1986-02-05February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
273
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
February 5, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., 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.; and Director of Planning and
Community Development, Mr. John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
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 Mrs.
Cooke, to accept the items as information on the consent agenda. 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.
Item No~ 4.1. Letter dated January 23, 1986 from Mr. Walter J. Kucharski, Auditor of
Public Accounts, acknowledging receipt of the 1985 County Financial Report from Price Water-
house, Certified Public Accountants,-as follows:
"Price Waterhouse, Certified Public Accountants, has forwarded to us
copies of the audited financial statements of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, for the year ended June 30, 1985 ....
We have reviewed the financial report of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia and, except for several minor matters which were discussed
with the County's auditors for their consideration in preparing
future annual financial reports, find that it is prepared in accor-
dance with the specifications of this office."
Item No. 4.2. A copy of Planning Commission minutes for its meetings of January 14 and
January 21, 1986 was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-85-27. S. L. Williamson Company, Inc. Rezone about five acres
of 352.05 acres from R-4 Residential, to R-4 Residential with NR, Natural Resources Overlay,
an extension of existing 20 acre Natural Resources Overlay. Located on east side of Rt. 631
(Rio Road), part of the Dunlora Estate, opposite VOTEC Center. Tax map 62, Parcel 16 (part
of). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 5 and November 12, 1986.
$P-85-77. S. L. Williamson. To allow for the removal of sand and gravel from Rivanna
River. Located on east side of Rt. 631 (Rio Road), part of the Dunlora Estate, opposite VOTEC
Center. Tax Map 62, Parcel 16 (part). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on November 5 and November 12, 1985.)
Mr. Horne said ZMA-85-27 and SP-85-77 were removed from the Planning Commission agenda at
the request of the applicant.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-85-29. Lake Reynovia PUD. To rezone 390.33 acres from R02 to
PUD to include six acre shopping center; 25.2 acres industrial; 230 sq. ft. detached dwellings;
70 multi-family dwelling units and including roads, recreational areas, and open space areas.
Property on west side of Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742) from the National Guard Armory to
about 3.4 miles south of Lake Reynovia entrance road. Tax Map 90, Parcel 36A. Scottsville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 31, 1985 and January 7, 1986.)
Mr. Horne said ZMA-85-29 was deferred indefinitely by the Planning Commission to allow
the applicant to come back with a more suitable plan.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-85-31. Luck Stone Corporation. To rezone 29.512 acres from RA,
Rural Areas to Rural Areas with Natural Resource Extraction Overlay. Property on west side of
State Rt. 729, adjacent to Rivanna River, C & O Railroad and Stone Robinson School property.
Tax Map 79, Parcels 23D, 23E and 20. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
January 21 and January 28, 1986.)
Mr. Joseph Andrews, Jr., Vice President-Corporate Development, Luck Stone Corporation,
addressed the Board and read the following letter dated February 5, 1986 from Luck Stone
Corporation:
"By this letter, Luck Stone Corporation hereby requests deferral of
the referenced rezoning application. Luck Stone is requesting this
deferral at the suggestion of the Advisory Board of the Parent-
Teachers Organization at Stone-Robinson Elementary School.
274
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
The Advisory Board and Luck Stone representatives have had several
hours of discussion concerning the new proffers and site plan that
were submitted subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting. The
Board and Luck Stone feel that the plan as now proposed has the
proper ingredients to allow the school and Luck Stone to continue to
work in harmony as we have in the past. The Advisory Board wishes to
have more time to communicate their findings to the members of the
Parent-Teachers Organization.
We respectfully submit this request and ask your consideration."
Mr. Pete Craddock, representing the Stone Robinson PTO, said Luck Stone has been making a
~incere effort to resolve differences and requested this deferral at the request of the PTO.
~r. Fisher asked that when this petition comes back before the Board that all of the proffers
~e included in one letter. The date suggested for deferral was February 19, 1986. Mr.
~ndrews indicated that February 19 was satisfactory with Luck Stone. Mr. Bowie said he has
been in touch with the PTO over the past several weeks and thinks this deferral is in the best
~nterest of all parties. It does appear that progress is being made. He then offered motion,
~econded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer ZMA-85-31 until February 19, 1986. Roll was called and the
notion carried by the following recorded vote:
%YES:
~AYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-85-32. James D. and Alice H. Shisler. To rezone 0.635 acres
~rom R-6 to C-1. Existing use as apartments and dance school. Located on northeast side of
Rt. 631 (Rio Road), about 1,000 ft. west of Rt. 29 North. Tax Map 45, Parcel 149. Charlottes-
ville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 21 and January 28, 1986.)
Mr. Horne presented the staff report:
"Location: Property, described as TM 45, parcel 149, is located on
the north side of Rio Road (Route 631) across from the Daily Progress
building.
Character of the Area: The building on this property currently
contains apartments and a dance school. The property consists of two
lots of the Greenfield Subdivision which also contains properties
zoned CO Commercial Office, LI Light Industrial, and R-6 Residential.
Properties to the east are zoned C-1 Commercial.
Staff Comment: In development of the 1980 zoning map, staff recom-
mended residential zoning of this property due to existing usage.
The applicant has stated that as a result of commercial development
in the area, the property is no longer conducive to apartment usage.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial usage in the area.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended
that: no direct access be permitted to Rio Road; sight distance to
the east from Greenfield Court be improved by removal of vegetation,
mailboxes, and the like; and, that additional right-of-way be dedi-
cated or reserved for future widening of Rio Road. As a matter of
public safety, staff concurs with the recommendations of improved
sight distance and limitation of access and the applicant has prof-
fered these measures. Regarding dedication or reservation of right-
of-way, reservation was required in 1971 at time of site plan
approval (i.e. - 70 foot building setback). Dedication could be
addressed if a revised site plan is required.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-85-32 and acceptance of the appli-
cant's proffer.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 21, 1986, unanimously
~ecommended approval of this petition subject to the following proffer:
"In accordance with the suggestions given to me in our telephone call
yesterday with Mr. Keeler, this letter will serve to inform you that
we will be happy to conform to the following suggestions of the
County Planning Department:
1. Close permanently the entrance from the property onto Rio Road.
2. To move mail boxes from Rio Road that we control."
Mr. Fisher asked the location of the residential area. Mr. Horne said the residential
~rea is directly north. Also, there is a mixture of zoning within the Greenfield Subdivision.
