Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1986-08-13
August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) ___l_Paqe 1) 169 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 13, 1986, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 97, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter T. Way. Messrs. F. R. Bowie, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., and BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 A.M. by the Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Way offered motion to accept the items on the consent agenda as information. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Item 4.1. Copy of Audit for th~ Year Ended June 30, 1985, for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court, received and on file. Item 4.2. Copy of the Monthly Bond Program Report on Arbor Crest Apartments, received as information. Item 4.3. Copy of letter from Highway Department dated July 16, 1985, in reference to the closing of sections of Route 601 and Route 676 for a Road Race on August 30, 1986, received as information. Item 4.4. Copy of Albemarle County Six Year Plan, 1986-1992, for the Secondary System of Highways, as approved from the Highway Department and received as information. Item 4.5. Copy of Final 1986-87 Construction Allocations and Six-Year improvement Program for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems and Public Transit, was received from the Highway Commission. Item 4.6. Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's Budget for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1986, received as information. Item 4.7. Copies of the Planning Commission's minutes for July 8, July 15, July 22 and July 29, 1986 were received as information. Item 4.8. Earlysville Forest - Central Sewage Disposal System. Letter dated August 7, 1986, from Applied Technology and Engineering, requesting approval to construct was received. Mr. Fisher asked if the sewage treatment facilities at Earlysville Forest are in accor- dance with Planning Commission conditions of approval for the development. Mr. Tucker replied yes. This request for a central sewage disposal system is for proposed commercial facilities at Earlysville Forest. ~he procedure for such a request is review by the Board and then County Engineer review of the plans. Mr. St. John said he and Ms. Neher, Clerk to the Board, discussed this yesterday and from now on these types of requests will not be on the consent agenda, but will come to the Board for affirmative action before passing~o the County Engineer. Mr. Fisher said he thinks it is important when these types of requests are received to know whether the request is in accordance with all approvals for land use. Item 4.9. Copy of "Comparative Report of Local Revenues and ExpendituresTM, received from the Auditor of Public Accounts for June 30, 1985. Item 4.10. Memo from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated August 8, 1986, regarding Franchising of Television Satellite Program Vendors as follows: "This office has received recent inquiries from vendors concerning the availability of County franchises to vendors of television satellite programs. The matter apparently revolves around the scrambling of the signals of satellite programs by some transmitting companies, and the 1 70 August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) sale of receiving devices to unscramble the signals. The marketing strategy is that users can enjoy a larger selection at a lower cost if the vendor possesses a nonexclusive franchise issued by the local jurisdiction. For your information, my response to these inquiries has been that Albemarle County does not franchise cable television operations, and does not intend to franchise satellite programmers. The response also indicates that we regulate them only as licensed private business enterprises, and leave other regulatory functions to the Federal government. Mr. Fisher has also received an inquiry, and responded similarly." Item 4.11. Memo from Mr. Guy Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated August 8, 1986, regarding signatures on District Home ApPlications as follows: "For a number of years, applications for Social Services clients being admitted to the District Home have included the signature of a member of the Board of Supervisors. There is no regulation requiring such a signature, and that process originated years ago when counties did not employ adminis- trative staffs. Due to delays experienced in placing applicants in the Home, and due to comments from some Board members as to the necessity for them to be signing such papers, the Social Service staff requested revision of that procedure. Since I serve as the Board's representative on the District Home Board, and am readily available for signature, I have advised the Director of the District Home that future admittance forms will require the signature of the Director of Social Services and the County Executive, or in my absence, a Deputy County Executive. This is for your information. I assume signing applications has no specific value to Board members, and trust that you will agree it will expedite an administrative process." Item 4.12. Memo from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated August 7, 1986, regarding Extension of Health Care Benefits (Employee Insurance) as follows: "Congress recently passed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, referred to as COBRA, which included a provision that requires employers to offer health care benefits on or after July 1, 1986, to persons affected by certain qualifying events. These events are: A dependent who would ordinarily lose coverage due to death of the employee, divorce from the employee, or loss of dependent child status (due to age, end of student status, or marriage) may elect to purchase extended coverage in the County's health insurance program for up to 36 months at his or her personal expense without contribution from the County. Additionally, any employee who would ordinarily lose coverage due to voluntary or involuntary termination (except for misconduct) or layoff may elect to purchase extended coverage for up to 18 months at his or her personal expense without contribution from the County as employer. The extended coverage ends if the individual fails to make a premium payment when due, has coverage under any other group plan due to employment, reem- ployment, marriage or remarriage, becomes eligible for Medicare, or if the individual's 18 or 36 months period expires. Departments of Personnel and Finance have established the administrative procedures for notifying employees and dependents, and charge,collect premiums involved. Employers are allowed to add two percent of premiums for administrative costs. Health insurance carriers indicate this extended exposure will result in increased costs of health care programs, not to mention the burden of administering the extensions." Item 4.13. Memo from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, dated August 8, 1986, regarding Insurance Renewals as follows: "The insurance coverages of General Government were renewed for another year with the prior year carriers effective August 1. USF&G Insurance Company provides coverage on property (fire and extended coverage); general liability (inclusive of an umbrella policy which includes pollution liability that is almost unavailable in the market); crime (inclu- sive of honesty bond and theft); and miscellaneous (inclusive of marine coverage on items such as data processing equipment). The premium with USF&G increased from $75,366 in FY 85-86 to $79,932 in FY 86-87. The budget allocated $80,000 to this policy so the premium was within budget estimates. USF&G is currently writing all of the above coverages at a 20 percent discount which was much lower than the quotation from Virginia Municipal League (VML). VML is the self-insurance pool that was recently authorized August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) ~e 3) to do business in the State of Virginia by the General Assembly. VML did issue general liability and automobile insurance to 37 localities with over $5 million in premiums during the month of July. However, most of these localities could not get coverage in the private market and some were cancelled by their former carriers. Since the VML quotation was about 40 percent higher than USF&G and also due to the fact the VML coverage did not include pollution liability, staff retained the above coverages with USF&G. With automobile insurance, which is being carried with Travelers Insurance Company, the story is quite different. The premium for full coverage (liability, medical, uninsured motorist, comprehensive and collis%on) went from $92,254 in FY 85-86 to $123,744 for FY 86-87, an overall increase of 34 percent which also exceeds the budget by approximately $20,000. In the budget, $800 per vehicle was allocated for insurance. Liability, medical and uninsured motorist costs went from $59,493 in FY 85-86 to $73.340 in FY 86-87 - an increase of 23.2 percent. The physical damage coverages (colli- s!on and comprehensive) increased from $32,761 in FY 85-86 to $50,401 in FY 86-87 - an increase of 53.8 percent. Staff reviewed the losses under physical damage coverage since 1982 and found the following losses: Year Comprehensive Collision Total 1982 $ 382 $ 2,523 $ 2,905 1983 1,012 5,890 6,902 1984 6,236 7,716 13,952 1985 740 5,035 5,775 $8,370 $21,164 $29,534 As you can see, the losses for the entire four-year period have only been slightly over one-half of the proposed premium for FY 86-87. Based upon these findings, staff decided to go self-insured for physical damage and had the insurance policy renewed for one year with Travelers to provide liability, medical, and uninsured motorists costs. At some future date, staff will request you to establish a reserve for insurance claims. This process could begin by transferring the excesses of the current budget allocations within departments to the reserve. Staff also received a quotation from VML on auto insurance. They only quoted on full coverage at $121,324. Since VML was beginning business, their requirements were to take full coverage for a three-year period. Staff decided to continue with Travelers and take a look at the VML pool next year. This memorandum is for your information and requires no action." Item 4.14. Monthly Building Report from the Department of Planning and Community Development for June, 1986, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: June 26~ October 16, November 6 (afternoon), and November 13, 1985. No minutes had been read. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Critical Highway Improvement Program. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said in 1986 the General Assembly passed legislation to increase the gasoline tax and it is expected that an additional $65 million will be generated this year and $67 million generated next year. During the Highway and Transportation Board's preallocation hearing the past Spring, the $65 million was set aside for the Critical Highway Improvement Program and was not included in the normal listing of funds to be considered in the preallocation hearing or the secondary budget process. The boards of supervisors of all counties were notified by letter of July 22,1986, of how the $65 million is to be distributed. An additional $412,000 will be available for secondary improvements this year for Albemarle County. "Reference is made to Mr. D. E. Keith's letter of July 22, 1986, addressed to the Board of Supervisors concerning this subject. The Critical Highway Improvement Program adopted by the Highway and Transportation Board allo- cates $412,000 for use on the secondary system in Albemarle County for fiscal year 86-87. In effect, this is $412,000 more available for secondary improvements during the current fiscal year. There are no special require- ments attached to these funds for use on gravel roads or federal aid quali- fying projects; however, they must be used for projects appearing in the approved County priority list for secondary improvements. In addition, projects funded with this money should be projects which can be placed under construction during fiscal year 86-87. Listed below are four projects I suggest be funded with this additional money. In each ease they are projects which are either under advertisement or can be placed under construction by June 30, 1987. These are the highest priority projects appearing in the six year plan which still require funding and can be under construction by that date. 1 recommend the Board of Supervisors approve these projects as additions to the 1986-87 Secondary Improvement Budget. 