1986-02-12February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
February 12, 1986, at 9:00 A.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 (arrived at 9:04 A.M.) and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
George R. St. John.
County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; and County Attorney, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the
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. Lindstrom, seconded by
Mr. Way, to accept the items of 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 from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Department of Highways &
Transportation, dated January 24, 1986, re: Piedmont Highway Corridor Study.
"I am in receipt of your January 9, 1986 letter concerning the Piedmont
Highway Corridor and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors' opposi-
tion to a western bypass of Charlottesville.
The Piedmont Highway Corridor Study was a compilation of recommended
transportation improvements, along the Route 29 corridor from North
Carolina to Maryland, that had been developed from individual urban
transportation studies and from our statewide planning effort. In the
Charlottesville area the recommendations' were developed as part of the
Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) - Year 2000 Trans-
portation Plan which was endorsed by the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The corridor recommendation
contained in the CATS plan and in the Piedmont Highway Corridor Study
was to improve existing Route 29. References to a western bypass as a
recommended improvement were deleted.
The Department continues to support the Piedmont Highway Corridor concept
to improve north/south traffic flow along Route 29. In the Charlottes-
ville urbanized area and in other urbanized areas along the Piedmont
Highway Corridor, the Department will continue to work with the MPOs in
developing the most appropriate solution to their traffic problems."
Item No. 4.2. Letter from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, dated
January 23, 1986, re: Route 250 & Route 631.
"Reference is made to your letter dated December 12, 1985, regarding two
roadway requests made by the Supervisors at their December 11, 1985,
meeting.
Mr. Henley requested a review of the pavement markings on Route 250 in
the vicinity of Gola's Restaurant. As a part of our review of this
location, the Department looked at reported accidents between January 1,
1982, and May 30, 1985. This data revealed that five accidents had
occurred in this vicinity all involving single vehicles. None of the
accidents were due to the existing pavement markings. The location in
question has more than adequate sight distance in both directions and we
see no reason why the passing zone should not remain. In addition to the
accidents reviewed above, we also reviewed the fatal accident which
occurred in early December. It does not appear the pavement markings in
this area had any influence upon that accident. As a part of our review
of this site, however, concern was raised about parking along the shoul-
der of the road. Parking by large trucks interferes with sight distance
for vehicles entering and exiting the commercial properties along this
section. To correct this problem the Department has posted no parking
signs along both shoulders.
The second request outlined in your letter was a concern expressed by
Mrs. Cooke about the visibility at the intersection of Rio Road and
Northfields Road. I believe this concern was raised primarily due to
recent construction in the intersection done by a subdivider. Since the
December meeting, the Department has placed new pavement markings in this
area which I believe have improved, if not totally corrected, the situa-
tion. I have received no further complaints concerning visibility in
this area since the pavement markings were placed. If other problems
exist at this intersection, I should be advised."
ZB8
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item No. 4.3. Letter from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Highway Commissioner, dated
January 23, 1986, re: Secondary SyStem Addition - McClary Court.
"As requested in your resolution dated December 18, 1985, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
effective January 23, 1986.
ADDITION LENGTH
GILBERT HEIGHTS
McClary Court - From Route 600 to NE cul-de-sac 0.20 Mi."
Item No. 4.4. A summary of City/County Revenue Sharing Costs for FY 86-87, dated
February 6, 1986, was received from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr as follows:
"The Revenue Sharing Agreement requires that the annual amount be calcu-
lated by this office each year in January for payment the following
January. For your information, calculations for next year result in the
payment being $1,942,509, an increase over the current year of $67,330,
and $14,045 under the cap of $1,956,554. The following summarizes the
agreement since it began:
Fiscal Calculated Amount of
Year Payment Cap Payment
Increase Over
Previous Year
82-83
$1,293,552 Did not apply $1,293,552
83-84 $1,664,067 $1,530,991 $1,530,991 +$237,439
84-85 $1,635,984 $1,579,753 $1,579,753 +$ 48,762
85-86 $1,909,389 $1,875,179 $1,875,179 +$295,426
86-87 $1,942,509 $1,956,554 $1,942,509 +$ 67,330
You will note payments increased in 83-84 and 85-86, which are reassess-
ment years. Please note also the cap in the formula has controlled every
year except 86-87 and 82-83. The agreement provided the cap would not
apply the first year (82-83) but would apply thereafter."
Mr. Fisher commented that this is the first time that the Revenue Sharing Agreement has
dropped out from under the ten cent limitation and is moving in its predicted direction.
Item No. 4.5. Quarterly Statistics on Performance Evaluations of General Government
employees for the period October through December 1985, dated February 3, 1986, were received
from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. The memorandum stated that under current evaluation, four received
an acceptable rating; 14 were rated as above satisfactory; and 15 as-outstanding. The
statistics continue to indicate that the threshold for categorizing the evaluations may need
to be raise~ to higher point levels.
Item No. 4.6. Letter from Miss Johnsey Steppe, dated January 17, 1986, concerning the
newly-formed Neighborhood Watch Program in the Crozet area, was received.
Item No. 4.7. A status report dated February 6, 1986 on the Greenwood Chemical Company,
was received from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
"We have recently learned that Virginia Water Projects, Inc., a private
foundation from Roanoke is considering the possibility of locating a
monitoring well(s) on properties near the Greenwood Chemical Company
site. They are scheduled to meet with area property owners the week of
February 10th. State Health Department officials are expected to attend
this meeting as well.
EPA staff has informed us that implementation of a new National Contin-
gency Plan is expected to begin February 20, 1986. I have notified EPA
and reiterated the County's concern for residents and property in the
Greenwood area due to the potential contamination from the Greenwood
Chemical site. The State Health Department is also requesting that the
Greenwood site be given a high priority in implementing the National
Contingency Plan."
Item No. 4.8.
as information.
A copy of Planning Commission minutes for January 28, 1986, was received
Item No. 4.9. Monthly Building Report for December, 1985, was received from the Depart-
ment of Planning and Community Development.
Item No. 4.10. Letter from Virginia Power dated February 7, 1986, re: Giving notice to
the public of the proposed sale by Potomac Electric Power Company of its Virginia electric
distribution facilities and service territory to Virginia Electric and Power Company~'
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
289
Item No. 4.11. A copy of "Employment and Wages in Virginia - 4th Quarter and Annual
1984" was received from the Virginia Employment Commission.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: July 10, August 14 and September 4,
(Afternoon) 1985.
Mr. Henley read the minutes of July 10, 1985, pages 1 - 15 and found them to be accept-
able.
Mr. Bowie read the minutes of August 14, 1985, pages 17 - 38 and found them to be
acceptable.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the preceding minutes
as read. 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. 6a. Highway Matters: Revised Resolution re: Brookhill Avenue.
Mr. Agnor said several months ago a request was received from property owners to include
Brookhill Avenue in the Secondary System using rural addition funds. In addition, the
property owners have deposited $5,713.50 into an account toward the cost of the addition.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department cannot do any work on Brookhill Avenue until
it becomes a part of the secondary system. The property owners are using the Willow Lake
subdivision construction as part of their cost responsibility which previously held up the
addition of this road into the system. He thinks that progress is close enough that the
Highway Department can move ahead with the addition. Mr. Way said he is glad to see this is
finally getting done and then offered motion to adopt the following revised resolution to
take Brookhill Avenue into the State secondary system as a rural addition:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be
and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways,
subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart-
ment, in accordance with Section 33.1-72.1C1 and D the following road in
Lakeside and Willow Lake Subdivisions:
Beginning at Station 10+100 of Willow Lake Drive, a point common
with the centerline of Willow Lake Drive and edge of pavement of the
southbound lane of Route 20, thence in a westerly direction with
Willow Lake Drive 232.95 feet to Station 12+32.95, a point common
with the centerline of Brookhill Avenue at Station 10+00, thence in
a northerly direction approximately 1,040 feet to Station 20+40, the
end of the cul-de-sac of Brookhill Avenue.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
~/~Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right
~ of way and drainage easements from Station 10+10 on Willow Lake Drive to
~'~ Station 11+50 on Brookhill Avenue (~ea~deed b~ ,_~ - ] and~/~~?~
~~a 60 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easement from Station ~C.~~~
~11+50 to Station 20+40 on Brookhill Avenue
~ ~~~_~a~c 2~' In addition, property owners in
~~?'~ Lakeside Subdivision have deposited in an account in Central Fidelity ?¢~/~ ~~.
(~~ Bank "Buddy Hiter for Brookhill Development, Account No. 7500176710"
--tl~.j $5 713.50 toward the cost of this addition.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing 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. 6b. Highway Matters:
Brochure - Ulysses P. Joyner, Jr.
Presentation of Constitution Highway Association
Mr. Ulysses P. Joyner expressed his appreciation of the Board's past support of the
Constitution Highway Association through the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau. He said the
Association originated designation of Rt. 20 as the Constitution Highway by the General
Assembly. Mr. Joyner presented copies of the revised and reprinted Constitution Highway
Association brochure to the Board. He hopes that the brochure will encourage travel to
Virginia along Rt. 20. Mr. Way thanked Mr. Joyner for his work on the committee and said the
brochure is excellent and the Association is doing an excellent job. He also thinks the
Board should continue its support of the Association.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Agnor said he received a copy of a notice from Mr. Donald M. Wagner, Urban Programs
Engineer, Highway Department, that a location public hearing on the McIntire Road/Rio Road
(Meadow Creek Parkway project) has been scheduled for Tuesday, March 25, 1986, 7:30 P.M., at
the Charlottesville High School auditorium. Notices of the date, time, location and purpose
of the hearing will be published in local newspapers approximately four weeks and one week
prior to the hearing. In addition a pre-hearing plan review session has been scheduled for
Monday,-March 24, 1986, in the high school's lobby between the hours of 6:30 P.M. and 9:30
P.M.
290
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Fisher asked when a decision would be made following the public hearing. Mr.
Roosevelt said it normally takes several months for the Highway Commission to make a decision
regarding the public hearing. That decision is based on a recommendation from the highway
staff, a transcript of the public hearing, and any letters received within ten days after the
public hearing, which are sent to the Richmond office. Comments are made on the location and
design of the project and sent to the Highway Commission. Assuming that the Commission
approves a location, the Highway Department then begins work on the design for a design
public hearing scheduled at the same time the following year. The process for design appro-
val is the same as location approval. The next step in the process is purchase of necessary
rights-of-way with an anticipated advertisement date of July, 1989. Construction could begin
in the Fall of that year.
Mr. Fisher asked if three different alignments are being considered within the City
limits. Mr. Roosevelt said two alignments are required due to federal financial participa-
tion in the project. An alignment that does not infringe upon park or recreational areas
must be considered anytime federal funds are used.
Agenda Item No. 7. Quarterly Police Department Report.
Mr. Frank W. Johnstone, Chief, Police Department, addressed the Board and summarized the
following memorandum dated February 6, 1986:
"Following are the significant activities of the Police Department in the
fourth quarter of 1985. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at 9:21 A.M.)
1. Service Division Reorganization: The new staff has been trained
and oriented to their additional responsibilities since the transition to
the 911 Dispatching Center. We are still receiving an inordinate number
of calls which should be going to the Joint Dispatch Center. (5,202 last
year). The majority of the calls seem to be for less-than-emergency
needs, such as animal calls, suspicious persons or circumstances, or the
Sheriff's Department, etc. It is not a major problem and in the last few
months the number of calls per month is going down. However, there are
still too many emergency calls originating here, which shows a need for a
continuous public education effort on the part of the Joint Dispatch
Center and others so that the full benefits of emergency dispatching may
be realized. We will continue to monitor the problem and work for a
constructive solution. (Mr. Henley returned to the meeting at 9:24 A.M.)
In response to some concerns that people were not able to call into
the Department during certain peak hours of the day, we initiated two
separate telephone use surveys which resulted in the addition of two
incoming lines.
Division personnel have assumed the responsibility of typing inves-
tigative reports, statements and handling some of the correspondence for
the Victim/Witness Coordinator and, as time permits, they are continuing
to develop a manual file in preparation for the automation of almost all
of the police records system. The Traffic Management Information System,
funded by a State grant, has been ordered and should be installed in the
immediate future. We are intensively examining the possibility of
'piggy-backing' a Police Department Management Information System onto
this which should help us-to realize our goals in this area.
