Loading...
1985-12-11( Page 1 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held or December 11, 1985, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 40 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fish, (arrived at 9:55 A.M.), J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John; Deputy County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (arriVed at 9:36 A.M.); and Director of Planning and Community Development, Mr. John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. Mrs. Cooke. The meeting was called to order at 9:10 A.M. by the Vice-Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to accept the items of information on the consent agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: -ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher. Item No. 4.1. The County Executive's Financial Report for the period of July 1, 1985 through October 31, 1985 was received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-605. Item No. 4~2. The following memorandum on the Pedestrian Obstacle Study Review: Charlottesville Transit Service Recommendations, dated December 5, 1985, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, from Ms. Joan Davenport, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development, was received by the Board: "On December 3, 1985, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the recommendations for altering the existing routing and stopping pattern of the Charlottesville Transit System buses in the urban area as presented in the Pedestrian Obstacle Study, Phase I. Specifically, the Commission recommended two alterations to the Charlottesville Transit System Route 7 be implemented during 1986-1987. These include: Northbound On Route 29: Relocate the 'Midas Muffler Stop' to Greenbrier Drive (East of Route 29). A stop has recently been approved just south of the Westfield Road Intersection along Greenbrier Drive. The Branchlands Retirement Development has requested this stop; however, service has not yet been provided.~ A New Bus Stop Is Proposed for the Southbound Leg of the Charlottes- ville Transit Service Route 7. The stop is proposed along the access road to the Thomas Jefferson Econo Lodge. Such a stop has been requested by the residents of the Oak Lawn Mobile Home Park. Additionally, the Commission recommended that the following alterations proposed to the Charlottesville Transit System Routes 7 and 9 be studied further by County staff, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, and the Charlottesville Transit System representa- tives. These include: Route 7 1. Southbound On Route 29 At Shoppers World: The Pedestrian Obstacle Study recommended relocating this stop within the Shoppers World Shopping Center. If such a stop could be established, access could be via Berkmar Drive. Unfortunately, the existing parking layout of this shopping center is very restrictive and prohibits safe bus access. If the parking lot design could be modified, or some existing parking spaces could be deleted, a bus stop could be established within the shopping'~center. The negotiations between the County, and the Charlottesville Transit Service and the property owner of the shopping center to establish a safe internal bus stop may be lengthy. No such contact has yet been made with the property owner. Staff recommends that this stop not be reviewed for consideration during the upcoming fiscal year. Eliminate the Existin? Comdial Stop Along the Southbound Lane of Route 29. This stop is often used by post office patrons who are returning to Charlottesville and do not want to wait for the next Northbound bus to stop at the post office. To get to this stop from the post office, a pedestrian must cross the northbound and southbound lanes of Route 29. The Pedestrian Obstacle Study recommends that the southbound Charlottesville Transit Service Route 7 buses alter their course by turning west onto Greenbrier Drive and proceed to Commonwealth Drive via Peyton Drive. The December 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) 187 route would then continue southeast on Hydraulic to the Route 29 intersection and resume the existing schedule. By diverting the transit bus from Route 29, the Charlottesville Transit Service Route 7 could serve Comdial at their employee parking lot access near the Greenbrier Theater. Bus stops along Commonwealth Drive could be served on this southbound route. Those persons who live on Commonwealth Drive, wishing to go north toward Fashion Square Mall could walk either to the Georgetown/Hydraulic or to the Greenbrier/Commonwealth intersections to catch northbound buses (or transfer from a southbound bus at Barracks Road). If transit stops must be maintained along Route 29 near Comdial and Sperry, & study should be conducted to determine what improve- ments or alterations are necessary to create an efficient and safe bus stop. ROUTE 9 4. If Route 7 can be implemented as described above to serve Commonwealth Drive the Pedestrian Obstacle Study recommends Route 9 eliminate service to Commonwealth Drive and instead service Whitewood Road. This alteration would allow a safe bus stop at Arbor Crest without requiring residents to cross Hydraulic Road, as well as provide stops at the high school, jogging park and commercial areas. Route 9 would otherwise remain as it presently operates. Regarding the recommendations for 1986-87, the stop along Greenbrier Drive was approved October 22, 1985 by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation as an alteration to the existing Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation permit for the Charlottesville Transit Service stops. The other recommended bus stop for 1986-87 is proposed along the private road which serves the Thomas Jefferson Econo Lodge and five other lots known as the Mary Patricia Brown Final Plat. The owners of this road have not yet been contacted. The transit manager of the Charlottesville Transit Service, Ms. Helen Poore, has indicated to staff that the Charlottesville Transit Service supports the alterations to Route 7 proposed for 1986-87. However, the Charlottesville Transit Service would prefer implementing the proposed route changes in January 1986. Ms. Poore indicated a willingness to attend a presentation of these recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, if so requested." Item No. 4.3. Copy of a memorandum dated December 4, 1985 to Mr. Robert Tucker, Deputy County Executive, from Mr. Michael Carroll, Emergency Services Coordinator, summarizing the activity in Scottsville on November 22 and November 23 at the Federal Emergency Management Agency Disaster Assistance Center, was received. Item No. 4.4. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for its meetings of November 19 and November 26, 1985 were received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. these minutes. Approval of Minutes: September 12, 1985. No action was taken on Agenda Item No. 6. Highway Matters. Mr. Henley said he has received complaints from constituents concerning the area near Gola's Restaurant. There are three lanes with passing allowed on both sides which is very dangerous, and he suggested that "No Passing" be implemented in the area. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Department of Highway and Transportation, said he will contact the Traffic Engineer and request that the area be looked at. Mrs. Cooke stated that at nighttime the visibility is poorly defined when turning off of Rio Road into Raintree or Northfields Road, and she asked that until the problem can be alleviated, if the situation can be further examined. Mr. Roosevelt said pavement markings are done by the Traffic Office in Culpeper and he will contact that office to see if they can get the area marked as soon as possible. Mr. Bowie said the necessary right-of-ways to get Rt. 643 into the State system are complete except for one parcel. There is the problem of people making a dangerous U-turn and one citizen has refused to sign. There is pressure mounting toward the Highway Department for condemnation proceedings. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, said he was asked by the Board whether the Highway Department will allow the County to provide an interchange at the intersection of Avon Street and 1-64. He received a response from Mr. Roosevelt and the answer is no; the Highway Department will not request the Federal Highway Administration to allow an interchange at that location and the County cannot make the request directly. Mrs. Cooke asked where does that leave the County. Mr. Elrod said there will be no interchange. The Comprehensive Plan shows a connector road on the south side of 1-64 running from Rt. 20 to Avon Street and then from Avon to Fifth Street. He has prepared a study showing four or five other possible routes for the connector instead of the one shown in the Comprehensive Plan.