board may be
willing to spend this amount if it can be recovered from development that is to occur in
Crozet. He suggested that the Board look at a full report on this subject.
(Note: The Board being ahead of schedule, moved ahead to the following agenda items.)
Agenda Item No. 19. Appointment: Planning District Commission.
Mr. Bowie said the member governments have all voted to change the membership of the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Albemarle now has two voting members. To
retain the required elected official percentage of 51 percent, it is necessary that Albemarle
have two elected officials serve, but at this time there are three Board members serving.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would be glad to step down, and offered motion to reappoint Mr.
Bowie and Mr. Way to the Planning District Commission for terms concurrent with their terms
of office as local government officials, or until December 31, 1987. Mrs. Cooke seconded the
motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
383
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 16)
Agenda Item No. 21.
Public.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board or the
Mr. Fisher said that the process of appointing a School Board member has just been
revised again, but it does not take effect until July 1. Virginia Code Section 22.1-29.1
states that at least seven days prior to the appointment of any School Board member, the
Board shall hold one or more public hearings to receive the views of citizens within the
School Division. The Board shall cause public notice to be given at least ten days prior to
any hearing. The appointment cannot be made until seven days after the last hearing. Mr.
Fisher stated that the new revision, House Bill 1405, states that no nominee or certified
applicant whose name has not been considered at a public hearing shall be appointed as a
School Board member. He then discussed the process for appointment of a person to fill the
current opening on the School Board, and said a public hearing will have to be held, names
will have to be made public, and advertising will have to be done. He suggested that
applications be accepted through May 7.
Mr. Fisher said the Department of Transportation will be holding hearings on April 23 to
discuss the proposed Ninth and Tenth Street realignment in the City of Charlottesville. Mr.
Agnor said this project does not affect any transportation corridors in the County, or any
County planning.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about a letter from the Virginia Housing Development Authority.
He said he did not know what kind of tax credit for low income housing they are referring to.
Mr. Agnor said the staff is analyzing the letter and will have a report for the Board soon.
Mr. Griffin, from the State Department of Forestry, was present and discussed the Gypsy
Moth infestation problem with the Board members. He said that Albemarle County is split in
two parts by Interstate Route 64. The State Department of Agriculture has a quarantine in
effect to the north of that route. He stated that this is a voluntary quarantine and the
Agriculture Department has requested that certain forest products not be shipped south of
that line. He feels that in Albemarle County there will be more of a people problem than a
forest problem. The infestation will peak, and in a few years it will collapse. He said
that in the more forested subdivisions there will be more concern than timber lost.
Mr. Griffin explained how the Gypsy Moth is transported during certain months of the
year. Mr. Griffin said that the spread can be controlled and the problem kept low, but if
controls are taken off, the numbers build until the populations reach a certain level. He
said that sometimes a disease or virus occurs, and the moths are almost totally gone, and
then the population gradually builds up again. Mr. Fisher mentioned that some tree companies
are advocating feeding trees, and asked if this is valid? Mr. Griffin said that they think
that the more vigorous the trees, the less likely they will be to die. However, the more
vigorous the tree, the more leaves it has, and the more insects it will support.
Mr. Griffin mentioned that the Forestry Office has been moved from the University of
Virginia campus to a facility at the end of Fontaine Avenue.
Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: Personnel. At 12:01 P.M., Mrs. Cooke offered
motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Mr. St. John asked
for a discussion of legal matters dealing with a suit styled Moore/Gough versus the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Mr. Fisher asked that this also be incorporated into the motion.
Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:25 P.M. with Deputy County Executives, Ray
B. Jones and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., and Administrative Assistant, Roxanne White, being
present. The County Attorney was absent at this time.
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing:
Progress on March 24 and March 31, 1987).
Cat/Rabies Ordinance.
(Advertised in the Daily
Mr. Agnor stated that the State Department of Health has requested localities throughout
Virginia to enact ordinances that would require the vaccination of cats against rabies. The
Board ordered such an ordinance to be advertised for public hearing today. From discussions
with Dr. Richard Prindle of the Health Department, it was decided to make the ordinance
effective on May 1 to provide Dr. Prindle time to set up vaccination clinics.
