1985-08-14467
August 14_~ 1985 (Re__~lar Da~_~eetin~)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on
August 14, 1985, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room ~7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 9:05 A.M.), Messrs. Gerald
Fisher, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:05 A.M.) and Peter T. Way.
Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr..
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Executive and
Interim Director of Planning, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:06 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Not Docketed. Mrs. Christine Salter, President, of the Piedmont Chapter of the American
Diabetes Association, along with Mr. David Sloan addressed the Board. Mrs. Salter presented
to the Board a bumper stickers and also information concerning diabetes. In addition, she
stated that a booth will be set up at the Albemarle County Fair with additional information
and counseling on diabetes. The organization is asking for donations. Mr. Sloan invited
everyone to stop by the booth.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Way requested that Item 4.8 be removed from the
consent agenda and discussed later. Mr. Agnor suggested it be included under a discussion of
proposed legislation on September 11. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.
Bowie, to approve the consent agenda and to accept the remaining items of information. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
Mr. Henley.
Item No. 4.1. Street Sign - Briarwood Subdivision. It was noted in a memorandum from
Mr. Dennis Friedrich, Engineering Department, dated August 2, 1985, that the County has
ordered street name signs for Briarwood Subdivision, using bond funds, in conjunction with the
County completing the roads in this subdivision and having same brought into the State
Secondary System of Highways for maintenance. It was requested that a resolution for street
signs to identify Austin Drive, Briarwood Drive and Whitney Court be adopted so that the State
Highway Department will accept same for maintenance. The following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the
following roads:
Austin Drive (State Route 1575) and Briarwood Drive (State Route 1576)
at the northeast corner of its intersection;
Briarwood Drive (State Route 1576) and Whitney Court (State Route
1577) at the northwest corner of its intersection;
Whitney Court (State Route 1577) and Heather Court (State Route 1578)
at the southwest corner of its intersection, and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain
the above mentioned street signs.
Item No. 4.2. Notice of grant award from State Department of Education - for a Pilot
Study "Evaluation of LOGO Instruction" for the fiscal year 1985-86 in the amount of $4,697 was
received. Mr. Way requested that when these notices are received, that a short summary of the
actual purpose of the grant be forwarded to the Board from the Education Department.
Item No. 4.3. Copy of a letter from the Highway Department re: Closing of Route 601 on
August 31, 1985 for road race. The following letter dated July 29, 1985 to Mr. Mark Lorenzoni
from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt was received by the Board:
"This letter will serve as permission to close sections of Routes 601 and
676 for a road race in accordance with the following provisions:
1. The road will be closed Saturday, August 31, 1985, from 8:00 a.m. to
8:45 a.m. only.
2. Limits of the closing will be as shown on the attached sketch.
3. You will be responsible for traffic control as shown on the attached
sketch. All signs, cones and flagmen are your responsibility.
August 14, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
o
Flagmen stations will be manned by persons appropriately dressed in
bright clothing and equipped with red or orange flags.
Each flagman station will have copies of the secondary road map for
the area to outline appropriate detours for traffic.
It is your responsibility to contact the State Police and the County
Police Departments to assist with proper traffic control at the three
barricaded areas.
Emergency vehicles must be allowed to pass through the closed area if
the occasion arises.
Contact will be made with all residents who enter onto the closed
roadways prior to race day advising them of the closing and timing.
Signs warning the public of the closing and the time period will be
posted at both ends of the closed area during the week prior to the
race.
10.
Personnel will be posted at each private entrance to the closed
roadway to control entry of traffic.
11.
The closed roadway will be policed after the race to remove all debris
and trash which may be deposited during the closing.
12.
Your organization will save harmless the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation from any claims for damage or delay
resulting from this closing.
Any future permits of this nature will be evaluated based on traffic
control during this race. Contact me if you have any questions."
Item No. 4.4. Copy of Final 1985-86 Construction Allocations and Six-Year Improvement
Program for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems and Public Transit was received from the
Highway and Transportation Board.
Item No. 4.5. A copy of "Travel in Virginia, 1984, An Economic Analysis" prepared for
the Virginia Division of Tourism was received.