2. Personnel: When we hired five new officers in July, I trans-
ferred four experienced officers into the Detective Division in an effort
to more fairly distribute the very large case load in that Division and
to try to mitigate some of the effects of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
This has proven to have been a vitally needed measure and the results
began showing up in the final quarter of 1985. The Department showed a
greater than 50 percent increase in its clearance rates (from 19 percent
to 32 percent) during this last year. Much of that is directly attribu-
table to the increase in personnel in the Detective Division and the
emphasis on some changes in operating procedures and better communica-
tions within the Department in the past year.
The pressure brought about by the impact of the unanticipated Fair
Labor Standards Act decision forced me to limit the amount of in-service
training that we had planned to do, to change from a widely-liked 15 week
work schedule to a 28 day work cycle and to keep our Commanders in the
patrol section almost constantly in the field. The recent changes in the
FLSA law should result in less inhibiting measures on the administration
of the department.
One of our officers, Stan Batten, received a commendation for
bravery from the local Optimist Club. The department itself received an
award from the National Child Safety Council for outstanding programs (on
behalf of child safety) through the Crime Prevention efforts and in the
schools. The Department's Crime Prevention officer, Bruce Bond, received
a commendation from the Director of the FBI Academy in Quantico for his
presentation to the National Academy Program which stated, in part, that
his presentation had received one of the highest evaluations of any in
the eleven week program.
We also completed the selection process for the five additional
officers approved for January, 1986 and one replacement officer. Two
experienced officers were hired and they will complete their Field
Training program in mid-February and will be immediately assigned to the
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(page 5)
291
Patrol Division. Four other officers are in the basic academy and will
graduate on March 14. They will then complete an eleven week Department
Field Training program and be ready for patrol duty on the 1st of June.
3. Communications: The installation of the new radio system has
been completed and has been operational since mid-November. The improve-
ment in communications ability is exceptional; it is significantly
improved between the base station and the cars. Officers also now have
the capability to talk car-to-car which was almost non-existent with the
old system, due to limited coverage. The addition of the portable
capability provides the officer a significant margin of safety for which
they are very appreciative.
4. Statistics: Statistics for the final quarter of 1985 are on
file. They are compared with the last three months of 1984. It is
significant to note the 33 percent clearance rate, which is attributable,
in the main, to the increased number of Detectives. They have more time
to work more cases and they are achieving greater results.
Annual Statistics: The annual statistics are also appended.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
It is often difficult to make any meaningful analysis when dealing with
very small numbers. The five homicides that occurred in 1985 are dis-
turbing, as any homicide must be, because there were only three in 1984,
two in 1983, but eight in 1982. The County ten year average for mur-
der/non-negligent homicides is 4.3 per year.
We were extremely pleased to see rapes go down by 44 percent, that is
only a reduction of four occurrences. Robberies were also down by 23
percent (three occurrences).
Aggravated assaults showed a significant increase, up 163 percent. This
is probably due to two factors; first, the Department has been making an
intensive effort to intervene in domestic calls in an effort to interdict
the often cyclical pattern of violence and, second, there may be an
increase in reporting of this offense as members of the community who are
being victimized respond to the Department's efforts.
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Burglary rates continue to show a significant decrease, particularly
emphasized in the last quarter of 1985. While crimes against property
have been decreasing slightly nationwide they are also decreasing in this
area. Along with the phenomenon, I feel that the efforts of the Crime
Prevention Section and the addition of more Detectives have also contrib-
uted to the 'downturn. The larceny rate increased and the only encourage-
ment in that area is that we continue to clear a higher-than-average
percentage of the offenses. The Statewide average is 21 percent, the
County average 26 percent.
Almost two-thirds of the larcenies were of property valued at less than
$200. Many of these are thefts from vehicles, property left unattended
around houses and barns, etc. and they are extremely difficult to inves-
tigate and solve.
Albemarle County residents had $1,184,985 worth of property stolen in
burglaries and larcenies last year. We recovered $449,889, or 40 percent
of the loss, significantly higher than the State recovery average of 33
percent.
The increase in the number of auto thefts is reflective of a nationwide
trend. The inclusion of motorcycles and mopeds in this category only
partially explains the increase over the past year.
WARRANTS
We continue to experience an exceptional workload increase in the service
of warrants.
1985 - 3,554
1984 - 2,542
1,012
= 40 percent
These are criminal warrants and/or bench warrants for the court. They do
not include any civil warrants which are only served by the Sheriff's
Department.
While a number of these may be served at the headquarters because of our
mail notification policy, this often still necessitates calling an
officer in from the field. Moreover, there are a large number of war-
rants which must be served by the officers in the field and they often
have to make numerous trips to make service of the warrant on the indi-
vidual. We have estimated an average of 2 hours per warrant service,
which translates into the man/year equivalency of approximately 3.7
officers!
29:2
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
1985 TRAFFIC STATISTICS/MISC. OFFENSE
Speeding 834
DUI 226
Ail other traffic 1653
SUB TOTAL
2713
ALL other criminal
1354 1354
1337 1337
Accident investigations
TOTAL
5404
Two items need to be accentuated. First, DUI arrests have fallen off
markedly (from 408 in 1984 to 226). In 1984 we had a State grant for
Selective Enforcement which paid overtime to officers who could concen-
trate their efforts on this problem. In our efforts to control overtime
in 1985, due in part to the impact of the FSLA, we were not able to
concentrate as much on DUI enforcement. This was also exacerbated by the
increased work load which we experienced last year. We should be able to
concentrate greater effort in DUI enforcement after our new officers are
ready for patrol duty. It is imperative to note that we cannot depend
upon grants for overtime; selective enforcement must be part of a vigor-
ous and responsive proactive patrol posture.
In 1984 the Department investigated 1244 accidents; in 1985, 1337, an
increase of 7 percent. Some of this may be attributable to the lessened
commitment of the State Police in the County but, more importantly, it
does illustrate the very large commitment of manpower and time to the
investigation of accidents in the County. This will continue to be a
growing problem for the Department in the immediate future because of the
traffic and highway problems with which you are already familiar.
SUMMARY
I feel that the Department is continuing to be responsive to the increase
in calls for service from the public and becoming more efficient and
productive. We will continue to work toward improvement of individual
officer productivity in the future."
Mr. Bowie asked for a summary of the award received by Officer Stan Batten. Mr.
Johnstone said there was an assault, abduction and rape that began in the City and ended near
the Reservoir of which the officer made the arrest.
Mr. Way said a lot of time is being expended on transfer calls from 911. Mr. Johnstone
said the problem is inherent in the existing system in the County building. Centel has
reviewed the system and made some recommendations. The Police Department is looking into the
feasibility of a different telephone system. Mr. Way said in the past several months, he has
received all positive comments concerning the Police Department.
Mr. Fisher asked why criminal warrants and bench warrants increased 1,000 in one year.
He asked if the increase is related to domestic cases. Mr. Johnstone said a large amount of
these warrants are for bad checks and are served from jurisdictions outside of Albemarle
County. Often when these warrants are served, the person pays for the bad check and nothing
else is required. In essence, the police and criminal justice system is being used ~as a
collection agency. If the Board so desired, he can get more accurate statistics. In addi-
tion, when he became police chief in July, 1984, over 400 warrants were cleared from the
books in three months. The domestic warrants account for less than 300 of the increase. Mr.
Fisher said this is a high cost if it takes one officer per one thousand warrants. Mr.
Henley commented that in addition to serving warrants, an officer can patrol an area and
perform other duties. Mr. Johnstone said warrants are distributed to everyone on the present
shift and then passed on to the next shift. Often an officer makes two or three trips to a
location which takes up a lot of time and then the officer must get back to routine patrol.
Mr. Henley said an officer's visibility is important. Most complaints he's received are that
officers are not visible enough in the community. Mr. Johnstone said police officers will be
a lot more visible in the coming month. The department just received its first shipment of
23 light bars which should all be installed on the police cars by mid-March.
Mr. Fisher asked Sheriff George Bailey, who was also present, if there has been a
significant change in the number of civil warrants. Sheriff Bailey responded no.
Agenda Item No. 8. Underfunding of Salaries - Police Department.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County
Executive, dated February 4, 1986, to the Board:
"One of the first steps in our budget preparation process in General
Government is to project the current year's operation. In doing so, it
was found that a significant error had been made in the appropriation of
salaries for the Police Department in FY 1985-86. Only the cost-of-
living (four percent) increase was incorporated in the appropriation. No
allowances were made for merits and promotions, which were granted last
spring (FY 84-85). All of the merits and promotions were done after the
FY 85-86 budget was prepared, therefore, none were in the computer when
salary projections were made for FY 85-86. In addition to these two
omissions, there were twelve existing officers' salaries plus ten new
officers budgeted that were funded for range 14 of the old pay plan that
were raised to range 15 by revisions of the pay plan on July 1, 1985.
293
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
The pay plan revisions also adjusted one secretary's range upward. The
Executive staff in preparing personnel costs for FY 86-87 overlooked the
inclusion of these salary changes, and is responsible for the error.
In all, there were 17 merits, four promotions (from patrolmen to Comman-
der I) and 22 reclassifications (or range changes) in the pay plan revi-
sions that were not funded correctly. The total error is $33,425 in
salaries and fringes in an appropriation of $1,157,695. Pay plan adjust-
ments account for $14,900 which was funded in the Personnel Department
budget and was intended to be transferred for department adjustments.
However, the remaining $18,525 plus other overruns of costs in overtime,
liability insurance, and auto insurance, reported to you earlier, will be
reviewed again and recommendations made in the fourth quarter. Some of
these budget problems may be absorbed in other areas of the budget, and
will be reconciled at the end of the third quarter."
Mr. Fisher said last Fall the School Board was requested to make transfers within its
budget and not request additional appropriations this early in the year. Mr. Bowie said he
appreciates receiving this information in advance, but a solution to the problem must be
found somewhere else. Mr. Agnor emphasized that this did not occur through error by the
Chief of Police; the executive staff made the error.
Agenda item No. 9. Mid-Year Financial Report with December Financial Report.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his office dated February 6, 1986:
"On file is a copy of the Director of Finance's December Financial Report
and memo of submission to this office.
In addition, the County Executive's Staff (Sandy Markwood, Bob Tucker and
Ray Jones) has been busy producing the proposed 1986-87 General Govern-
ment Budget. One of the first steps in this process is to analyze the
current year's appropriations to date and make projections to June 30,
1986. This step is complete and the results are:
1) Of the thirty-one cost centers (departments and divisions) in
General Government analyzed, all but four are projecting unexpended
balances of appropriation at the end of the year.
2) The net amount of unexpended balance for the thirty-one depart-
ments is projected to exceed $100,000.
3) Of the four departments projecting end-of-year (6/30/86) over-
expenditures, only one has serious problems, the Police Department.
Current projections of the overruns in insurance costs, overtime and
salary adjustments indicate a potential end-of-year excess expenditure
over current appropriation in excess of $84,000. The $84,000 is composed
of $34,000 in underfunding of compensation (salaries and fringes),
$30,000 in overtime, and $20,000 in excess insurance costs (liability and
auto). Approximately one-half of the underfunding in compensation can be
solved by transfers from Personnel. About one-half of the additional
overtime is reimbursable which is offset by additional revenues. A
separate memorandum is being prepared addressing this underfunding of
salaries and fringes.
4) The remaining three departments consist of Circuit Court ($400),
Parks and Recreation ($5,500), and Housing ($900). All may be able to
absorb these smaller overruns in the remainder of the year's operation or
by transfers at a later date.
In Education, this memo assumes the revenues will exceed expenditures by
$153,000, the amount projected in the Superintendent's FY 86/87 proposed
budget.
From a revenue standpoint, the end-of-year revised estimates indicate
there will be $1.3 million more revenues than projected in the FY 85/86
budget. Approximately one-third ($457,489) is due to the additional
Federal revenue sharing monies not budgeted; about one-half is due to
additional personal property revenues ($721,216) and the balance is
spread throughout the remaining sources of revenue.
Therefore, the General Fund balance should increase $1.4 million ($0.1
million unexpended balance +$1.3 million excess revenues) by the end of
FY 1985-86."
Mr. Agnor said an overexpenditure is shown in Parks and Recreation because of grounds
maintenance of the County Building and the Court Square Buildings. The duty was transferred
to that department in October, but no transfer of funds from Staff Services has yet been
requested. He pointed out that the County collected over 100.2 percent of the property taxes
budgeted. The reason for the high percentage is that the assessment of property was greater
than the budgeted amount. The total cash balance of the General Fund as of December 31, 1985
was $23,324,406; of this amount, approximately $9.7 million will be required for FY 85-86
operations. Approximately $8.0 million will be required for cash flow purposes between
July 1, 1986 and receipt of 1986 taxes to be collected in the Fall.