The public hearing was opened. Dr. Prindle said the Health Department is very much in
favor of this ordinance and would appreciate its passage.
There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 4,
"Animals and Fowl" of the Code of Albemarle, Article III, Rabies Control, Section 4-38,
requiring vaccination of both cats and dogs against rabies. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Fisher said the County Attorney was not present, but he asked Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs.
Cooke if it was the intent of the motion to have this ordinance go into effect immediately.
Mr. Lindsrom and Mrs. Cooke said, "yes." 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, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
384
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17~
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out below:)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 4,
"ANIMALS AND FOWL" OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
ARTICLE III, RABIES CONTROL, SECTION 4-38,
REQUIRING VACCINATION OF BOTH CATS AND DOGS AGAINST RABIES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 4-38 of the Code of Albemarle be, and it is
hereby, amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-38. Vaccination of dogs and cats required.
(a) No dog or cat six months of age or older shall be permitted
within the county unless such dog or cat shall have been vaccinated or
immunized against rabies within a period of thirty-six months with a
rabies vaccine approved by the state department of health.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to own, keep or harbor any
dog or cat over six months old within the county unless such dog or cat
shall have been vaccinated or inoculated against rabies within a period
of thirty-six months with a rabies vaccine approved by the state depar-
tment of health.
FURTHER, this ordinance shall be effective on an after April 8,
1987.
Agenda Item No. 18. 1987-88 County Budget. Mr. Fisher noted that the advertisement
required for increasing the tax rate through the reassessment of real property did not appear
in the newspaper as ordered, so that public hearing will be held next Wednesday night. He
said the discussion today will be for the Board to come to a consensus on what it wants to
support so that an Appropriation Ordinance can be ready for adoption next week. A draft of
that ordinance has been prepared based on the dollar amounts which were the subject of the
public hearing last week.
Mr. Agnor said he had distributed to the Board a summary of requests that were presented
at the April 1 public hearing listing the original requested amounts and the amounts proposed
in the budget.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about the analysis furnished to the Board on the difference
between the child care program sponsored by the County Social Services Department and the
program sponsored by the United Way. He mentioned one significant difference. That dif-
ference is that the County's program requires that an individual be employed full or part-
time in order to qualify to get this scholarship, but does not provide a scholarship for
someone who is in a full-time vocational training program, which the United Way program does.
Mr. Tucker said Social Services has a separate program to handle that, and until this past
year, that was the only program. This program provides for a subsidy for those people once
they have found a position.
Adult Day Care Center: Mr. Fisher said the request was for $19,000, and what the Board
had agreed to for the public hearing was $16,000. He asked if there were any suggestions
from any Board member to change that amount. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that staff
did not recommend funding the full $19,000 because last year they had said they would not
expand their program, and would seek funds elsewhere. He asked if they had tried to get
money from somewhere else and that caused them to get a "black mark?" Mr. Tucker answered
that they had sought additional funding, but were not successful. The staff simply wanted to
bring that original statement to the Board since it is important to the committee.
Mr. Lindstrom said there is a need here that has not been met fully, and he would
support the increase to $19,000 since they did try to get the money elsewhere and could not.
As all heard at last week's public hearing, this program does render benefits which he feels
are worth the increase. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to increase the proposed appropri-
ation for the Adult Day Care Center from $16,000 to $19,000.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. She said she is aware of the problems that face this
community with the growing elderly population, and she has no problem with funding the full
amount.
Mr. Way stated that he serves on the Board of the Adult Day Care Center, and he knows
the tremendous amount of good work that it does. He mentioned also that in connection with
the Center, Albemarle County is funding additional money in terms of supplying a physio-
therapist, but that amount is included in the Parks and Recreation budget. This additional
amount is certainly justified, and he has no trouble supporting the request, but he wanted
everyone to know about the amount in the Parks and Recreation budget.