~he parcel of Light Industrial has been present for approximately 20 years.
Mr. Fisher asked the permitted uses in C-1 zoning. Mr. Horne said the C-1 zoning contains
variety of commercial uses, mostly retail that do not require a lot of outside display. Mr.
~owie said the Highway Department commented on vegetation and mailboxes. The proffer does not
~entlon vegetation and only refers to mailboxes the applicant controls. Mr. Horne said enough
~ailboxes could be removed to improve the sight distance. There are other obstructions of the
~ight distance over which the applicant has no control. This is an existing entrance; traffic
_s not necessarily being increased by the applicant. To offset any increase in traffic, the
~pplicant is proffering not to take direct access to Rio Road, which exists now.
275
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
The public hearing was opened. With no one present representing the applicant, the
petition was deferred until later in the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-85-86. Vincent L. Jones. To allow home for the developmentally
disabled on 2.310 acre parcel zoned RA. Entrance to property located about 1,500 feet east of
Rt. 29 via Rt. 712 and Rt. 760. Tax Map 87, Parcel 35Cl. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on January 21 and January 28, 1986.)
Mr. Fisher read the following letter dated February 5, 1986, from Mr. Vincent L. Jones:
"The purpose of this letter is to notify the Board of Supervisors
that I have withdrawn my special use permit at this time to house 20
developmentally disabled persons. I was informed by Mr. Horne of the
Planning Department that by right under a single family dwelling I
could house five developmentally disabled persons, and that is my
plan."
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to allow withdrawal of SP-85-86 by
the applicant without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-85-6. Urban District Park. To amend the Comprehensive Plan to
show approximately 100 acres of land located west of Route 20 North and north of Elk Drive
with extensive Rivanna River frontage, from low density residential to public use-recreational.
This amendment is to reflect park usage for this area. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
January 21 and January 28, 1986.)
Mr. Horne presented the staff report:
"Request to amend County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002, Map 9: Land
Use Plan, with respect to a park consisting of approximately 100
acres. This proposed park is located west of Route 20 North, north
of Route 1421 (Elk Drive) and bordered on the west by the Rivanna
River. The Comprehensive Plan currently recommends low density
residential development (1 to 4 dwelling units an acre) for this
area. A change in land use from residential to public use-
recreational is being requested. Tax Map 62, parcel 23; Tax
Map 78, parcel 1, Rivanna Magisterial District.
HISTORY
May 1985
The Athletic Needs Study was completed in May 1985.
This study was prepared jointly by the City and County
Park Department staffs to explore the potential for
the development of a City/County softball complex.
The study was initiated by the Charlottesville City
Council during their review of redevelopment plans for
McIntire Park which questioned the long-term viability
of lighted softball fields at McIntire Park. The
Athletic Needs Study recommended the construction of a
four-field, lighted softball complex and related
facilities at a site on Elk Drive (Mahanes property).
June 1985
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, after
reviewing the above Athletic Needs Study, directed
the County Planning staff to re-evaluate the nineteen
sites examined in the study and their relationship to
factors such as Comprehensive Plan recommendations,
growth area impacts, transportation needs and other
recreational needs, etc. Staff was directed to reduce
the list to approximately five sites considered most
suitable for a variety of recreational uses.
AugUst 1985
The Department's review of Athletic Needs Study was
presented to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
on August 14, 1985. At that time, the Board of
Supervisors accepted the report's recommendation that
due to the very desirable qualities of the Elk Drive
(Mahanes) property, that an option to purchase the
property be entered into.
December 1985
The City and the County selected a landscape archi-
tectural firm to explore the feasibility of creating a
joint County-City park on approximately 100 acres of
land known as the Elk Drive or Mahanes property. The
consultants were requested to assess the sites' physi-
cal capacity to address a variety of recreational
programs. Their study included examination of pro-
grams and activities identified by the City and
County, analysis of the site, development of alter-
native plans for a park and preparation of preliminary
276
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
January 15,
1986
estimates of plans for the park. The consultant's
study concluded that the site could make a major
contribution towards meeting active and passive
recreation needs of the area and recommended that the
Board of Supervisors and City Council purchase this
property.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a
resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan's recommendation concerning the use
of the "Mahanes" 100 acre site. The request is for a
change in land use from low density residential to
public use-recreational. The Board of Supervisors
directed staff to schedule Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors review of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment as quickly as possible since the City-County
option to purchase the Mahanes site expires on
February 17, 1986.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE
The site for which an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is being
requested contains a total of 110.57 acres and consists of two tax
parcels. The property is located west of Route 20 North and north of
Elk Drive with extensive Rivanna River frontage. It is located in
Neighborhood 3 of the Comprehensive Plan and within the Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Elk Drive and Route 20 from 250 East currently provide access to the
site. Route 20 between Route 33 in Barboursville and Route 250 East
carries 2,115 vehicle trips per day. The Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation considers this road to be tolerable. Elk
Drive (State Route 1421) carries 495 vehicle trips per day. Given
the number of vehicle trips and the narrow width of this road the
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation considers this road
to be non-tolerable.
There has also been recently some discussion of a Rio Road - Route 20
North connector road. This roadway, if ever constructed, could pass
through the southern end of the proposed park, either paralleling or
following the alignment of Elk Drive to intersect with Route 20 North
(The map in the consultant's report is not necessarily a correct
indication of the future road alignment). This area is presently a
utility corridor and is not critical in staff's opinion to development
of a park in this area.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SITE ANALYSES
As noted under the history section of this staff report there have
been a variety of recreational site analyses. Originally the studies
were largely focused on analyzing needs for additional softball
fields. However, the 'Athletic Needs Study Review' undertaken by the
County Department of Planning and Community Development required
staff to review over twenty potential locations in Albemarle County
for multi-purpose recreational development. Since the original
study, 'Athletic Needs Study', had identified a need for a 100 acre
site to accommodate both softball fields and other facilities, only
approximately 100 acre sites were also evaluated by County staff.
The staff then, after detailed analysis of all twenty sites, recom-
mended four locations (in priority order): (1) Elk Drive (Mahanes),
(2) Biscuit Run, (3) Hollymead, (4) Milton Airstrip. The 'Athletic
Needs Study Review' concluded that:
Due to the very desirable qualities of the Elk Drive (Mahanes)
property, and the scarcity of undeveloped land within the urban
area suitable for park development, staff recommends that the
Board of Supervisors obtain an option to purchase the property.