Item No. 4.6. Greenwood Chemical Status Report from County Executive dated August 7, 198
"Since the information transmitted to you on July 18, 1985 (copies of my
letter to EPA and Senators Trible and Warner and Congressman Slaughter's
responses), we have received some additional information from EPA by phone
on July 23, 1985. Mr. Darius Ostrauskas, EPA Regional Project officer,
called to say that information regarding Greenwood Chemical will be
transmitted to the local media as EPA received it, due to the Freedom of
Information Act. He indicated, however, that this information will be
forwarded to us just prior to its release to the media. He went on to say
that while he only had preliminary verbal reports at this time regarding
the groundwater samples from the Greenwood Chemical monitoring well, these
samples revealed the presence of six organic compounds. He stated,
however, that they posed no health threat.
Mr. Ostrauskas commented that the samples .taken from several adjacent or
nearby residential wells found no contaminants that could be detected above
EPA's standard detection levels. He indicated that further samples from
area residential wells will be taken by their field monitoring team and
that additional monitoring wells may be drilled soon on the Greenwood
Chemical site.
We have not received any written confirmation of these comments to date but
will keep you informed as we receive further updates and information."
Item No. 4.7. Summary of FY 84-85 Merit Pay Plan for General Government Employees.
"The following statistics summarize the General Government employees merit
plan for July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1985:
Total Number of Authorized Positions 225
Total Number of Employees Reviewed 181
Performance reviews are conducted on employees upon completion of one year
of service. When an employee leaves prior to their anniversary date, their
performance for merit is not reviewed because their departure cancels their
merit eligibility. When a replacement employee is hired, their annual
review will occur the following fiscal year upon completion of their first
year of service. Additionally, employees in the top step of their pay
range are not reviewed for merit because they are not eligible for merit.
Therefore, the total number of reviews will vary from year to year. Merit
plan statistics have been reported to you on the ratio of total number of
authorized positions, until this year. This year they have been reported
A__~_ust 14 _ 1~85 (~eg~lar Day.Meeting)
469
to you on the total number of employees reviewed.
reports it both ways, for comparative purposes.
The following summary
Total Number of 2.5% (above satisfactory) Awards 72
Total Number of 5.0% (outstanding) Awards 75
Total Awards 14~
2.5% Awards
5.0% Awards
Total Awards
Percent of Percent of
Authorized Positions Employees Reviewed
32.0% 39~8%
33.3% 41.4%
65.3% 81.2%
Please observe that the 5 percent awards were 33.3 percent of all employee
positions, or 41.4 percent of employees reviewed. The 33.3 percent
compares favorably to earlier annual reports when a single 5 percent merit
plan was used, and the percentages ranged over a period of years from 28
percent to 37 percent, which was referred to as approximately one-third of
our employees, meaning one-third of all employee positions. FY 84-85
turned out to be exactly one-third of the total employees.
Please note also that your earlier conclusion, which was that the 2.5
percent merit step simply added a new or additional step in the merit
system without affecting the original 5 percent step plan, is confirmed
with these statistics. That conclusion, as you know, was one of thee
reasons the 2.5 percent step was removed from the merit program.
The next report on the merit program will be made to you in October for the
first quarter of this fiscal year."
Item No. 4.8.
July 25, 1985 re:
older individuals.
September 11, 1985.
Copy of letter from Jefferson Area Board on Aging Board of Directors dated
request for legislation to increase funding for frail and disadvantaged
This item was transferred without discussion to the agenda for
Item No. 4.9. Letter dated June 20, 1985 from C. F. Hicks, Virginia Association of
Counties Counsel, re: VACo/VML Contract Rate Negotiations with Virginia Power was received.
~"The current local government rate contract with Virginia Power expires on
June 30, 1985. A Steering Committee of representatives from counties,
cities and towns has been formed, counsel and an expert consultant have
been retained, and Virginia Power's initial rate proposal has been
received.
In its initial rate proposal Virginia Power has requested a total increase
of 10.4 percent for cities, towns and urban counties and 18.4 percent for
non-urban counties. Counsel has received Virginia Power's cost of service
study for the local government class of customers. It will be necessary
for our consultant to prepare a separate independent study to determine
appropriate local government rates. In addition, Virginia Power has
indicated its desire to discuss the possibility of demand and energy rates
and .their applicability to local government customers. We will also be
discussing rates and related service questions for street lighting
customers of Virginia Power.