There was no further discussion.
the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
385
Piedmont Council of the Arts: Mr. Way said that last time he voted against it, but
since that time he has looked into the request and received additional information. He
understands that the Council will not be coming back for additional sums of money, and that
the $5,000 they are requesting will bring a matching amount into the County, so, he wanted to
make the motion to consider the $5,000 request.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom who said he supported the motion last time
because it is a fairly well leveraged amount, and there is other money that will match this.
Secondly, he thinks it does provide benefits to people who cannot afford them. Although he
understands some of the concerns expressed before, he will still support the request.
Mrs. Cooke said she had supported this previously and will support it again. She said
that the Council is providing cultural opportunities to citizens of the community who could
not avail themselves of the level of the arts being brought to them, and it can only be a
plus to the community.
Mr. Agnor said that the leveraged monies that would be available from the State are the
same funds being applied for by the Virginia Discovery Museum, and he does not believe the
State will give two grants to Albemarle County for both agencies. The application that is
before the State now is for the Piedmont Council of the Arts.
There was no further discussion.
ing recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
AYES: Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Henley.
Rape Crisis Group: Mr. Fisher asked if any Board member wanted to make a change from
the zero funding recommended for this agency. There was no motion made for a change.
BMX Tract: Mr. Fisher asked if any Board member wanted to make a change from the zero
funding recommended for this agency. There was no motion made for a change.
Virginia Discovery Museum: Mr. Fisher noted that the request is for $7,000, and the
recommendation is for zero funding. Mrs. Cooke said that having had exposure to the
Discovery Museum, she sees it as a real benefit to this community. She said it is geared
toward school children, but it is quite interesting to adults as well. Having seen what one
of these organizations can become, she thinks the Board members would be cheating their
constituents if they did not support it at the outset of the organization. She then offered
motion to approve $7,000 for the Discovery Museum.
Mr. Lindstrom asked why the request was not presented as part of the budget process?
Mr. Fisher responded that the request went to the School Board and they decided not to
incorporate it in the School's budget. Mr. Agnor stated that it was requested late of the
School Board, as well. Mr. Andy Overstreet, Superintendent of Schools, said the request got
to the staff after the School Board had finished its deliberations.
Mr. Lindstrom asked again if there was a reason it could not be presented during the
normal course of the budget review? Mr. Agnor said he would explain, or Mrs. Constance
Palmer was present and could explain. She said that at the time she came before the Board
last November Mr. Agnor informed her that if she would like to go through the process for the
School Board application, this would be the time to do that. They got as far as the fiscal
review forms that needed to be completed. Mr. Agnor called someone on School staff to see
what type of forms would have to be filled out. Mrs. Palmer said she was under the impres-
sion that the School Board's staff would get in touch with her. It was brought to her
attention by the Discovery Museum staff that they had never received any word from the School
Board, so late in February, Mrs. Palmer began again. She apologized to the County because of
the time lapse. She said the Museum is young and run by volunteers. They are all new to
this financial end of the business.
Mr. Way said he supported this program when it came to the Board before, feeling that it
is something the school children would benefit from. When he was given the information about
the number of people who are using the Museum, he noticed that it has family use on weekends
and not just school groups. However, he feels that he would be inconsistent if he did not
support it now. Mr. Way then supported the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he supported the request the last time even though it was out of the
budget sequence, and for the same reason. He hopes that in the future it will be presented
at the right time, and that somewhere in the School Budget there will be money for things
such as this. He will support it this time.
Mr. Henley said he supported it last time, but he was under the impression that it
was not coming back to the Board. He said he has a problem with doing it again.
Mr. Fisher said this is a new and energetic group of people who are all volunteers, who
do not know how to play the games of getting grants from governments. He understands it was
their intention to go through the School system, and he does not know what the School Board
would have done had they seen the request.
Mr. Bowie asked if they are attempting to get grants from foundations, etc. Mrs. Palmer
said "yes," and they have also applied to the City for a governmental grant. She said they
have $50,000 to raise, so they will be applying for many grants.
386
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Pag~
There was no further discussion.
ing recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
United Way Child Care Scholarships. Mr. Fisher asked if ~any Board member wanted to
reconsider the zero funding recommendation. No comments were made.