294
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Fisher asked for the total amount of taxes billed on personal property. Mr. Melvin
Breeden, Director of Finance, responded that the total billed is approximately $4.7 million.
The current year's budget indicated a substantial increase in personal property assessments
over last year's budget, however, it exceeded even more than anticipated. Personal property
assessments are made as of January 1 of each year. There is no way to calculate the actual
assessment until the tax bills are printed in September. Mr. Lindstrom asked if much of the
increase was attributed to the assessment of older vehicles at the fair market value. Mr.
Breeden said the majority of the increase is from new car sales.
Agenda Item No. 10. Fixed Asset Accounting.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, summarized the following memorandum from his
office, dated December 9, 1985:
"Fixed Assets are long-lived assets that are tangible in nature and used
in the operations of the entity. The items most frequently included in
fixed assets may be described in more specific terms as land, buildings,
equipment, furniture, tools and machinery. Fixed Asset accounting and
reporting is required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
as promulgated by the American Institute of Certified Public Accounts
(AICPA), Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), National Council on
Governmental Accounting (NCGA), Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GASB), and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA).
In the past, few localities have elected to capitalize their investment
in Fixed Assets since it is not mandated by the Code of Virginia and
therefore not required by the Auditor of Public Accountants (APA). This
lack of Fixed Asset Accounting does however result in the County's
independent auditors issuing a 'Qualified' Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report since it is not in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.
Recently there has been an increased interest in Fixed Asset Accounting
in public sector financial reporting. This interest is due to the
recovery of depreciation under certain Federal grants and contracts, the
greater public interest in the total cost of government services, the
fact that fixed assets generally would be the largest single category of
assets if included in the locality's financial statements, and the
increasing use of debt to finance major fixed asset additions.
The County of Albemarle does not currently maintain a Fixed Assets
Accounting System, however, there are a number of benefits that would be
derived from the implementation of this system. This system would
provide accurate information to assure adequate insurance coverage,
improve the control and accountability of assets, provide information to
better schedule replacements or redistribute excess equipment. The
implementation of this system would also make the County eligible for the
Certificate of Conformance award issued by the Government Finance Offi-
cers Association. This certificate is the award of excellence in govern-
ment financial reporting. Qualification for this award could be very
advantageous should the County need to issue bonds.
The Auditor of Public Accounts strongly encourages every Virginia loca-
lity to record fixed assets and on the State level the Comptroller of
Public Accounts has recently issued a directive that all State agencies
are to begin recording fixed assets. I feel that it is only a matter of
time before a Fixed Asset Accounting System will be required. Therefore,
for this reason along with the other benefits such a system would pro-
vide, I recommend that the County proceed to implement this system.
Several localities within Virginia have recently implemented a Fixed
Asset Accounting System with cost ranging from $35,000 to $100,000. I
feel that the County will incur a cost of approximately $50,000 to
implement such a system. This estimate includes the inventory of current
assets, their evaluation and the design of a system to maintain the
information. This estimate does not include any additional cost for data
processing services which will be required to maintain this information.
Due to the cost of implementing this system, plus approximately $20,000
in reoccurring annual operating cost, I feel there should be a commitment
from the Board of Supervisors to fund this project before I commit
substantial staff time to designing the system and preparing a Request
for Proposal for the inventory and appraisal services which will be
required."
Mr. Fisher said Fixed Asset Accounting and Maintenance requires cooperation from every
person that works for the organization and everybody who uses the equipment. It is a much
broader problem than just accounting. This system usually requires an annual inventory. Mr.
Breeden said the system involves one person making sure new assets are entered on the system,
but spot inventories are required. Mr. Fisher asked to what level the system is proposed.
Would there be limitations? Mr. Breeden said part of the controversy surrounding this system
is where to set limitations. For example, if the limits are set low, what is excluded?
There cannot be just one type of limit set. Mr. Fisher said he agrees and it require a major
investment just to keep up with equipment. Every year the auditors indicate the County
should go to this system. Mr. Fisher asked if the system can be undertaken with a dollar
cut-off. Mr. Breeden said a lot of effectiveness of monitoring at the local level can be
lost if a high limit is set without including certain sensitive items. Mr. Fisher suggested
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
that information be obtained from the State and see if the County could use their standards.
Mr. Breeden said he feels confident that once the State implements the system, local govern-
ments will be mandated to do the same.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the status of the State's plan. Mr. Breeden said a directive
implemented by the State Comptroller stated that all agencies will implement a Fixed Asset
Accounting System by July 1, 1987. He thinks the State has already developed guidelines but
is not ready to make them available. Mr. Lindstrom said he would feel better if the County
used a uniform method of accounting especially with regard to the equipment now being
gathered in the Police Department. If the State format can be utilized, it could save some
time and effort. At this point, he supports obtaining any available information from the
State. He supports the concept, but does not want to use a lot of County staff time.
Mr. Bowie asked where are the savings from this method, other than in bond costs.
Secondly, weapons and other intense items must be controlled outside this system whether this
system is used or not. If the County uses this system, none of it will work unless there is
an enforcement policy. There is no reason to install an expensive computer system to keep
track of a desk if it doesn't make any difference if somebody moves the desk. In the mili-
tary if something is missing, the responsible party pays for it.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is an estimated amount on misplaced, lost or stolen equip-
ment. Mr. Breeden said there is no reason to suspect equipment is missing. However, with
such a large system as the Countys', some equipment cannot be accounted for. Possibly the
Board should adopt a policy making a person responsible for unaccountable items.
Mr. Agnor said he does not think that a fixed asset system will create significant
savings. In terms of generating the program, he does agree that there must be sanctions.
This system would enable the management of assets and the public would know that the County
is more accountable for those fixed assets.
Mr. Fisher said he agrees with Mr. Lindstrom in that the County should proceed cau-
tiously in doing this, see what the State is going to do and then bring back to the Board
costs involved and how the system will fit in. Mr. Breeden said most of the costs do not
involve the design or method of the system, but the actually pricing and appraising.
Agenda Item No. 11. Community Development Block Grant Requirement on Fair Housing.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his office, dated January 29, 1986:
"The State Department of Housing and Community Development recently
informed us that the County needs to select and carry out one of the
attached list of approved activities to further fair housing and meet
CDBG requirements. Since this is a two year grant program, the County
will need to undertake a fair housing action for this fiscal year as well
as next year. For that reason, staff would recommend the following
activities:
For FY 85-86: 'Adopt a resolution endorsing the concept of fair housing
and advertising its wording through the local media.' Suggested language
for such resolution follows:
'The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in conjunction with the
administration of its Community Improvement Grant for low-income, home-
owner occupied housing rehabilitation project hereby affirms and promotes
the following laws:
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act and Virginia Fair Housing Law.
These laws forbid discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, age, handicapped status, parenthood or national
origin in the selling, renting or financing of housing.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted this resolution endor-
sing fair housing on (date). Any citizen having questions concerning
this action or concerning other housing issues can call 296-5857.'
For FY 86-87: Develop and provide all program beneficiaries with a copy
of a housing opportunity brochure. You will note that the attached list
(on file) speaks to a brochure prepared by Department of Housing and
Community Development. Their brochure is directed to rental properties.
Since our program is for owner occupied dwellings, we will need to
develop our own brochure."
Mr. Way said he has no problem with the recommendations by the staff. Mr. Lindstrom
then offered motion to adopt the following resolution endorsing the concept of fair housing
and advertising its wording through the local media to be done in FY 85-86, and to develop
and provide all program beneficiaries with a copy of a housing opportunity brochure to be
done in FY 86-87:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in
conjunction with the administration of its Community Improvement Grant
for low-income, homeowner occupied housing rehabilitation program hereby
affirms and promotes the following laws:
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act and Virginia Fair Housing Law.
These laws forbid discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, age, handicapped status, parenthood or national
origin in the selling, renting or financing of housing.
298
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Way seconded the foregoing motion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed. At 10:24 A.M., the Chairman requested a recess.
at 10:31 A.M. Mr. St. John did not return.
The Board reconvened
Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriation: Health Educator Contract.
Mr. Agnor said based on the contract between the County and the Virginia Department of
Health, the County is obligated to employ one Health Educator for the purpose of staffing a
program entitled "Demonstration Project of Health Education - Risk Reduction". The position
was filled on January 10, 1986. An appropriation in the amount of $17,910 is required to
cover the expense to be incurred through September 30, 1986. It is noted that the State will
reimburse the County for all actual salary and fringe costs not to exceed $28,000.
Mr. Way offered motion to adopt the following resolution appropriating $17,910 to employ
a Health Educator for the purpose of staffing a program entitled "Demonstration Project of
Health Education - Risk Reduction":
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $17,910 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated from the
Grant Fund and coded as follows:
1-1229-51030-100100
1-1229-51030-200100
1-1229-51030-200200
1-1229-51030-200500
1-1229-51030-200600
1-1229-51030-201100
Salary $14,500
FICA 1,040
VSRS 1,670
Health Insurance 520
Life Insurance 150
Workman's Compensation 30
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $17,910 to code 2-1229-24000-
240500 entitled State Revenue; and
FURTHER, that this transfer is effective this date.
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.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 10:35 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 13.
Commission (CAC3)
Appropriation:
Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community
Mr. Agnor said State funds have been allocated for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean
Community Commission in the amount of $6,660. An appropriation in that amount is requested
to make available those funds for disbursement to CAC3. Mr. Bowie commented that the Resourc
Recovery Committee will end in June and has continually been working on the landfill situatio]
and litter control. CAC3 is the only organization working on the problem and is making
significant gains. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to adopt the following resolution appropri-
ating $6,660 of State funds received by CAC3:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $6,660 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated from the
Grant Fund and coded to 1-1204-81600-930300 entitled CAC3; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $6,660 to code 2-1204-24000-
240500 entitled State Revenue; and
FURTHER, that this transfer is effective this date.
Mrs. Cooke 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: Voluntary Early Retirement Applications.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his office dated February 6, 1986:
"The Voluntary Early Retirement Plan provides that employees will submit
applications to this office by December prior to the fiscal year the
retirement takes effect, and the applications are forwarded with recom-
mendations to the Board for approval.
Two applications in general government were received for funding in FY
86-87. One is an employee with 23 years service who will be 61 years old
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
297
this year, and is requesting four years early retirement. The second
applicant has 43 years service, will be 63 this year, and is requesting
2-1/4 years early retirement.
The FY 86-87 costs are calculated to be $2660. The reductions earned
from personnel turn-over costs are estimated to be $3750, providing a net
savings in 86-87 of $1090. The balance needed beyond FY 86-87 to com-
plete their retirements is estimated to be $6765, the turn-over savings
would be $9550, for a net savings of $2785.
The applications have been discussed with each employee's department
head, and they concur in my recommendation to you for approval. Both
positions have been examined as to the need for the positions to be
retained in the departments involved, and both will require replacements
to be employed. If you approve the applications, funding will be incor-
porated in the FY 86-87 budget.
Mr. Bowie said it seems to him the estimated savings are considerably low. Mr. Agnor
said one of the persons has not earned a merit increase in her history with the County. The
position has been reclassified several times and the person literally has not moved off the
bottom of the pay scale. There will not be any savings for the position. The other position
is the opposite. Mr. Bowie said he finds it hard to believe that a position has been filled
for 43 years with no promotion nor merit and needs to be continued.
Mr. Way offered motion to approve the request by two employees for early retirement as
outlined above. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Being somewhat ahead of schedule, the Board skipped to items listed at the end of the
agenda.
Agenda Item No. 24. Appointments:
and Social SerVices Board.
Equalization Board, Industrial Development Authority
Mr. Fisher commented that the terms of the representatives on the Equalization Board all
expired on December 31. Mr. Agnor said the actual function of the Equalization Board does
not occur for five or six months. If the present members are not going to be reappointed,
new members will need to undergo training at the University of Virginia in the Spring.
Mr. Way offered motion to reappoint Mr. Thomas A. Allison to the Equalization Board,
with said term to expire on December 31, 1986.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to reappoint Mrs. Barbara Staples to the Equalization Board,
with said term to expire on December 31, 1986.
Mr. Henley offered motion to reappoint Mr. Louis Rauch to the Equalization Board, with
said term to expire on December 31, 1986.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to reappoint Mr. William L. Howard to the Equalization Board,
with said term to expire on December 31, 1986.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to reappoint the above representatives to the Equalization
Board. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to reappoint Mr. Thomas A. McQueeney and Mr. William J. Kehoe
to the Industrial Development Authority, with said terms to expire on January 19, 1990. Mr.