Because it is unlikely that we will have negotiated a final contract by
June 30, the Steering Committee has requested that we inform you that
subsequent to June 30 local governments should continue to pay according to
rates that are presently being billed, subject to retroactive adjustment
when new rates are negotiated. We will keep all local governments informed
as to the progress of the negotiations.
In the past our rate negotiations have been funded by assessments to local
governments served by the particular public utility. The Steering
Committee has determined that sufficient funds exist from the previous
assessment so that an additional assessment probably will not be necessary
in order to fund theSe negotiations with Virginia Power."
Item No. 4.10. Memo dated July 31, 1985 from Division of Legislative Services giving
public hearing schedule on proposed water policy legislation was received as information.
Item No. 4.11. Copy of By-Laws of Region Ten Community Services Board as amended on
June 20, 1985 was received, as information.
Item No. 4.12. Copy of letter dated August 2, 1985 from the Virginia Auto Safety
Alliance requesting that a proclamation or a policy be established on safety belt use.
Item No. 4.13.
information.
A copy of Planning Commission minutes of July 30, 1985 was received as
Item No. 4.14. Memo from the Clerk re: Noise Ordinance. At the Board of Supervisors
meeting on July 10, 1985, the Board was requested to amend the noise ordinance to make it
applicable to the Rural Areas District of the Zoning Ordinance. The County Attorney found
47O
Au_gus. t 14_ 1985_ (Re~. lar Da_D~ Meeting)
that such areas are, and have been, covered by the provisions of this ordinance since June of
1981, therefore no amendment of said ordinance was necessary. Mr. Ray Jones, Deputy County
Executive for Administration, has brought to the attention of the Police Chief the terms of
this ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: August 23, 1984, and February 13, February 20,
and March 6, 1985. Mr. Way had read the August 23, 1984 minutes and found them to be correct.
Mr. Bowie read pages 1-12 of February 20, 1985 and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Cooke had read March 6, 1985 and found them to be in order. The other minutes had
not been read and will be forwarded. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way,
to approve the minutes of August 23, 1984, February 2.0 (pages 1-12) and March 6, 1985. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Request from Hollymead Citizen's Association.
Mr. Donn Bent, secretary of the Hollymead Citizens Association, addressed the Board.
Mr. Bent summarized the following letter dated June 4, 1985 to the Board:
"We are writing to urge the Board to requeSt the Virginia Department of
Highways to reduce the speed limit on Hollymead Drive from 35 to 25 miles
per hour.
Residents report that motorists are frequently driving through Hollymead at
speeds which appear to be highly excessive. Conferences have been held
with the Chief of the County Police, who has advised us that convictions
are difficult to obtain unless the driver is exceeding'the legal limit by
at least 10 miles per hour - in this case 45 miles per hour. Surely, this
is a hazardous speed on a street which borders a community swimming pool,
tennis courts, a bicycle and jogging trail, which also passes by the
grounds of Hollymead Elementary School and a considerable number of resi-
dences with entrances directly on Hollymead Drive.
We believe that the requested limit of 25 miles per hour, which under
present enforcement limitations, would in effect be 35 miles per hour,
would be much safer for our residents and their children and would not
unduly impede the flow of traffic on Hollymead Drive.
We wish to assure all concerned authorities that the residents of Hollymead
will assist fully in the enforcement of the new speed limit. We strongly
urge the Board to take appropriate action."
Mr. Bent stated that the Highway Department has considered the request, but has declined
to take action.
Mr. Eric Wagner a resident of Hollymead, next addressed the Board. He stated that in the
short period that his family has lived in Hollymead, speeding has been excessive. Originally
Hollymead Drive was an access road with very few homes. At this time, there are twenty homes
bordering the road; ten new homes within the last year. In the little over a mile stretch of
road, he counted ten different sets of skid marks, average length 34.2 feet. Mr. Wagner said
he would appreciate any help the Board might give the homeowners.
Mrs. Elizabeth Greenbaum, a resident of Hollymead addressed the Board. She feels that it
is dangerous to stroll along the road. People exceed the speed limit and there are sharp
curves. The speed limit at 35 miles per hour is too fast. Although she realizes that part of
the problem is enforcement, she requests that it be lowered to 25 miles per.houro
Mr. Bowie said he has corresponded with the homeowners about this problem. He asked
Mr. Bent if a survey had been taken of the residents, on their feelings concerning the road?