Central Virginia Child Development Association. Mr. Fisher asked if any Board member
wanted to change the zero funding recommendation for this agency. There was no motion made
to consider a change.
Education: Career Ladder Plan for Teachers. Mr. Fisher said it was appropriate at this
time to have a discussion on the Career Ladder Plan for Teachers.
Mr. Lindstrom said he will support the plan. He stated that it is what everyone has
been asking for, even though it may not contain all the details that he would like. He
understands the weakness of the projections made on the cost of the plan, but he does not
want the School Board's hands tied to the three percent base increase, however, he hopes that
for the next couple of years the School Board will stay with that figure. He thinks it does
put teachers in a good position with respect to starting salaries for other professionals.
He does, nevertheless, think it is a reasonable request, and he has personally heard nothing
but support for the proposal from the citizens in the County.
Mrs. Cooke stated that she sees it as a step in the right direction for running one of
the biggest businesses in the County in a businesslike manner. She feels that all the bugs
will be worked out as the system is used. She has been impressed that the teachers them-
selves approve of this new idea. She does not see how anyone can deny something that the
teachers have agreed to as being in their best interest. She supports it.
Mr. Bowie said he has been in favor of such an idea for some years. He does have some
concerns about it, however. He thinks a lot of teachers have accepted the plan as being
"this or nothing." He said one of the problems mentioned to him by some teachers is that
there is no reward for incremental achievement. He does not know how to fix that. He can
foresee that there might be future expectations that will not be met because of how the plan
was started. He would have had more incremental rewards so that those who really work are
paid and not everyone just starts at a little higher salary. He said he is repeating what he
has heard from teachers.
Mr. Henley said he has already voiced his opposition to the whole idea. He stated that
he had only one teacher contact him who was in favor of it. He has talked to three or four
teachers, one who has been teaching for sixteen or eighteen years, and she says she will not
benefit from it at all. He feels that not enough people are going.to benefit from the
change. He said that teachers have gotten close to a ten percent raise for the past three
years, and he does not know of anybody else who has gotten that kind of increase. He thinks
the plan is starting with too high of an increase. If the plan had been closer to ten
percent, he would have thought better of it. He feels that the five-year projections made
are not really realistic and are misleading. He does not feel that the teachers are going to
be satisfied with the last three years of the plan as predicted. He does not support it.
Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Henley about the five-year projection. He thought that possibly
it would be better if the entry level salary was decreased, knowing that it probably would be
increasing over the next several years. He said it is a new plan, and he totally supports it
in concept. He commends very highly those who worked on this and feels that they are moving
in the right direction, but he thinks changes are going to have to be made as time goes on.
He feels it would be misleading for the Board to adopt the plan with the idea that it is
going to stay in place exactly as adopted for five years. He thinks the plan puts tremendous
emphasis on higher educational degrees for teachers, and that is a concern of his. He noted
that there are fine teachers in the County who will never get their master's degree. He will
support the plan because he thinks that in the long run there will be better morale among the
teachers, it will attract people into the system, and the children of the County will
ultimately receive the benefit.
Mr. Fisher said his concerns are not with the concept, but with whether or not there are
realistic expectations on the part of the teaching faculty, administration and the School
Board as to what future funding will be. There have been so many years of ten percent
increases that the faculty believe that is the norm. What is proposed this year is okay and
it does boost the starting salary, but he feels that next year or the year after there will
be an enormous clamor for major changes. This is an innovative plan that has been created,
it is different from anything he has seen anywhere in the United States. Whatever the School
Board and the Board of Supervisors do, they are embarking on an experience. His training as
a scientist tells him that when you embark on an experiment there are certain ground rules
that must be set and held constant. If things are changed at every step of the experiment,
you never know what has been accomplished. You do not have base data, and he feels it would
be wrong to go into an experiment like this with the assumption that it will have to be
changed next year and the year after. He does not think the school administration and the
School Board have this in mind.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks that they do want to try this plan, and are going to work hard
not to make changes in the next few years to give a chance for something to be determined
locally, for the State,'and perhaps for school districts outside of the State. It is the
innovation and the attempt to deal with the criticisms that the Board and the citizens have
made over the years that make him want to support this plan, but it makes him nervous to hear
people already talking about changing the plan. That is why he asked that the School system
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 20)
-387
consider what it is going to have over the next few years so that everybody could think about
what the future holds as best as possible. He will support the plan with the real hope that
it will make a change in morale, in performance, and in the education of the children, but he
wants the plan left alone long enough to see how it works. He mentioned that he and Mr.