Bowie 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. Lindstrom requested that an appointment to the Social Services Board wait until
further discussion.
Mr. Way asked if representatives to the Library Board are district appointments. Mr.
Agnor replied no. Mr. Way said a person from his district is interested in serving on the
Board, but there already is one representative from the Scottsville District. Mrs. Cooke
commented that she may have a recommendation later for the Library Board.
Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Way said in order to continue receiving federal funds, the Southside Health Center
has been mandated to merge with another regional agency. Discussions are presently underway
with a health center in Buckingham County. Albemarle County is presently leasing a trailer
and house in Esmont to the Southside Health Center. In order to continue negotiations with a
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
regional center, Southside must ensure that the other center can use Southside's facilities.
In Southside's contract with the County, it states that the Center is not allowed to sublease.
The time constraints on this are very strict. He has passed this information to Mr. St. John
to review. Mr. St. John said although the lease states that Southside cannot sublease
without this Board's written consent, a new lease is not required. The Board needs to pass a
resolution authorizing the Chairman to sign a letter consenting to the sublease with the
health center in Buckingham County. Mr. Fisher asked if the consent would run with the
current lease. Mr. St. John said the current lease provides for a one year lease and then
automatic renewals unless either party gives notice of termination 90 days before each
anniversary date in June. Mr. Fisher commented that the letter of consent would be a con-
tinuing consent unless withdrawn. Mr. St. John responded that is correct.
Mr. Way said the problem is that Southside does not know if the agreement will be with
Central Virginia Health Center. The agreement could be with another health center. He
suggested that Southside Health Center be informed that the Board is willing to allow this
agreement once negotiations are final. Mrs. Cooke asked if a letter of intent could be
written stating that the Board intends to agree to this agreement based on who the final
negotiations are made with. She thinks the Board should know who the agreement will be with
before agreeing to such. Mr. St. John said there should be a way to give the Center assur-
ance that the Board will consent to a sublease to a duly established health care provider.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board inform the Center that it would favorable consider
doing such as soon as the name of the other health facility is available.
Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that the same services be provided. Mr. Way said that
also is his concern. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Center be informed that the Board is
concerned that the services continue to be provided and if the Board is assured of such, then
it will amend the lease.
Mr. St. John said there are also indications of this merging taking place at a different
location. Mr. Way said the people at Southside are not enthusiastic about this, but it may
be the only way to continue providing services. Mr. Way said, if no Board member objects, he
will transmit these recommendations to Southside Health Center.
Mr. Agnor said when the sound system was developed in the auditorium, some testing of
the system in Room 97 was also requested. It was indicated that the speakers in Meeting Room
7 are adequate, but the mixing devices for the microphones and amplifier units should be
replaced with another unit of similar capabilities. The total price including installation
is $9,666. He asked if the Board desires the staff to pursue that as a fixed price. Mr.
Fisher commented that the array of microphones in this room is so distracting. Board members
are used to the microphones, but when sitting in the audience it looks like a press confer-
ence. Mr. Henley asked how much has been spent on this system. Mr. Fisher responded he does
not know. Miss Neher said the system in the auditorium is not adequate for the Clerk's
needs; all ability for eight-track recording has been lost. Mr. Agnor said the proposal is
that everything in this room can be linked into one microphone at each chair, instead of the
two microphones presently in use, Miss Neher has indicated that is not satisfactory. Mr.
Lindstrom said the only complaint he has received concerning the system in the auditorium, is
that someone commented he could not get away from it. Miss Neher commented that the Clerk
has no control over the recording system in the auditorium, it records only on one channel
instead of the eight-tracks carried by the Clerk's recorder.
Mr. Fisher said The Virginia Review (VACo's publication) is publishing a list of all
city, county, town and state officers, and their addresses and telephone numbers. The book
is approximately 140 pages and is being sold to member jurisdictions for $9.95 each. He is
ordering one of the books and asked if other Board members wanted one. Mr. Agnor commented
that one of the books will be available in the County Executive's office.
Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Personnel and Property Matters.
At 11:02 A.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn and
reconvene in executive session at 12:00 Noon for discussion of personnel and property mat-
ters. 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.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:08 P.M.
(Note: Since Items 16, 17 and 18 were all inter-related, the staff reports were given
before the discussion began.')
Agenda Item No. 16. Building Committee Report - Scottsville School.
Mr. Bowie presented the following memorandum, from the Building Committee, dated February
1986 to the Board:
"Background - The Scottsville School was declared surplus by the School
Board in 1981. In 1985, the Board of Supervisors asked the Building
Committee (BC) to review the future use of the structure. The BC sought
public and staff input and recommended to the Board of Supervisors that
that portion of the property not being used by the County Parks and
Recreation be sold. The property was advertised and bids were taken in
December 1985.
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Only one bid was received which proposed the purchase of the property for
$150,000. The proposal however, had several contingencies, such as
zoning changes, use of the Section 8 Moderate Rehab Rent Subsidy Program,
completion of the floodwall, use of tax-exempt bond financing and delayed
payment of the purchase price. The BC could not accept these conditions,
nor could we negotiate a solution. Additionally, review confirmed that
the school encroached on property owned by Uniroyal, and the County could
not convey clear title until that matter is resolved. Staff is working
on this problem.
Findings of B.C. - The BC reviewed the proposal (bid) with staff and
later with the bidder. Currently, the staff is seeking an additional 100
feet of land since the building encroached on the adjacent property
owner.
Recommendations
- 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Reject all proposals received to date.
BC continue to negotiate with interested parties.
Staff continue with Uniroyal negotiations.
No re-zoning be considered at this time.
Staff investigate demolition costs of that
portion of building not used by Parks and
Recreation."
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: CPA-85-6. 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 coin-
cide 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
Central Virginia Leader, Scottsville, Virginia; and the Daily Progress on January 28 and
February 4, 1986.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report on CPA-85-6:
"History: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on November 21, 1985
adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan as described
above and to initiate a rezoning of the same property from VR, Village
Residential, to R-10, Residential.
The original school was built in 1924. Additions were constructed in
1959 and again, in 1960. The building has been subject to flooding on
numerous occasions, most notably in 1969 from hurricane Camille. During
the most recent flood (November 7, 1985) the water level reached six feet
in the gymnasium. The total cost of damages due to this flood have not
yet been assessed. The Scottsville levee, targeted for completion in
1987 is intended to protect downtown Scottsville, including the school
building, from future flooding.
The building was used as a school until 1981 when the new elementary
school on Rt. 20 South opened. Currently, the Albemarle County Parks and
Recreation Department operates several programs in the gymnasium and
cafeteria including the youth basketball program, karate classes and
exercise classes. The Parks Department is also responsible for renting
and scheduling various public meetings and civic group activities in the
gymnasium. The remainder of the building is not in use.
With regard to improvements to the building, asbestos was previously
removed from the gym and cafeteria. The County approved spending $57,000
for asbestos removal in the 1985-86 Capital Improvements Program for the
remainder of the building. This project is currently underway.
Proposal: Recently, there has been substantial interest from the private
sector concerning possible adaptive re-use of the structure for elderly
housing. The feasibility of such a conversion in use could be enhanced
by use of the Albemarle County's Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Grant
Program for rental property. A preliminary analysis of the structure
indicates readaptive re-use could create approXimately 30 one bedroom
and/or efficiency units.
In all preliminary discussions, the County has stressed the desire to
maintain the community and recreational use of the gymnasium area.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment to change the designated land use of the old school building to
residential use meets the following goals and objectives of the Plan:
Human Resources
Goal 3:
Provide safe, sanitary and adequate housing for Albemarle
County residents of all income groups.
Objectives:
Take advantage of and promote Federal and State programs as
they relate to Albemarle's housing problem.
300
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Maintain the wide choice of housing types and locations avail-
able in the County to the extent that this policy does not
conflict with other conservation, agriculture or residential
policies.
Development
Goal 5:
Conserve and promote efficient energy utilization in the
County.
Objectives:
Continue to encourage land use arrangements and densities that
facilitate energy-efficient transportation systems and reduce
the need for, and utilization of, the private automobile.
Goal 6:
Establish balanced residential communities in the County with
the provision of adequate employment and service facilities.
Objectives:
Continue to develop and review detailed land use and neighbor-
hood plans for the urban area and designated communities which
establish firm boundaries, use natural and man-made elements to
organize the plans, and which provide for adequate public
facilities and utilities.
Continue to encourage variations in housing types and densities
and to keep business uses to scales appropriate for their
location near residential areas.
Continue to review the location, population size, kinds of
public facilities and utilities and character of development to
be maintained for country villages where growth is to be
encouraged.
Maintain regulations and incentives which shift scattered rural
development into villages with sizes and character comparable
to existing villages in Albemarle County.
Additionally, the land use plan narrative for the Village of Scottsville
states 'utilization of the Scottsville school for public and/or recrea-
tional purposes should be considered in the development of the village.'
Relative need for Residential Development in the Village of Scottsville:
During recent years, very little residential development has occurred
within the Village of Scottsville. The 1984 Development Activity Report
indicates that four (4) residential building permits have been issued in
the Village of Scottsville since 1981. No new lots were created in the
village area during 1984. A computer-assisted inventory of residential
development has identified within the village boundary of Scottsville the
following residentially zoned acreages: Total property zoned Residential
(acres) - 624.3 (100 percent); Developed residential (acres) - 368.5 (59
percent); Undeveloped residential (acres) - 255.8 (41 percent).
The Old Scottsville School property is within a five minute walk of the
post office, branch library, police and fire station and commercial core
of Scottsville. In this regard, the school property is unique in terms
of its size, development potential and relationship to an existing
community.
Demographically, the Scottsville area exhibits need for provision of some
type of elderly housing. For example, the 1980 Census reported a popula-
tion of 528 persons in Scottsville and its immediate vicinity. Of that
population, 102 persons (19.3 percent) were 65 years of age or older.
County-wide, 11.9 percent of the total population was 65 years of age or
older in 1980.
In the Scottsville area, 30.3 percent of those persons 65 years or older
reported a 1979 income below the poverty level (as compared to a County
average of 7.7% of the total population).
In 1980, the Census identified 75 rental units within the Scottsville
area. Of that group, only four units were reported vacant. Therefore,
due to a comparatively large elderly population, the relatively high
incidence of elderly 'disadvantaged' and shortage of available rental
housing, an elderly housing development appears to be justified.
In addition, due to the census factors described above, the Scottsville
area was targeted in an analysis for identifying rental rehabilitation
strategy areas for the Moderate Rehabilitation Grant application, as a
priority area.
Staff Recommendation:
The staff recommends that the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
1982-2002 be amended as follows:
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
301
Amend Map 15: Village of Scottsville Land Use Plan as it
relates to the Old Scottsville School property. The recom-
mended land use would be changed from public institutional
to medium density residential.
Amend the text of pa~e 202, the Scottsville Plan to describe
the proposed re-use of the Old Scottsville School.
This recommendation is based on the finding that readaptive re-use
of the Old Scottsville School for elderly rental housing would be
appropriate and in keeping with the goals and objectives of the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002.
Since staff review was limited to readaptive re-use for elderly
housing, this recommendation does not necessarily support standard
residential development."
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: ZMA-85-30. Scottsville School. To rezone about
3.8 acres from VR Village Residential to R-10 Residential (ten dwellings per acre).
Property, described as Tax Map 130A(2), Parcels 76 and 76A, is located on Route 1301 and is
known as the Old Scottsville School. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Central
Virginia Leader, Scottsville, Virginia; and the Daily Progress on January 28 and February 4,
1986.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report on ZMA-85-30:
"Location: This property is located on Route 1301 immediately outside
the town limits of the Town of Scottsville, in the Village of Scottsville.
It consists of parcels 76 and 76A on Tax Map 130A(2) in the Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: This site is bounded on the north, northeast and
east by stable residential neighborhoods in the County and in the Town of
Scottsville. The areas in the County are zoned VR, Village Residential,
and consist of mostly single family dwellings. Adjacent lands to the
south and west are also zoned VR, Village Residential and are vacant.
Further to the west is property occupied by Uniroyal which is currently
zoned heavy industry and is occupied by a manufacturing facility.
Further east, in the Town of Scottsville, is a mixture of commercial and
residential development in the downtown area of Scottsville.
Comprehensive Plan: As of the writing of this staff report, this pro-
perty is designated as institutional use in the Comprehensive Plan. If
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors were to approve accom-
panying CPA (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) for this property, the
designation would be medium density residential. Adjacent lands are
designated in the Comprehensive Plan for rural areas. Some lands nearby
to the north are designated for low density residential.