Mr. Bent said that the survey had not been taken, but people have expressed widespread views.
Mr. Bowie stated that he offered to go out and meet with the-citizens of the community, but
apparently no meeting has been scheduled.
Mr. Fisher stated that this matter has already been considered by the Highway Department,
he noted letter dated June 10, 1985, addressed to Mr. Greenbaum. Mr. Fisher asked if this
request has been through all of the proper channels for consideration? Mr. Roosevelt replied
that the Highway Department~6~.~Sdall authority to set speed limits. Studies were conducted
in Hollymead at three different locations. At two of the locations, 80 percentile of the
traffic was going 38 to 37 miles per hour. This is actually higher than the present posted
speed limit. Thirty-two percentile of the traffic at one station, and 26 percentile at the
other station was exceeding the currently posted 35 mile per hour speed. It is normally
expected that 15 percent of the traffic will exceed the posted speed limit. Mr. Roosevelt
stated that there are only two speed limits in Virginia which can be 'set without speed
studies; the 55 mile per hour maximum statute, and the 25 mile per hour limit in areas that
qualify as subdivision streets. These are the two speed limits which are the most violated.
The speed limit is based upon the speed at which 85 percentile of the traffic is moving. This
policy has been adopted nationwide because it has been found that people travel at the speed
which they find safe. The worst situation is to post a road at 25 mph knowing that the
traffic will go 35 mph. Further, it should be noted that entrance locations are based upon
the posted speed along that road. If the posted speed in Hollymead was reduced to 25 mph,
commercial entrances that will be built along that road in the future will all fall within the
25 mph designation so that sight distance would be reduced to 250 feet from the current
August 14, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
standard of 350 feet. For those reasons, he does not believe the limit should be reduced and
does not believe that the conditions that exist on Hollymead Drive now qualify it for the 25
mph subdivision posting.
Mr. Fisher said it seems to him that part of the problem is a conflict between pedestrian
traffic and automobiles. Are no sidewalks available along the road? Mr. Roosevelt said the
County constructed an asphalt path within the right-of-way behind the ditch line, 12 to 15
feet from the roadway. He feels it is safe because it Ks away from the edge of the pavement
and the 35 mph posting is safe. If the County were to determine that the pavement is not safe
in it's present location, the County should consider moving it off the right-of-way or taking
will be costly. Mr. Fisher asked if the Highway
some additional steps, which he feels
Department is stating that it will not reduce the speed limit. Mr. Roosevelt replied that is
correct.
Mr. Wagner asked if it is possible on a stretch of road such as this, that where the
traffic comes off of Rt. 29 to have a 35 mph speed limit, and then as the traffic enters the
residential area~3drop down to 25 mph. Mr. Roosevelt stated that is not possible for the
same reasons he just gave. The Highway Department does not think the entrances that come onto
Hollymead Drive are sufficient to warrant posting the road as a subdivision street. It was
designed and constructed this way. Everyone that had any connection with the road from the
beginning should have known that this would be a 35 mph roadway.
Mr. Bowie said he discussed this matter in length with Mr. Roosevelt and Chief Johnstone.
The Police Department put a radar car on Hollymead Drive and within an hour issued six
arrests. That means that the drivers were exceeding 45 mph and this was during the evening
hours. This is not safe. He further stated that he does not have sufficient information on
what the citizens want since no meeting of the Homeowner's Association has been held and no
survey taken. Mr. Fisher stated that the Board does not have the authority to override
Highway Department decisions about speed limits. Mr. Way said he drove the road at 35 mph and
felt that was too fast. Mr. Bowie stated that the citizens of Hollymead his letter of
June 18 and that he will come out and meet with them anytime to discuss options. Mr.
Roosevelt also offered to meet With the citizens. Mr. Bent said he appreciates Mr. Bowie
feelings, but he has not heard from anyone who wants to keep the speed limit at 35'mph. Mr.
Bowie stated that he is willing to work with the Homeowner's Association.
Agenda Item No. 6b.
Taylor's Auto Body Shop.
July 26, 1985.