It is recommended that this proposed park contain areas for
field sports and other facilities. Specifics of site develop-
ment should be contingent upon a comprehensive analysis of
recreation needs.
The next step, once the Mahanes site was recommended by staff as a
potentially promising site for an urban district park, was to request
a consultant study. The purpose of the consultant's study was to
provide the two jurisdictions with information to assist them in
finalizing a decision to proceed with purchase of the property. The
analysis was to address issues such as overall flexibility of the
site for use by a variety of active and passive recreational uses.
As part of this analysis the consultants also developed three different
programs or scenarios of different development strategies for the
site. One program represented maximum site development with emphasis
on field-oriented and active recreational use. Another program
reflected a balance of passive and active recreational uses. A third
scenario emphasized passive recreation. These programs were devel-
oped to show the variety of ways this area could be developed as an
277
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
urban district park and did not necessarily reflect any recommended
or adopted park plan. The present action being requested is for an
amendment to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan in order to
reflect a park land use for this area, not a particular park plan.
The consultant's study did, for general informational purposes,
establish very preliminary cost estimates. These estimates are (on
file) for general information and do not reflect any adopted plan.
It is important to note, however, that one advantage of the Mahanes
site is that recreational development of the site could be phased in
over several fiscal years.
The consultant's report forwarded the following conclusions regarding
the site's feasibility as a park:
Assets
The site has the capability to meet much of the existing active
recreational demand of the area. It could meet the City's need to
relieve the pressure on softball facilities at McIntire and Rives
Park.
The site has natural resources (particularly the river frontage) of
great value for passive recreation.
This site is close to the City and centrally located within the
County.
The location integrates well with both the County's and the City's
park systems.
The site is served by water, sewer and power.
The generally open land and deep soil make the site suitable for
grading.
Liabilities
Access to the site from Route 250 (including Free Bridge), Elk Drive
and Route 20 will add traffic to an already congested area, until
improvements are made to those facilities.
It will be difficult to accommodate the Albemarle County Fair and
other temporary events on this site along with the intended recrea-
tional facilities.
Night lighting of this facility would have an impact on several
surrounding properties in the City and County.
The site has limited capacity to meet the long-term future demand for
softball league and tournament play.
COMPLIANCE WITH ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1982-2002
The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan generally supports park and
recreational improvements in Chapter 14: Community Facilities/
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. The Community Facilities
section of the Comprehensive Plan also presents some programming
guidelines. Of relevance to this present Comprehensive Plan amend-
ment is the following recommendations:
Establishment of cooperative agreements between the City and
County for scheduling of athletic leagues with common member-
ship.
Mutual support of regional athletic leagues offers the best
opportunity for City-County cooperation in the area of Parks
and Recreation.
This request for an amendment to the Albemarle County Comprehensive
Plan 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 program-
ming improvements according to the recommendations adopted in the
Parks and Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
2,78
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
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 96 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.
Amend Map 9: Urban Land Use Plan to show a change from the recom-
mended land use from low density residential development (1 - 4
dwelling units per acre) to public use-recreational.
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 at its meeting on February 4, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval of CPA-85-6 for a proposed urban district park. At the meeting, the
Commission expressed a number of concerns although the concerns are in no way to be construed
as opposition to the park. The concerns are as follows:
"1.
The Commission felt that every effort should be made to restrict
access to the park from the southern end of Elk Drive in order
to avoid a dangerous situation at the intersection of Elk Drive
and 250 East near Free Bridge.
®
The Commission emphatically preferred that the park site be
developed as a multi-use park and not be dominated by any
particular type of facility or activity.
The Commission also expressed a strong desire to be involved in
the early master planning process for the park in order to be
able to comment on the general design and mix of facilities to
be located at the park.
In addition to the above concerns, Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern as
to the need for the completion of all needed school facilities in the
county prior to allocation of money for development of the park. The
above concerns should not be construed by the Board of Supervisors as
opposition to the park, but show the desire of the Commission to be
involved in the decision-making process as to the master plan for the
park prior to being presented with a finished master planning document."
At 8:00 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 P.M.
Mr. Tucker said, in October, the City and County governments jointly recommended that an
option be obtained on the Mahanes tract and to move forward with a feasibility study on the
project. Consultants were hired and a feasibility report prepared which included three
proposed conceptual plans for the project.
A committee of the staff worked with the consultants to arrive at the best way to utilize
the property for a family-oriented park and not focus primary on a sports facility. The three
conceptual plans available are Program I for an intensively developed park, Program II for a
balanced approach with active and passive recreation, and Program III for the least intensively
developed and designed plan. Access proposed for all three programs is off Elk Drive.
Concern has been expressed about the portion of Elk Drive that connects directly to Rt. 250
East. The issue of whether or not the State road (route) should be closed will be dealt with
at the time of the master plan.
Program I is for an intensively developed park to include six lighted ballfields, twelve
tennis courts, seven multi-purpose fields, picnic shelters and areas, and two ponds for
passive-type use.
Program II is a balanced approach with active and passive recreation. This plan proposes
five unlighted softball fields, eight tennis courts, four multi-purpose fields and more
passive-type area. Parking is less intensive than in Program I.
Program III is the least intensively developed and designed plan. The proposal is for a
passively oriented park with two proposed softball fields, four multi-purpose fields, four
tennis courts and the remaining land as meadow and grass area for passive-type recreation.
The consultants recommended that Program II is the best approach to meet the needs of
both the City and County. It was noted that lighting would have a major impact on the property
and therefore no lighting is being recommended. The consultants felt the park needs would
take up approximately one-third of the site and the installation of permanent buildings for
the Albemarle County Fair would impact the area considerably.
The Joint City/County Committee has been meeting weekly to negotiate joint purchase of
the property and maintenance of the property if the option is exercised. Yesterday, a draft
agreement was submitted to the Board of Supervisors. The total cost of Program II is estimated
at $2.8 million to be shared equally between the City and County. The price includes the
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
2?@
purchase price of the property and is to be phased over a nine year period in three basic
phases. Phase I will encompass all of the grading needed for the site, parking facilities and
roads. A dam to create one of the lakes is proposed. Also proposed for Phase I are four
picnic shelters and sporadically located picnic areas, concession stands, restrooms, foot
trails, a maintenance building and three softball fields. A fourth softball field is proposed
in Phase II. In addition, four multi-purpose fields are proposed in Phase I. Mr. Tucker also
noted that a utility line would have to be relocated because of the location of one of the
softball fields. If an agreement is reached for purchase of the property, it would be approx-
imately five years before work would begin on Phase II. Phase II is proposed to include the
remaining park roads, additional parking spaces needed for the fourth softball field, additio-
nal picnic shelters and picnic areas, a canoe dock on the river, volleyball courts, additional
foot trails, additional children playgrounds and four tennis courts. Phase III, approximately
three years beyond Phase II in the eighth or ninth year of the program, wOuld conclude develop.
ment of the park.