Staff Comment: This zoning map amendment is being presented in conjunc-
tion with a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to design this
property for medium density residential. If that accompanying Compre-
hensive Plan Amendment is not approved, then this zoning request would
clearly not be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
This property is located within the flood plain of the James River and is
subject to flooding on a regular basis. With the completion of Phase II
of the levee at Scottsville, it is the understanding of the staff that
this property would no longer be within that flood plain and would be
protected from the one hundred year flood. The Building Official has
stated that a building permit could not be granted for construction on
this site until he had received certification that the property was no
longer in the flood plain. Phase II of the levee at Scottsville is
scheduled for completion in 1987.
Page Street (Route 1301) which directly serves this parcel is a paved
state maintained road in good condition and is currently serving 269
vehicles per day.
There are existing connections to public water and sewer at the school at
this time. Existing water pressures are estimated at 850 GPM at 20 PSI.
The Fire Official has stated that this is adequate to serve a proposed
residential use of this structure. The Service Authority has stated that
they would anticipate that the flows from 25-30 residential units in this
structure would be roughly similar to the flows that were experienced
during the use of the structure as a school. While the proposed connec-
tions will be reviewed at the time of development, the Service Authority
does not anticipate any unusual problems.
If the accompanying comprehensive plan amendment is approved, this zoning
map amendment would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed R-10 density would, however, significantly exceed the existing
density of the residential areas near the school. That increased density
would be appropriate, in the staff opinion, if the proposed use was for
elderly housing in the existing structures. The unique characteristics
of this type housing that offset the increased density are as follows:
302
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
So
be
Housing for the elderly would not generate significant
amounts of vehicular traffic. Most of the needed services
for the residents are within a five minute walk, in the
downtown Scottsville area;
The physical and visual impact of housing for the elderly in
the existing structure would be very minimal;
Renovation of the existing structure would have general
benefits to the immediate neighborhood from an aesthetic and
a security point of view.
The staff would recommend that the Board of Supervisors only allow the
specific type of proposal outlined above i.e., housing for the elderly in
the existing structure, or a very similar use on this property. Standard
residential development at ten units per acre or development in additional
structures would not necessarily be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends approval.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission unanimously, at its meeting on February 10, 1985,
recommended denial of both CPA-85-6 and ZMA-85-30. The Commission felt there were too many
uncertainties as to the status of the structure in relation to the flood plain and the
density proposed being compatible with the town of Scottsville.
Mr. Way said this property is in his district. He emphasized that this request applies
only to that portion of the building not being used by the Department of Parks and Recreation
It is the intent of the County to continue use of the gymnasium and the cafeteria for recrea-
tional purposes. The one proposal received by the County was rejected by the Building
Committee, of which he served as a member. The overriding problem with Scottsville School is
its position if there is another flood. One of the conditions of the proposal was assurance
that the building be totally out of the flood plain, which cannot be guaranteed. He does not
want to put any type of housing in the building as long as there is the potential for floodin~
Another consideration is removal of the building. After completion of the floodwall, if the
building continues to be in the flood plain, it appears that removal of the building should
be seriously considered. He is in support of the proposed type of housing proposal as long
as it is properly funded and managed adequately.
At this point, the public hearing was opened.
Ms. Regina Withers, speaking on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Social Services,
addressed the Board. The Board of Social Services takes very seriously the responsibility
placed upon it by the Code of Virginia which reads: "It shall be the duty of each local
board to interest itself in all matters pertaining to the social welfare of the people of the
county . . .".
e -ndorsingMs' Withers then read a statement (on file) prepared by the Board of Social
the creation of additional, subsidized housing for elderly and handicapped
Services
citizens in Scottsville.
Ms. Rellen Perry, Chairman, Albemarle Housing Coalition, next addressed the Board.
Perry presented the following statement:
Ms.
"We support the Scottsville School resident project. If this building
cannot used for safe, warm, dry and attractive dwellings for low income
elderly persons, other buildings must be found in the place of Scotts-
ville School. The need for decent affordable dwellings can no longer be
ignored. Tearing down the Scottsville School would cost the County a
great deal of money and would avail nothing. Albemarle County consists
of many communities. It would be superb if each community devised a plan
which would ensure that its own low income families had an opportunity to
rent, buy or cooperatively build affordable dwelling places with minimal
amenities. Since the private sector is not able to do this, the County
government has the obligation to heed the needs of 'its own constituent
families who cannot compete for space in our high cost housing market."
Mr. Jesse Grove, a resident of Scottsville and President of the $cottsville Chamber of
Commerce, addressed the Board. He and his wife have deep roots in Scottsville and oppose
this rezoning. He cannot perceive how 30 units at the edge of the most beautiful section of
the town could be an improvement. Residents feel this proposal would affect the monetary
values of the surrounding properties and detract from the tourist trade. He handed out a
petition (on file) in opposition to the rezoning signed by residents of Scottsville. All
adjacent property owners are opposed to the rezoning. He emphasized that the Mayor of
Scottsville, all six council people, and elderly residents of Scottsville signed the peti-
tion. Mr. Grove then read the reasons for the opposition which were attached to the
petition.
Mr. Franz Stillfried, a resident of southern Albemarle County, presented a statement (on
file) to the Board supporting elderly housing in Scottsville.
Mr. Ted Childress, a resident of Scottsville since 1957, speaking on behalf of residents
of Scottsville, addressed the Board. He read a statement in support of the proposed facility
The town of Scottsville can offer a quiet and peaceful, small community atmosphere that is so
conductive to enjoyment in retirement years. He said that Mrs. Arlene Stinson, the largest
property owner in Scottsville, is in favor of this project. He also is a member of the
Chamber of Commerce and urges the Board to act immediately. The town needs this project and
the elderly need the project. Mr. Childress said the signatures on the petition represent
people who own property, live in the town or are employed in Scottsville.
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
3'03
Mr. Carl Allen, a property owner, resident and operator of a business in the town of
Scottsville, next addressed the Board. Several factors with regard to the Old Scottsville
School should be taken into consideration: (1) fire protection is available - main hydrants
and waterlines are on the property and are accessible to the building; (2) the rescue squad
is located nearby and manned 24-hours a day; and (3) there is immediate access to the drug
store, post office, grocery store, clothing stores, doctor offices, restaurants, etc. Access
to the businesses and stores would not require crossing of a main thoroughfare of traffic.
There are also two banks within walking distance to the site. The building is sound and he
recommends the Board review this proposal carefully and rezone the property to allow this
type of operation. The floodwall is proposed for completion and construction at a level that
will prevent future flooding. If the floodwall is not satisfactory, the flooring could be
adjusted to raise to a higher level. This housing would be an asset to Scottsville and an
improvement over its present conditions. The Board of Supervisors should go the extra mile
to see that this housing is provided.
Mr. Gary Olivera, of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, addressed the Board.
Traditionally 40 percent of AHIP's clientele are elderly people, many in single family
households. Some of the clientele are elderly couples and their units are marginal in terms
of structural feasibility. Recently AHIP essentially rebuilt and completed two such units at
a total cost of $54,000 to renovate. Both units had several structural deficiencies and
lacked plumbing, water and electricity. AHIP works with limited resources and is interested
in maximizing the effectiveness of its resources. That level of resources will not always be
available. AHIP had no other alternative to offer people in the way of publicly subsidized
housing assistance. AHIP tries to keep people in their own homes and make essential repairs
for safe, decent and comfortable housing. This proposal seems to be a good investment and in
some case it would enable AHIP to better use the resources it has available.
Mr. Robert Walls, a member of Scottsville Town Council and curator of Scottsville Museum
and Historic Landmarks Foundation, addressed the Board. Mr. Walls said tourism ranks second
in the state in revenue. In 1976 the Virginia Historic Landmarks Foundation of Richmond
visited Scottsville for several days and the result was that 53 historic buildings were
designated as landmarks. Scottsville is a historic district and ranks third in numbers of
early Federal architecture. The majority of people who live in Scottsville are against this
change in zoning as it will affect the historic district and tourism.
Mr. Tom Bruce, a resident of Scottsville, addressed the Board. He is concerned about
the affect this proposal would have on the availability of flood insurance within the town of
Scottsville and the nearby buildings in the County. The school building is included in the
Flood Hazard District Overlay. A restriction of this district is that no building that is
not now used for public habitation can be transformed to same as long as it remains in the
district nor can a building be improved or rebuilt if the cost exceeds 50 percent or more of
its appraised value. In order to remove the building from the Flood District it would mean
removing it from the availability of the national flood insurance program. Mr. Bruce said he
is concerned that the Board is involved in spot zoning in the Flood Hazard District and he
thinks that before that is done this Board should make an indepth study as to what affect
this rezoning might have on the nearby residents and businesses in the town of Scottsville
and in the County that now have flood insurance available to them. Mr. Fisher commented that
the Board does not wish to do anything that would affect the flood insurance of property
owners.
Mrs. Jacqueline Beal Grove presented two letters and a chart to the Board. The letters
(on file) are from Mr. K. Edward Lay, Architect, University of Virginia, and Mr. Jeff O'Dell,
Architectural Historian, Department of Conservation and Historic Resources. Both letters
emphasize the need that whatever is developed on the site be compatible with the scale and
character of the historic neighborhood. Mrs. Grove also presented a chart (on file) which
depicts surrounding houses in the historic district.
With no further public comments, the public hearings were closed.
Mr. Way said no exterior changes to the building were proposed, but there also is not
enough money available to complete the project. The issues concerning the floodplain have
not been resolved. For those reasons he does not think the property should presently be
rezoned. He is not opposed to housing for the elderly providing it is in a safe place,
managed and financed in a way such that it will not be detrimental to an area. Mr. Way then
offered motion not to rezone the property and accept the recommendation of the Building and
Property Committee. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion, but asked that it be modified. If it
was not for the flood problem, he would support the rezoning. The Board is in a unique
position because it is also the property owner. As the property owner, the motion should be
to withdraw CPA-85-6 and ZMA-85-30. He would prefer withdrawal of the applications or
indefinite deferral because he does not want to formally preclude this kind of zoning in the
future if the flood problem is taken care of and if a suitable developer can be found. He is
not supporting the construction of a new building at this location nor a major renovation of
the exterior of the building. He supports the continuing use of an existing facility for
what he considers a serious community need in an area that would be of service.
Mr. Bowie said the Committee recommended that no rezoning be considered at this time,
not that it be rejected. He understands fully the need for tourism, but he cannot understand
how a run-down abandoned building with broken windows and questionable night time occupancy
in any way helps tourism or the neighboring homes. Something has to be done with the school.
One of the recommendations was that the Committee continue to negotiate with interested
groups.
Mr. Fisher said he feels a sympathy for the neighbors who are concerned about what the
building might become. The concern is real and well-articulated, but there are needs that
the public has and that building belongs to everybody in Albemarle County. If the flood
problem is resolved, he also thinks the building should be considered for this use. It seems
to him that housing for the elderly is one of the least problematic kinds of housing that
neighbors can have. When the Meadows project originated, the people in Crozet were very
concerned and yet when it was completed it became the pride of the community. The Board's
:3'04
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
standard for rezoning must be consistent. Would the Board rezone this property in a flood
plain for housing by a private developer, and the answer is no. Would the Board do so for
land owned by the public, and the answer is no. It is possible the building may have to be
demolished. The building is presently a liability being unused and deteriorating. He will
support either of the motions suggested. Mr. Way said he does not object to Mr. Lindstrom's
suggestion as long as the recommendations are included from the Building and Property Commit-
tee.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the Board request withdrawal of CPA-85-6 and
ZMA-85-30 without prejudice. Mr. Bowie 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. Lindstrom then offered motion to permit the Board to withdraw the applications for
both CPA-85-6 and ZMA-85-30 without prejudice as has been requested. 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. Way offered motion to accept the following recommendations of the Building and
Property Committee:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Reject all proposals received to date;
Building Committee continue to negotiate with interested parties;
Staff continue with Uniroyal negotiations;
No rezoning be considered at this time;
Staff investigate demolition costs of that portion of building not
used by Parks and Recreation.
Mr. Bowie 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. 19. School Facilities' Plan Recommendations.