Highway Matters. Request to vacate plat re: drainage easement -
Request had been received from Mr. Douglas M. Taylor dated
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report as follows:
"Request:
In accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-482, to vacate
a 12 foot wide drainage easement between lots 4 and 5 of
Willow Heights Subdivision. This is to allow for the
loCation of the Taylor's Auto Body Shop building as shown on
the approved plan.
Acreage:
Lots 4 and 5 total 32,774 square feet.
Zoning:
Location:
C-l, Commercial
Property, described as Tax Map 61, parcels 168D and 168E, is
located on the east side of Brookway Drive, off Rio Road,
and adjacent to Meadowcreek. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Summary and Recommendations:
On April 23, 1985, the Albemarle County Planning Commission, and on June 5,
1985, the Board of Supervisors, unanimously approved the Taylor's Auto Body
Shop Site Plan subject to the conditions on the attached action letters.
The proposed location of the building on both lots infringed on a drainage
easement by approximately 26 feet in length. The entire east-west drainage
easement is approximately 60 feet in length and 12 feet in width. This
drainage easement is shown on a plat by W. S. Roudabush, Surveyor, signed
February 13, 1974.
The segment of drainage easement is not necessary as recorded. The County
Engineer, Maynard Elrod has commented 'The easement vacation shown on R. O.
Snow's plat dated July 22, 1985 will not require relocation. This vacated
easement will not be required for the future acceptance of Brookway Drive
into the state highway system. Recommend approval'."
Mr. Taylor was present. It was noted that this request could be accomplished by Mr.
Taylor obtaining the signatures of all the lot owners on a petition, or by the Board adopting
an ordinance. Mr. Taylor said he has not been able to contact the owners. Mr. Lindstrom then
offered motion that the staff be authorized to advertise for a public hearing on
September 11, 1985 an ordinance vacating a portion of a plat showing a drainage easement
between Lots 4 and 5 of Willow Heights Subdivision and suggested that the ordinance be drafted
by Mr. Taylor's attorney and reviewed by the County Attorney. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
472.
August 14, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters. Request to vacate portion of a plat of Berkeley.
The following requests brought this item before the Board:
Letter of July 1, 1985 signed by Philip J. and Patricia A. Gibson (2633 Commonwealth
Drive) and Claude O. and Kathleen S. Wickline (2701 Commonwealth Drive) requesting that
the parcel of land between these two lots be vacated.
Letter of July 16, 1985 signed by Joseph K. and Patricia L. Moore (2800 Commonwealth
Drive) and George H. and Sylvia L. Nichols (2704 Commonwealth Drive) requesting that a
lot between these two properties be vacated.
Letter of August 6, 1985 signed by Claude O. and Kathleen Wickline (2701 Commonwealth
Drive) and Joseph K. and Patricia L. Moore (2800 Commonwealth Drive) requesting that the
lot between these two properties be vacated and that the right-of-way through this
vacated lot (Lot 2, Section 4, Block 6, Berkeley Community) be titled to Mr. and Mrs.
Claude O. Wickline.
The following staff report dated July 24, 1985 was received from Mary Joy Scala, Senior
Planner:
"We have received two requests to vacate right-of-ways in Berkeley, shown
on an attached plat:
from Mr. and Mrs. Claude O. Wickline and Mr. and Mrs. Phillip J.
Gibson - a request to vacate a parcel of land located between 2633 and
2701 Commonwealth Drive.
from Mr. and Mrs. Joseph K. Moore and Mr. and Mrs. George H. Nichols -
a request to vacate a parcel of land located between 2800 and 2704
Commonwealth Drive.
The subject parcel of the first request could provide access ~o the
Nuttycomb tract which is the site of a recently approved special permit for
a nursing home. A condition of approval of the special permit prohibited
access through Berkeley and Four Seasons. The applicant for the nursing
home recently inquired about having the access condition removed. Staff
discouraged the idea of access through Berkeley,
The subject parcel of the second request could provide access to Berkmar
Drive. This connection is proposed in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff understands there is a third request pending to'vacate the parcel of
landbetween 2701 and 2800 (received August 9, 1985 by Clerk of the Board).
Staff suggests that all three requests be heard at the same meeting.
I will prepare a detailed staff report on all three 'requests at a later
date."