Mr. Fisher said he and Mrs. Cooke have served on the joint committee since November
attempting to arrive at an agreement that would best serve the needs of both jurisdictions.
The goal has not been to make this facility exclusively a softball complex, but a facility for
families and people with various recreational interests. Mr. Fisher commented that one of the
proposed softball fields in Program II has been eliminated. The field would be under high
voltage wires and it would cost a great deal of money to remove the wires and develop the
field. For security purposes at both parks, a proposed foot bridge to cross the river to Pen
Park has been eliminated. An agreement has not been arrived at on the number of softball
fields in each phase. The County's position is there should be three fields in Phase I and
one field in the Phase II. The City has not agreed to that proposal.
Mr. Bowie said he has had two meetings with the residents of the Key West area. One
concern expressed is future location of the Albemarle County Fair. A second concern expressed
is that there be no night lighting. The third concern is softball. As indicated in the
report, this site will not meet the future softball needs, but he wants to emphasize that this
park will not become the future softball center of the area.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Roger Flynt, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Tennis Patrons, addressed the
Board. Approximately one-third of the audience is a member of the organization. Tennis is a
sport of little investment, little supervision and low costs. People of all ages are involved
all year round. The tennis players strongly support this complex as it is a way to get the
kids off the streets, make real estate more attractive and bring businesses to the community.
In addition, it is great that the County and City are getting together. This community is in
a tennis boom. Five hundred new kids are involved in tennis each year and the area is out of
courts. The needs are current. The proposed plan does not include courts for four to five
years which will greatly hamper the tennis program for youth activities. The Tennis Patrons
would like for the tennis courts to be included in Phase I. Cost versus usage would be
minimum. There are people within this organization willing to prepare tennis court site
plans, architectural plans, specifications and cost proposals at no cost to the County.
Mr. Roland Moore, a resident on the east side of the proposed site, next addressed the
Board. He owns approximately 75 acres. He would like to know where the bowling alley is
proposed. If a complex is to serve all types of sports, a bowling alley should not be elimi-
nated. This park is estimated to add 500 vehicles trips per day on Free Bridge and Rt. 250.
He invites Board members to come between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M. to see the present traffic conges-
tion. If 100 houses were built on this property at $100,000 each, it would be an additional
$10,000,000 in property that could be taxed. If a park is built on this property, all that
revenue will be lost. In addition, he believes that the character of the neighborhood will be
changed and there will be additional requests for things that appear to be comparable to a
park.
Mr. Jack Vermillion, owner of Franklin, historical property that overlooks the proposed
site, addressed the Board. He first read a letter (on file) from himself and his wife express.
ing their feelings on the proposed site, dated November 11, 1985. In light of the consultant'
report and conversations in meetings with Mr. Bowie, he presented a letter dated February 5
further clarifying their feelings:
"This letter is intended to further clarify our position as adjoining
property owners to the proposed park.
After having studied the report and three proposals prepared for Albemarle
County and the City of Charlottesville by the consulting firm of Rieley
and Associates, we support Proposal 92 which suggests a moderate use park
with no lighted facilities.
We would like to take this opportunity to commend Mr. Rieley for his
policy of visiting and consulting with the adjoining residents and taking
into consideration their concerns while preparing the proposals. If
further design work is to be done by consultants, we would suggest that
his firm be retained.
We would also like to thank Mr. Guy Agnor, Mr. Bob Tucker and Ms. Katherine
Imhoff for their cooperation in keeping us informed to this point. Due to
the thorough and cooperative manner of all of these professionals, we now
look forward to having a beautiful and useful day-time park for the
residents of the area."
Mr. Vermillion said he appreciates the County's cooperation and its ability to listen to
the residents concerns. He hopes that this relationship will continue.
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Ms. Marie F. Reel, President of Key West-Cedar Hills Association, addressed the Board.
Ms. Reel said 104 letters representing 179 signatures (on file) addressed to Board dated
January 22, were presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 1. The
Association's position has changed slightly, but the community is in support of the proposed
park. Ms. Reel then read the following statement from the Association, dated January 31, 1986:
"We further urge that if the Mahanes site is acquired, that it be used for
multi-purpose, daytime activities with a permanent injunction against
night lighting for any sport or other activities."
Ms. Reel said everyone has made promises, including Mayor Buck, that there will be no
lights, but the wording "at the present time" keeps slipping in. Can a permanent commitment
be placed either on page 96 of the Comprehensive Plan or in the deed that any request for
lighting would require a public hearing. Mr. Fisher said an attempt is being made to include
in the agreement language that there shall be no lighting except for that required for safety
and security.
Mrs. Barbara Lape, Director of the Mid-Atlantic Tennis Association Junior Tournament,
addressed the Board. This event brings about 100 children and parents to Charlottesville for
a week. The biggest problem is lack of space. She requested as many tennis courts as possi-
ble be included in the initial stage of construction for the new park.
Mr. Ken Lape, a resident of Southern Albemarle, addressed the Board. The residents of
Southern Albemarle do not have a problem with tennis courts being full, as there are no courts
nor is there a public swimming area. He is against this park if it in anyway deters the
Board's dedication to executing a public swimming area and recreation facilities in southern
Albemarle. He does no~ think the youngsters in Esmont, Scottsville and Covesville will use
this park. Mr. Fisher said the problem in southern Albemarle is finding a site. The staff is
still working on a site location with a timetable for the end of June.
Mr. Pete Craddock, representing the Stone Robinson PTO, addressed the Board. The PTO
recognizes the need for this sports complex. However, the PTO would like to emphasize that
the upgrading of the schools, especially Stone Robinson, should be placed ahead of the actual
construction and grading of this project. The school needs are more pressing and pertinent
than the need for a sports complex. Mr. Fisher asked that the public refrain from calling
this a sports complex as it is a park.