171 Mr. Roosevelt then summarized the following letter from his office dated August 4, 1986: 17Z August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Paqe 4~ The projects are as follows: Route From/To 727 627 - 795 Six Year Allocation Priority $201,000 9 Description Hard surface an existing gravel road 678 At Mechum River Construct new bridge $ 25,000 10 618 795 - 620 Hard surface an $ 47,000 12 existing gravel road 643 649 - 1.0 M. West Hard Surface an $139,000 16" existing gravel road Mr. Roosevelt then summarized the four road projects as outlined on the map. The first project, Route 727, would hard surface an existing three mile gravel road that runs from Route 627 to Route 795 past Blenheim. With these additional funds and anticipating a like amount to be available in 1987, he thinks that the project can be paid for by the time construction is completed. Preliminary engineering is far enough along that construction can begin some time late in May or June of 1987. If an additional allocation of $412,000 is received next year, he recommends that all of the allocation go to Route 727 to complete financing of the project. The next project, Route 678, is construction of a bridge across the Mechum River. The project has been advertised and the bids are acceptable. Construction is expected to start within a couple of months. The allocation of $25,000 should complete the financing on the bridge and completion of construction expected by the middle of next year. The third project, Route 618 from Route 795 to Route 620, is to hard surface a three mile section of gravel road. Advertisement is expected within the next two months. Right-of-way is all ~clear. The allocation of $47,000 will hopefully complete financing on the project. Construction is expected to commence in the spring with not much grading involved and completion is expected by July 1, 1987. The fourth project, Route 643, is to hard surface an existing gravel road running from Proffit Road (Route 649) to a mile west toward the railroad tracks. There is a problem with obtaining right-of-way on one of the parcels, but he expects to have it resolved shortly with construction to begin in the spring. Mr. Roosevelt said he is trying to meet the Highway Board's requirement that this money be placed on projects that are either under construction or advertised by the June 30 dead- line. There are a number 'of safety projects in the Six-Year Highway Plan which have a higher priority than any of these four projects, however, those projects involve the need for some plans and right-of-way which he does not think can be done in time to allow advertisement by June 30. Also, for the higher priority projects, he had already anticipated financing the right-of-way and construction in the next year which is another reason he did not recommend money for those projects. Mr. Way offered motion to approve the following projects as additions to the 1986-87 Secondary Improvement Budget. ROUTE ~ROM/TO DESCRIPTION SIX YEAR ALLOCATION PRIORITY 727 627 - 795 Hard surface an $201,000 9 existing gravel road 678 At Mechum River Construct new bridge $ 25~000 10 618 795 - 620 Hard surface an $ 47,000 12 existing gravel road 643 649 - 1.0 M West Hard surface an $139t000 16 existing gravel Mr. Henley seconded the motion. ing recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried with the follow- AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Sidewalks, Willoughby - Section IV. Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Enclosed (on file) is a letter dated May 29, 1986, from Mr. St. John which states his recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on a mechanism to resolve the long standing issue of sidewalks. Enclosed (on file) are also two other pieces of correspondence which further explain the current situa- tion on this issue. The Board has received a request by Wade Homes for a resolution asking that the roads in Willoughby, Section IV be accepted for State maintenance. The sidewalks in this section were required to be installed outside the road August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) 173 right-of-way with only a short connector section and the ramps being in the right-of-way. The County Engineer, in the past, has stated that short sec- tions such as this should require minimal maintenance at County expense. All other portions of the sidewalks are in common areas and are to be maintained by the homeowners association. Other sections of Willoughby are currently being planned with similar sidewalk designs. The Planning Commission, however, has tied the require- ment for sidewalk installation in the new sections beyond Section IV to a resolution of the maintenance issue by the Board of Supervisors. If the Board cannot find an acceptable mechanism to provide for the maintenance of these short 'stub' sections, the developer may delete the sidewalks from the road plans. In reference to this particular request for Section IV, the staff would recon~nend that the Board agree to maintain the portions of sidewalk within the right-of-way. The developer was required to build these sidewalks and has proceeded in good faith. While this would be the first instance of such action by the County, staff believes that this request can be divorced somewhat from future decisions due to the above factors. The County Attor- ney has been working on an acceptable form for a resolution of the Board on this issue. There continues to be a potential conflict between the current county sidewalk regulations and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion policy. The staff believes that there will be situations where the County feels that sidewalks are necessary, but Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation will not maintain them. Where there exists a strong enough homeowners association, the design used in Willoughby is appropriate and does not obligate the County to major costs. In other cases, the County needs to review the practicality of requiring sidewalks. Staff is not yet prepared to propose ordinance revisions. It is recommended that the Commission and Board continue to review these situations on a case by case basis, understanding the need for a very conservative approach during subdivision review." Mr. Horne said the staff plans to present to the Board during Comprehensive Plan review an overall policy and a sidewalk plan for the urbanized area, but this request cannot wait for the overall plan and needs action by the Board at this time. Mr. Fisher asked if it will be difficult for the homeowners association to take care of one section of sidewalk and the County to take care of the other section. He asked if the association can be encouraged to take care of the entire sidewalk if the County assures the Highway Department that it will accept responsibility for the sidewalk. Mr. Horne replied yes, that could be done. Mr. Horne said the next section of Willoughby has received preliminary plat approval and is using this identical process. The Planning Commission, when it approved the plat, stated that there needed to be a resolution of the maintenance problem. If there was no resolution of the problem satisfactory to the Board then the Commission would review the final plat without requiring any sidewalks. The Commission did not want to continue requiring sidewalks when maintenance is uncertain. Mr. Bowie said he has a problem with adopting a resolution in which the County agrees to use its funds for sidewalks that will benefit only the people of the subdivision. If the sidewalk is for the benefit of the homeowners, the homeowners association should maintain the entire sidewalk. He has no problem with the County acting as a third party to get the process through the Highway Department. Mr. St. John commented that a condition of approval on future applications could be that homeowners associations maintain the sidewalks. Mr. Horne said that is fine, but the Commis- sion is looking for some guidance. Mr. Roosevelt said when a new roadway is accepted into the Secondary System, anything within the right-of-way that is not to be maintained by the Highway Department must be covered by permit. The Department will require a permit from someone for the sidewalks. His understanding is that homeowners associations cannot get a bond or guarantee to accompany the permit that is sufficient to guarantee the permit. The County is in a position to provide that guarantee. The Department has agreed that it will accept the permit with a resolution from the Board as its guarantee. Mr. Fisher said his understanding is that the County must assure the Highway Department that the sidewalks will be maintained. He thinks that the County should work along with the homeowners associations and site plan approvals for future developments so that the associations are responsible for maintenance of the sidewalks. Mr. Roosevelt said as far as the Highway Department is con- cerned there would be an agreement between the County and the Department. How the County gets the sidewalk repaired is up to the County. Mr. Fisher said he feels strongly that where there are higher density developments, sidewalks should be required, but the sidewalks benefit those residents and the responsi- bility should be passed to the residents. Mr. Fisher said the proposal before the Board is that the County agree to enter into an agreement with the Highway Department that it will assure that the portions of sidewalks that are in the highway right-of-way will be maintained, and this responsibility will be passed to the homeowners association for that development. Mr. Bowie offered motion for same. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: August 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) ,p AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Horne said the next step is adoption of the actual resolution requesting acceptance. He is not sure precisely in what form the Highway Department wants the resolution. Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Private Funding of Secondary Road Condemnations. Mr. Horne presented the following memorandum from his office dated July 2, 1986; letter from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, dated June 27, 1986, addressed to Mr. George R. St. John; and letter from Mr. St. John, dated May 28, 1986, to Mr. John T. P. Horne, respec- tively: "Enclosed (on file) you will find two letters concerning the Board's direc- tive to staff in reference to the private funding of secondary road condem- nation. I am in agreement with Mr. St. John's analysis of the problems associated with this procedure. I further believe that even the engineering and survey costs would be somewhat difficult to accurately estimate at the very start of the process, which is when the private citizens would have to agree to bear all costs. This problem pales in comparison, however, when compared with the uncertainty involved with the legal and associated costs of a condemnation procedure. Based on the above problems and the reluctance of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to participate in the process, I recommend that the Board of Supervisors not proceed with the establishment of this process. While I understand the frustration of some members of the public, the potential costs to the County and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in terms of staff time far outweigh the public benefits of this process." "Reference is made to your letter of May 28, 1986, addressed to Mr. John T. P. Horne concerning the above subject. I have discussed this matter with my District Engineer and we believe that the procedure as outlined in your letter is not in the best interests of the Department. Although your analysis of the procedure as outlined is basically correct, we feel that the Department's role will place considerable burden on the Department in two forms. First, although the Department is operating as the agent for the County, the citizens involved will see this as primar- ily a Department action. We feel that the poor public relations which may result from this procedure will fall primarily upon the Department. Secondly, we are concerned about the number of personnel this procedure will involve. The Department is currently allocating manpower very tightly based upon programming and financing of projects. To insert additional projects which are neither programmed nor financed would add an additional manpower burden which we are not currently staffed to handle. From my discussion within the Department on this matter, I believe the Department would resist becoming involved in this procedure. I believe the County could undertake this procedure themselves if they desire. I believe they have the authority to do all of the steps which the procedure indicates would be done by the Department. I agree with you, however, that the problems you have outlined make this procedure most difficult and precarious." "This is in response to the Board of Supervisors directive of May 21, 1986, that I give you a memorandum on the feasibility of funding secondary highway condemnations with private contributions. From a legal standpoint, this is permissible. The County is empowered to accept donations for public purposes. Of course, this presumes that the condemnation is for the benefit of the public or at least a segment thereof, and not for the benefit of private individuals. Public property cannot be condemned for private benefit even if compensation is paid. There must be a public benefit but in my opinion this requirement is almost certainly satisfied in every case of improvement to a road that is already a part of the secondary system. The difficulty is in the practical application or mechanics of this method. The procedure would be for the right-of-way to be surveyed, and costed by either our engineer or the resident engineer of the VDH&T. This cost would be presented to the prospective donors, who would then make a commitment secured by a bond or cash, after which the County or the Highway Department would offer this sum to the prospective condemnee. If the condemnee accepts the offer, then the papers would be drawn and recorded exactly as in volun- tary grants of right-of-way, the money being paid over to the County and then to the condemnee at the time the deed is delivered. This is a rela- tively simple process. The complication arises if the condemnee refuses the offer. At that time, you must add in the cost of the condemnation proceeding itself. This can only be estimated as can the actual award the commissioners will make. August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) 175 In other words, when you go from a negotiated settlement to a court proceed- ing, you go from a sum certain in advance, to a sum uncertain in advance both as to court costs and the actual award for the right-of-way. In either event, the County would act merely as a banker for the transac- tion. The VDH&T would actually handle the mechanics of a settlement, and in the event of a court proceeding, it would engage the attorneys and the proceeding would be conducted in the name of the Commonwealth. In other words, the funds would flow from the individual donors, to the County, to the VDH&T. The first step in establishing this procedure would be to draft a set of forms, including the agreement and the bond securing it to be signed by the donors and the agreement between the County and the VDH&T, for their approval. We will draft these forms if the Board elects to give this idea a try. I am sending a copy of this letter to Dan Roosevelt and would like his thoughts on this matter." Mr. Fisher said he understands these responses, but he remembers a situation some years ago where there was a stretch of secondary road in the western part of the County and approxi- mately one and one-half miles of right-of-way had been donated on both sides of the road, with the exception of one 20-foot section. Had there been a proposal for a subdivision needing that road for access, there probably would have been a request to proceed with condemnation in the interest of the other property owners. He is not sure this is a response that the Board can continue with. As the County grows and gets more dense, he thinks these kinds of issues will continue to arise and the Board will probably have to find some mecha- nism for a solution. Mr. Tucker commented that the Board may want to consider not following the entire procedure outlined by Mr. St. John, but acting as a go-between. Mr. St. John said that is already being done in a lot of cases and in most cases is not necessary because the owners that want the improvements will go directly to the owners that will not donate right-of-way. Mr. Bowie said there are two situations right now in his district where there is one piece of land in each case keeping the road out of the Six-Year Plan and property owners have even offered money. If the County is going to condemn, then it must go all the way, other- wise each individual Supervisor mus.