Mr. Tucker said these properties are located on Commonwealth Drive in the vicinity .of the
Seminole Trail Fire Department and the satellite station of the rescue squad. As indicated by
staff, the Comprehensive Plan shows a connector road between Commonwealth to Berkmar Drive
which could create a future problem if that right-of-way is vacated. The other ~two requests
for vacation do not present a problem~
Mr. Fisher said he has concerns regarding the area near the Fire Department. The Fire
Department was located in this area because of access to these homes and the Four Seasons
area. Mr. Tucker suggested the Board might consider keeping a dedicated easement rather than
a dedicated right-of-way. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Tucker if the only way for the Fire Department
to respond to a call in Berkeley Subdivision is to exit on Rt. 29 and enter on Dominion Drive
at the Pizza Inn. Mr. Tucker replied that is correct. When the site plan for the Fire
Department was approved, it was required to upgrade the connection at the time such determina-
tion was made by the Board of Supervisors.' This was tied to the Route 29 North Corridor Study
which proposed that the crossover at this point be closed in the future since it is not in
compliance~with crossover spacing recommended in that study.
Mr. Philip Gibson (2633 Commonwealth Drive) addressed the Board. He said for the nursing
home to use the property between 2633 and 2701 as a right-of-way for access to Commonwealth
Drive would be a shock to their privacy and their sanity to have 500 cars using that stem each
day. The reason for the petition of vacancy is to not allow this to happen.
Ms. Pat Moore (2800 Commonwealth Drive) next addressed the Board and stated that she
lives near the Fire Department. Her concern is that if this area is made into a thoroughfare,
with the amount of traffic coming from Route 29 North, the traffic flow would be unreasonable
for a residential neighborhood with a speed limit of 25 mph. Presently the neighborhood has
to contend with debris in the area, motorbikes, the noise level and the Fire Department.
Vacation of this right-of-way would still allow access by fire trucks if necessary. The
property owners could maintain the property. Mr. Lindstrom asked Ms. Moore if there would be
any objection to a vacation conditioned upon the adjoining property owners granting an
easement to the Fire Department and Rescue Squad. Ms. Moore replied that she would have no
problem with a gate opening just for fire trucks.
Ms. Nichols next addressed the Board and stated that it was her understanding that the
Fire Department would provide a gate and plant trees so as to protect the neighbors. The
County has never done anything to the area and she has spent money trying to get rid of the
poison ivy, rag weed and caterpillar nests. It is a nuisance and the property owners would
like to take care of the property. She has no objection to the Fire Department; they keep
their property clean, but the people.who go to the fire company building use this right-of-way
and tend to throw out bottles and cans. Also people come in and use the fire company dumpster
all night long which is a nuisance. She would like to be able to keep this property clean.
Auqust 14,_ 1985 (Regul:ar Day M~eting)
473
Mrs. Kathleen Wickline (2701 Commonwealth Drive) addressed the Board. She lives across
the street from Mr. Gibson and requests the vacation for the reasons stated y~.and Ms. Moore
The other reason is that their house faces the section which is overgrown and unsightly.
However, she and her husband do own the lot just to the north of 2701 and they would like to
request that a legal right-of-way be left there for an entrance to that property.
Mr. Donald Short (2425 Commonwealth Drive) Vice President of the Berkeley Community
Association addressed the Board. The Association is in favor of this requested action. There
are no sidewalks in the community and to increase the traffic flow would make the area
dangerous and unsafe. No homeowner has come forth to request that any of the three streets be
kept open even at the cost of several seconds of response time for the emergency vehicles.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Highway Department, said the Highway Department has
recommended for years that as part of a connection from Rio to Hydraulic, that this section of
to Rio Road. The Board has uniformly rejected this recommenda-
Commonwealth be extended out
tion. The Department still feels that part of the ultimate solution to the traffic problems
in the Route 29 North area is that this connection be left open as an option. He strongly
objects to any consideration of abandoning the connection from Commonwealth to Berkmar at the
fire station property. As a part of the Route 29 North Corridor Study, adopted in 1979, a
state road connection between Commonwealth and Berkmar was proposed. Construction of that
connection is tied to the closing of the crossover where Dominion enters onto Route 29. The
Highway Department is now considering the six-laning of Route 29 North with an advertisement
date of 1987, if the hurdles of the MPO Study can be concluded. One of the recommendations of
the MPO Study is, as a part of that construction, that left turn through the crossover at
Dominion be eliminated, and this connection between Commonwealth and Berkmar be opened. This
connection is recommended to be done in the next three to four years. That being the case,
consideration of closing the connection violates moral agreements the County has had with the
Highway Department concerning these sections since 1979.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt to briefly describe traffic flow if the Dominion Drive
crossover were closed. Mr. Roosevelt said the only connection that would be open to Rt. 29
from Berkeley, would be through Greenbrier Drive. Greenbrier Drive would be the only place to
make left turns from the south, and the only other way to enter from the north would be
through the connection at Westfield Drive. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board expressed concern in
the past that it does not want to turn Commonwealth Drive into a roadway for through traffic,
and that is the reason the direct connection to Rio Road has been uniformly opposed.