Mr. Glenn Branham, owner of property on Elk Drive, addressed the Board. He feels that
the City is attempting to make this park a sports complex. Considering how poorly run the
City softball program is, the city is trying to push something onto the County. In addition,
the City receives little revenue from the program. If the project is approved, he would ask
that the entrance not be on any part of Elk Drive, but on Rt. 20. The park will have a major
impact on traffic on Route 250 East at Pantops Mountain. He would also like to invite the
Board to travel to Pantops on a Saturday morning or a Friday afternoon and look at the
situation.
Mr. Leo Clawson next addressed the Board. He is retired and moved to Charlottesville
four years ago. He also is a former town commissioner from Bonneville County, Idaho. One of
the greatest experiences in his eight years as town commissioner was supporting a joint
City/County park which is very similar to this design. The parking and multi-use of the
proposal fits in with everything he would solely desire in a park. He is here to offer his
full support. He showed the Board a trophy he received from the Eastern Idaho Bar Association
for the citizen who did the most in the community in that year and for his support of the
City/County park.
Ms. Pauline Carter, a resident of Ashcroft, addressed the Board. Her main concern is
that it looks like the east side of the County is getting a park, whereas the west side is
getting a new school. She would rather receive the school. The schools that the east side
children attend are not up to par with the rest of the County. She also would prefer that
$1.4 million go into a school as opposed to a park. The future holds her sons attending Stone
Robinson, which is overcrowded; Burley Middle School, which is not air-conditioned and needs
renovating; and Albemarle High School, which is overcrowded and needs work. The kids on the
west side will have the newest elementary school and already has the newest middle school and
high school. It is distressing to get a new park. When it comes to priorities for her chil-
dren, the schools are more important than a park. Her second concern is with the traffic on
Free Bridge and she is not thrilled with the prospect of what this park is going to do to the
traffic.
Mr. John Dorrier, owner of property adjoining the proposed park, said he would like to
thank everyone for their attitude regarding the park. He commended Mr. Bowie for bringing
information to the residents. It appears that everyone shares the concern about having a park
with no lights. He thinks the park is needed for the community and is something that can be
used by older residents. He feels that any dealings with the City should be "in stone" if
possible. Ten years ago the City wanted to put a dump across the road from his home and the
County would not allow it.
Mr. Layton McCann next addressed the Board. He has no problem with capital outlay for a
recreational facility for the citizens and is willing to pay his taxes to support same, but he
would like to know where the County is headed with the recreational program. Mr. Moore, a
former speaker, alluded to bowling alleys. Passive recreation and picnic shelters are things
that all people can enjoy. He has reservations with specifics such as softball fields with
the City of Charlottesville. If this agreement is entered, the County Department of Parks and
Recreation should have an equal say in the operation. He does not have a problem with the
purchase of the property, but does have a problem with development when there are other needs
such as roads that are not safe to travel and inadequate schools. The County government over
the past ten years has basically followed in the footsteps of Charlottesville. The County has
copied programs and departments, but he hopes that the County does not follow in the City's
fiscal footsteps. He urged the Board not to create programs it cannot afford.
With no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
281
Mr. Fisher asked what issues regarding the propos~ park are scheduled for February 12.
Mr. Agnor said other issues entail the consummation of the agreement with the City including
details such as costs, revenues and overall plans for the operation of the facility if the
property is .purchased. The purchase option expires on February 17.
Mr. Fisher requested the staff to provide on February 12, an outline indicating whether
projects proposed by the School Facilities Committee can be undertaken and if funding for the
Southern Regional Park can be retained in the Capital Improvements Program. He would also
like to know how those projects fit into the three proposed phases of the park. Mr. Fisher
said Board members are also concerned about school projects knowing that improvements are
necessary.
Mr. Way asked the timing of Phase I of the proposed park. Mr. Fisher said the park is
proposed to open in the Spring of 1988. The design phase should begin in the Spring of 1986,
possible construction to-begin in the Fall and major grading in the next 12 to 15 months.
Mr. Bowie said it is easy to work with constituents such as these and he appreciates the
two-way exchange. He has stated continually that the schools must be funded before develop-
ment of this park. It appears to him that all of the concerns expressed by citizens have been
addressed. With regard to comments made about traffic, if houses were built on this property
instead of the park, they would still generate considerable traffic. Also housing would cause
a major impact on Stone Robinson School. There is no acceptable agreement at the present
time. He will not turn this into a complex for any one sport. He hopes that questions
concerning revenue, user fees, etc., will be ironed out soon. When it is time to begin Phase
II, another look must be taken at all of the County's needs.
Mr. Bowie said he has a problem with voting for a Comprehensive Plan amendment tonight
when there is no agreement or capital improvements program budgeting. Mr. Fisher suggested
that action on the Comprehensive Plan amendment be deferred until February 12. At that time,
the Board will review the agreement, the plans, funding and then make a decision. Mr. Bowie
said he does not see how it can be done any other way, and then offered motion to defer action
on CPA-85-6 until February 12. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think anyone can guarantee the citizens that there will
never be lights. He recommended to members of the the negotiating committee that the agree-
ment include a provision which would allow for a public hearing if lights are ever considered.
It also needs to be written out that neither side can undertake improvements without the
consent of the other. He personally does not want lighting or four softball fields, but he
also feels that the park is necessary for a County that is growing as quickly as Albemarle and
he supports the concept.
Mr. Fisher asked the Board for direction on the how many softball fields it feels should
be in Phase I. The Joint Committee's position is for three fields in Phase I and a fourth
field in Phase II. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to swap two softball fields for eight
tennis courts. More people can use tennis courts in a 24-hour period than can use softball
fields. Mr. Bowie said he would like to see at a maximum two softball fields in Phase I and
one softball field in Phase II.
Roll was then called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(At 9:00 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 8.
the meeting.)
ZMA-85-32.
James D. and Alice H. Shisler.
(Deferred from earlier in
The public hearing was opened. Mr. James Shisler, the applicant, addressed the Board.
Mr. Shisler said the property is currently used as apartments and a dance school facility.
The nature of the neighborhood has changed so much that it is becoming more difficult to rent
the property to good tenants. The proffers include relocation of mailboxes and correction of
sight distance problems. The Post Office agreed to allow the mailboxes to be installed near
to Greenfield Court and construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk changes have begun for the
relocation. Mr. Fisher asked if the entrance from Rio Road will be closed permanently. Mr.