- .When he presented the , 189 December 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. Lindstrom queried Mr. Bradshaw on the total subsidy and various aspects of the program. Mr. Bradshaw responded that the total subsidy can be a maximum of $1,340,000 and the amount of the subsidy is dependent on the amount of rehab work that has to be done, the owner's expenses, maintenance, and the amount the tenant can afford to pay. Mr. Lindstrom asked how it can be insure that you property is not rehabilitated then that person sell the property to take advantage of this program. Mr. Bradshaw said the landlord can sell the property, but the contract is part of the title. Mr. Lindstrom said he realizes some Board members have reservations about this program, but he thinks that the County has an obligation to provide low cost housing. This approach is the most palatable to him as opposed to concentrating all of the low income housing in one spot and creating a ghetto. Mr. Bradshaw said he needs the Board to be behind him with this program because there is a real need for it. The program not only provides decent, safe and sanitary housing for low income families who desperately needs it, but it stimulates the economy in the area and leverages a lot of funds through the lending institutions. In addition he has received letters from banks very interested in the program. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there has been trouble getting people interested in the program. Mr. Bradshaw said there are no problems convincing the sophisticated landlords and management companies. People who know how federal programs work are delighted with it and understand that it is a good program, but it is tough to go out there and sell the small landlord a program like this because he is afraid of paperwork and red tape. The reality of the situation is that there is not muCh paperwork in it for the landlord. Mr. Henley asked what size units are provided. Mr. Bradshaw said a single family dwellin( is the smallest available. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many applications are waiting now. Mr. Bradshaw said he has applications for 100 units. Mr. Bradshaw said he would be happy to take individual time with anybody who has questions concerning the program. Agenda Item No. 8. Appropriation: Metropolitan Planning Organization (M.P.O.) and Metropolitan Planning Organization (M.P.O) Section 8 Projects. Mr. Agnor said planning funds made available through the M.P.O. for planning-type activities. This request is to reflect the current status of the M.P.O Project Grant Fund with the M.P.O. Planning Activity Fund for the fiscal year as of June 30, 1985. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve an appropriation in the amount of $45,400 based on revisions made to M.P.O. Section 8 and M.P.O. Planning Projects for Fiscal Year 1985-86, but adopting the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $45,400.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the following: 1208 METROPOLITAN PLANNING PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION 1-1208-81201-100100 1-1208-81201-540104 Compensation-Regular Copy Supplies $ 780.00 20.00 UNIFIED WORK PROGRAM 1-1208-81203-100100 Compensation-Regular 300.00 CATS PUBLICATION 1-1208-81205-300601 Printing 1,300.00 PEDESTRIAN OBSTACLE 1-1208-81206-100100 1-1208-81206-100300 1-1208-81206-300601 1-1208-81206-540100 1-1208-81206-540104 1-1208-81206-550100 Compensation-Regular Compensation-Part-Time Printing Office Supplies Copying Travel-Mileage 2,900.00 2,900.00 1,600.00 500.00 1,000.00 100.00 TIP 1-1208-81207-100100 Compensation-Regular 300.00 COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM 1-1208-81209-100100 Compensation-Regular 1-1208-81209-100300 Compensation-Part-Time 1-1208-81209-540100 Office Supplies 1-1208-81209-540104 Copying 1-1208-81209-550100 Travel-Mileage 2,000.00 6,200.00 300.00 1,000.00 500.00 CATS-COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1-1208-81210-100100 Compensation-Regular 10,000.00 1209 MPO SECTION 8 TRANSIT OBSTACLES 1-1209-81304-100100 Compensation-Regular 14r000.00 $45,400.00 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County budget is hereby amended by the addition of $45,400.00 in the following Revenue Codes: 1208 METROPOLITAN PLANNING PROJECTS 2-1208-24000-240500 VA Dept. of Highways & Trans. 2-1208-33000-330001 Federal Highway Administration 2-1208-51000-512004 Local $ 2,355.00 26,690.00 2,355.00 December 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) 191 to do so for the next thirty years. Setting up a new office is different than taking some money and allowing the Superintendent some transition time. Mr. Bowie said he does not think an office can be created in December, hire someone and then in April cut that person out of the budget. He does not think that would be done, so he will not support the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley (very reluctantly. He knows the new Superintendent is really pushing this idea, so he will give him a chance to make something of the office), and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 11. Presentation of the FY 84-85 Audit Report by Mr. Melvin Breeden. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said the County has received a final draft of the Annual Audit of the County's financial records for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1985. The report has been presented to the State Auditor of Public Accounts and the auditors are awaiting the Auditor's approval prior to printing of the final document. He then presented a draft copy of the report (on file) and summarized the data for the Board. Mr. Breeden said the total long-term debt of the County has decreased by $846,000. Mr. Fisher commented that is a lot of money for one year. Mr. Breeden said that is the approximate amount of the reduction each year. Mr. Breeden said the annual management letter submitted by the auditors listed several recommendations, and stated that the current examination did not disclose any significant errors or irregularities as a result of these weaknesses. The recommendations included: (1) Develop a formal plan for intermediate and long range automation objectives of the data processing function; (2) Consider eliminating the duplicate recordkeeping for special welfare monies; and (3) Establish formalized procedures for the periodic counting of all inventories. The final part of the letter deals with recommendations made in previous years that have not been adequately implemented by the County. The next document in the report is the auditor's opinion on the financial statements which states "The County has not maintained a record of its general fixed assets, and accordingly a statement of general fixed assets, required by generally accepted accounting principles, is not included in the combined financial statements Except for that one item, all financial statements and records are kept and prepared in accordance'with generally accepted accounting standards. Mr. Breeden said there will be a request included in the Finance Department's budget for the next fiscal year for implementation of a fixed asset accounting system, however, it is an expensive proposition. It is a huge job to undertake and he does not think it can be accom- plished by current County staff. The system would therefore require an outside vendor for the initial implementation. Mr. Bowie said two years ago an Audit Committee was created because there were 26 finding~ on the part of the auditors, some of which caused him major concerns. Last year the list was down to ten recommendations and this year there are only three recommendations. In his opinion, this is excellent proof of the overall internal control systems. Mr. Fisher thanked the staff for working with the new auditing firm and said he thinks that a new perspective has created a series of recommendations and he feels more comfortable with the process. (At this time, Mr. Fisher took over the Chair. Mrs. Cooke abstained from voting on Item No. 12 because of a personal conflict of interest, and she left the room.) Agenda Item No. 12. Warehouse Site Plan. Request for Central Water and Sewerage System - Cooke/Taylor Mr. Agnor summarized the following letter dated December 3, 1985, to the Board of Supervisors, from Mr. David F. Cooke, II, Caleb Stowe Associates: "This letter is in regards to the central utilities proposed for the Cooke-Taylor Warehouse Site Plan; Tax Map 32, parcel 19Al; Route 606. The applicants propose to service the water needs by digging a well which is shown on the proposed site plan. Since the proposed use for the warehouse is storage, the water needs are extremely low (one-half bathroom facilities). The remoteness of the nearest waterline (.7 mile, 3.700 feet) make our proposal for a central water utility (well) on the site more economically feasible. The applicants also propose a central septic facility on the proposed warehouse site. Usage will be limited to domestic waste. The nearest sewer line is two miles away and this too makes it more economically feasible to establish a central septic field on the proposed site. The total number of employees on this warehouse site will range between 30-34 employees. Therefore, we feel the use of the proposed well and septic system as central utilities will more than adequately service the needs for this particular development." Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 22, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of the Cooke-Taylor Warehouse Site Plan subject to several conditions, the ones pertinent to this request read: A building permit will not be issued nor any conditions approved until preliminary Health Department approval for septic for the 20,000 square foot building has been received. December 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 193 Mr. Lindstrom said without creating unnecessary positions, this could be a good program. Mr. Twombley said the program is looking for substantial jobs for older people and not makeshift work. This program has been in existence for over 20 years. Mr. Agnor suggested sending Mr. Twombley notices of job vacancies and letting him decide if he knew of a qualified person. Agenda Item No. 14. Soil Survey Manual Presentation. Mr. Scott Leake, manager of the local office for Congressman French Slaughter, Jr., addressed the Board. The Soil Survey Manual was begun many years ago. The results of the Manual are impressive. The Manual can be of intense interest and value to some people. It is a survey that represents virtually every inch of soil in Albemarle County and the appropriate uses of the soil. It is a fantastic planning tool for anyone involved in commercial or residential development, and also for any groups involved in the preservation of the quality of the soil. The document is a cooperative effort of three levels of government, Federal funding, State support, and local funding and support. He asked that the Board spread the word of the availability of the survey and the value of the survey to its constituents. Mr. Gordon Yager said work started on the survey in the early 1970's. This survey was primarily done by the Soil Conservation Service in conjunction with VPI-SU. They actually went out into the field all over the entire County and recorded the types of soils in those locations. The information was then recorded on aerial photographs. The basic information found in the document is a soil survey map which shows the entire County. Included in the publication is information on any type of soil needed. Anyone using the land will be using the publication. The survey is available at no cost to citizens of the County. Mr. Yager said he will also be available to meet with any groups and go over in detail how to use the publication. Mr. Lindstrom said over the last eight years, as a Board member, he has received a lot of information. This is one of the few things that will be a permanent fixture and will not change. He really appreciates the effort. Mr. Fisher asked when the previous soil survey was made. Mr. Yager responded 1937. Mr. Fisher said the Board is very pleased to receive the information and it will be a great benefit. Not Docketed: At 10:55 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:00 P.M. Agenda Item No. 14. 10:30 A.M. Appeal - Covey Hill Preliminary Plat showing subdivision of 15.000 acres of land, a portion of J. S. and Aubrey Hill property, zoned RA. Tax Map 59, Parcel 59A. Revised September 9, 1985 as prepared by Gloeckner, Lincoln & Osborne and received in the Planning Division on October 8, 1985. Samuel Miller District. Mr. Fisher noted the following letter to the Board of Supervisors dated November 1, 1985, from Mr. Ralph L. Feil of Feil, Deinlein, Pettit & Williams, appealing the decision of the Albemarle County Planning Commission on the Covey Hill Preliminary Plat, Tax Map 59, Parcel 59A, Windsor Road: "We represent J. S. Hill and Audrey Hill, owners of the above parcel and applicants with regard to the Covey Hill Preliminary Plat which application was heard by the Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on October 22, 1985. Our clients, the Hills, are aggrieved by the decision of the Commission made at said meeting as reflected in the letter of Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner, dated October 24, 1985 to Mr. Hill, a copy of which is attached hereto and thus we hand you this letter constituting written notice of the Hills' appeal of said decision. The Hills appeal this decision insofar as it requires the following conditions: 1. Condition 1.b, that is, 'County Engineer approval of road plans for roads from Route 250 to this entrance on Windsor Road: road to remain private, but be upgraded to Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- tation standards.' As to this condition, the Hills object to the requirement that private roads owned by Farmington Country Club running from Route 250 to the entrance on Windsor Road be upgraded to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards. The Hills believe that this requirement is unwanted by any concerned parties, impractical, burdensome, unnecessary, arbitrary, and capricious and, therefore, respectfully request that the requirement that these roads be upgraded be waived. 2. Condition 1.c., insofar as it requires County Attorney approval of revised road maintenance agreement for Farmington Roads if such County Attorney approval should require any change in the existing road maintenance agreements for said Farmington Roads. The applicants believe that the Farmington Road maintenance agreements currently existing are adequate and need no change or modification." Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Proposal: To divide 97.388 acres into three lots of 5.0 acres each, leaving a residue of 82.388 acres. Lots to be served by private road, Covey Hill Road, located off the north side of Windsor Road in Farmington. December 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) 195 ee Health Department approval for septic sites; No building on slopes of 25 percent or greater, or septic on slopes of 20 percent or greater without Planning Commission approval of 'modification of regulation'." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 22, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions of the staff and the following additional conditions: 1.g. County Engineer approval of road plans and specifications for private road, Covey Hill Road, in accordance with Table I of Section 18-36e. 1.h. No direct access onto Brook Road. The Planning Commission must review the final plat. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission discussed whether or not it could waive some specific construction standards for private roads because there was opposition to the addi- tional construction of the roadway. The Commission agreed with the staff that the roads should remain private roads, but be upgraded to public road standards. There is a provision in the Subdivision Ordinance that allows this ruling if made and for a specific identifiable reason, the general public's interest, as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdi- vider, would be better served by the construction of private roads than it would be by the construction of public roads. In terms of specific construction standards the Subdivision Ordinance states "No subdivision shall be approved unless the principal means of access thereto shall conform to the standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- tation, or, in the case of a private road, to the standards of the county as set forth of Section 18-36(c) of this chapter, throughout its length, including any distance between the boundary of the proposed subdivision and the existing public road." Under public road standards, there is a waiver provision for only three separate sections of the private road standards which are (1) the basic decision as to whether the road should be public or private; (2) if there is an existing private road serving a lot, the lot can exit onto an existing public road; and (3) right-of-way width. Those are the only three sections in staff's opinion and the opinion of the staff attorney, that the Planning Commission can waive. The Planning Commission was informed that it could not waive the specific construction standards in this case. Mr. Ralph Feil, representing the applicants, addressed the Board. Mr. Feil said there are a lot of emotional feelings about this application. He presented two plats showing Broomley Farm and asked that they be included in the record. The entire property was purchase~ by the Hills in 1982. All of the property remains the same except the property that was sold to the Quayles and the 5.08 acres approved by the Planning Commission. The plat also shows Covey Hill Road which runs from the Quayle lot down to Windsor Road. Lots 1, 2 and 3 as shown on the plat are on the preliminary plat of which the Hill's have sought and obtained approval. The other map is a 1930 subdivision plat of Farmington Subdivision which indicates that a portion of Broomley Farm (not all of Broomley Farm) was a portion of Farmington Subdivision. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Feil where he is going with the history he is taking the Board through. Mr. Feil said with the history, he hopes to be able to address the concerns with regard to what precedent approval of this request might set. Under Section 18-50 of the Subdivision Ordinance, in order to qualify for a waiver, the property at issue has to be a part of a subdivision which preexisted the ordinance. The applicant has to be a owner of a group of contiguous lots. Mr. Fisher commented that the three lots that are being created here are new lots. Mr. Feil said that is correct, but prior to this application Mr. Hill was the owner of contiguous lots within the original Farmington Subdivision which qualifies Mr. Hill under that section of the Ordinance. The southern portion of Broomley Farm was conveyed as a larger tract in 1934. That portion of Broomley Farm has no private subdivision restrictions on it now and it also has rights-of-way over all Farmington roads. Mr. Feil submitted to the Clerk for the record, a copy of the Quayle plat and a copy of the deed of November 3, 1934 which conveyed that tract to the predecessor in title and which shows that it now has no subdivision restrictions and has the rights-of-way necessary. Prior to submittal and approval of the Quayle lot, the Hills wanted to cooperate with the other residents of Farmington. Negoti- ations with all parties involved resulted in an agreement dated June 11, 1985 which was submitted for the record. The Hills agreed that there would be a maximum of four lots on the southern section of Broomley Farm (including the Quayle tract). It was further agreed that there would be no direct access ever created between Windsor Road and Broomley Road. The Farmington community is concerned about outside traffic getting access through their private roads. Further, the lot owners would be members of the Farmington Property Owners Association and these lots would be subject to typical Farmington Subdivision restrictions. The Quayle lot was approved in August and the road issue was never raised by the Planning staff, nor focused on by the applicant. Mr. Fisher asked if the deed restrictions that apply on the new lots allow guest houses. Mr. Feil said the deed allows for private single-family dwelling houses, servants' houses or quarters and guest houses, and the servants' houses or quarters and guest houses shall not be rented. Mr. Fisher said he is trying to assess the total traffic impact. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the southern portion of the Broomley tract shown on the 1930's plat as being within the Farmington Subdivision, is now completely developed or if there are further development rights. Mr. Feil said the southern portion within Farmington is a part of a tract for County division rights purposes, but not all of it. There is a difference of opinion between him and the County Attorney as to how many tracts are there. He thinks the County would concede that there are at least two total tracts, one 10-acre tract in the center, and the other the balance of the property. Once these lots are divided, as to that entire tract there will be one division right left for County purposes. In his opinion the 15.590 acre tract is a separate tract because of the way the prior deeds are written. Using the plats submitted for the record, Mr. Feil said possibly the 15.590 tract could have five division rights and the residue acreage one division right. 197 December 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Section 18-15. If the Board is concerned about setting a precedent, those are the only properties which would be involved. People who are outside of the original Farmington Subdivision could not come in and say they have rights under Section 18-15 because those parcels were not a part of the original subdivision. Mr. Fisher asked if the Farmington Country Club Board had not granted rights beyond these just designated, in particular, the Watterson property. Mr. Gibson said not since 1934. The other rights existed prior to that time. As pointed out by Mr. Horne, the Watterson property contains three large lots. They had rights for two single-family residences to use the Farmington roads and both of those rights have already been used. As far as Farmington is concerned, Watterson has "zero" rights to use Farmington roads for any further development. The Durrer property had rights for two single-family residences and both of those have been used, therefore, the Durrer property has no additional rights to further development or to use the roads through Farmington. Ivy Creek had rights which were given up some years ago when that development occurred. The Hill property has one more internal right to use. There are four internal and one external future development right for a single-family residence to use the roads through Farmington. Mr. Fisher asked what would prevent the Farmington Country Club Board of Directors, at some future point from agreeing to deed additional right-of-ways. Mr. Gibson said the Property Owners Association has certain rights which were created by the Three-Party Agreement. As adjoining property owners, they would have the same right as anyone else would to object to that. Farmington Country Club is opposed to increasing the burden on its roads. If some future Board decided this could be done, the Property Owners Association is very vocal. There is internal control. While there may be the legal possibility, the probability of that being exercised is very minute and remote. Mr. Gibson said the road maintenance agreement is an unrecorded agreement by which anyone owning or purchasing property in Farmington is bound. The agreement is between Farmington, Inc., (former owner) Farmington Country Club, (current owner) and the Farmington Property Owners Association. This agreement provides that the title to the roads will be conveyed to Farmington Country Club (deed recorded in Deed Book 666, page 600) by which the road were conveyed. The agreement provides for maintenance of the roads and specifies who maintains which roads. All of the lots of Farmington are bound by restrictions and one such restriction (recorded in Deed Book 363, page 455) states: "No resubdivision of any part of this property by sale or otherwise shall be made unless the consent of Farmington, Inc., thereto, shall have been first obtained." This right was conveyed under the Three-Party Agreement to Farmington Property Owners Association. Mr. Gibson said he has informed Mr. Feil, by letter, that Farmington takes a very strong position that the only right the Hills have is to use the roads as they existed in 1934, and that Farmington would not voluntarily permit the Hills to widen the roads. Mr. John A. Armitage, President, Farmington Property Owners Association, next addressed the Board. Mr. Armitage said Farmington residents look with great suspicion on significant changes that might affect the character of their long-established community. Consequently, they are extremely wary of developments that might increase the access of others to Farmington. This is a community which values integrity, and it accepts the fact that the Hills have the legal right to the proposed subdivision of the Covey Hill tract and that the three lots therein have access to Farmington roads. Unless something drastically changes, the residents of Farmington will adamantly oppose any expansion or access to Farmington to which they are not clearly legally required to accede. The property owners concern at this hearing centers on any requirements that would alter the character of their private roads by stipu- lating that they be upgraded to certain State standards. They are opposed to any such require- ment. The property owners view such a requirement as unnecessary. They like the Farmington roads as they are. They travel on the roads, know the traffic pattern and are comfortable with the roads. The property owners consider the roads fully adequate for the needs of the community including those of prospective members who will own the