~act on his own in helping with the negotiations. He would like to have some way to resolve this, but does not know which way to go. Mr. St. John said, as indicated in Mr. Roosevelt's letter, the County can proceed with condemnation proceedings itself, but if the County does undertake that task, then inevitably the question would arise in court as to whether the County has standing to bring a condem- nation proceeding for land to be used as a state secondary highway. The state has always been the entity that had standing to do that. He thinks it would be a real problem. He also thinks it is beyond the County's reach right now to get into road condemnation without proper staff. Mr. Roosevelt said he has no specific experience with counties condemning secondary road right-of-way. It has always been his understanding that the County could condemn for public use for schools, sewer lines and such. Mr. Fisher said on the basis of this discussion, he would suggest a response be drafted to Colonel John Wolfe's inquiry stating that the Board is not proposing to get involved in the condemnation process for secondary roads at this time based on staff recommendations and fact that the the County has "no standing" in court. Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters: Naming portion of Route 240 "Three Notch'd Road". The following letter from Mr. J. G. Ripley, Director of Planning and Programming, Department of Highways and Transportation, dated July 1, 1986, was received: "Commissioner Pethtel has asked me to respond to your letter of June 10, 1986, and a request of the Board of Supervisors concerning the naming of Route 240 as 'Three Notch'd Road'. As I explained to you during our telephone conversation on June 30, this is a very historic road, and our Director of the Research Council, Mr. Howard Newlon, Jr., has done a considerable amount of research on this particular road. We would certainly like to recommend to the Highway and Transporta- tion Board that Route 240 be named 'Three Notch'd Road'; however, we believe the Board of Supervisors would want to name the roads which originally follow the old road. This would involve a couple of secondary roads near Mechum River. In order to explain this to the Board of Supervisors, it would be appropri- ate for Mr. Newlon to appear before the Board to give them some detailed information so that they can make their precise desires known. Once this is done, we would ask the Highway and Transportation Board to name the appro- priate roadways 'Three Notch'd Road'." Mr. Howard Newlon, Jr., Director, Highway and Transportation Research Council, said he is present as a resource and to inform the Board of the significance of the road. As far as the Department is aware, the major part of the road is in fact along the trace of the original August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Three Notch'd Road. He pointed out that on the east end there is a small section where the original trace of the Three Notch'd Road goes along Routes 802 and 680. He then went over in detail the history of the roadway and the fact that the original route does not follow exactly the Board's request for naming of the road. He asked if the Board would want to reconsider the resolution and put a sign on Route 240 for "Three Notch'd Road New" or designate only the known original traces to that segment of Route 240. Mr. Fisher suggested, in the interest of simplicity, that the original request remain intact to include Route 240 and that a small sign be placed on the old route stating this was the route of the Three Notch'd Road prior to when the new section was built. He thinks that the present road should have one name continuously from the bridge to Crozet. It seems to him that it would be confusing if the name wanders off the side. Mr. Bowie commented that ~he appreciaten receiving the booklet on the history of Three Notch'd Road and found the information interesting. He also found that Three Notch'd Road runs within a quarter mile of his home in Shadwell. Mr. Newlon said, speaking as a citizen, consideration should be given to the numbering system for Three NotchVd Road since it extends a great deal further than this request. Mr. Fisher said a numbering system is set up for the whole County and is based on distance. Mr. Newlon commented that the Board's original request would stand and that signs could be put on Route 608 and 802 indicating they are the original route of Three Notch'd Road. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt for comments. Mr. Roosevelt said naming of secondary roads is the County's responsibility. Mr. Henley said he is in agreement with Mr. Fisher's suggestion. Agenda Item No. 6e. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roosevelt said a meeting has been scheduled for August 29, 1986, 9:00 A.M., Germanna Community College, to discuss the recommendations of the Commission on Transportation in the Twenty-First Century. Secretary Connock, Secretary Watts and Commissioner Pethtel will be present at the meeting. The Board will be receiving a letter from the district engineer concerning this meeting. He suggests that someone from the Board or staff attend the meet- ing. Mr. Fisher commented that the Board has been invited to the Annual Highway Conference in Lexington which follows this meeting. Mr. Roosevelt said that the Highway Conference is scheduled for the first week in October. The meeting on August 29 is to provide information to local government and citizens to allow them time to inform their legislators before the meeting. Mr. Bowie said he would like to attend the meeting on August 29. Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: Wendell Wood Final Plat. Mr. Fisher said he received notice this morning from Mr. Wood that he would be attending the auction of the Hilton property and would like to have this matter deferred until later in the day. There being no one present on the appeal, the Chairman stated the matter would be taken up later. Agenda Item No. 9. Library, Approve use of Federal Funds for. Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum from Mr. Agnor, dated August 8, 1986: "The Jefferson-Madison Regional Library has been advised by the State Library that $11,777 in Federal aid has been allocated to them for FY 86-87. This is $723 less than the $12,500 estimated as revenue in the FY 86-87 library budget. Before Federal funds can be spent, written approval of each governing body in the library system must be obtained. It is requested that you approve the expenditure of the $11,777 with authorization for the County Executive to advise the State Library of your approval." Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve the federal fund expenditure of $11,777 for the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library and authorize the County Executive to advise the State Library of such approval. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 10a. Appropriation: TIPS Program. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 10:08 A.M.) Mr. Jones summarized the following memorandum from Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Division Superintendent, dated July 9, 1986: "At its June 9, 1986, meeting the School Board approved receipt of a grant for the Teaching Individuals Protective Strategies (TIPS) program from the Virginia State Police in the amount of $14,375.00. It is requested that the budget appropriation for 1986-87 be amended to include revenue and disburse- ment of these funds." August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Paqe 9) .77 Mr. Jones stated that the program is to teach students the problems of using drugs and to provide drug awareness. Mr. Way commented that there are so many different programs going into the schools that he wonders about this program. Mr. Way then offered motion to adopt the following resolution, approving an appropriation in the amount of $14,375 to reflect receipt of a grant from the Virginia State Police for the TIPS Program: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $14,375 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the TIPS Fund, transferred to the DARE Program, and coded as follows: 1-2004-63353-100135 Compensation-Teachers $9,200 1-2004-63353-200100 FICA 640 1-2004-63353-200200 Retirement 1,490 1-2004-63353-200500 Health Insurance 70 1-2004-63353-200600 Life Insurance 100 1-2004-63353-300601 Printing and Copy ServiceS 800 1-2004-63353-520100 Postal Services 200 1-2004-63353-520300 Telephone Service-Local 200 1-2004-63353-520301 Telephone Service-Long Distance 300 1-2004-63353-541200 Educational Materials 250 1-2004-63353-550400 Travel-Out of County 750 1-2004-63353-580500 Staff Development Expenses 375 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1986-87 County budget is hereby amended by the addition of $14,375 to Code 2-2004-33000-330005 entitled TIPS/Dare; FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom Agenda Item No. 10b. Appropriation: Soil and Water Conservation Grant. Mr. Jones presented the following memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, dated August 8, 1986: "Final approval of the 1986/87 grant from the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District has been received along with the first quarterly payment of the State revenue. The salary and fringes for this program in the amount of $22,699.69 are funded 75 percent by the grant and 25 percent with local funds; operating expenses in the amount of $40.00 are funded totally by the grant. The local match on this grant in the amount of $5,674.92 was approved in the County's 1986/87 budget. Mr. Tucker commented that the person in this position is located in the Engineering Department has been previously funded through this program, and works closely with the Soil Conservation Service. The person holding this position recently changed. At the time of the change, Soil Conservation indicated that it wanted to make some changes in the agreement relating to the person's duties. Now, Soil Conservation will be using more of this person's time. The staff will monitor this during the year and report back to the Board during budget review on whether the position is effective for the County's needs. Mr. Henley offered motion to adopt the following resolution, approving an appropriation in the amount of $22,739.69 for the 1986-87 Soil and Water Conservation Grant: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $22,739.69 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the Soil and Water Conservation Fund, transferred to the Soil and Water Conservation Grant, and coded as follows: 1-1222-82030-100100 Compensation 1-1222-82030-200100 FICA 1-1222-82030-200200 VSRS 1-1222-82030-200500 Health Insurance 1-1222-82030-200600 Life Insurance 1-1222-82030-201100 Workman's Compensation Insurance 1-1222-82030-520100 Postal Service 1-1222-82030-520300 Telephone Service 1-1222-82030-540104 Copy Supplies and Expenses 1-1222-82030-541700 Fuel & Lubricants $18,390.62 1,314.93 2,125.96 630.96 199.32 37.90 10.00 14.05 2~25 13.70 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1986-87 County budget is hereby amended by the addition of $22,739.69 to the following Revenue Codes: 2-1222-24000-240500 Grant Revenue-State 2-1222-51000-512006 Grant Revenue-Local $17,064.77 5,674.92 FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. 178 August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item Nos. 10c and 10d. Appropriations: Transfers and Reappropriations. Mr. Jones summarized the following memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, dated August 8, 1986. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 10:16 A.M.) "Based on preliminary year end reports, the two major County funds will complete the year as follows: General Fund School Fund REVENUES Percentage Projected Actual Variance Variance $38,681,757 $39,609,798 $928,041 + 2.40 + 31,438,584 31,344,180 94,404 - .30 - General Fund School Fund EXPENDITURES Percentage Projected .Actual Variance Variance $38,681,757 $37,754,300 $927,457 2.40 31,438,584 31,181,892 256,692 .82 REVENUES: General Fund revenues will exceed expenditures by $1.8 million. increase the unrestricted fund balance to $14.8 million. This will The major areas where revenues exceeded budget projections are as follows: 1985 Real Estate Tax 1985 Public Service Tax 1985 Personal Property Tax 1985 Machinery & Tools Tax Business & Professional Licenses Vehicle Licenses Building Permits Investments Percentage Amount Variance $ 633,000 9.72 128,000 17.66 520,000 10.83 136,000 21.25 184,000 10.25 61,000 10.25 59,000 23.88 353,000 35.30 School Fund revenues will exceed expenditures by $162,000. increase the unrestricted fund balance to $327,000. This will The modified accrual basis of accounting as required by the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts requires the accrual of certain revenues for a 45 day period after the end of the Fiscal Year (August 15). Therefore, some additional revenues will be included in the final reports. EXPENDITURES: As shown, expenditures within these funds in total are within the budgeted appropriations. However, some cost centers within the funds exceeded their appropriations and will require appropriation transfers from other cost centers. General Fund: The following cost centers have exceeded appropriations: 1. General District Court 2. Clerk of the Circuit Court $ 940.93 2,830.98 Overexpenditures resulted from modifications to telephone systems resulting from renovations to the Court House. 3. Victim Witness Program $ 980.68 Adjustments for increased salaries during the year resulting from pay plan revisions were appropriated in the Police Department budget. 4. Sheriff $ 1,204.48 Payoff of accumulated sick leave and vacation on a terminated employee. 5. Animal Control $ 67.62 6. Refunds 16,982.23 Land Use deferrals exceeded budget projections by $41,548.49. These over-expenditures totaling $23,006.92 represent .06 percent of total General Fund appropriations. August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) School Funds: The following cost centers have exceeded appropriations: 1. General Compensation $116,548.32 2. Personnel 14,680.47 3. Vehicle Maintenance Facility 22,056.10 4. Instructional Administration 36,810.39 5. Project Excellence 537.00 6. LD/ED/EMR 18,980.29 7. Speech/Preschool 527.48 8. Enrichment 173.44 9. Crozet School 232.85 10. Murray School 1,365.95 11. Rose Hill School 366.64 12. Scottsville School 1,675.90 13. Stony Point School 378.30 14. Western Albemarle Instruction 31,943.74 15. Walton Middle School 2,754.26 Total $249,031.13 The appropriation transfers will not require the appropriation of any additional monies. Actual transfers in the General Fund and School Fund are not being requested at this time pending the final closing of the books to allow for any addi- tional minor adjustments. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND: A review of projects in the Capital Improvement Program reveals a number of completed projects with unexpended balances and several projects with minor over-expenditures. In order to close out these projects the attached appro- priation form ~86-0007 has been prepared which would authorize the transfer of appropriations from completed projects with unexpended balances to those with over-expenditures. This form also combines the remaining unexpended balances from various school projects into one miscellaneous school projects line item. This form also includes the transfer of $3275 from the unexpended fund balance to a line item for the Scottsville-Crozet Branch Libraries. This amount is to cover the cost of fire detection equipment which was approved by the Board in June of 1984. However, no one requested these funds be reappropriated for FY 1985/86. This project has been completed and an invoice received. Revenues in the Capital Improvement Fund exceeded projections by $236,563 primarily due to earnings on investments and Literary Fund Loan proceeds. This amount plus $50,137 in unexpended balances from completed projects (after above transfers) will increase the unallocated fund balance by $286,700 for a total of $585,225 as of June 30, 1986. JOINT SECURITY: Revenues will exceed projections by $155,170 primarily from the State Compensation Board and Department of Corrections. Expenditures will exceed appropriations by $34,709. over-expenditures are: The main items with Food Supplies Public Liability Insurance Repairs & Maintenance $25,619 5,122 9,904 The jail administration has tried to hold down expenses in other areas to offset these large items; however, items such as insurance are beyond their control and the over-expenditures for food result from increased prisoner population. Revenues will still exceed expenditures by $120,461, which will be refunded to the County and the City of Charlottesville. A request for a supplemental appropriation will be submitted after the books are closed to allow for any additional minor adjustments. JOINT DISPATCH CENTER: Revenues will exceed projections by $11,043 and expenditures will be under appropriations by $5400 resulting in a net increase in the fund balance of $16,443. This amount will be refunded to the County, City and University of Virginia after the audit is completed. -OTHER FUNDS: August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Revenues are anticipated to exceed expenditures in all other grant and project funds. Also, no over-expenditures are expected. A final report will be made on these funds after the books are closed. REAPPROPRIATIONS: A number of requests have been received for unexpended FY 1985./86 funds to be carried forward to FY 1986/87. These requests are for situations where items were ordered prior to year end but not received or for projects which were budgeted in FY 1985/86 but were uncompleted at year end. Funds have not been budgeted in FY 1986/87 for these items. These requests are as follows: General Fund: COst Center 1. County Executive 2. Finance 3. Board of Elections 4. Police 5. Engineering 6. Landfills 7. Staff Services 8. Planning 9. Zoning Unexpended Balance 16 313.08 46 629,58 8 190.36 23 997.88 14 013.87 267 791.83 2 728.00 10,844.09 9,808.93 Total Reappropriation Request $ 3,000.0O 30,000.00 4,000.00 22,500.00 2,000.00 267,791.83 932.25 5,000.00 3,200.00 $338,424.08 Details of these requests are included in attachments. School Fund: Unexpended Reappropriation Cost Center Balance Request 1. Instructional Adm. $ 34,092.62 $ 3,600.00 2. Henley Middle School 10,218.55 1,424.56 Total $ 5,024.56 Ail School Fund requests are for items on which purchase orders were out- standing as of June 30, 1986. The over-expenditures in instructional Admin- istration will be offset by transfers at a later date. Joint Dispatch Center: Capital Improvements: $ 5,400.75 $ 936.00 Unexpended Reappropriation Cost Center Balance Request 1. Misc. School Projects $ 12,892.67 $ 12,892.67 2. Fireman Training Center 58,790.75 58,790.75 3. Court Square Project 28,305.07 28,305.07 4. Briarwood Road Improvement 11,095.83 11,095.83 5. Information Services 38,058.95 38,058.95 6. Police Department 22,687.00 22,687.00 7. Fire Department 162,000.00 162,000.00 8. Hydraulic Road Pathway 5,000.00 5,000.00 9. Staff Services 48,577.25 48,577.25 10. Ivy School Site Selection 2,895.00 2,895.00 11. Ivy School Plans 64,778.26 64,778.26 12. Parks & Recreation 163,377.29 163,377.29 13. Southern Swimming Facility 6,154.00 6,154.00 14. Recreation Facility 27,864.00 27,864.00 15. Aerial Topo Mapping 23,662.00 23,662.00 Total $ 676,138.07 Ail are for uncompleted projects with the exceptions of the $12,892.67 for Miscellaneous School projects. This amount is the balance in various school projects which have been completed. The School Division has requested that this amount be reappropriated. I would recommend that if this amount is to be reappropriated that it be transferred to the School Refurbishment Fund where other miscellaneous school projects are being funded. Other Funds: Pending the final closing of the books, there will be additional requests for various grants and the Storm Detention fund. SUMMARY: Overall, County operations completed FY 85/86 in a better financial condi- tion than FY 84/85. With the exception of the over-expenditures previously itemized, most of which can be offset by appropriation transfers requiring no additional funding, this has been a very good year and is reflected in the County's excellent financial position. August 13, 1986 (Regular Day MeetiDg) 181 I do not anticipate any major changes between now and the final closing of the books. However, please keep in mind that some minor adjustments will still be required and will be reported to you in a final report. The final report should be available in September 1986." Mr. Fisher asked for information about the cell liner. Mr. Michael Armm, County Engi- neer, said the liner is plastic and is to be placed under the new garbage cell at the Ivy Landfill. Bids were received jointly with the City last week and negotiations are proceeding with the low bidder. The County's half of the bid will be less than the appropriation. The base bid for the entire project and joint cost to ~the City and County is approximately $300,000. Mr. Fisher asked the size of the cell. Mr. Armm replied one and one-half to two acres which is anticipated to carry the Landfill through another year to eighteen months. In addition there are a lot of appurtenances that go along with the liner. Mr. Fisher commented that this is primarily the next big advance in groundwater protection for landfills. Mr. Armm responded that is true, but unfortunately there is not enough natural clay material available on the site and thus they had to use an artificial liner. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at 10:23 A.M.) The Chairman called a recess at 10:25 A.M. present, at 10:31 A.M. The meeting reconvened, with Mr. Henley Mr. Bowie asked if increasing the fund balance by $676,138.07 is consistent with what was anticipated. Mr. Jones replied yes. In addition all of the unexpended balances were slightly higher than predicted in February and revenues were also in excess. Mr. Fisher commented that the Board encourages the staff not spend all that is appropriated and when the staff complies it is a sign of success. He thinks the staff has made a good effort in the past year to control costs. Mr. Bowie offered motion to authorize the requested transfers and reappropriations as follows: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Transfers and Adjustments: Miscellaneous School Repairs Western Albemarle Carpet Western Albemarle Engineering School Blinds & Curtains Asbestos Removal Albemarle High School - Phase IV Western Albemarle - Equipment Western Albemarle Projects Broadus Wood Addition Crozet Library Sewer Court Square Communications Equipment Court Square Contingency School Comprehensive Plan Ivy School Sight Selection Brownsville School - Roof Greer School - Roof Western Albemarle Stage Improvements Branch Libraries - Fire Detection Undesignated Fund Balance 13,578.87 (2,017.00) (840.04) (91.80) 1,490.00 56.50 14,295.98 (13,301.62) (20,296.70) 769.60 1,586.50 (1,586.50) 18.99 202.00 632.11 7,272.71 (1,000.00) 3,275.00 (4,044.60) GENERAL FUND Reappropriations: County Executive Finance Board of Elections Police Engineering Landfills Staff Services Planning Zoning Total $ 3,000.00 30,000.00 4,000.00 22,500.00 2,000.00 267,791.83 932.25 5,000.00 3,200.00 $338,424.08 SCHOOL FUND Reappropriations: Instructional Administration Henley School 3,600.00 1~424.56 5,024.56 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Reappropriations: Miscellaneous School Projects Fireman Training Center Court Square Project Briarwood Road Improvement Information Services Police Department $ 12,892.67 58,790.75 28,305.07 11,095.83 38,058.95 22,687.00 ~8'2 August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Fire Department Hydraulic Road Pathway Aerial Topographic Mapping Staff Services Ivy School Site Selection Ivy School Parks & Recreation Southern Swimming Facility Recreation Facility Total 162,000.00 5,000.00 23,662.00 48,577.25 2,895.00 64,778.26 163,377.29 6,154.00 27,864.00 $676,138.07 JOINT DISPATCH CENTER FUND Reappropriation Total $ 936.00 $ 936.00 Mr. Henley seconded the motion. following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried with the AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: Woodbrook Village North Site Plan. Proposal to locate a two-story retail building of 12,000 square feet gross, 5,000 square feet net, served by 50 parking spaces. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is located on the east side of Route 29 North and the north side of Woodbrook Drive, adjacent to Woodbrook. This parcel is adjacent to the recent Stereotypes Site Plan proposal. Tax Map 45C-2, parcel 1. Charlottes- ville Magisterial District. This matter was appealed to the Board by letter dated July 30, 1986, from Mr. Dennis Housdan, President, Woodbrook Community Association, and Robert P. Cook, President, Woodbrook Elementary PTO, for the following reasons: We object to the manner in which a road was platted to intersect Woodbrook Drive without a proper (any) chance by our community to respond. We object to a site plan that is based on the unrealistic assumption that 7,000 square feet of a 12,000 square foot building will be used in such a way as to not require even one single parking space. In addi- tion, we object to the large appliance designation for the remaining 5,000 square feet so as to require exactly the 50 parking spaces provided in the plan. We object to the landscaping plan which calls for cutting down the existing dogwood trees along Woodbrook Drive and replacing them with 18 inch high bushes. Also, we object to driving between two parking lots as the only entrance/exit to our lovely subdivision. We vigorously object to a plan which creates a dramatic increase in traffic on Woodbrook Drive and at the Route 29 North intersection. We feel that this will endanger not only our residents, but also our school traffic, which the completions of Squire Hill and the Fieldbrook and Raintree subdivisions will undoubtedly increase. Woodbrook is unique because of its small size, its restricted entrance, and the presence of a fine elementary school. As a result, we have one of the highest densities of children of any subdivision in the county. At present, our streets are safe; we are very opposed to any increase in traffic at the entrance and anywhere else in our subdivision. As concerned citizens in a rapidly growing community, we know that it is not unrealistic to just oppose development; compromise is often a necessity. Therefore, we would be satisfied with the following steps to improve this situation: The Woodbrook Village North entrance/exit onto Woodbrook Drive would be deleted. Adequate landscaping would be provided along Woodbrook Drive to make the view more pleasant if the existing trees must be removed. If a five foot strip were deeded to the county, the residents of Woodbrook would take responsibility for plantings and maintenance. The twenty foot buffer zone adjacent to the subdivision lots would be planted so as to shield our residents. The current plan does not include this and the existing plantings are not totally adequate." Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: This is a growing commercial area on Route 29 North, adjacent to the residential Woodbrook subdivision. Summary and Recommendations: The Site plan shows proposed subdivision lines which will create three lots averaging 0.7 acres each. The applicant requests administrative approval of , 183 August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) this subdivision plat. Ail three proposed lots will have access to this one entrance on Woodbrook Drive, with an access easement provided to the Stereo- types property, adjacent to the north. As the Commission may recall, the Stereotypes Site Plan was approved May 13, 1986. The Stereotypes Plan proposes an entrance on Route 29 with turn and taper lane, and access through the parking lot to the subject property. The recordation of a plat creating this access easement is a requirement to be met prior to issuance of building permits for Stereotypes and for Woodbrook Village North. The proposed entrance on Woodbrook Drive will accommodate two outbound lanes across from the main entrance to Woodbrook Shopping Center. Once proposed lot B is developed, a raised island will be installed in the entrance road to facilitate access to and from the present development proposal. The present plan for a 12,000 square foot building is for Ron Martin T.V. and Appliance and 'two or three small retail outlets,' for a total of 5,000 square feet of actual retail space. The applicant is put on notice that occupants will be limited by available parking. According to Mr. Ron Martin, pick-up trucks will be utilized for deliveries. Circulation on-site may not be as smooth as desirable if larger trucks with more frequent deliveries are utilized. The County Engineer commented at Site Review: 'Stormwater detention for this site will be provided through the use of underground pipe. We recom- mend approval subject to: a) County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations; b) County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations; c) Issuance of an erosion control permit.~ This Site Plan will meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and staff recommends approval subject to the following: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations; County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations; Issuance of an erosion control permit; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance on Woodbrook and drainage plans; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; Planning staff approval of landscape plan; no disturbance of 20 foot buffer adjacent to Woodbrook; Fire officer approval; Recordation of a plat which provides vehicular access to and from adjacent parcel 93B of Tax Map 45. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Fire Officer final approval; 3. Future occupants will be limited by available parking. 4. No direct access to Route 29 for any proposed lots." The following letter to Mrs. Amelia Patterson, Department of Planning and Community Development, from the Department of Highways and Transportation, dated June 18, 1986, was received: "Woodbrook Village North Site Plan, Route 1417 - The Department recommends that the island in the middle of the entrance off of Route 1417 be elimi- nated to improve the internal circulation on this property. A standard 40-foot wide co~nercial entrance with 25-foot radii would be adequate for this site. To obtain the 250 feet of sight distance required for this entrance, trees and vegetation will need to be cut along the frontage of this property in both directions. No landscaping should be planted so that it interferes with sight distance in the future. The Department will need to review and approve the drainage for this site, since the drainage along Route 1417 will be picked up and carried through this site and then tying into a new section of storm sewer system on Route 29. A recorded easement for these drainage facilities will be necessary. The easement should be to public use and not to VDH&T. This site plan shows that CG-6 will be constructed on the frontage of this property along Route 29. If this CG-6 is constructed, it should be 26 feet from the centerline of Route 29 to the face of curb. The Department will require that the pavement also 184 August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) be widened across this frontage, since it will be necessary to properly handle the drainage once the CG-6 is constructed. There should be easements for access to the adjacent property to the north for all three of these parcels. The Department recommends that all three of these parcels have access to the one entrance on Route 1417 and that in the future there will be no new additional entrances to this property." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 22, 1986, by a vote of 4-2, recommended approval of Woodbrook Village North Site Plan, subject to the conditions of the staff, with an added condition l(i) as follows: "No public access to second floor for retail sales purposes." Mr. Horne said the major issues discussed at the Planning Commission meeting concerned access to the site and landscaping of the site. There was also considerable discussion as to precisely what was going to take place within the building and whether the existing parking facilities as shown would be adequate. At the time the site plan for Stereotypes was approved, the Planning Commission dis- cussed the best way to obtain access for this entire proposed commercial area. he Commission approved one entrance and exit to Route 29 on the Stereotypes side and required that as part of the site plan approval there be dedicated easements to provide access through the property to adjoining sites with the intent that these sites would not have direct access to Route 29 North. There are two other parcels on this tract that have additional development rights. If the tract is developed with separate establishments one each parcel, there would be four establishments all using one entrance to Route 29 North and one common entrance to Woodbrook Drive. At the Planning Commission meeting there was considerable discussion as to whether it was appropriate to allow an entrance onto Woodbrook Drive and whether that was better than either forcing all traffic out one entrance onto Route 29 North or providing separate entran- ces onto Route 29 North. When Stereotypes was approved, the Commission felt the way to protect Route 29 North was to allow an entrance/exit on Woodbrook Drive, fully understanding that it would put additional traffic on Woodbrook Drive, but in the overall would protect the function of Route 29 North. The Commission did not feel that Woodbrook Drive would be overloaded by allowing this entrance. In terms of landscaping, there was considerable discussion about the need for removal of some of the existing large dogwood trees along Woodbrook Drive and discussion of the need for landscaping and buffering to buffer whatever is developed from the residents in the area. Due to sight distance, there will need to be two large dogwood trees removed. As part of the landscaping plan, those trees must be replaced, although not at their existing size since the trees are mature dogwoods. Medium street trees will be required. Also, lower shrub screening will be required to screen the parking lot from Woodbrook Drive. Although no disturbance to the area is expected when developing Parcel A, there is a Waterline easement that would have to be cut. There is a 20 foot required buffer that will not be disturbed at this time. Independent of the buffering, as Parcel A is developed, additional screening will be required. In terms of circulation on site and the adequacy of the parking, the discussion revolved around whether the second floor of the two-story building would be used for retail sales. The applicant stated his intent not to use the second floor for retail sales; therefore, the Commission added a condition that there would be no access by the public to the second floor for retail purposes. The reason for its importance is that the 50 parking spaces shown are adequate for the ground floor only. In addition, for the two to three retail sales there may be limits on available parking spaces. Mr. Horne then addressed the recommendations which the appellants felt would improve the situation. The Commission felt that removal of the entrance would tend to increase the amount of friction resulting in people having to go to the crossover, make a U-turn and come back. The Commission did not feel that would be good turning movements and that it was preferable to have the entrance on Woodbrook Drive. He has already addressed the removal of the dogwood trees and the 20 foot buffer zone which is a requirement of landscaping. The staff has no problem with meeting with the property owners to discuss what type of screening is most appropriate within the confines of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked if this conforms to the Highway Department's recommendations for access to the property. Mr. Horne said the entrances would be installed to the Highway Department's standards and the Department's general position has been to minimize the amount of entrances on to Route 29 North. Mr. Fisher asked the approximate frontage along Route 29 from the intersection of these parcels. Mr. Horne replied approximately 250 to 270 feet. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt for a summary of the Highway Department's position on the entrances. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department is satisfied with the location of the access. There are some concerns with the actual design of the entrances, but with regard to location the proposed entrance is the best access for this location. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Dennis Housdan, President, Woodbrook Homeowners Association, asked persons in the audience from the Woodbrook community in opposition of the site plan to stand. He said the Homeowners Association has no objection to new businesses in the neighborhood as long as the businesses are not using Woodbrook Drive as an exit. The major concern of the residents is safety. The recently installed traffic light has helped immensely, except that the light provides a short cut for people getting back onto Route 29 and going south. There are presently 31 businesses in the Woodbrook Village vicinity, approximately 200 homes and 350 students. He feels that a mistake was made when this entrance was built years ago and there is no need to add to the mistake. August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Robert Cook, President, Woodbrook PTO, said the school is in use almost every day from 7:30 A.M. to 9:30 P.M. There is an after-school program that runs until 5:30 P.M. The school property is used for athletic programs and community meetings at night, and bingo on weekends. There is significant additional traffic into and out of the school beyond children walking. He is also opposed to the use of this road by businesses. With respect to replac- ing the trees, there are machines that will dig the trees up and put them back. Mr. Bob Sylvester, distributed a letter dated August 12, from Mr. Robert Lassiter, another property owner also voicing his objections to the proposed entrance. Mr. Sylvester said one issue that has not yet been addressed is the parking along Woodbrook Drive. There are presently no signs posted, but it would compound the problem if parking is allowed. He is willing to meet with the developer and discuss the 20 foot section and the retainer wall being extended to the point where the land levels off. Mrs. Sylvia Henderson, former principal at Woodbrook School and resident of Woodbrook, said there are approximately 200 children in the subdivision, and 165 of those are school age. She urges the Board to consider the effect this would have on the safety of those children. Mr. Mark Osborne, of Gloeckner, Lincoln and Osborne, representing the applicant, said the applicant desires to exercise his right to lawfully develop property already zoned HC. Three and one-half months have been spent working closely with the staff investigating different alternatives, sketches and access points, and he feels that the submitted plan embodies all of the thoughts of the staff and the applicant for the project. The plan reserves 5,000 square feet for public parking which will be one parking space per i00 square feet. The applicant is in agreement with the Planning Commission's conditions. If the Zoning Administrator should decide that the character of use requires more parking spaces, there is space available on Parcel "B" to add several more parking spaces. The entrance shown on Woodbrook Drive conforms to the requirements of the Highway Department and as a part of the requirements, sight distance is necessary from that entrance and thus requires the removal of several of the mature dogwood trees. The applicant is willing to work with the staff on a landscape plan to try and relocate some of the trees and is willing to see if the trees can be transplanted. Mrs. Amelia Patterson, of the Planning Department, who will be reviewing the landscape plan, has agreed to talk with someone from the Woodbrook area to get ideas on different types of plant materials amendable to the applicant for use as screening along the eastern portion of the property. The applicant has no problem in speaking with Mr. Sylvester to produce a satisfactory plan that would provide a vegetative opaque screen. As previously stated, the applicant has worked closely with the staff and feels that this is the best alternative, and staff concurs. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said the usual procedure is that the action of the Planning Commission is final unless the Board changes that action. It is his opinion that the Highway Department is the traffic expert and if it feels this is the best way to develop the property, then he also supports the action of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie said there is an even worse problem at Pantops which has caused traffic problems, but in a short period of time the problems are being resolved by working with the Highway Department. He also supports the action of the Planning Commission on this request. Mr. Fisher said, for the record, a number of letters have been received concerning this petition. He encourages the property owners to work with the applicant to find the best way to do the screening and to work with the County staff. Mr. Fisher then asked if there is a motion to amend the action of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie commented on a letter received from Mr. Robert Lassiter which mentions the six-laning on Route 29. He asked that as the staff and Highway Department reviewed the site plans for the other lots, they take into consideration Mr. Lassiter's concern. Hearing no motion, the Chair ruled that the action of the Planning Commission stands. Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: Wendell Wood Final Plat. Proposal to divide a 4.04 acre parcel into four lots averaging 36,949 square feet. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is located on the west side of Route 29 and north of Hilton Heights Road, adjacent to the Hilton Hotel site. Tax Map 45, Parcel C, and Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D4. Charlottes- ville Magisterial District. This matter was appealed to the Board by letter dated July 2, 1986, from Mr. Wendell W. Wood, President, United Land Corporation of America: "Please use this letter as our request to appeal the decision of the Plan- ning Commission with regard to ~Wendell Wood - Final Plat' which was heard July 1, 1986. We regret taking the Board's time on this action, however, the staff has recommended approval and is uncertain of what changes it can support to assure approval by the Commission. We would appreciate the earliest possi- ble date since this has been in process for several months." Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Proposal: This is a proposal to divide a 4.04 acre parcel into four (4) lots averaging 36,949 square feet. Zoning: HC, Highway. Commercial. August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Location: Located on the west side of Route 29 and north of Hilton Heights Road, adjacent to the Hilton Hotel site. Tax Map 45, Parcel C, and Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D4. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: The surrounding area consists of commercial use or undeveloped land. The parcel has been subject to some grading activity. Summary and Recommendations: The Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 13, 1986, deferred this subdivision plat until the applicant and staff could further discuss and address the concerns outlined by the Commission. The primary concern of the Commission was with the proposed access to and from the parcels and the resulting U-turns that would occur on Route 29 and the Hilton Heights Road/Hilton Hotel access road intersection. Four possible alternatives were discussed by the Commission and/or staff as possible solutions to this problem. They were: 1. Use of the 24 foot access easement to the Hilton Hotel access road; 2. Other possible access points to the Hilton Hotel access road; 3. The use of a crossover in the median of Hilton Heights Road; 4. Restricting access (ingress or egress only) at each entrance. The applicant, County Engineer, and staff have discussed and reviewed these alternatives with the following conclusions: The County Engineer and Planning Staff do not feel that the 24-foot access easement is a viable alternative. The applicant has submitted a profile of the road that would have to be constructed if this access easement were to be utilized. The road would have a grade in excess of 12 percent and would have three, ninety degree turns while traversing this grade. Therefore, it is felt that this is not an acceptable design for a primary access to this property; Given the existing topography of this site and the adjacent property, there does not appear to be any other point along the Hilton Hotel access road where an acceptable access could be achieved; A crossover in the median along Hilton Heights Road would not be acceptable to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. The Department's recommendation for minimum separation between crossovers is 500 feet (this crossover would be approximately 200 feet between Route 29 and the crossover at the Hilton Hotel Road). Although the Highway Department has no problems with the proposed access onto Hilton Heights Road, they would not approve of a crossover at this location because it would not allow for satisfactory spacing for weaving vehicles to align themselves with the proper lane. An intermediate intersection (between Route 29 and intersection of the Hilton Hotel access road) would break down the traffic flow leaving an unsatisfactory road system. Staff would point out that once other properties which are served by this road are built out, and the proposed parallel road is constructed, the existence of a crossover at this location would be undesirable. It would not be considered good long term planning to place a crossover in this portion of the road. Consideration was given to restricting access at these entrances. Restricting exits on the Hilton Heights Road access would force all U-turns to occur at the Route 29 crossover. Likewise restricting exits from the Route 29 access would force all turns to occur on Hilton Heights Road. The County Engineer and staff feel it would be more desirable to disperse the U-turns between both locations. Furthermore it is felt that the amount of U-turns at the Route 29 intersection will not be that significant since most traffic will have a southern destination from this site. in the future, as the parallel road and its connections to 29 are constructed, these U-turns may be limited by posting 'No U-turn' signs at these locations and directing traffic down the parallel road to the Carrsbrook connector road and its intersection to Route 29. Although the access for this proposed subdivision creates a traffic circulation pattern which would not normally be endorsed by staff, it is recognized that this proposal may be the only practical solution for this situation. The applicant is advised that any special use permits or uses requiring such which generate additional traffic or adversely affect existing traffic circulation (drive-in windows, etc.), will not be reviewed favorably by the Planning Department. This proposal meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and staff recommends approval of this subdivision plat subject to the following conditions: August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) 187 The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: Traffic generation from Parcels C-1 through C-4 shall be limited to 3200 vehicle trips per day as approved in ZMA- 85-35, 'River Heights.' Maximum Traffic generation for each parcel must be delineated on this plat." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 1, 1986, unanimously denied the Wendell Wood Final Plat. This plat was denied on the grounds that the proposed road access to the site does not constitute safe and convenient access to the site and is not consistent with sound engineering practices. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission felt that the applicant was adequately informed in 1982 that only one access would be allowed. The condition is stated in the staff report and the Commission saw no reason to approve further subdivision of the parcel. As the property now stands, it can be developed as one large parcel. Mr. Fisher said the issue before the Board is whether to allow the further subdivision of the property and under what conditions. Mr. Horne commented that denial of the subdivi- sion does not deny development of the site. It is difficult for the staff to anticipate whether traffic generation would be less awkward with the smaller sites or with development of multiple businesses on the larger site. It will depend on the type of business. Regard- less, approval of the zoning for Hilton Heights limits total traffic generation to 3~200 vehicles per day. Mr. Fisher asked if grading has made the road more difficult as compared to the site in 1982. Mr. Horne replied he does not think so. The grading has not changed since 1982. There was considerable discussion on this subject in 1982 at the Planning Commission meeting that it may be a difficult way to get in and out of the site, however, both the County Engineering staff and the engineering staff for the applicant felt that the 24 foot access road could be built. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt for comments from the Highway Department. Mr. Roosevelt said the present access point cannot be properly used without considerable fill on the property. Unless there can be a second access to Hilton Heights Road all traffic to and from the site would be using Rt. 29. Therefore, the new proposal appears to be the best one presented. Mr. Fisher asked if subdivision of the parcel would intensify its use. Mr. Horne said that is hard to anticipate although some of the potential high traffic generators like fast food restaurants tend to prefer smaller sites. Mr. Roosevelt commented that traffic genera- tion for this property is controlled by proffers. Mr. Fisher said it would be hard to control traffic "after the fact". The public hearing was opened. Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, addressed the Board. He does not have any addition information to add, but that this has been going on for almost a year and he would like a resolution. He feels that the new submittal is the best solution. Since the total traffic count has been proffered he does not think how the property is subdivided will have any bearing. It is not easy to develop a four acre parcel as one parcel and also safety is an issue which should be taken into consideration. The present access is not feasible. This appeal is on denial of subdivision approval because of the access. Mr. Wood commented that there have been deeded easements across all of the properties to allow access. Mr. Fisher asked the type of development proposed for the smaller sites. Mr. Wood commented they will be independent retail businesses. The depth of the property makes it more conducive to that. The property to the south of the Hilton will probably be developed as a center~ as it is approximately 20 acres. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way said allowing the action of the Planning Commission to stand will not solve the problem. He does not think subdivision of the parcel will make that much difference in terms of traffic since traffic is proffered. He is inclined to support the staff and Highway Department's recommendation. Mr. Bowie said if the issue was only the entrance he would agree with Mr. Way, but he has a problem with the site. There is an extreme amount of use of Route 29. He also is not sure the traffic can be controlled with the proffer. He has trouble with overturning the Planning Commission's decision when taking into consideration the subdivision and increase in traffic. Subdivision would mean development of four different small parcels independently without site review as to what will be on the properties. Mr. Henley said he agrees with Mr. Bowie. He feels that if the property has one owner- ship, traffic volume can better be handled, unless a better solution can be found. Mr. Fisher said he also cannot support the staff's position. Hearing no motion for a change, the Chair ruled that the action of the Planning Commission stands. Agenda Item No. 11. Planning Commission Ordinance, order advertisement of an amendment to add a non-voting member. Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated August 8, 1986, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., to the Board: 188 August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20.) "You will recall the Three Party Agreement between the County, City, and University provided for the appointment of a representative of the University as a non-voting member of the Planning Commission. To accomplish that appointment, the County Code, which regulates the composition of the Planning Commission, needs to be amended. Attached (on file) is a draft of the amended Code. It has been written in the compensation section to not compensate the University representative, which is an assumption on the part of the staff. If you agree, please adopt a resolution of intent to amend Section 2-4 of the Code, and set the public hearing for September 10." Mr. Bowie offered motion to set a public hearing for September 10, 1986, to amend Section 2-4 of the Code to appoint a representative of the University of Virginia as a non-voting member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Way seconded the motions. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 12. Legislative Requests for Virginia Association of Counties. Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum dated August 8, 1986, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., to the Board: "The deadline for submitting legislation requests to VACo for their 1987 legislative program is September 1. Staff recommends that last year's request for legislation that would authorize local governing bodies to assess impact fees from development of land be requested again this year. These fees would be for defraying the costs of local and State government services such as highways, transportation, fire protection, school system, law enforcement, waste disposal, and parks and recreation. Staff also recommends that amendment to the State Code also be requested to more clearly define and tighten the use of a family division of property." Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. St. John help develop language for VACo for the amendment to the State Code on the use of the family division provision. Mr. St. John said the Division of Legislative Services intends to develop language to more clearly define the purpose although he does not know if the Board will be satisfied. Mr. Fisher commented that it is helpful when dealing with VACo legislative committees to have something that can be focused on and that the County staff should develop some of its own language. Mr. Bowie said although he has problems with the Board telling people what they can do within their own family and with their own property, he thinks the Board should have some input to give some guidance. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board also request authority to increase the County's Transient Occupancy Tax to four percent. Four percent is the same rate charged by the City. This request previously has not survived the Senate Finance Committee, but he thinks that it should be continued to be requested. He has talked to the legislators about this and they have indicated a willingness to introduce the bill. He would like to have support from the City and some of the hotel operators as well. Mr. Bowie said last year he presented the request that the confiscation of drug dealer assets be reapportioned back to the communities to fight drugs instead of going to the Literary Fund. This was subsequently introduced by Delegate George Allen. VACo and the legislators stated this request would require a constitutional change because the constitu- tion states confiscated assets go to the Literary Fund. He believes it has the support of some county attorneys, and he would again like to reintroduce the legislation. Mr. Bowie offered motion to request the staff to prepare sufficient wording on the following legislative matters for the VACo Legislative Program: Request legislation that would authorize local governing bodies to assess impact fees on development of land to aid in the defraying of costs of local and State government services such as highways, trans- portation, fire protection, school system, law enforcement, waste disposal, and parks and recreation; Request legislative change that would more clearly define and tighten the use of a family division of property; Request legislative change that would increase the transient lodging tax to four percent; Request legislative change that would allow the proceeds of drug seizures (assets and/or monies) to be used for local drug enforcement activities. (Currently all proceeds are awarded to the State.) Mr. Henley seconded the motion. lng recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried with the follow- AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) 189 Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Personnel and Land Acquisition. Mr. St. John requested that the Executive Session include legal matters on the discus- sion of potential litigation with reference to rogue dogs in and near Glenaire Subdivision. At 11:53 A.M., Mr. Way offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn into executive session for discussion of personnel, land acquisition and legal matters. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:30 P.M. Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: Amendment of Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Articles of Incorporation to change membership thereon. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 24, 1986.) Mr. Tucker said several months ago the Albemarle County Service Authority requested that the Board consider amending the Articles of Incorporation for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to provide for membership of their Executive Director in lieu of the County's Engineer. The amendments have been prepared providing for the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority or another department head from Albemarle County. The Board has the authority to appoint the person. Mr. Tucker stated that City Council adopted the resolution at its meeting on August 4 for the change. The public hearing was opened. was closed. There being no one present to speak, the public hearing Mr. Way offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the following resolution: CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE-COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY TO AMEND AND RESTATE THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY WHEREAS, by concurrent resolution of the Council of the City of Charlottesville (the City) and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County (the County) and a certificate of incorporation issued by the State Corporation Commission, pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (the Act), the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (the Authority) was incorporated as a public body politic and corporate in 1972; and WHEREAS, the City and the County amended and restated the Articles of Incorporation of the Authority in December 1985 to limit its powers regarding the treatment and transmission of potable water and the treatment and disposal of sewage; and WHEREAS, the City and the County desire to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation of the Authority to place the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, or such Albemarle County Depart- ment head as the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County may appoint, on the Board of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in lieu of the County Engineer of Albemarle County; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, IN SEPARATE MEETINGS ASSEMBLED: 1. The Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby indicate their intention to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation of the Authority as provided herein. 2. The Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, or such Albemarle County Department head as the Board of Supervi- sors of Albemarle County may appoint in the Executive Director's place, shall serve on the Board of the Authority in lieu of the Albemarle County Engineer. The Executive Director's term of office shall begin at such time as a certificate of amendment and restatement is issued by the State Corpo- ration Commission. 3. The Articles of Incorporation of the Authority as amended and restated shall be substantially as follows: SECOND RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY The Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County having created an Authority pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended), as a public body politic and corporate, and having signified their intention to amend and restate its Articles of Incorporation, hereby certify: August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) (a) The name of the Authority is "Rivanna Water and Sewer Author- ity'' and the address of its principal office shall be Charlottesville, Virginia. (b) The names of the incorporating political subdivisions are the City of CharlotteSville and Albemarle County. (c) The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by a board of five members consisting of the four persons holding the offices, from time to time, of City Manager and Director of Public Works of the City of Char- lottesville, and County Executive and the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, or such Albemarle County Department head as the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County may appoint in the Executive Director's place, and a fifth person appointed by the concurrent action of the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervi- sors of Albemarle County. The names and addresses of the current members are as follows: NAMES ADDRESSES Mr. Guy B. Agnor (Albemarle County Executive) 23 Orchard Road Charlottesville, Virginia Mr. John W. Brent (Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority) 2535 Milton Hills Drive Charlottesville, Virginia Mr. D. Cole Hendrix (Charlottesville City Manager) 104 Grover Court Charlottesville, Virginia Ms. Judith M. Mueiler (Charlottesville Director of Public Works) 1940 Michael Place Charlottesville, Virginia The terms of the members of the board serving as such by virtue of their offices with the City and the County shall expire upon their ceasing to hold such offices. Any person hereafter holding any such office shall automatically succeed to the membership of his predecessor in such office on the board of the Authority. The term of the member of the board serving as such by virtue of his office with the Albemarle County Service Authority shall expire upon his ceasing to hold such office or upon the decision of the Board of Supervisors that a County Department head shall serve on the board in the Executive Director's place. Any person hereafter holding the office of Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority shall automatically succeed to the membership of his predecessor in such office on the board of the Authority, unless the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has elected to appoint a County Department head to serve on the board in the Executive Director's place. The current term of the appointed member shall expire on May 1, 1988, and his successor shall be appointed for a term of two years, except that a vacancy shall be filled only for the unexpired term. The appointed member shall hold office until his successor has been appointed and qualifies and he shall be eligible for reappointment to succeed himself. The appointed member shall receive such compensation not to exceed $1,800 per year as the board of the Authority may determine, but those members who are employees of the City or the County or the Albemarle County Service Authority shall serve without compensation. Each member shall be reimbursed the amount of his actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties. (d) The purpose for which the Authority is formed is to acquire, finance, construct, operate and maintain facilities for developing a supply of potable water for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County and for the abatement of pollution resulting from sewage in the Rivanna River Basin, by the impoundment, treatment and transmission of potable water and the interception, treatment and discharge of wastewater, together with all appurtenant equipment and appliances necessary or suitable therefor and all properties, rights, easements or franchises relating thereto and deemed necessary or convenient by the Authority for their operation. Except to the extent of providing incidental services and the sale of excess products, the Authority's powers are limited to providing wholesale services to the City and the County. The Authority may contract with the City, the County, any sanitary district thereof or any authority therein created pursuant to the Act, to furnish water and to treat sewage delivered to its facilities upon such terms as the Authority shall determine; provided, however, that any such contract shall include as parties thereto the City and the County (or any agency of the County designated for that purpose by its Board of County Supervisors). The Authority is expressly prohibited from contracting with any other party desiring service in the City or the County, except upon the written consent of the City or County (or any agency of the County desig- nated for that purpose by its Board of County Supervisors), respectively. August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) i@i (e) The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be made by the State Auditor of Public Accounts or an independent certi- fied public accountant at the end of each fiscal year and a certified copy thereof to be filed promptly with the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County have caused these Restated Articles of Incorporation to be executed in the names of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, respectively, by their presiding officers and their seals to be affixed and attested by their clerks this day of August, 1986. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE By Mayor (SEAL) Attest: Clerk of Council (SEAL) Attest: ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Chairman Board of County Supervisors Clerk, Board of County Supervisors 4. Public hearings on this proposed resolution have been held in Council Chambers by the Council of the City at 7:30 P.M. on August 4, 1986, and the Board of County Supervisors at 1:30 P.M. on August 13, 1986, in Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Immediately following such public hearings or any adjournment thereof, each governing body shall cause to be filed with the State Corporation Commission a record of the proceedings thereof which shall indicate whether such governing body desires to proceed with the amendment and restatement of the Articles of Incorporation of the Authority and whether such governing body called for a referendum pursuant to Section 15.1-1244 of the Act. A copy of this resolution shall have been published one time at least 30 days prior to the date of such public hearings in "The Daily Progress," a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, preceded by a notice as follows: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the Council of the City at 7:30 P.M. on August 4, 1986, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 7th and Main Streets, and by the Board of County Supervisors of the County at 1:30 P.M. on August 13, 1986, in Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, on a Concurrent Resolution pro- posed to be adopted by the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County on amending and restating the Articles of Incorporation of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. SECOND RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY The Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County having created an Authority pursuant 'to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended), as a public body politic and corporate, and having signified their intention to amend and restate its Articles of Incorporation, hereby certify: (a) The name of the Authority is "Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority" and the address of its principal office shall be Charlottesville, Virginia. (b) The names of the incorporating political subdivisions are the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. (c) The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by a board of five members consisting of the four persons holding the offices, from time to time, of City Manager and Director of Public Works of the City of Charlottes- ville and County Executive and Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, or such Albemarle County Department head as the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County may appoint in the Executive Director's place, and a fifth person appointed by the concurrent action of the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County. The names and addresses of the current members are as follows: Name Guy B. Agnor, Jr. (Albemarle County Executive) Address 23 Orchard Road Charlottesville, Virginia 192 August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) John W. Brent (Executive Director, Albe marle County Service Authority) 2535 Milton Hills Drive Charlottesville, Virginia D. Cole Hendrix (Charlottesville City Manager) 104 Grover Court Charlottesville, Virginia Judith M. Mueller (Charlottesville Director of Public Works) 1940 Michael Place Charlottesville, Virginia The terms of the members of the board serving as such by virtue of their offices with the City and the County shall expire upon their ceasing to hold such offices. Any person hereafter holding any such office shall automatically succeed to the membership of his predecessor in such office on the board of the Authority. The term of the member of the board serving as such by virtue of his office with the Albemarle County Service Authority shall expire upon his ceasing to hold such office or upon the decision of the Board of Supervisors that a County Department head shall serve on the board in the Executive Director's place. Any person hereafter holding the office of Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority shall automatically succeed to the membership of his predecessor in such office on the board of the Authority, unless the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has elected to appoint a County Department head to serve on the board in the Executive Director's place. The current term of the appointed member shall expire on May 1, 1988, and his successor shall be appointed for a term of two years, except that a vacancy shall be filled only for the unexpired term. The appointed member shall hold office until his successor has been appointed and qualifies and he shall be eligible for reappointment to succeed himself. The appointed member shall receive such compensation not to exceed $1,800 per year as the board of the Authority may determine, but those members who are employees of the City or the County or the Albemarle County Service Authority shall serve without compensation. Each member shall be reimbursed the amount of his actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of his duties. (d) The purpose for which the Authority is formed is to acquire, finance, construct, operate and maintain facilities for developing a supply of potable water for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County and for the abatement of pollution resulting from sewage in the Rivanna River Basin, by the impoundment, treatment and transmission of potable water and the interception, treatment and discharge of wastewater, together with all appurtenant equipment and appliances necessary or suitable therefor and all properties, rights, easements or franchises relating thereto and deemed necessary or convenient by the Authority for their operation. Except to the extent of providing incidental services and the sale of excess products, the Authority's powers are limited to providing wholesale services to the City and the County. The Authority may contract with the City, the County, any sanitary district thereof or any authority therein created pursuant to the Act, to furnish water and to treat sewage delivered to its facilities upon such terms as the Authority shall determine; provided, however, that any such contract shall include as parties thereto the City and the County (or any agency of the County designated for the purpose by its Board of County Supervisors). The Authority is expressly prohibited from contracting with any other party desiring service in the City or the County, except upon the written consent of the City or County (or any agency of the County desig- nated for that purpose by its Board of County Supervisors), respectively. (e) The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be made by the State Auditor of Public Accounts or an independent certi- fied public accountant at the end of each fiscal year and a certified copy thereof to be filed promptly with the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County have caused these Restated Articles of Incorporation to be executed in the names of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, respectively, by their presiding officers and their seals to be affixed and attested by their clerks this day of August~ 1986. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE By Mayor (SEAL) Attest: Clerk of Council (SEAL) Attest: ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Chairman Board of County Supervisors Clerk, Board of County Supervisors August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) 19© Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried with the following recorded vo~e: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Way asked if the Board now makes the appointment. Mr. Tucker responded no; this amendment already lists Mr. Brent as the appointee. If the Board choose to appoint someone differently, that can be done at another date. Agenda Item No. 15. Peace Statement - Baha'i Movement. Mr. S. Michael Bernhard, Secretary, The Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Albemarle County, presented a copy (on file) of their peace statement entitled "The Promise of World Peace". The Baha'i faith is a world religion founded in Iran in the nineteenth century. Among their concerns are the idea of unity of the human race, the essential oneness of mankind and the relation of this principle to achieving world peace. Mr. Bernhard said this statement has been presented to heads of state and leaders in the communities. Mr. Fisher indicated that the Board was pleased to have Mr. Bernhard present and thanked him for his presentation. Mr. Way said several weeks ago he attended a presentation of this statement in $cottsville and he was impressed with the optimism of the statement. The booklet is written in a fashion that indicates peace is something that can be achieved. Agenda Item No. 16. Interim Report from Study Committee-Visitor/Convention Bureau. Mr. Fisher said the Committee has met several times with officials from the City of Charlottesville, the Chamber of Commerce, Albemarle County, and representatives from the hotel association. The Visitors Bureau used some of its funds to hire consultants to deter- mine whether there should be a convention bureau, its function, etc. The Committee met, reviewed and then distributed the consultant's report. No action is requested at present on the report. The Study Committee is still working on a recommendation to the Board of Super- visors, City Council and Chamber of Commerce as to what should be done and how to fund. It is hoped that a recommendation will be forthcoming within the next two months. Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion: Bicentennial of the Constitution. Mr. Fisher said that Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville have been asked to participate in the Bicentennial of the Constitution. He and the Mayor have discussed whether there should be a joint commission to plan for the events. He would like for the Board to read the reports and make a determination for the County. Agenda Item No. 17a. Report: Noise Problems in Circuit Courtroom. Mr. Fisher said Judge Gerald Tremblay contacted him about noise interference from outside of the Circuit Courtroom. He asked Mr. Jones for a report. Mr. Jones said he received a letter dated June 24, 1986, from Judge Tremblay about the noise problem. The consultants used for the auditorium in the County Building were asked to do a follow-up on the complaint. Sound readings were taken during a session of court and it was found that considerable noise was interfering with court proceedings. One of the problems, which now has been corrected, was a diffuser on the air-handling equipment that created a wind tunnel effect. In the large courtroom it was determined that the air conditioning units created a significant amount of noise. Storms windows are being installed this week to correct that problem. After that installation is completed, new readings will be taken and it will be determined if drapes or soundboards will be necessary. There is not available at present a total estimate of costs, but the storm windows cost $10,000. Mr. Fisher asked that the Board be kept informed on the progress of these installations. Agenda Item No. 18a. Appointments - Sexual Assault Staff Committee. Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum dated August 7, 1986, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., to the Board: "To proceed with the appointment of a Sexual Assault Staff Committee to review the report of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Task Force on the Preven- tion of Sexual Assault, and report to the Board of Supervisors on the County's proposed implementation of the recommendations in that report, it is recommended that appointments be made from the Departments of Education, Planning/Community Development, Police, and Social Services with coordina- tion responsibilities assigned to the Executive Staff. Due to the significance of this community issue and the work already com- pleted by the Task Force, it is recommended that the County committee be comprised of the department heads of the above listed County departments, with assignment of their staffs and delegation of responsibilities being made by them, where appropriate. It is therefore recommended that the appointments be: John Horne, Planning/Community Development Frank Johnstone, Police Karen Morris, Social Services N. Andrew Overstreet, Education Roxanne White, Executive Staff (Coordinator)" 194 August 13, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Way offered motion to appoint the following persons to the Sexual Assault Staff Committee: John Horne, Planning/Community Development, Frank Johnstone, Police, Karen Morris, Social Services, N. Andrew Overstreet, Education and Roxanne White, Executive Staff (Coordinator). Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 18b. Appointments: Other. Mr. Bowie commented that Mrs. Edna Anderson has resigned from the Planning District Commission. There has been only one applicant for the appointment. He requests that the appointment be deferred because on September 4, at the Planning District Commission's meeting, there will be some changes recommended. Agenda Item No. 19. Public. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board Members and the Mr. Fisher said the Board has received an invitation, from the new Mayor of Prato, Italy to attend the celebration there in early September. If any member of the Board desire to attend, please inform him so he can communicate the information. Agenda Item No. 20. At 2:15 P.M., there being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Bowie offered motion to adjourn to August 20, 1986, at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Way commented that he would be absent on that date. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.