Mr. Fisher commented that the School Facilities Planning Committee is composed of
members of the School Board, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lindstrom and
Mr. Way are Board representatives on the Committee.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is the first such review he is aware of that was done on school
facilities and he thinks the end result is beneficial. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at
2:21 P.M.) This is the final report of the committee unless it is requested to do something
else. The committee met weekly for two months and subsequently met approximately six times
with the consultants to prepare a final report. The essence of the report is a priority list
developed by the Committee based on a report by the consultants, information provided by the
Department of Education and the Planning Department. The priorities that have been recom-
mended have been categorized using the current budget's terminology. The total project costs
of improvements recommended by the Committee over the next five years are $10.75 million. He
emphasized that the figure is based upon staff estimates and is not a recommended figure by
the Committee. The figures are not based on an architect's formal detailed estimate and is
based on current dollars. This five-year phasing begins with this fiscal year with the
recommendation of $750,000 for the Ivy School replacement. Mr. Lindstrom then summarized the
following recommendations by the Committee:
1. Ivy Area School. Close Meriwether Lewis School and establish a
single 600-pupil school in the Ivy area. Priority - URGENT
Background - The Meriwether Lewis School building is the oldest
actively used school building in the county and is in the greatest
need of renovation and repair. Due to its poor physical condition,
the Committee agrees with the consultant that the Meriwether Lewis
School should be taken out of service and a new or expanded school
built in the area.
2. Crozet Elementary School. Renovate and update Crozet Elementary
School to current standards in the areas of building codes and parity of
facilities. The design plan should provide for the accommodation of the
future growth proposed in the area. Priority - NECESSARY
Background - This building is located in one of the county's three
major growth areas and this area will soon be supplied with public
sewer and water. The older portion of the building is in need of
major electrical and mechanical renovation to meet current building
codes and safety standards. The building should be upgraded to
accommodate the expected population growth.
3. Stone-Robinson Elementary School. Renovate and update Stone-
Robinson Elementary School to current standards in the areas of building
codes and parity of facilities. Provide for future and existing school
population using an incremental design approach. Priority - NECESSARY
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Background - This school is not located in a designated growth area
and the basic structure and mechanical systems are sound. Although
current capacity problems can be addressed in the short term by
mobile classrooms and better building utilization, the Committee
agrees with the consultant that additions are required. Specifi-
cally, an area large enough to accommodate four classrooms, a new
gymnasium, and additional support facilities for a 500 to 600 pupil
school should be added.
4. Stony Point, Yancey, and Burley Schools. Parity improvements (e.g.,
physical education facility, support facilities, additional classrooms,
environmental conditioning, etc.) should be provided to Stony Point,
Yancey and Burley Schools. Priority - NECESSARY
Background - Stony Point and Yancey Schools should be brought into
parity with the other elementary schools. The Committee disagrees
with the consultant that the Burley Middle School can be closed in
the near future. In the long range, a new middle school may be
needed elsewhere in the county at which time Burley could be closed.
With the current uncertainties, the building should only be improved
in the following areas:
- building codes
- energy efficiency
- handicapped facilities (first floor only)
- environmental conditioning
5. Ail Schools. Ail schools should continue to update electrical-
mechanical systems, handicapped access and services (ramps, toilets,
telephones, and drinking fountains). There are various levels of
priority in this category which need to be addressed. Priorities:
URGENT/NECESSARY/DESIRABLE
6. Albemarle Hiqh School. A master plan for student/building circula-
tion at Albemarle High School should be considered, but only after all
efforts at possible redistricting and management analysis of utilization
have been exhausted. Priority: DESIRABLE (Mr. St. John returned at
2:26 P.M.)
OTHER COMMENTS
Rose Hill/Southern Urban Area. Because of inadequate land for
expansion at the Rose Hill Elementary School site, no plans for major
improvement are recommended until further examination is made of the need
for a new community school in the southern urban area. This examinatio~
will be undertaken by the Planning staff in its current revision of the
County's Comprehensive Plan due for completion in 1987.
Greenwood Elementary School. The Committee concurs with the consul-
tant's recommendation that Greenwood Elementary School not be reopened.
Henley, Jouett and Walton Schools. The three middle school build-
ings other than Burley are in good condition. However, staff should
continue to monitor the enrollment/capacity numbers at Henley and Jouett.
Western Albemarle High School. Western Albemarle High School is
sound condition and provides facilities for current and anticipated
enrollment.
Enrollment Projections. The Committee recommends the Education
Department and Planning Department staffs should annually review the
five-year enrollment projection to be reported to the Planning Commission
and the School Board.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that fencing for Rose Hill School is in the Capital Improvements
budget and will be accomplished this year. Mr. Way said Mr. Lindstrom summarized the find-
ings adequately and he has no additional comments.
Mrs. Susan Mitchell from Rose Hill School addressed the Board. She said the Planning
Commission, during review of Lake Reynovia, stated that a new elementary schoQ1 to serve the
southern urban area has been recommended by the School Board's consultant. The Education
Department commented that enrollment projections for several additional develQpments in this
area, Forest Hill, The Ridge, Sherwood Commons and Willow Lake means that a new school would
have to be constructed in this area immediately. It appears that elementary schools are
costing about $1 million per each unit of 100 students. If all of the recent proposed
housing units are constructed in this area, there will be an immediate need for $5 to $6
million of capital funds. Mrs. Mitchell said deferral may be convenient, but the children
may be outside in trailers while a decision has not been made. In the interim, the need for
air conditioning is high.
Mr. Fisher said although he thinks this report is good, he is concerned about the
increase in estimates on projects from the planning stage until the project r~aches construc-
tion. The Meriwether Lewis project has grown from $3 to $4 million since October.
Mr. Bowie said he concurs with Mr. Fisher and thinks it is an excellent report. It is
already obvious that in some cases the figures are too low. He also has problems~ with
individual priorities which can be taken up later during budget review. Mr. Bowie then
offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept the recommendations of the School Facili-
ties Planning Committee as outlined above.
306
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Fisher said there is the need to make better estimates on total costs for projects.
The Board's job is to reserve money and plan for its use. He would like to see better
estimates provided in the future.
Mr. Lindstrom said there is difficulty in making long-range, five-year projections on
complex buildings especially when architects are not hired from the beginning. In-house
staff is doing the estimates. The Committee felt that a dollar amount was needed to give a
perspective. He shares Mr. Fisher's concern, but does not know of a solution.
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. 20. Architect Report on Costs of Ivy Area School.
Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, School Superintendent, addressed the Board. Mr. Overstreet
said the School Board received the recommendations of the School Facilities Planning Commit-
tee but has not acted because it feels a more comprehensive assessment, including some better
cost estimates, needs to be provided.
Mr. Overstreet said the last time he came before the Board he requested an appropriation
to begin the Ivy area school project. At that time, Board members felt there was a need for
more concrete estimates on the cost, and to provide an analysis of a cost comparison of
building a new facility at the Meriwether Lewis School site, or renovating and remodeling
Murray School. Shortly afterward, the School Board appointed the firm of Smithey & Boynton
in association with the firm of Atwood & Associates to conduct an assessment and develop the
project. The study has been completed and the findings are available. After an analysis by
the architects, he will summarize the School Board's recommendation. Mr. Overstreet then
introduced Mr. Ken Motley, President, Smithey & Boynton.
Mr. Motley summarized the type of report prepared by Smithey & Boynton and then intro-
duced Mr. Jerry Connors, also, of Smithey & Boynton. Mr. Connors gave a slide presentation
making a comparison of Meriwether Lewis and Murray as outlined on the following chart pre-
pared by Smithey & Boynton, dated February 7, 1985.
MURRAY
MERIWET~ER LEWIS
Land
Demolition
Septic
Water
Site Preparation
Access Improvements
New Construction
Remodeling
25,000
165,000
30,000
75,000
2,080,000 (40,000 SF)
400,000 (16,000 SF)
($52/SF)
($25/SF)
82,000
25,000
35,000
60,000
60,000
10,000
2,912,000 (56,000 SF)
Subtotal
Project Fees
Equipment and
Contingency
$2,775,000
$ 879,000
$3,184,000
$ 879,000
Project Total
Projected Annual
Utility Cost
Murray - $48,000
Lewis - $43,000
$3,654,000 (409,000 diff.)
ADVANTAGES
$409,000 less
DISADVANTAGES
Site Uninviting
-difficult topography
-access unsatisfactory
-industrial district
Rt. 738 Access
1960's School Design
Remodeled Life Cycle
Construction Inconvenience
Longer Construction Time
Playground Remote
Extra Facility (Lewis -
very poor)
$4,063,000
ADVANTAGES
Inviting Site
-Neighborhood
relationship
1986 School Design
New facility life cycle
Construction sequencing
Extra facility (Murray
ready to use)
Lower utility cost
DISADVANTAGES
Land acquisition
$409,000 more
Mr. Fisher asked why the project fees, etc. are the same for both sites. He thought
these were usually a percentage of the construction costs. Mr. Connors said the fees are a
percentage to a certain extent as they balance each other off. Mr. Fisher asked what types
of equipment are included. Mr. Connors said this includes everything to fully equip an
elementary school, i.e., desks, chairs, gymnasium equipment, tables for the cafeteria,
playground equipment, etc. The costs are based at 10 percent for an elementary school and 15
percent for a high school. Mr. Lindstrom asked what is the actual amount included for a
contingency. Mr. Connors said a 10 percent contingency was used for both schools.
Mr. Henley asked why there is an additional cost for removal of a bank to make Murray
School more visible. Western Albemarle is not visible from the highway. He does not feel
that it is necessary for the school to be visible. Mr. Connors said removal of the bank is a
safety factor and for access. The cost of $75,000 was provided from local traffic informa-
tion.
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
307
Mr. Lindstrom asked what renovations are proposed at Murray. Mr. Connors said the
renovations include replacing most of the electrical system and all of the heating, ventilat-
ing installed and air conditioning for the entire structure, and replacement and additional
plumbing fixtures. Mr. ~Fisher asked what size gymnasium is proposed. Mr. Henley commented
that he does not think attention needs to focus on the location of Murray. Near Western
Albemarle High School at Yancey Mills, there is a cemetery across the road, two grocery
stores and a sewage treatment plant. Mr. Connors said, to answer Mr. Fisher's question, the
size of the gym is two-thirds the size of a basketball gymnasium. Mr. Fisher asked if the
proposal includes an auditorium. Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mr. Connors to list the major
components included in the proposed new structure at the Meriwether Lewis site. 'Mr.
Overstreet said the proposed new school includes a 1986 design construction with ample
classrooms, instructional space, media center, cafeteria, kitchen and a multi-purpose room
and area for reception, administrative and support offices, and bathrooms. The total number
of rooms have not yet been calculated. The actual design of the facility will come after
further meetings with the staff and architects.
Mr. Bowie asked how accurate are the figures provided. Mr. Connors said the figures are
based on the 1985 state average for a 600-pupil elementary school. If an auditorium or other
amenities are to be included, the figures would not be accurate. Mrs. Cooke asked if the
current student population is 600 or if this is projected enrollment. Mr. Connors said the
population figure is projected.
Mr. Bowie asked if there is a need for additional equipment such as desks. Mr.
Overstreet said although the schools are fully equipped, if a school is newly built, atten-
tion should be given to furnishings and equipment. Mr. Fisher said he can understand that
philosophy.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is anything structurally wrong with Murray School.
replied no.
Mr. Connors
Mr. Overstreet said the Board previously submitted a list of questions to the School
Board for response. He then responded to the following questions: 1) How much land can be
purchased without condemnation? The attorney indicated that it should be assumed that all of
the land will require condemnation. 2) How accurate are the County assessments as indica-
tors of ultimate purchase price. The County's appraised value is close to the estimated fair
market value. 3) Which parcels are presumed to require condemnation? It should be assumed
that all parcels will require condemnation. 4) How long will the process take? Entry onto
the property should be within two months after any condemnation suit is instituted. Mr. Way
asked how many acres are involved. Mr. Overstreet said the acreage is 5.8. 5) What legal
costs and appraisal costs are anticipated for the condemnation process? The costs can be
supplied by the County Attorney's office. Appraisals of the properties have been obtained.
If the relocation of systems is required, the cost would be approximately $500 a parcel
although no estimates have been obtained. A surveyor would have to be hired to survey the
property at a cost of $500 per parcel. If this requires trial, the testimony of the appraiser
would be required which would approximate $200 to $300 per trial, although no estimates have
been obtained.
Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Overstreet for providing an analysis on the transportation
questions he asked at an earlier meeting. Mr. Overstreet commented that it is estimated to
require an additional hour per day to transport students to Murray vs. Meriwether Lewis at
additional annual costs of $5,400 based on today's costs. Mr. Overstreet said there are
other projected rental savings by moving the media center and other education programs to
Murray School. The total projected savings in building a new school at the Meriwether Lewis
site is estimated at $34,000 a year which is a reoccurring cost. There could be a payback in
the difference in cost in 12 years. He reemphasized that the figures provided are estimates
and the costs could increase.