Covey Hill lots. This is the judgment of the Chairman of the Road Committee, Mr. David Mahone. Mr. Mahone is an experienced and knowledgeable man in this field. The Property Owners Association is respon- sible for the maintenance of the roads. Under Mr. Mahone's able guidance, the property owners initiated the systematic program to fulfill that responsibility two years ago. They now appropriate $21,000 each year to implement the program. Ivy Lane has recently been completely resurfaced. Oak Circle is scheduled for resurfacing in 1986. These roads will be kept in a condition to handle fully the traffic demands they receive. There is no better developed or maintained subdivision in Albemarle County than Farmington. Secondly, the suggested upgrading of Ivy Lane and Oak Circle would be highly injurious to the rights, welfare and interest of the property owners living on these roads. This upgrading would necessitate the destruction of at least six large old, irreplaceable trees, and the removal and destruction of numerous other trees and shrubs of substantial size. The widening would destroy several rock walls, rock entrance gates and decorative fences. The upgrading would tear large chunks out of the valued and cherished landscaping of the affected residents. Additionally, upgrading would necessitate removal and replacement of water lines, telephone cables and telephone poles. Altogether, in the property owners view, the upgrading represents a violent and unwarranted intrusion into the property and lives of Farmington residents. Lastly, the residents of Farmington regard the upgrading of the roads as extremely undesirable in its unhappy affects on the quality of life in Farmington. The property owners bought their property in Farmington, lavished great care and attention on making the homes and grounds attractive, worked out relations with others, all to create and maintain the relaxed, peaceful, safe and congenial lifestyle that Farmington owners so highly prize. The roads contribute to and are a part of that lifestyle. Accidents have been extremely rare. Large vehicular traffic is kept to a minimum. The residents of Farmington would not wish the roads that serve all these desirable purposes to be changed. The residents of Farmington, therefore, urge the Board of Supervisors, to exercise its discretionary power and accept the subdivision without any requirement to change the roads. The property owners will keep the roads in a safe condition that will be fully adequate to the safe and expeditious passage of all concerned, and still have the community life and surroundings they cherish so greatly. December 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) c. Note on plat "20 foot access easement to Farmington Country Club for pedestrians only, and no motorized vehicles"; d. Health Department approval for septic sites; e. No building on slopes of 25 percent or greater, or septic on slopes of 20 percent or greater without Planning Commission approval of "modification of regulation;" f. County Engineer approval of road plans and specifications for private road, Covey Hill Road, in accordance with Table I of Section 18-36e; g. No direct access onto Brook Road. The Planning Commission must review the final plat. Mr. Henley asked if the applicant is in agreement with condition "lg". Mr. Lindstrom said his understanding is that this condition only applies to Covey Hill Road, no other roads in the subdivision except for the new road to serve these three lots. The intent of his motion is that the new road comply with the road standards in Table I of Section 18-36e, but they do not have to bring the existing Farmington roads up to some standard that may be found in that table. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Financing for Hollymeade Square II. Mr. Agnor said Mr. David L. Goodman is present. This request is for reapproval of the financing of the Hollymeade Square II project because more than one year has elapsed since the Board's approval on December 5, 1984. An approval of extension for one year is required in order to comply with Internal Revenue Service regulations. Mr. Agnor said his recommendation is that the Board adopt the resolution as requested in a letter from Mr. John B. Ashton dated November 30, 1985 to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, County Administrator. The following letter was received by the Board: "As we discussed over the telephone this past Wednesday, I am enclosing a suggested form of resolution for consideration by the Board at its December 11 meeting. The purpose of this resolution is simply to reapprove the financing of this project by the Harrisonburg Redevelop- ment and Housing Authority since more than one year will have elapsed since the Board's last approval (December 5, 1984) before we can issue the Bonds. The resolution is identical to the resolution adopted last year with the exception of the preamble which now reflects why we are having to 'reapprove.' As I explained to you, we do not have to have another public hearing since the Harrisonburg Authority held one on November 6, 1985, and published notice in The Daily Progress (copy on file). The Harrisonburg Authority will send you a record of that hearing and a copy of its resolution recommending the Board's approval. Finally, the Board should be aware that there have been some changes to the Project. There is a good chance there will no longer be any Section 8 rent assistance. The Developer will, however, 'subsidize' the rents for 20 percent of the units if necessary so that he can apply with the requirements of Section 103(b)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code (i.e., that 20 percent of the units will be occupied by 'low and moderate income tenants'). Also the participants in the limited partnership that will be the Developer have changed somewhat. Previously, David Goodman (the primary instigator of 'this project) worked for Concord Mortgage Corporation and was going to participate with several associates of his in this firm. David has left Concord Mortgage Corporation and it now appears that he will probably partici- pate in some manner with Dr. Hurt, who as I understand it, owns the land. All other aspects of the project remain virtually the same, except that the exterior of the buildings may be redesigned somewhat to enhance the overall aesthetics of the Project. I am sending a copy of this letter to David and would ask that he contact you if I have inaccurately described his current plans." Mr. Fisher asked the public benefit from reapproval of these bonds if there will no longer be any Section 8 rental assistance. Mr. Agnor said 20 percent of the units will still be set aside for low and moderate income persons, but instead of those units being supple- mented by Section 8, the units will be supplemented by the other 80 percent of the occupants. This reapproval is required under Internal Revenue Service regulations. Mr. Lindstrom asked if people occupying these units would qualify for the County's rental subsidy program. Mr. Agnor said yes, but this project had an expectation of a special Section 8 rental allocation beyond the County's program. He has advised Mr. Goodman to register this project with the County's Section 8 program. Mrs. Cooke said she has a problem with the residents of a project subsidizing the low and moderate income renters unless the residents are aware of what they are doing. She wants to know if people seeking housing in this particular project will know what they are being required to do. How are the people informed that their rent is going to be higher to subsi- dize other renters. December 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) ' 201 was hired to study the feasibility of constructing a dam that would impound water of a suffi- cient magnitude and depth to provide a satisfactory swimming pool. Because of the flatness of this portion of the creek, when the water level is raised, the water immediately backs above the property line. So, in order to make a feasible pond the creek must be impounded approxi- mately 15 feet at one end of the property which gives a depth of 10 feet on the next piece of property and then the land immediately rises. It would make a nice lake from an engineering standpoint because it would give a fairly uniform depth all over the surface of the lake to prevent an increase in the amount of grasses and algae that normally grow in shallow lakes. The drainage area on the South Fork of the Hardware is about 30 square miles, a massive amount of drainage area. The larger and deeper a lake is, the less concern there is with pollution and sedimentation from a watershed of this size. The only way to have a feasible dam is to flood adjacent properties. There are three different properties that would be affected. The owner who has twenty-five acres which would be affected has agreed in principle to either dedicate a flood easement, or do whatever is decided to be beneficial to both parties. The other two property owners would have between four and five acres affected, and they have not yet been contacted. The following report dated December 11, 1985 was received from Mr. Elrod: "Status of Investigation: We have received a feasibility study from our consultants who have studied the design and costs of a proposed dam. The study provides the following conclusions: 1. The dam and lake proposed are feasible. 