Henley have seen the salaries in the School system change every year for sixteen years, and
it makes them fairly pessimistic as to what actually motivates employees. But he feels that
this is different, so he will support the plan, back it, and hope it works.
At this point, Mrs. Cooke offered motion to accept the recommendations of the School
Board for a budget and the teacher pay plan. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. There was
no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
Mr. Henley.
Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks, since the Public Hearing on
the budget, that the Board needed to take a position on this. He then offered motion to
increase the Capital Improvements appropriation by $1.2 million, which is the amount of five
cents on the tax rate. He realizes that a change of this magnitude requires that a different
tax rate be set, and he is willing to move that a different tax rate be readvertised. He
understands that if this is done, the School System will not be able to complete contractal
arrangements with teachers because the Appropriation Ordinance cannot be adotped by the usual
April 15 deadline. He makes the motion for reasons he has stated before, but will restate
for the record. He recognizes that the recent change in the regulations regarding the
Literary Fund Loan may open up a whole host of problems for the County. There are a number
of ways to solve those problems, and one that was mentioned by the Chairman last week,
county-wide bond referendum for all of the capital improvement projects, is an idea to which
he is receptive and at least learning more about. In the face of the uncertainties that
exist in capital improvements, and in the face of the certainties that did exist when the
budget work sessions began, which will need a minimum of $1.2 million more, to cut the tax
rate and insure an increase in the amount that will have to be borrowed is ill-advised. He
thinks to maintain the tax rate in the face of known deficiencies in the Capital Improvements
budget and the unknown additional deficiencies, is certain to be found to be a mistake. He
supports maintaining the existing tax rate (not lowering the rate as has been advertised) and
using those funds to increase that line item. He thinks the Board would spend more money to
get the money needed. He says this realizing that there will be an increase in taxes because
of the reassessment, but he thinks the stability of the tax rate is a legitimate goal. He
thinks the tax rate will have to be changed again in the future to accommodate any bonds
issued, so for those reasons he moved that the tax rate be retained to increase the appropri-
ation for capital improvements. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Bowie said he has been studying figures, and has determined that the highest tax
increases in the County would be in the Jack Jouett District with approximately a 13.8
percent increase from the reassessment. Although he appreciates the "gift," he cannot
support the motion. The Board has just received the new regulations for the Literary Fund,
and if the County qualified, it would pay the same percentage as it would pay the Virginia
Public School Authority. He said the Board has always planned that long-range capital
improvements would be financed, the only question being by what means.
Mr. Fisher said there are other options for financing, and he thinks that with the
change in the Literary Fund policy, the Board needs to examine all options quickly and try to
come to some consensus.
Mr. Henley said he has not changed his mind since he last spoke on this issue. He
thinks it is wrong to store money too far in advance. He thinks it is a good idea for the
citizens to have a voice in how much is spent. If there ever was a time to reduce taxes, Mr.
Henley feels that this is the year to do it.
Mr. Bowie reminded the Board that the citizens of the County had a four to six percent
increase in taxes this year, created by the reassessment, even at the seventy-two cents tax
rate. Mr. Henley said it would be a lot more if the five cents was added.
There was no further discussion.
recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion failed by the following
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, and Way.
V.P.I. Extension Service. Mr. Agnor advised that the Extension Service overprojected
the need for ~salaries in that division and will reduce their request by $1,730. That amount
will be moved from that portion of the budget and transferred to the Board's contingency
account.