Mr. Overstreet said in summary, this project has been in a discussion format for a
number of years and it has been brought to the Board's attention, School Board's scrutiny,
consultants, planners, architects, engineers, educators and parents. No one would deny the
urgency of the need regarding this school facility. It is time now to make a decision and
get on with the school facilities improvement program. The question before the Board today
is whether to build a new school at the Meriwether Lewis site or remodel and upgrade the old
school with an addition to Murray. The Site Selection Committee recommended the Meriwether
Lewis site; the Joint Facility Planning Committee and KDA, the consultants, recommended
building a new school; professional architects, engineers, and parents in the community
recommend building a new school. Mr. Overstreet said he and the School Board also recommend
that a new school be built on the Meriwether Lewis site. Mr. Lindstrom said he served on the
Site Selection Committee and his recollection is that neither the Meriwether Lewis or the
Murray site was recommended. Both sites were determined suitable and deferred to the School
Board to make a selection. Mr. Overstreet said the report by the committee indicated prefer-
ence given in rating to the Meriwether Lewis site.
A spokesperson from each school area was allowed to speak at this time.
Mr. Chuck Brown, President of the Meriwether Lewis PTO, addressed the Board. A survey
of the parents in the vicinity of both Meriwether Lewis and Murray School was taken.. Out of
183 responses, 62 percent preferred the Meriwether Lewis site, 28 percent preferred the
Murray site and 10 percent had no preference. He handed to the Board a copy of the survey
(on file) and the responses. He thinks the response would have been significantly greater
for the Meriwether Lewis site had the parents been advised that renovation of Murray will
take six months longer and result in the Meriwether Lewis school being used for an additional
school year. The parents, architects and School Board are unanimous in their recommendation
that the Meriwether Lewis site be selected. The only factor of consideration for the Murray
site is a perceived difference that it may cost $400,000 less, but it should be taken into
consideration that estimates for new construction are more accurate than estimates for
renovation projects. The $400,000 represents about 10 percent of the total project cost or
ao8
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
one percent of the annual school budget. The savings that could be achieved by building at
the Meriwether Lewis site includes transportation and alternative uses for Murray School. It
is the belief of the parents that the only reasonable alternative is selection of the
Meriwether Lewis site.
Mr. Cliff Haury, Chairman of the Murray-Meriwether Lewis Building Committee, addressed
the Board. He handed out a copy of the CIP five-year plan from last May and said the actual
recommendation was $5 million for the Ivy school project. He then presented a letter (on
file) to the Board in support of building a new facility at the Meriwether Lewis site. Some
points emphasized by Mr. Haury include travel time, pupil distribution, access and conven-
ience. He also emphasized that Meriwether Lewis is more centrally located within the
district.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks that finally a very thorough analysis has been done on the two
school sites. He is convinced that the Meriwether Lewis site is the best site. He is still
concerned about cost containment on the project. His suggestion to the Board is approval of
the site recommended by the School Board with a dollar limit on the entire project. The
price cannot continue to escalate.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks a key issue is also the total cost. There are other priority
school projects that must be dealt with in the near future. He is tempted to support Murray
School, however, with a cost containment he could support the Meriwether Lewis site. Without
discarding every piece of equipment and purchasing all new desks the cost comes to approxi-
mately $3.7 million.
Mrs. Cooke said she is prepared to support the Meriwether Lewis site. She sees no value
in remodeling a facility and encountering all of the problems that surrounds remodeling a
facility. She is concerned about how the Board is going to arrive at the cost containment
figure as there are other items to be considered. She is prepared to support the concept,
but does not think it is possible to set the budget today.
Mr. Fisher said if the Board sets a budget, everybody will work towards that budget
rather than letting it continue to grow. He is willing to support $4 million which is the
best estimate received to date from professionals.
Mr. Overstreet said another option for consideration is for the Board to approve the
concept, authorize planning money for design, and the School Board could bring a design back
to the Board. Mr. Fisher said it would be too late for change after the design has been
done. He would rather have it designed to a dollar figure.
Mr. Henley said he hates to see a good school like Murray thrown away which is what will
happen. He thinks that $3.7 million is adequate for the facility.
Mrs. Cooke said she would not support anything less than $4 million. She does not see
any point in shortchanging the school by cutting costs and later being sorry. She is not in
favor of a $5 million budget, but she does not think it should be less than $4 million.
Mr. Way said he supports the concept of a dollar limit. His main concern is that there
are a lot of other projects and he feels that all of them are underbudgeted. All of the
projects will cost considerably more than $10 million. He supports the $4 million cost
containment.
Mr. Overstreet said if the Board sets a budget limit, an attempt will be made to design
a school at the budget figure, but he cautions the Board because these figures are based on
today's prices and will escalate in the future.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to build a new school at the Meriwether Lewis site
with a $4 million ceiling, not including acquisition of land. It is his understanding that
land is not included in the $4 million. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 3:44 P.M.) Mr.
Henley said he understood land acquisition to be included in the price. He does not see
justification for an additional $409,000 for land at the Meriwether Lewis site. He is
willing to support the same amount of money for either school. He will not support over $3.7
million.
Mr. Lindstrom said a new facility will last for a long time. When he first began this
analysis, he was not supportive of building a school at the Meriwether Lewis site. As the
information was provided on transportation and after review of all of the pros and cons, he
cannot justify renovating Murray. He is also concerned about the future use of Murray, but
to hold the Meriwether Lewis replacement project hostage because someone would rather reno-
vate Murray is unfair. The way to deal with this matter is not to cut the Meriwether Lewis
project below a reasonable estimate. This is the first estimate provided by professionals
and he thinks $4 million should be exclusive of land because the estimated project total is
$4,063,000. If the budget is $4 million, it leaves little room for land acquisition and
inflation. It is bad planning to provide an inadequate facility at the Meriwether Lewis site
because of a difference of opinion on the use of Murray School.
Mr. Henley said he is concerned that if there is additional development in the Meriwethe
Lewis area, the school will quickly fill to capacity. Mr. Lindstrom said review of the
Comprehensive Plan indicated that a 600-pupil school could handle future growth in the
district. This portion of the district has more of a transportation problem than overcrowd-
ing. Mr. Henley commented that Broadus Wood School was just enlarged, yet it is presently
full. Mr. Lindstrom said if Murray were renovated and Meriwether Lewis School demolished,
there would still be no room for flexibility. If the need arises for an additional facility,
Murray would still be available without being a major expense.
Mr. Bowie said he cannot support an addition to the $4 million. The studies and a
professional firm both indicate that $4 million is adequate funding. He does not know the
use of studies if the findings are not accurate.
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
309
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the new Ivy area school be built at the Meriwether
Lewis site at a total cost not to exceed $4,063,000. The total cost is to include land
acquisition and all other items as shown on the architect's estimate attached to a memorandum
from Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Division Superintendent, dated February 7, 1986, and outlined
above. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Henley asked what is included in the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said his motion is that
the school be built at the Meriwether Lewis site and the total on the project, including land
acquisition be the architect's estimate of $4,063,000. The figure includes land, desks, etc.
Mr. Henley said he will support the motion.
would be higher than that.'
He was holding out because he thought it
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.
(At 4:05 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 4:15 P.M.)
Mr. Lindstrom said when he commented on the staff's inaccuracy, he was speaking in the
past tense. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the staff estimates for this project were provided
for the Site Selection Committee and did not include a contingency amount. When the contin-
gency was added, the staff's estimate was approximately $100,000 off the architect's
estimate. Mr. Lindstrom said it was not his intention to criticize the staff.
Agenda Item No. 21. Appropriation: Title II - Economic Security Act.
Mr. Agnor said a memorandum received from Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Division Superinten-
dent, indicated that in December the School Board authorized a request of $7,191 in federal
funds under Title II of the Education for Economic Security Act. Albemarle County is eligi-
ble for the funds. He does not have any information about the Economic Security Act, but
recommends that the Board authorize the requested appropriation. Mr. Bowie asked what the
program is about. Mr. Overstreet said most of Chapter II monies received from the State in
the past have been expended for library books and media-type things. Mr. Fisher asked that
Mr. Overstreet get more information and report back to the Board later.
Agenda Item No. 22. CPA-86-1. Urban District Park. (Deferred from February 5, 1986.)
Mr. Fisher said last week the Board held the public hearing on CPA-86-1. There are a
number of decisions that need to be made. He said the Board will proceed with items under
Agenda Item No. 23 and then return to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Mr. Horne said, at the Planning Commission meeting, Mrs. Marie Reel handed out 108
copies of a letter that she presented to the Board at its last meeting, from the Key West-
Cedar Hills Association. He has the 108 letters which he neglected to give to the Clerk,
although the Board was given a copy of the letter.
Agenda Item No. 23a. Decisions Regarding CPA-86-1: Discussion on agreement with City.
Mr. Fisher reported on behalf of the negotiating committee, that he, Mrs. Cooke and Mr.
Tucker, met with City representatives on Monday concerning the issue of the number of softball
fields and the phasing of same, and when the tennis courts will be built. They have agreed
that there will be three softball fields in the first phase, one in the third phase, and none
beyond the third phase. There will be four tennis courts in the first phase, four tennis
courts in the second phase, and none in the third phase. Other parts of the language of the
agreement have been worked out and the committee recommends it to the Board for considera-
tion.
Agenda Item No. 23b.
Southern Regional Park.
Status report of funding of School capital needs and funding of
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his staff dated February 6, 1986:
"As requested, I have reviewed and prepared a revised estimate for
capital improvement needs and projected revenues. The estimates include
not only the approved FY 86-90 Capital Improvement Program, but also
proposed improvements yet to be added to our next Capital Improvement
Program.
A table comparing project costs and revenues is as follows:
Approved FY 86-90 CIP
Proposed School
Facilities
Proposed Co./City Park
FY-86 FY-87 FY-88 FY-89 FY-90 TOTAL
$1.37 $1.01 $0.14 $0.15 $0.29 $ 2.96
0.75 2.35 3.85 1.67 2.13 10.75
0.39 0.36 0.30 -0- -0- 1.05
$2.51 $3.72 $4.29 $1.82' $2.42 $14.76
FY 86-90 CIP Revenues
Literary Loan Funds
Updated CIP Revenues
Total Revenues
$6.30 $1.30 $1.13 $1.18 $1.17 $11.08
-0- +2.00 +1.00 +1.00 -0- 4.00
+1.79 -0.07 -0- -0- -0- 1.72
$8.09 $3.23 $2.13' $2.18 $1.17 $16.80
310
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
NOTE:
Figures are in millions of dollars.
County/City Park estimates are for Phase I only since Phase II
and Phase III are proposed for funding beyond FY '90.
Southern Regional Park funding of $600,000 is included in
approved CIP figures in FY '86 and FY '87.
As you can see above, from the cost estimates we have available to us to
date, we should be capable of funding the major improvements being
proposed over the next five years, and have approximately $2 million for
other projects or revised costs of approved projects."
Mr. Fisher asked if it is possible to build the Ivy area school and other school improve.
ments at Crozet and Stone Robinson. Mr. Agnor said yes. There is no real cash deficiency in
any of the five years. Mr. Bowie asked if one of the projects, such as Stone Robinson, could
be moved up a year. Mr. Agnor replied yes. Mr. Fisher commented that a project could be
moved up provided Literary Fund loans are available. Mr. Agnor said Literary Funds could be
deferred and the County would still be in a good cash position.
Agenda Item No. 23c. Revenue-generating activities.
Mr. Tucker said the Joint City-County Park Report Recommendation dated February 10,
1986, includes a summary of revenue-generating activities. The summary includes the softball
program, anticipated revenues, operating expenses and contributing funds to the park opera-
tion. It is estimated that 30 percent of softball play will be at this park. The summary
includes tournaments, field usage, shelter reservations, nonresident gate fee and rental of
facilities. He does not think this includes a fee of charging $1.00 for each vehicle which
enters the park which was done to generate additional revenue and reduce the traffic impact
on the park. Mr. Bowie asked if a usage fee is being planned for the tennis courts~. Mr.