Shisler said yes. Mr. Fisher asked what uses are contemplated for the property. Mr. Shisler
said things like an insurance agency, auditor, or small retail facility.
With no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Cooke said this application is in her district and she is familiar with the property
She has no problem with this request. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to approve ZMA-85-32
subject the to proffer in a letter dated January 7, 1986 addressed to the County Planning
Department, signed by Alice H. Shisler and James D. Shisler as follows:
"In accordance with the suggestions given to me in our telephone call
yesterday with Mr. Keeler, this letter will serve to inform you that
we will be happy to conform to the following suggestions of the
County Planning Department:
1. Close permanently the entrance from the property onto Rio Road.
2. To move mail boxes from Rio Road that we control."
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion.
the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
282
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Agenda Item No. 11.
Revenues.
School Division - New/Expanded Programs - Allocation of Local
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his office dated January 3'1, 1986:
"Forwarded herewith is the list of new and expanded programs being consi-
dered by the School Board. The School Board has scheduled a public
hearing on Thursday, February 6, at which a balanced basic operating
budget will be presented to the public which includes a $600,000 addi-
tional local revenue allocation. The attached list of additional needs
will be presented as an addendum, if funding is provided.
My understanding of your process to review local revenue resources and
allocate a planning amount of those revenues as a guideline for budget
preparation purposes was to provide the School Board and the Executive
staff with those guidelines before budget preparations were completed.
The attached list has been received too late to provide revenue guidelines
for school budget preparations, but not too late for school budget adop-
tion by the School Board, which will occur sometime after their public
hearing on the 6th. It will, of course, require your adopting revenue
guidelines at your February 5 meeting.
Attached for your consideration is the January 2 memorandum listing
General Government and Agencies requests for new and expanded programs.
Adding the School Division list, they summarize, as follows:
General Government
Agencies
School Division
Total
$ 365,860
208,410
653,247
$1,227,517
You will recall when this process began in October, estimates of new local
revenue were calculated to be $1.95 million. You directed that $1.0
million could be used for budget planning of current operational infla-
tionary increases, and the $0.95 million would be retained for new or
expanded program needs, contingencies that arise during budget approval
procedures, and tax rate adjustments. Of the $1.0 million allocation,
$600,000 was designated for the school division, and $400,000 for general
government and regional agencies. In terms of local funds, that alloca-
tion represented a 3.3 percent increase over FY 85-86.
You will recall, also, that in January while examining the new or expanded
program lists from general government and regional agencies, you were
unable to consider an allocation of revenues due to the lack of informa-
tion from the school division. You did, however, indicate the following
guidelines for examining the need for new or expanded programs:
1. Programs that generate revenues.
2. Programs that have a proven, demonstrated need.
3. Programs that can be offset by reductions in costs of existing
programs.
As you consider an allocation of revenues as a guideline for the School
Board and Executive staff, I suggest that the concept of reserving local
funds for possible tax rate reductions be amended to reserving funds for
possible impacts of Federal revenue reductions stemming from the Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings bill and the Tax Reform Act of 1985, recently enacted by
Congress. The impact of these bills will not be positively known until
March or April, but they are obviously going to affect State and Local
governments, and it would not seem prudent to be planning a local budget
tax reduction in light of the changes that will be facing County govern-
ment in the near future.
I would recommend a contingency reserve for issues which arise during your
budget review and approval, as well as future impacts from Federal or
State reductions. If $335,000 were held in such a reserve, approximately
one-half of the new or expanded program needs could be considered for
budget planning purposes. Please keep in mind these lists of program have
already been examined and reduced from the list of requests, and will be
further examined by the criteria you indicated in your January discussion
of this matter. Allocating funds for budget planning will not guarantee
approval of any programs. It will provide the School Board and Executive
staff with guidelines to present balanced budgets for your consideration.
If you were to consider a reserve of $335,000 the balance of $615,000
could be allocated, as follows:
General Government
School Division
Agencies
Sub-Total
Contingency Reserve
Total
$183,000
327,000
105,000
$615,000
335r000
$950,000
These numbers would change the allocation of local revenues for FY 86-87
from 3.3 percent to 5 percent over FY 85-86. In my judgement, that is not
an excessive increase when considering a 3.6 percent inflation factor,
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
283
significant insurance increases, a continuing effort to raise classroom
teacher salaries, and a changing, growing community which continues to
require changing government programs. Your consideration of this recom-
mendation or a modification of it is requested."
Mr. Fisher asked how the allocation was arrived at. Mr. Agnor said there are no real
guidelines for the allocation. His suggested reserve is close to one percent of the total
projected local revenues available for next year. He felt that more than half of the reques-
ted programs could legitimately demonstrate a need and be revenue-producing. Funds for a
contingency have not been reserved in earlier years and he felt one should be available. The
numbers were pulled out of the air and have no particular rationalization except as planning
numbers.
Mr. Fisher said the memorandum indicates that the School Division will be allocated the
$600,000 and an additional $327,000 and then will be able to budget for an increase of this
amount in local funds. Mr. Agnor said yes, but there is no guarantee the funds will be
available. In his opinion, a guideline should be given to the School Division on what amount
is available. The School Division used the $600,000 as a planning number, but the amount did
not balance their current operational budget. An additional $153,000 anticipated as a carry-
over from the current year's operations was also used. The list of new and expanded programs
includes additional elementary teachers with fewer middle and high school teachers. The list
prepared by the School Division also includes the following new/expanded programs: Textbook
Fund Supplement; Increased Teaching Staff; Bus Drivers & Transit Aides; Stone-Robinson Assis-
tant Principal; Staff Development; Classroom Furnishings; Middle School Secretaries; Employee
Wellness; High School Enrichment Teacher; Substitute Teacher Scale; Balance of Clerical
Requests; Non-Athletic Stipends; Elementary Fine Arts; E.S.L. Expansion; Burley Library;
School Improvement Project; Employee Assistance; Elementary School Admin. Computers (lease);
Albemarle Debate Team Travel; and 2-Way Communication Equipment. In addition, the proposed
teacher salary mandate is not funded in the School Division's budget. Funding for the mandate
would have to be provided with the new and expanded programs.