2. Surface area at normal pool = 60 acres. 3. Maximum depth = 20 feet. 4. Average depth = 9 feet. 5. Height of dam = 30 feet. 6. Costs of dam and lake = $1,260,000. 7. Sediment will not be a great problem. Silt may have to be removed at 10-year intervals. Sediment traps could reduce the frequency of removal operations. 8. .The design allows for maintaining a flow to the downstream channel during low flow periods. Land Acquisition: The normal pool will back water onto two or three additional properties. One owner has agreed to give a flood easement to allow flooding of approximately 25 acres of his land. He did not promise to give the easement for free but has written that he will 'work with us'. Two other properties may have one to four acres flooded. These owners have not yet been contacted. Water Quality: The lake proposed now is larger and deeper than originally proposed. This has a positive affect on water quality. The predicted phosphorus concentration is 34 ug/1 (microgram). For comparison, the value at Chris Green is 21 ug/1 and 73 ug/1 at the Rivanna Reservoir. These values are indicative of the amount of algae and the degree of clarity that can be expected. We have also taken four water samples in October and November and tested them for bacteria. The bacteria counts were 200, 1100, 750 and 750 colonies/100 ml. The U.S. Public Health Service recommends a limit of 500 for swimming. We know that the samples taken from the stream will be higher than those from the future lake, but we do not have any method to predict the future counts accurately. The owner immediately upstream has approximately sixty head of cattle on his property. He has indicated a willingness to cooperate if the source of the bacteria was determined to be from his pastures. Revised Approximate Cost Estimate: 1. Land 2. Flood Easements 3. Topographic map, design & survey 4. Improve Route 717 (1200 linear feet) 5. Dam and lake 6. Internal roads and parking 7. Beach area 8. Comfort station $ 153,000 25,000 75,000 60,000 1,260,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 10. Plant trees 11. Establish grass (60 acres) 12. Entrance gate & miscellaneous details Remove stumps in deforested area (60 acres) 90,000 10,000 150,000 50,000 $2,073.000 +15% 310,950 $2,383,950 Estimated $2.4 million-+ Mr. Bowie asked if the costs for the flood easements is just an assumption. Mr. Elrod replied yes. Mr. Fisher asked the amount reserved in the Capital Improvements Program for the Southern Regional Park. Mr. Agnor said the amount is $600,000. It is obviously that the price of this project would be well beyond that expectation. The recommendation of the staff is that the purchase option on this property not be exercised and staff be authorized to look for alternate sites. Mr. Fisher then asked the Board members how they wished to proceed on the following: Agenda Item No. 20. - Question of Exercising Option on Dawson Property; Agenda Item No. 17. - Public Hearing: CPA-85-5. Southern Regional Park; and Agenda Item No. 18. - Public Hearing: Intent to Obtain 290.47 acres by purchase and deed of gift. December 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) 203 Disadvantages: 1. Extremely large drainage area, worst water quality. 2. Land recently cut over. 3. Highest cost of dam construction. Compliance with Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan supports construction of a southern park specifically in Chapter 14: Community Facilities and Utilities Plan. The Plan states that generally community facilities serve one primary goal - that of providing for physical, cultural and safety needs of the community. Parks are one of these necessary community facilities. Because facilities are generally expensive to provide, it is especially important to recognize demand early, so that costs may be planned well in advance. On page 247 of Chapter 14, the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan recommends that consideration be given to providing swimming facilities to County residents in the extreme southern portion of the County. The Plan goes on to state that this could include actual construction of a new, preferably self-supporting facility in Scottsville-Esmont-Covesville area. This Scottsville region is also noted in the Plan as being a high priority location for a mini-park. The proposed southern regional park also satisfies the following Chapter 9: Goals and Objectives: Goal 1. Conserve the County's Natural Resources Objective 9: Continue to identify and encourage preservation of unique areas of geology, vegetation and wildlife in the 'County. Goal 12. Provide a system of public facilities and services to meet the needs of the existing and future County residents. Objective 6: Encourage the expansion of park and recreational capital and programming improvements according to the recommen- dations adopted in the Parks and Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendations: The staff recommends that the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 be amended as follows: Amend Map 6: (page 93). Community Facilities, to show the new park location Amend the text of page 93 to describe the new park and its future utilization plans. Amend the text of page 247 to describe the new park in Chapter 14: Community Facilities and Utilities Plan. The recommendation is based on the staff's finding that this park and location are generally in compliance with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission feels that if capital expansion and site acqui- sition is to be supportable at this time, it should answer the need for a regional facility in the Scottsville-Esmont-Covesville area, and a regional revenue-producing facility will place the lightest burden on County taxpayers. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on December 3, 1985, unanimously recommended denial of CPA-85-5 based on the following reasons: The cost and scope of the park at the Dawson site, particularly addressed in the staff report, are larger than originally understood by the Planning Commission. The size of the lake exceeds the Planning Commission's conception of what is required for a southern swimming facility. The site presently under consideration is not centrally located with regard to the southern portion of Albemarle County as was originally intended by the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. e The Dawson site had the worst water quality of all the sites considered. The Albemarle County Planning Commission expressed concern that the County has not clearly defined the intended uses and purposes of a southern regional park. The Planning Commission also expressed concern that their decision-making ability was limited because they did not have an overview of the entire site selection process. December 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) 205 Mr. Fisher thanked the staff for its' efforts and for doing an exhaustive survey on this property in a short period of time. The Board does want to find a site for the southern regional park and does want to get the park into operation as soon as possible. Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at this point. Agenda Item No. 21. Public Hearing: Sale of Old White Hall School located on Garth Road. The facility is located approximately one mile east of White Hall on Garth Road. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 26, 1985.) Mr. Bowie said the Building Committee in its report of October 30, 1985 recommended to the Board that the White Hall School be advertised for sale, and after the public hearing if it was decided to sell the school, it be advertised for sale as is. The Building Committee still recommends sale as is. Mr. Agnor said additional information has been received since the Building Committee's report. This property contains a total of 2.7 acres of which 0.7 acre is subject to a reversion clause back to the family that sold the property to the County for a school many years ago. The County has contacted the Poats family members concerning their desire to exercise the reversion clause. The family stated that they do want to buy the 0.7 acres back. Therefore, the public hearing today is on the 2.0 acres and the White Hall school building. Mr. Fisher asked if the 0.7 acre affects the building on the property. Mr. Agnor responded no. The public hearing was opened. Mr. William D. Poats addressed the Board. Mr. Poats said he and Mr. George M. Poats are co-executors of the estate of Mary B. Poats, widow of Lewis Poats, who originally sold the 0.7 acre to the White Hall School Board. Mr. Poats said they do want to exercise their right to repurchase the 0.7 acre at the stipulated price. In reply to Mr. Fisher's question, the septic system for the school does lie largely, if not totally, on the 0.7 acre. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Poats the price stipulated to repurchase the 0.7 acre. Mr. Poats said the price in the repurchase agreement is stated as $70. The property does have 20 feet of road frontage and approximately 100 feet in depth. Mr. Fisher asked if the propertl is acquired, will it be joined with an existing parcel or will the property exist as a separat~ lot. Mr. Poats said the property will be available to whoever wants it the most. The estate has no intention of holding the property for a long term. They are in favor of the sale of the 2.0 acres. It is possible that the owner of the person who bought the Poat's farm might be interested in acquiring the 0.7 acre. Mr. Madison McCall next addressed the Board and asked if the County has done an appraisal of the building to come up with a fair value on the sale of the school. Mr. Agnor said an appraisal will be done only for the purpose of comparison with the bids received to be sure the public's interest is protected. The appraised value will not be released publicly and will only be provided as information for the Board. Mr. McCall asked the zoning of the property. Mr. Agnor said the zoning is RA. With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he has some concerns about this 0.7 acre existing as an independent lot. To create a lot that someone can claim to be a building lot, a lot that is substandard according to the Zoning Ordinance, is a serious issue. Mr. Agnor said that was not foreseen in 1918. Mr. Henley said he thinks the situation will take care of itself. He feels one of the neighbors will want the acreage. Mr. Bowie said he does not see what can be done about that at this time. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if resale of the 0.7 acre can be made subject to combining it with an adjacent property. Mr. St. John said he would have to look into the deeds and language of the conveyance, but it would be very unusual to find anything that would give the Board the power to do that. Mr. Fisher said if the Board takes action to declare this propert' surplus, he would like to request that the County Attorney's staff investigate ways to avoid creating a nonconforming lot under the current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Henley said this happens all of the time. Mr. Henley offered motion to declare the Old White Hall School property surplus and directed the staff to proceed with the selling of the property. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher said the following three items on the agenda relate to the Old Scottsville School property. He then asked that item No. 24 be heard first. Agenda Item No. 24. Property. Proposals for Purchase and Development of Old Scottsville School Mr. Bowie said the Board held a public hearing on November 21, 1985 on sale of the Old Scottsville School property. The result of that public hearing was to order advertisement of the property. Sealed bids have been received and were opened on December 11 for considera- tion. The Building Committee does not yet have a recommendation to make to the Board at this time. There are a number of issues to be resolved. The Committee is requesting additional time to consider these issues and to negotiate with the bidders. Since the original motion included advertising a rezoning of the property and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Building Committee feels that those items should be deferred also. Agenda Item No. 22. Public Hearing: CPA-85-6. Old Scottsville School. Notice of intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002, Map 15: village of Scottsville Land Use Plan, with respect to the use of the Old Scottsville School Building. The proposal is to amend the land use from institutional to medium density residential in order to coincide with a similar rezoning request for R-10 residential density (R-10: ten dwelling units per acre). Property located on Route 1301 in Scottsville and consists of about 3.8 acres. The main building is presently not used, however, the gym is used by the Parks and Recreation program. Tax Map 130A(2), Parcels 76 and 76A. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 26 and December 3, 1985). December 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) He suggests that the people in $cottsville that oppose this kind of housing go and visit elderly housing sites. The sites are clean, well-maintained and a shining star in the commun- ity. Elderly housing should be seen as a home first, a place for an elderly person to live safe and sound with the knowledge that the community and the County care. Agenda Item No. 25. School. Discussion - Request from School Board to Proceed with Ivy Area Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Superintendent, School Division, addressed the Board. Mr. Overstreet said that the School Division has done some investigations with the State Department of Education and found that the Department is moving through their waiting list for Literary Funds. The School Board has agreed to pursue financing through the Literary Fund for the Ivy school project, but does not think that the financing will be available in time. In addition, the State Department require that local funds for the project must be spent before Literary Funds are disbursed. Mr. Fisher asked if the process of applying for the Literary Fund is something that should be done now prior to the other phases of the ~roject. Mr. Overstreet said yes, the application does not actually commit the School Division to anything. Mr. Fisher commented that the application is for an Ivy area school, yet no name or site has been chosen. Mr. Overstreet said that is correct. The School Board acted on this request Monday night. Once the loan is approved then the School Division is put on a waiting list. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the School Board's request to make a preliminary application for a Literary Fund loan for the Ivy Area school. Mr. Overstreet said a site must be named in the application in order to prove ownership of the property. Mr. David Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Administration, said a clear title must be proved when making an application for Literary Funds. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the School Board indicate the ownership of both the Meriwether Lewis and Murra~ sites. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to approve the School Board's request to make a preliminary application for a Literary Fund loan for the Ivy area school on either of the sites which are owned by the School BOard. Mr. Overstreet replied okay. Mr. Way said, as the seconder, he agrees with the change. following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. None. Mr. Overstreet referenced a lettt Overstreet, Superintendent, dated Dec~ Roll was then called and the motion carried by the Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. ~r to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive, from N. Andrew ~ber 11, in which he notes that the School Board on December 9, 1985 officially requested that the Board of Supervisors appropriate funds for the purpose of planning and designing the Ivy school project. Further, they request that an amount up to that level be released from the amount previously earmarked for the project and identified currently in the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Fisher referred to the letter, and said the idea that there is $5 million earmarked for this project is news to him. Mr. Bowie said there was out one time two $5 million items before the Planning Commission and this Board, and the School Board combined those into one item because there are more than two items which must be resolved within the $10 million. Mr. Overstreet asked if at anytime in the overall Capital Improvements Program an amount of $5 million for this particular project. Mr. Fisher said as far as he can recall, there never was. Mr. Way said $10 million was set aside for all the projects. Mr. Agnor said this happened before Mr. Overstreet came to work, but there was a request for $5 million for the Ivy school project, and $1 million per year