Mr. Fisher said it has always been a difficult compromise between the needs of traffic
for an area and the people that live in the area, but do not want the traffic. The connector
between Commonwealth and Berkmar Drive through the fire department property is much less than
ideal from a normal planning standpoint, but that compromise was reached several years ago.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt to explain his previous comment concerning vacating the
right-of-way that could lead straight through to Rt. 631. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway
Department has supported the concept of local service roads and the using of streets, such as
Commonwealth Drive by traffic that does not need to get onto Rt. 29. Since the Board did not
want to solve Rt. 29 North traffic problems at the expense of people living~in Berkeley, the
Highway Department attempted to give this subdivision adequate access to Rt. 29 without making
Commonwealth a thoroughfare for traffic. Mr. Lindstrom noted that was the fire house compro-
mise so to speak. Mr. Lindstrom said then the Highway Department's position'is to leave as
many options available as possible, on all of these requested vacations, but he will "go to
the mat" on the right-of-way between Commonwealth and the fire station. Mr. Roosevelt said
that is correct; if the Board allows that vacation it will give away an existing connection.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is sympathetic to the problems the people have raised. The Board
must leave itself options for the future because it must deal with Rt. 29 North. HoWever, the
Board's position has been consistent in not wanting to solve the Rt. 29 North problem at the
expense of the existing neighborhoods, where it can be avoided. Mr. Lindstrom said he is
willing to consider the vacation of t~e right-of-way between 2633 and 2701 Commonwealth Drive,
and the right-of-way between 2701 and 2800 Commonwealth Drive, but he is not willing to
consider the third request ~c~ef~a~f~~.~ will not ~t~.~t~ makilng Commonwealth
Drive a thoroughfare~
Mrs. Cooke said she also has no problem with the two sections mentioned by Mr. Lindstrom
but for reasons stated she has a problem with the other request. She feels that if the
property owners ask the fire department for its cooperation~ some of the problems may be
corrected. She said she is willing to work with the residents and the fire department to see
if the problems can be alleviated. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to set a public hearing on
the vacation of a dedicated right-of-way lying between 2633 and 2701 Commonwealth Drive, and
2701 and 2800 Commonwealth Drive, October 9, 1985. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Presentation: County Engineer's proposal for Route 29 North improve
ments. (At 10:16 A.M. the Chairman stopped the Board meeting for a minute. The meeting
resumed at 1'0:18 A.M.)
Mrs. Cooke stated the Board has made it very clear as to what it does not want with
regard to Rt. 29 North, but the Board has not addressed what it does want. Mrs. Cooke said
since County staff had presented a proposal for Route 29 North, she thought the Board should
look at the proposal and take some position on what the Board is willing to support.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he thinks a request for a motion will be presented to the M.P.O.
Technical Committee and passed to the M.P.O. that the plans that already are a part of the
City and County Comprehensive Plans for the six-laning of Rt. 29 North be supported, all of
the grade separated interchanges were proposed by the CATS Study and which are adopted parts
of the plan be supported, and a number of TSM measures be undertaken, which includes
474
August 14, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
ridesharing, upgrading the mass transit system, etc. A number of comments have been made
about the proposal. Essentially it would give the go ahead for use of the monies already
allocated for the six-laning of Route 29 North and rely upon a number of other measures
including construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway and ultimately a connector with Rt. 250
East. All of these suggestions will be presented to the M.P.O. The motion will not propose
any construction in the watershed or construction in existing neighborhoods.