Mr. Bowie said he feels there are other ways to handle the mandate other than by raising
salaries. Mr. Bowie said he just returned from a briefing in Washington on the anticipated
effects of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill on local governments, primarily counties. The
effects of the bill are significant and the end of a lot of funding. This memorandum appears
to him to still anticipate funds. As this money is cut, the County will have a two-year
withdrawal period. The County has managed when there have been cuts in funds since such funds
were used for one-time costs. He does not think he should have supported release of the first
$1 million and he cannot support the allocation of the remaining $950,000. Knowing there is
reduced funding from everywhere, he cannot support abandonment of his principle of reducing
taxes or the initial guidance given limiting the increase-for FY '86-87 to five percent. He
strongly objects to raising false hopes by allocating this money and implying that there will
be an additional five percent. He thinks that the Board should request department heads to
absorb as much of the inflation as possible and not approve the release of the money.
Mr. Lindstrom asked where the County would be impacted by the proposed reductions. Mr.
Agnor said the Board felt General Revenue Sharing was dead last year and thus did not antici-
pate use of any of the funds. Informational bulletins received by the staff indicate that
between March 1 and September 30, there will be a five percent reduction in domestic programs.
Social Services programs and the housing block grant AHIP is operating under will be affected.
The reduction will likely impact the transportation systems of the City and thus the County's
contract for these services. He suggests that the Board concedes the information it now has
while the Finance Department calculates some dollar amounts. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like
to see that type of information. He thinks that this will cause a limited impact because the
Board has been very careful about depending on any Federal funds. Rather than climbing in a
fiscal hol~, he feels the Board has the responsibility to carefully evaluate programs as in
the past. He is not prone to say freeze everything because the Federal government has changed
its policy. The Board has been responsible about money and responsible about the programs it
funds. He thinks the Board has responsibilities locally and should seriously consider funding
programs where there is a legitimate request for expansion. He does not agree with Mr. Bowie
that everything should be put on hold. He still agrees with the position the Board took
earlier in the year with respect to the initial guideline on the allocation of funds. He
knows that the department heads under the guidance of the County Executive are aware of
limitationS. He is not opposed to suggestions made for the allocation of the monies avail-
able, but he would like to see more numbers. He thinks that some of the suggested programs
are important and would be beneficial to the County.
Mr. Bowie said he does not know if the Board is being fair by expanding programs when
many of them will face fiscal problems in the future. He cannot support holding $335,000+ in
reserve. He thinks that the Board is committing itself to too high a budget too soon. Mr.
Lindstrom Said he thinks the County pays its teachers substantially more than the fictitious
median andl because the County is paying 30 percent for fringe benefits. Before allowing the
State to tell the Board what to do, he would reallocate the money. If the State feels better
about having a little extra cash in its hands rather than the benefits, he feels that is the
way the Board will have to deal with the situation. The School Board feels that 8.2 percent
is reasonable and given the benefit package he thinks the Board will seriously have to consideI
that as anl option. He thinks that the County is paying teachers well above the national
average today. Mr. Agnor commented that the General Assembly is not recognizing fringe
benefits aS part of the mandate.
Mr. Fisher said he has difficulty setting targets for the three basic government areas at
this time because the Board has not seen a budget or held hearings. To make an arbitrary
allocationi today informs people they will be receiving that amount and they will just ask for
more funds. He would feel better with the County Executive reviewing the budget requests from
each of the agencies as they come in and making recommendations as has been done in the past.
He also th~nks some guidance from the Board should be provided to the staff. This is too
arbitrary of a decision for him.
284
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Lindstrom said the difference this year is that rather than having the staff make
these arbitrary judgements, the Board wanted to participate. He is not willing to tell the
staff that there is not going to be any more money for agencies and the budgets be developed
as such, nor does he feel that is a responsible position. The Board is now passing the buck
to the staff. The staff needs some guidance or else this process has failed. He does not
feel that by giving guidance, the Board has committed itself to spend the money. He is not
willing to just cut off all of the agencies. Mr. Fisher said that is not what he is saying.
If the School Board is told it will receive an additional $327,000 and then the public hearing
is held and some other agency needs the money more, it would be trouble getting the money back
from the School Board. Mr. Lindstrom said there is no time after the public hearing to do
anything other than adopt the budget. Mr. Henley said he feels a mistake was made when this
new process was started. He is glad to receive the wish list, but does not feel the Board
should tell anyone they are going to receive any amount of money. These programs should stand
on their own feet. Mr. Way commented that the letter preceding the list states that these are
essential to the operation of the school system and is not a wish list. Mr. Lindstrom said he
thinks the Board will have severely messed up the budget process if it does not give some
guidance. Mr. Henley said the money is still available and if the staff can be convinced the
request is worthwhile, it is there to be used. Mrs. Cooke said she feels anytime an amount is
set, a department will find needs for every penny. The Board's responsibility is to make sure
the departments are not inventing ways to use money. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think the
Board has the guts to give the guidance which is what the members are elected to do. Mr.
Bowie said his guidance would be not to allocate the $950,000.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion that guidance in the preparation of this budget be that
$950,000 remain in a contingency reserve and not be allocated. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks
with that guidance every agency will show up and argue for every cent. Mr. Henley said he
does not see how an agency can request what is not on the list before the Board now. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if the committee will give a ranking on each request. Mr. Agnor replied the
ranking has already been done, but he is not really asking for guidance. The Board decided it
wanted to be involved in this process. His request for guidance is because he thought the
Board wanted to finish the process. Mr. Henley said he feels the staff can go through these
requests and evaluate more effectively than the Board. The staff knows a lot more about what
is needed than the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks a significant improvement was made in the budgetary process
in terms of public representatives being involved in the structure. He thinks, by doing this,
the Board is saying it does not want to be involved. It does not do any good to have this
list if the Board is not going to make any decisions or use any of its authority. He thinks
that the Board is stepping backwards. Mr. Fisher said he agrees that the Board has to make
the final decision, but whether it is done with no information today or after hearing from
people in the programs is another matter.
Mr. Bowie restated his motion that budget guidance be to retain the $950,000 and not
allocate any at this time. Mr. Fisher commented that the intent of the motion is that some of
the funds could be allocated. Mr. Bowie stated that is correct. Mr.-Henley seconded the
motion. Mr. Bowie said it is logical that a list of funded projects from last year be provided
along with a list of the new programs.
Mr. Lindstrom asked when the public hearings on the budget are scheduled. Mr. Agnor said
the public hearing is scheduled for April 2 with adoption of the budget on April 9. Presenta-
tion of a recommended budget and taking public comments are scheduled for March 5. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if a portion of the budget could be adopted if it is not all ready by April
15. Mr. Agnor said yes a portion can be adopted. .Contracts could still be issued to teachers
even if no salary is set. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks there must be flexibility somewhere if
needed. Mr. Bowie said he has noticed that since last year there has been a better relation-
ship with the School Board. He does not think that the Board should exceed the deadline.