911 Dispatch Center. Mr. Agnor mentioned that City Council incorporated in its budget
partial funding for the Rescue Squad dispatching service at the 911 Center of $25,000 until
more specific time frames for beginning that service and the actual first year costs are
determined. The County's share of this new service has been put into a contingency account
in the Board's budget.
..,388
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Regional Library. Mr. Agnor announced that a contingency item has also been put in the
Board's budget for the Albemarle Historical Society's collection of books at the main
Library. At this time, The City does not have fundS for this item incorporated into the
appropriation ordinance they will consider next week. Mr. Fisher suggested that the County's
funds be left in the contingency account until it is determined whether or not the City is
going to fund its share.
Mr. Fisher said to the staff members who worked as the Program Review Committee, and who
may be disappointed that the Board has overridden so many recommendations, that there has
been very effective lobbying for some of the programs, and the Board still appreciates the
recommendations. Mr. Henley said he did not believe the Board changed as many things as it
normally does. He thinks the staff did a great job. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Henley
that he did not believe very much was changed. He said the budget is much easier to deal
with using this procedure than it was before the Program Review.
(Note: At 2:30 P.M., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 2:40 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 20. School Board's Role in CIP Process, Discussion of.
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated April 8, 1987, was presented:
Memorandum from
"The attached memorandum from the Superintendent of Schools needs addressing
prior to the School Board's work session on their Capital Improvement
Program requests, scheduled for Monday, August 13. Mr. Fisher has requested
an outline of alternatives for Item 2.
Current Process:
School Division staff and Parks/Recreation staff coordinate assessment
of community needs, developing requests and recommendations to School
Board.
Staff recommendations to School Board include allocation of costs (1)
jointly to School Division and Parks/Recreation, or (2) School Division
alone, or (3) Parks/Recreation alone. No funding allocation pattern
established, except Parks/Recreation usually allocated costs to outside
projects such as ball fields, tennis courts, etc., and School Division
allocated costs for building needs.
School Division staff also prepares educational needs assessment and
recommends projects to School Board.
School Board adopts projects, recommends priorities, and sends requests
to Planning Commission.
Planning Commission reviews for compliance with Comprehensive Plan,
examines funding resources, and prioritizes requests, recommending Plan
to Board of Supervisors.
Alternative:
Parks/Recreation staff assesses community needs, developing requests
and recommendations to Planning Commission.
School Division staff assesses educational needs, developing requests
and recommendations to School Board, who adopts projects and sends
requests to Planning Commission.
o
Planning Commission coordinates, or merges, School Board requests with
other requests, making recommendations to Board of Supervisors.
Advantaqes, Current Process:
1. School facilities continually recognized as community facilities.
School staff and General Government staff coordinate facilities plan-
ning process, similar to coordination required in operational process,
for programs and facilities.
Flow of requests from departments (and Boards) to Planning Commission
and to Board of Supervisors follows single direction, without having to
flow back to School Division following Planning Commission review, and
recommendations, or Board of Supervisors approval.
Disadvantages, Current Process:
School Board not comfortable assessing community needs, sensing they do
not possess "tools" needed for the process.
Procedure for allocation of costs between educational needs and com-
munity needs unclear.
Primary responsibility of School Division to examine educational needs
clouded by examination of community needs.
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
389
Advantaqes, Alternative:
Division of responsibilities, and capabilities, more clearly defined
between various departments and agencies.
2. Coordination of projects commences with Planning staff and Commission.
Recommendations for priorities and allocation of available funds become
Planning staff and Commission functions.
Disadvantages, Alternative:
Capital Improvement Program process could require more time if project
coordination, prioritization, funding, or final approval has to flow
back through the process for School Board acceptance or approval.
Distinguishing areas of responsibility in planning capital needs does
not encourage coordination or cooperation at operating departments
level.
3. Creates atmosphere of competition for funds between departments.
Recommendation:
1. Retain the current process.
Develop funding allocation procedure, which separates costs of educa-
tional needs from community needs for use by Planning Commission in
developing recommendations, and by Board of Supervisors in ultimate
approval."