for each of the five years in the Capital Improvements Program. The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors decided to put the $10 million together and not allocate it for any one project. Mr. Overstre suggested that the memo be revised to say "funds" earmarked for this project. Mr. Fisher said he has not had time to study the overall planning report yet. He thinks there is a need for a joint meeting with the School Board on sites, etc., before moving ahead with the plan. The prices have changed, and he is still concerned about what will be done with the Meriwether Lewis property, and will be done with the Murray School property, and why the County can't move forward with the least expensive proposal for dealing with these problems. He is not ready to authorize the planning funds until there is an agreement on a site. Mr. Bowie said he supports holding a joint meeting with the School Board. He does not personally feel the Ivy school is a priority to the exclusion of everything else. He only sees one segment of the report going ahead. He wants to know about the total plan and when some other things will happen. Mr. Overstreet said the School Board is waiting for the School Facility Committee's work on the consultant's report. Mr. Fisher said he will feel better when he knows the long-range plan. The Board is working within budgetary constraints for all of the projects that need to be done. Mr. Overstreet said the Meriwether Lewis/Murray replacement school was the highest priority recommendation in the consultant's report. Mr. Fisher said it is also his highest priority. Mr. Way said he also supports a joint meeting with the School Board. He does not have any problem with the Ivy area school being the number one priority and moving ahead with planning monies. The discussion with the School Board should be done as soon as possible. Mr. Fisher suggested a meeting with the School Board sometime next week. suggested discussing use of the Murray School at the same time. Mr. Agnor said Agenda Item No. 26. Discussion: Letter from Optimist Club re: BMX Racetrack. This item was put on the agenda as a result of the following letters received by the Board of Supervisors from Mr. William Burke, President, Optimist Club of Charlottesville, dated November 20, 1985, and Mr. C. Clement Samford, Jr., to the Board of Directors, Optimist Club, dated October 15, 1985: December 11, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) Mr. Bowie said the Riverbend BMX Association, is an association of parents. As he recalls, the Optimist Club said it would participate in the operation. However, the construc- tion, design, monitoring and general management is done by the members of the BMX Association The BMX track is well-maintained, cut and cleaned. He does not think it will make a differ- ence, because the parents will maintain the track. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not intend to make a big issue out of this. He just wanted to know more information. Mr. Larry Lippincott, Track Director, addressed the Board. He said the Optimist Club approached the parents and asked if they could be of assistance and help. There was a mis- understanding from both groups as to how the two organizations would mesh. After the track operation began, the Optimist Club presented their understanding of how the track would be ru] and the parents said it was unacceptable to them. Therefore, the Club redrew its' support. The track was built by several parents using donations from corporations. He handed out the first newsletter for the year on the track. The accreditation of the track is through the American Bicycle Association which was issued to the Riverbend BMX track. The withdrawal of the Optimist Club is nothing more than the withdrawal of manpower. This withdrawal does not affect the track and there was no financial association. All monies came from the parents. Agenda Item No. 27. Discussion: Health Care Plan. Mr. Agnor said the four options that were before the Board of Supervisors and the School Board last week for the employee health care plan resulted in this Board choosing one plan (keep existing plan with 70 day in-patient and $3500 outpatient psychiatric benefit and go to KeyCare on July 1, 1986) and the School Board choosing another plan (change to KeyCare effective January 1, 1986 with 70 day inpatient and $3500 outpatient psychiatric). That splits the group and means that local government employees would pay higher insurance premium~ until July. The second problem is that the County plan is rated by experience. The base on which this plan is rated would shrink for general government employees and if there were majo~ costs for someone on that plan, the rates would change drastically in July as compared to having that cost spread over a base of 1,500 employees which the whole plan covers. Lastly, in employee meetings, general government employees were willing to accept the preferred provider, cost-containment program, known as KeyCare. He, therefore, is requesting that the Board reconsider its' decision of December 4 and allow the general government employee health care plan to be a KeyCare plan effective as of January 1, 1986, and to adopt the mental healtl coverage that the School Board expanded to 70 day in-patient and $3500 outpatient, but only for a six-month period to finish out the cycle of getting on a new contract beginning July 1. He is not suggesting that this particular mental health coverage be continued beyond this fiscal year, but that the KeyCare plan be adopted now rather than waiting until July. Mr. Henley said he has been open-minded on this whole thing. He then moved that the County general government employees go to the KeyCare plan effective January 1, 1986. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mr. Way asked what kind of mental health benefits. Mr. Henley said the same mental health benefits in effect now. Mr. Way said that was not what is pro- posed. Mr. Agnor said right now the psychiatric benefits are 30 days in-patient and $2,000 out-patient and the School Board expanded their coverage to 70 days and $3,500. Mr. Henley then amended his motion that the Employee Health Insurance Plan (Blue Cross/ Blue Shield) be changed to a KeyCare Plan effective January 1, 1986, with 70 day inpatient an( $3,500 outpatient psychiatric benefit. Mr. Bowie said he still seconds the motion; it is a matter of fairness. Mr. Fisher said he thinks it is going to be awkward in the summer to go from the 70 day mental health coverage back to 30 days. He cannot understand why that coverage is considered to be so wonderful. Mr. Agnor said the policy went from 365 day coverage to 30 day coverage in October and now back up to 70 day coverage. Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the expanded psychiatric plan. The plan has gone from 36 days, which was an unreasonable amount of coverage and was very expensive to what he thought was an unreasonably small amount of coverage. There are treatments that are not uncommonly used, yet are professionally recognized, that require more than 30 days. The treatments does not require 365 days and he thinks 70 days is a reasonable amount to offer. He supports this motion without the notion that he will change his mind in July. He does not want a divided house with respect to the basic plan. Mr. Henley said he thinks this is a reasonable compromise. He does not know how he will vote in July, but the plan is fair for the time being on January 1, 1986. As he sees it, the plan is providing more mental health benefits, but the employees are going to pay some of all medical costs. Those who do not participate in mental health are going to pay cost shares in regular physical health care and that is the trade off that the School Board has suggested. He thinks that is the best thing to do, but he would not want that if he were an employee. The employee will pay $10 for every office visit. Mr. Agnor said that is true, but it is les~ than what the employee is paying now which is an improved benefit on KeyCare. Mr. Henley the] restated his motion. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way (Mr. Way prefaced his vote by saying he thinks the School Board misread what their employees were saying and he thinks that sticking with the current plan until the end of this fiscal year is the most important thing for them. He is reluctant to go this way, but since the School Board has don~ that, he will vote yes). NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 28. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Bowie said the consultants hired to develop a plan for the Mahanes tract will meet with some neighboring property owners and associations in Meeting Room 912 of the County Office Building tonight. He will be mediating.