Mr. Agnor asked, for clarification, if the $950,000 is to be reserved for use at the
Board's discretion or if he is allowed to use the funds as he reviews the programs. Mr. Bowie
said he would like to have a say in where the $950,000 is spent, but recommendations would
come from the County Executive on how it is to be distributed. Mr. Henley commented that the
only thing the Board is doing is not dangling money out in front of different groups. Mr.
Lindstrom said it appears to him that this motion is just deferring the entire matter. With
no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Order Advertisement of Budget Amendment.
Mr. Agnor said in order to move forward to exercise the option on the Mahanes tract and
have funds available for development of the Master Plan, an appropriation of $381,900 is
necessary. An additional $5,000 is also requested to negotiate purchase of the Snow tract
which adjoins the Mahanes tract. Mr. Bowie offered motion to advertise a budget amendment in
the form of an appropriation in the amount of $386,900 for the purchase of the Mahanes property
for the City/County Recreational Park. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Request for Chairman to Sign Deed re: Priddy Creek Property.
Mr. St. John explained that the Board has already approved the purchase of this strip of
land from Mr. Morris Foster and the deed has been drawn. This resolution is for the Chairman
to sign acceptance of the deed. Mr. Bowie offered motion to authorize the Chairman to sign
the following deed as previously resolved by the Board:
' 285
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
THIS DEED made this 14th day of January, 1986, by and between W.
MORRIS FOSTER and ANNE M. FOSTER, husband and wife, Grantors, and COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, Grantee,
WI TNE SSETH :
That for and in consideration of TEN ($10.00) DOLLARS and other good
and valuable considerations, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
said Grantors do hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with GENERAL
WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the said Grantee, the follow-
ing property to wit:
Ail that certain tract or parcel of land in the Rivanna District of
Albemarle County, Virginia, consisting of a strip of land lying on the
north side of State Route 641 and containing 0.35 acres as shown on plat
of R. B. Cartwright of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 803, page 464, and being a portion of the
property conveyed to the Grantors herein by deed of Delmarva Properties,
Inc., dated June 12, 1984, of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book
803, page 460.
It is intended that this deed shall convey unto the County of Albemarle
all of the land owned by the Grantors between State Route 641 and the
tract already owned by the County of Albemarle, which latter tract is
shown on said plat under the designation "County Board of Supervisors;
Albemarle."
This conveyance is made subject to any easements and restrictions of
record insofar as the same may affect the premises.
Mr. Way seconded the foregoing motion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: September 19, 1984 (Afternoon), July 10,
September 4 (Afternoon), September 4 (Night) and December 4 (Afternoon), 1985.
Mr. Fisher read the following minutes and found them to be in order: September 19, 1984
(Afternoon) and September 4, 1985 (Night) pages 17 through 22 (Item 11 to end).
Mr. Bowie read the following minutes and found them to be in order:
15 (Item 10) through page 30 (Item 9) and December 4, 1985 (Afternoon).
July 10, 1985, pages
Mrs. Cooke read the following minutes and found them to be in order: July 10, 1985,
pages 30 to end and September 4, 1985 (Night) pages 8 through 17 (Items 6 & 7).
Mr. Henley read the minutes of September 4, 1985 (Night) pages 1 through 8 (Items 1-5)
and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the foregoing
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Legislative Matters.
Mr. Fisher commented that City Council took an official position on the proposed mandate
that localities raise teacher salaries by ten percent and asked if the Board wanted to take a
position. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to support the following
Position Paper/Resolution adopted by the School Board on January 28, 1986 to be forwarded to
the County's representatives in the legislature:
(1)
Proposed mandate that localities raise teacher salaries by ten
percent each year in 1986-88.
The Albemarle County School Board does not support that portion of the
1986-88 Budget Bill which includes a penalty for districts that do not
grant a ten percent increase in the average classroom teacher salary.
The Board opposes this portion of the Budget Bill for the following
reasons:
The methodology for computing average teacher salary increases
is not appropriate. For example, it does not allow for teacher
turnover.
2. We are penalized for maintaining low pupil-teacher ratios.
3. We are penalized for maintaining high quality fringe benefits.
0
Indices used in the present SOQ are based on arbitrary conclu-
sions. As an example, the requirement of 59 positions per 1,000
students is a minimal or mediocre level of support when the
state average ratio is based on the actual level of operation is
64 positions per 1,000.
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
AYES:
NAYS:
(2)
Changes proposed by JLARC is study of cost of meeting Standards of
Quality.
The Albemarle County School Board supports the appointment of a Blue
Ribbon Panel to study the Standards of Quality, the funding of the SOQ and
to consider any new methodology for establishing the costs of the stan-
dards or the distribution of state funds.
Roll was called an~d the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Way said he is opposed to House Bill No. 123 and House Bill No. 191 both of which
provide procedures for the direct election of school board members. Mr. Way offered motion to
notify the legislative representatives of this opposition. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the Board and Public.
Mr. Bowie suggested that in the future when a large tract of land zoned for housing is
changed to another use such as a park, a recommendation should be made as to where to transfer
the housing. He would like to know where the population plans are going to be changed. Mr.
Tucker said that will be considered during the next review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Cooke asked the status of negotiations with the University and the City. Mr.
Lindstrom said he talked to Mr. St. John who concurred to contact his counterpart in the City
and the University to see that the final agreement in form for signature be drawn up so that
it could be presented to the Board for review. As a committee member he feels concerned that
things are followed through. He is concerned because the City has scheduled a hearing and
there is not yet an agreement. Mrs. Cooke said the general concept has been that an agreement
has already been made. She is concerned that the local newspaper completely missed the point
of what was being done concerning the agreement. Mr. Lindstrom said the committee agreed upon
a set of guidelines by which the final agreement will be drawn by the three attorneys. Mr.
Fisher said he thinks the Planning Commission should also be involved in the procedure. Mr.
St. John said this is all presupposing that the three attorneys arrive at something they all
agree on. Mr. Lindstrom said his understanding from Mr. St. John is that if there is a
problem, the draft of the agreement will be circulated to the committee to work out any
details.
Agenda Item No. 17.
Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
C-/C HA I RMAN