The following memorandum from Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Division Superintendent of the
Albemarle County Public Schools, dated April 6, 1987, was received:
"The School Board is continuing its on-going deliberations regarding the CIP
needs for the schools. The Board is moving forward on the basis of several
assumptions and would like to make sure that they are in step with the
Supervisors' perspective. The assumptions are:
That the CIP which is annually submitted by the School Board is a
developmental plan that identifies project needs and establishes
project priorities within a five-year planning horizon. Estimates
of project scope and required funds are as accurate as possible
given available planning data. However, the very nature of the
CIP process suggests that projections are subject to reevaluation
based on changing conditions.
That the School Board is to consider school division needs in its
CIP deliberations, and it is the Board of Supervisor's responsi-
bility to address specific community needs which could impact on a
school building project."
Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Robert Taylor, Chairman of the School Board, and Mr.
Overstreet, Superintendent of Schools, had requested that the Board of Supervisors take up
this item. He said the basic question is this: When the School Board considers building new
gymnasiums or other facilities that could be used community-wide, should the School Board
consider only the educational requirements or also include other requirements in what is
requested of the Board for funding? Should community interests be considered separately by
the Board in some other fashion? Mr. Fisher said he had asked Mr. Agnor to prepare a series
of options for the Board (set out above). The School Board wants some guidance as to how to
proceed with building projects.
Mr. Agnor summarized his memo (set out above) and also a memo from Mr. Overstreet (set
out above). He said time did not allow him to consult with members of his staff or the
school staff; this is his own perspective.
Mr. Fisher said it would help the School Board if all they were perceived as requesting
funding for were the educational needs. But, totally separating the process probably would
hurt coordination. When a project goes to the Planning Commission, it ought to have educa-
tional and other needs identified separately. He asked Mr. Agnor if the current process
should stay with the School Board working with the Parks and Recreation staff. Mr. Agnor
answered, "yes," with the costs separated out so they can be seen, but kept together all
through the process.
Mr. Bowie said if this solves the problem, it is all right with him. He understands
that the problem has been that if there is a need for a gym, there is a tremendous citizen
outcry to the School Board to build a bigger gym because they will want to use it for various
purposes. The School Board does not necessarily know what is available in the community for
other purposes since that is Parks and Recreation's responsibility. He. does not know if this
plan separates that responsibility so the School Board will not have to worry about community
needs in public hearings. Mr. Bowie asked where the public would then have their input?
Mr. Agnor said everyone would have a chance to comment before the Planning Commission in
terms of a merger of projects. He mentioned that the School Board is not required to have
hearings, but they are holding them to get input from the public. Maybe these hearings
should concentrate entirely on educational needs, and the School Board not entertain any
39O
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
P~e 23)
comments from the public on items where they are not ultimately responsible. He said that
that is a little unclear because the School Board needs to know community needs and requests
from the beginning.
Mr. Overstreet said it is a good idea to know the costs of the final project, but
getting to that point is the problem. He said there needs to be coordination. Since some of
the building projects include Parks and Recreation needs, perhaps the schools should be given
expanded authority as an assessment agency, and incorporate Parks and Recreation's needs into
that process. If the schools must ultimately make the recommendation regarding a bricks and
mortar project, it is difficult to put together all the various needs. He said it would be a
more comprehensive approach to have one agency responsible for directing and coordinating the
plan. The different parts would still be identified separately in the budgeting process.
He has a problem with the two being completely independent. He thinks they could coordinate
and be independent at the same time, and have just the one agency responsible for the
ultimate project in terms of promoting it to the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Fisher said his opinion is that when it comes to the detailed plans, bidding
process, awarding contracts and construction, the School Board should be responsible for the
entire project.
Mr. Overstreet said they had done this before, but it was on an ad hoc basis. He feels
this would formalize that process by saying they would routinely and automatically ask Parks
and Recreation to represent their needs and their assessments of the community needs to the
schools, and they would incorporate those needs.
Mr. Fisher asked if there are still several more gymnasiums to be built around the
County, and Mr. Overstreet answered, "yes."