Tucker said it is difficult to monitor tennis courts. Mr. Fisher asked how much revenue the
$1.00 fee per vehicle could generate. Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director, Parks and Recreation, said
$15,000 annually based on 88 cars per day, but there is the additional expense of someone
monitoring the gate.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks the decision on which plan to go with is controlled by the
agreement and he does not think further action needs to be taken. Mr. Lindstrom then offered
motion to approve CPA-86-1 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, as follows:
1. amend Map 6: 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 (one to
four dwelling units per acre) to public use-recreational.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion.
Mr. Way said he is going to vote against the motion. He thinks this is the wrong time
for this park as there are other capital needs within the County that the Board is committed
to and he is not convinced that all of those needs will be met.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands Mr. Way's concern, but as the County grows, the need
for a park is going to become less a luxury and more a necessity. He would be willing to
defer this action, but acquisition of this site will not be available in a year. The site is
so well located that he does not think the County will ever be able to spend its money as
efficiently as it will on this particular site. It is reasonable to proceed in this manner.
This is an essential expenditure today. Also, because of the agreement, it will take joint
approval of both the City and the County for installation of lights.
Mr. Bowie said both sides have been eloquently addressed. When he was in Washington,
D.C. last week, he drove through Arlington and the only green area within walking distance of
the house where he raised his children are two small county parks; everything else is town-
houses. Because of future needs, he thinks the thing to do today is support this park. For
the last two months, the Board has worked with the people that live in the area. There is an
agreement now which can be enforced. The final phase is nine years away, but at least there
will be 100 acres of green area. He, therefore, supports the motion.
With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
Mr. Way.
Mr. Way said although he voted no for the comprehensive plan amendment, he does approve
the agreement and the phasing of the project. He also supports the other items concerning
the proposed park.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the agreement for the
joint development and operation of the City-County park between the County of Albemarle and
the City of Charlottesville; and to authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement as outlined
below:
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
311
AGREEMENT FOR THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AND
OPERATION OF THE CITY-COUNTY PARK
This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (hereinafter
called "County"), acting through its Board of Supervisors, and the CITY
OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (hereinafter called "City"), acting through its City
Council:
SECTION I. PURPOSE.
The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County have executed a
contract dated October 17, 1985 for an option to purchase jointly certain
real property in the County from the estate of Mary Mahanes. The purpose
of this agreement is to authorize the exercise of that option and to
provide a fair and equitable allocation of responsibility between the two
localities for the development, operation and maintenance of the property
as a park and recreation area, as described in the Joint City-County Park
Report and Recommendation dated FebrUary 10, 1986 attached to and incor-
porated by reference in this agreement (hereinafter called "Joint Report").
In addition, the City and County through this agreement agree in principle
to purchase of the adjacent property belonging to Snow's Garden Center,
Inc.
SECTION II. PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT.
The development of the property as a park and recreation area shall
be in three phases. The three phases include parking lots, ponds, picnic
areas and shelters, trails, children's playground, softball fields, four
multipurpose fields, canoe deck, volleyball courts, restroom/concession
building, eight tennis courts, maintenance building, multipurpose hard
surface courts and the necessary utilities (see details of phasing in the
Joint Report). The initial development (Phase I) will begin by the late
spring of 1986, and be completed for use by the spring of 1988. The two
later phases of development (Phase II and Phase III) will occur approxi-
mately each three years thereafter. Phase I of the development shall
include 3 softball fields.
SECTION III. APPROPRIATIONS.
The total budget for this project, including the cost of land
acquisition, planning, engineering and three phases of development, is
estimated at $2,885,580. Development of Phases I, II and III will be
financed according to the "Project Phase" schedule on page 4 of the Joint
Report. Upon the execution of this agreement, the City and the County
will each appropriate its respective share of the estimated costs of land
acquisition and engineering and planning. All expenditures subsequent to
the current fiscal year, whether capital outlay or operating cost, are
contingent upon appropriation of funds by each governing body in the
year of expenditure, and failure to appropriate shall not be deemed a
breach of this agreement.
SECTION IV. ALLOCATION OF COSTS.
Ail land acquisition, planning and engineering, site improvement,
equipment and contingency costs for Phase I of the development shall be
divided equally between the City and the County. The operating costs
during the fiscal years 1988 and 1989 shall also be divided equally
between the two localities. Beginning in fiscal year 1990, operating
.costs will be allocated according to the percentage of actual park usage
by residents of the two localities, averaged over the most recent two
years. The usage will be monitored by an attendant at an entry station
who will also collect an entry fee from residents of jurisdictions other
than the County and the City.
It was the position of the County that the costs of capital develop-
ment in Phase II and Phase III should also be divided equally between the
City and the County, as in Phase I. It was the position of the City that
all future capital costs should be divided on the basis of the relative
populations of the two localities. As a compromise, it is agreed that
the capital costs for Phase II and Phase III of development will be
divided according to the average of the above two positions. An example
of this calculation is included on page four of the attached Joint
Report. The population figures to be used for determining capital
expenditures within any fiscal year shall be the same population figures
used in determining the distribution of funds for that fiscal year in the
Charlottesville Albemarle Revenue Sharing Agreement.
SECTION V. PARK OWNERSHIP.
The park shall be owned jointly by the City and the County. Each
locality shall hold an undivided interest in the property and all improve-
ments. Acquisitions of any continuous properties that are to be used for
park purposes shall be incorporated into the original park in undivided
interest.
In the event that the park or any part thereof is conveyed by the
two localities to any other entity, whether public or private, any
proceeds received for such conveyance shall be divided between the
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
localities on the basis of the cumulative capital investments of each
locality in the entirety of the park property. Neither the City nor the
County shall make such a conveyance of its interest without consent of
the other party.
SECTION VI. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE.
A Supervisory Committee is hereby established, consisting of the
County Executive (or designee), City Manager (or designee), Director of
Parks and Recreation from the City, and the Director of Parks and Recre-
ation from the County.' The Committee will perform the following func-
tions:
(1) Review the annual operating budget request for the park prior to
submittal to the governing bodies.
,(2) Meet annually to plan capital improvements to the park.
(3) Hold special meetings when requested by either Director to
resolve issues or to rule on special problems or requests that cannot be
handled by staff.
(4) Establish operating and administrative policies for the opera-
tion of the joint park.
(5) Resolve any operating difficulties or disputes.
SECTION VII. MAINTENANC~ AND OPERATIONS.
The County shall be responsible for the general maintenance, super-
vision and security of the park. Persons employed for such purposes will
be County employees. The City will be responsible for the operation and
supervision of the softball programs. The use and operation of any other
facilities in the park shall be the responsibility of the County. While
the operations and responsibilities are to be divided, the costs are to
be shared and allocated as described in Section IV of this agreement. A
"Recommended Maintenance Operation Budget" is set forth on pages 10-12 of
the attached Joint Report.
SECTION VIII. NIGHT LIGHTING AND SOFTBALL.
Night lighting is not proposed in any of the three development
stages for any competitive sport facility. Lighting for security and
safety will be provided as deemed necessary by the Supervisory Committee.
The City agrees that McIntire Park will still be used for the softball
program, but at a reduced level as determined appropriate by the City.
Any expansion or operation of park facilities or land beyond the three
phases of development controlled by this agreement shall be undertaken
only by the mutual consent of the governing bodies.
In signing this agreement the City expresses no intent to partici-
pate in the future development of any other softball or recreational
facilities which may become necessary because of any growth in the
population of the County.
SECTION IX. REVENUE GENERATION.
A detailed review of the potential revenues from the park is shown
on pages 10-24 of the Joint Report.
SECTION X. NAMING OF THE PARK.
Upon approval of this agreement by the City and County, the joint
committee will begin consideration of methods of receiving input for the
matter of selecting a name for the park. The joint committee will submit
to the Board and Council the best alternatives for consideration.
SECTION XI. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT AND EXERCISE OF OPTION.
This agreement shall be effective when it has been signed by both
jurisdictions, following the adoption of resolutions approved by majority
votes of the City Council and Board of Supervisors. Upon such approval,
the City Manager and County Executive shall give notice to the optionors
of the property that the option is being exercised.
SECTION XII. AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT.
This agreement can be amended with the mutual consent of the City
Council and the County Board of Supervisors.
SECTION XIII. BREACH OF AGREEMENT.
If either party deems the other to have breached any provision, it
shall so notify the other in writing, and the party deemed to have
breached the agreement shall have 60 days to remedy the breach. In the
event remedial action has not been taken within the 60 day period, the
aggrieved party shall be entitled to seek specific performance of the
agreement in the circuit court of the City or County.
February 12, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City Council has authorized the Mayor to sign
this agreement by a resolution adopted February 12, 1986, and the Board
of Supervisors has authorized its Chairman to sign it by resolution
adopted February 12, 1986.
Mr. Lindstrom thanked Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Fisher for their work in helping to produce the
agreement. 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. Way left at 4:40 P.M.) Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the County Executive be
authorized to exercise a purchase option for all that certain parcel of land known as Tax Map
62 and 78, Parcel 23 of Albemarle County fronting on Elk Road, Route 20 North, and old 20
North, consisting of 101 acres more or less, known as the Mahanes property for the City-
County park. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
ABSENT:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
Mr. Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 21.
earlier in the meeting).
Appropriation:
Title II - Economic Security Act (continued from
Mr. Overstreet said the appropriation is for a State grant provided to Albemarle County
schools to conduct training for elementary and middle school mathematics teachers during the
summer. It is a training course for a math specialist in every school.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to adopt the following resolution approving an appropriation in
the amount of $7,191 for use of Federal funds available under Title II of the Education for
Economic Security Act:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $7,191 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
School Fund and coded as follows:
1-2401-63300-100203 Stipends - Staff Development
1-2401-63300-100310 Substitute Teachers
1-2401-63300-580500 Staff Development Expenses
$2,000
1,800
3,391
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Mr. Way
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 24. Appointments.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to reappoint Mrs. Sharon Hamner to the Equalization Board
with said term to expire on December 31, 1986. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
ABSENT:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
Mr. Way
None.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to reappoint Mrs. Regina Withers to the Board of Social
Services with said term to expire on December 31, 1989. 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 and Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Mr. Way
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that Mrs. Withers is not a resident of the Jack Jouett District,
but it is acceptable to the Board members that Mrs. Withers serve in this capacity.
Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher said he has suggested several times that the City review with the County the
possibility of discontinuing the nonresident fee for use of City and County recreational
programs. This has been a source of some dissension from citizens of both jurisdictions.
The City is collecting approximately $17,000 in nonresident user fees on its golf course,
$10,000 from use of indoor and outdoor swimming pools, and $7,000 from classes and athletics.
Approximately $34,000 of those fees are then coming from County residents. The County
charges fees for nonresidents including entrance fees at its two parks and the County is
collecting about $6,000 from City residents. The County does not charge a nonresident fee
for its athletic programs and classes. The City's proposal was to drop their fees on the
classes if the County Would drop its fees on all of its parks. It does not appear to him to
be an equivalent action. It may be necessary, in order to get into a position to negotiate,
314
February 12, 1986 (Regular_Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
to charge fees to nonresidents involved in athletic programs and classes. Mrs. ~ooke said
she has no problem with charging a nonresident fee and thinks it is a perfectly acceptable
practice. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion that the Parks and Recreation Department investi-
gate the pros and cons of charging a reasonable user fee to nonresidents for participation in
Albemarle County recreational classes and athletic programs. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
ABSENT:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had read the minutes of August 14, 1985 (pages 39 - 53) and with
the exception of typographical corrections found them to be in order. Mr. Lindstrom then
offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the minutes of August 14, 1985. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
ABSENT:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Agnor said he received a letter (on file) from the City Manager attaching a copy of
an ordinance adopted by City Council prohibiting bringing garbage or refuse into the City to
deposit it for collection.
Mr. Bowie said in the matter of enforcing the sale of decals for cars located in the
County, the County still does not have the ability to ticket a car when the driver cannot be
found. He presented this matter at the VACo Annual Meeting, and would like to know where it
is in the legislative process.
Mr. Lindstrom referenced a memorandum received from Mr. Tucker about realignment of
Route 250 at Route 678 and asked if estimates had been received. Mr. Tucker said the Board
asked for a more up-to-date estimate on the alignment during discussion of the new Ivy area
school. The committee discussed providing a new alignment if Murray School were renovated
because more people would have to cross Rt. 250. The Board took the position that regardless
of which site was chosen, the alignment should be made. The Engineering Department has
prepared a more definitive cost estimate and it is attached to his memorandum. Mr. Lindstrom
said this item should be put back on the agenda for further discussion. Mr. Tucker said the
cost could be placed in the Capital Improvements Program and discussed during revision of
that program. Mr. Lindstrom said that is a good idea.
Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:51 P.M.