Mr. Way stated that he feels the School Board should stick to the educational end of the
project in terms of hearings, etc. He agrees that joint planning should be done early with
Parks and Recreation. He said for the last few years, an educational policy has been
followed concerning gymnasiums, and if this is going to be deviated from, then that should be
under somebody else's input. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Way both agreed, however, that it should not
be completely separated.
Mr. Overstreet commented that the School Board can go either way, but they got worried
about the whole issue of gymnasiums. He stated that if he had polled them, he believes they
would have said that they would just as soon have the Board of Supervisors deal with the non
educational areas. Mr. Overstreet said he thinks that when a project is represented to the
Planning Commission, it should be the representation of the whole project. But then there
would be some duality in the sense that components would be broken out and justified from
each staff to the Commission. He said this is his preference.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks Mr. Agnor and Mr. Overstreet are on the same wave length, and
he has not heard any objection from the Board. If the staffs can work together, he thinks
they will be in good shape. Mr. Overstreet commented that the School Board did not expect to
hear that. He thinks School Board members thought they would be relieved of that duty, and
that the Board of Supervisors would take on this issue. They also recognize that the
Supervisors do not have a vehicle other than the Parks and Recreation Department. But, after
listening to Mr. Agnor, he feels the team effort approach would be better.
Mr. Fisher said this approach can be tried on the next project, and if it does not work,
the policy will have to be looked at it again.
Agenda Item No. 21.
Public.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board or the
Mr. Agnor stated that a memorandum has been received from the State Department of
Education indicating that the rates for the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System, through
actuarial study, have been reduced next year for the school division. He and Mr. Overstreet
have taken a quick look at it, and their analysis is that it will have some change in the
expenses and revenues in the school division's budget, but it is not big enough change to
require a revision of the school budget. They feel it should be managed as the budget
proceeds during the year rather than trying to change it now.
Mr. Fisher said it has been reported to him that someone has built a barbed wire fence
across the Rivanna River, approximately in the location of Dr. Hurt's bridge. It is all the
way across the river, so that someone coming downstream in a small boat or a canoe may have
some difficulty in stopping. He had previously asked staff to investigate, but became
concerned when he heard about the river cleanups'planned for this Saturdayl
Mr. Agnor stated that preliminary investigations show there is no violation of the
Zoning Ordinance, but there is a State law concerning the obstruction of streams. Mr. Tucker
has discussed this problem with Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Payne, but he does not know the
outcome of that discussion. Mr. St. John remarked that the fence should be cut because it
violates that State statute. He mentioned during the case involving the "Hurt bridge," the
judge said this is a public right-of-way, and no one has the right to impede progress at that
point.
Mr. Fisher said he is concerned because with the weather warming up, there will be a lot
more people on the River. Mr. Agnor said the fence was put up for cattle retention. There
is a farm with property on both sides of the river, and the gentleman who has the cattle put
up the barbed wire to keep the cows from going downstream.
Mr. Fisher said he is concerned about the people and the principle because there were a
lot of court battles over the last episode. He asked Mr. Agnor to see what can be done. Mr.
Agnor said he suspects that Mr. Tucker and Mr. Payne have concluded what action, if any, can
April 8, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 24)
be taken. He said their main concern with the obstruction of water, is the State code
providing for that and the enforcement of it in terms of the County getting involved. He
mentioned that the water goes through a barbed wire fence. It does not obstruct the water.
Mr. St. John replied that the statute says that it cannot obstruct canoes or other craft.
Mr. Lindstrom said an identical situation has existed for years on the Moormans River
about half way between Millington and Free Union. If you were not aware of it, you could
have trouble, especially if the water is high.
Mr. Fisher stated he has been advised by the Clerk that due to deferrals and other
activities by the Planning Commission, there is no longer a need for the May 6 meeting, and a
motion is in order to Cancel that meeting.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to cancel the regular meeting scheduled for May 6,1987. Mr.
Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. There being no further business to come before the Board,
Mr. Fisher recommended that instead of meeting at 2f00 P.M. on April 15, the meeting be held
at 3:00 P.M. for the work session on development rights.
At 3:30 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn until April 15, 1987, at 3:00 P.M.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
~3~l%~rman