Mrs. Cooke said the item that sparked her concern at the last M.P.O meeting was a comment
made that the highway englneer~<~not proceeded with plans for the six-laning of Rt. 29
North because of studies and presentations going on. Mr. Roosevelt stated that is correct.
The preliminary engineering work on Rt. 29 North has been on hold since June, 1984. He has
recommended ~.with the preliminary work on the six-laning concept because it appears
that a from the M.P.O is way in the future. Mr. Fisher asked if that-means the
Highway Department stopped all work on the. six-laning project last year. Mr. Roosevelt said
yes. Mrs. Cooke stated that is something she was not aware of until the last M.P,O. meeting.
Mr. Fisher said that the Board had gone to a Highway Commission meeting in Culpeper and
received advance planning funds, had the schedule for construction moved up, and within two
years all planning stopped. Mr. Roosevelt stated that no planning has been done since the
preliminary field inspection in June 1984. He has been trying to make that point for six
months. Mrs. Cooke said the more studies the Board requests, the further away planning is
pushed. The Board has got to take some position on what it wants the character and integrity
of the roadways in this community to look like, and not continue these expensive, time-consumin~
studies about what will be done.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board needs to keep a perspective on this. This all came about as
a result of the Board's position not to have construction in the South Fork Rivanna watershed
and existing residential neighborhoods. The Board wanted a study on alternatives that would
take care of some of the problems on Route 29 North without doing that. The M.P.O., staff of
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, and some people in the Highway Department
urged that the study be done by the Highway Department. The Highway Department was asked to
do the study but continuously deferred action and then only began the study after the Piedmont
Corridor Highway proposal last year, which was completely unrelated to this issue. A lot of
time has been spent waiting for Highway Department planners to do the study.
Mr. Maynard Elrod addressed the Board. He stated the map presented to the Board today
(on file in the Clerk's office) is a study map which shows certain roads that are being
studied to determine any impact, on traffic flows. This is not a proposal. Mr. Elrod
presented the following report made by the office of the County Engineer on the status of the
Route 29 North Corridor:
"The County Staff was directed by the Board of Supervisors to study alter-
nate means of meeting the traffic needs in the 29 North corridor without
impacting the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir or existing developed areas.
The staff has been submitting various ideas and possibilities that are
technically feasible so the Highway Department can analyze the effects on
Route 29 traffic. This has been a trial and error process that started at
the May 16, 1985 MPO Technical Committee meeting.
Our first trials had some positive effects but did not solve the traffic
problems. Subsequent suggestions have continued to make improvements but
have not yet reached an acceptable level. Last week several more sugges-
tions were given to the Highway Department for analysis and a report is
expected at the MPO Technical meeting tomorrow. The suggestions we are
making are beginning to involve some impact on neighborhoods and the Board
may wish to give us some additional direction at this time.
We are convinced that there is a solution to the traffic problem that is
generally in accord with the Board's guidelines. There will be some
undesirable side effects, however, those effects may very well occur
regardless of the plan selected.
Our recommendation at this time is for the Board to allow us approximately
one more month to find a technical solution after which a policy decision
could be made. Please consider the following points:
At this time there is no technically feasible plan for the 29 North
area. Any decision made now would be made without knowing the eventual
impact.
Eliminating the expressway/service road concept in order to reduce the
visual impact due to elevated roads, retaining walls, and fills would
not achieve that goal. Without the expressway and service roads there
will be diamond interchanges at Hydraulic and Rio Roads and probably a
fly-over at Fashion Square. These cannot be built within the existing
right-of-ways and will be more obtrusive than the overpasses that the
expressway would provide.
Adding to the existing four lanes to provide six lanes is not an
interim step that could lead to the expressway or any other concept
(except eight lanes). All of the six lanes would have to be destroyed
to convert to some other concept at a later date.
e
Based upon my meeting in Richmond last week, there has not been any
discussion at the Highway Department concerning withdrawing the funds
currently set aside for this project. That situation obviously will
not remain forever but is not likely to change for the next few months.
Construction sequencing of the expressway/service road concept will not
result in "massive" traffic disruptions. It will take longer than the
six lane plan but in some aspects it will actually be simpler to
construct.
Au. us% 14- 19_~8.5 (Regular Day Meeting)
6. Last but not least; a roadway or intersection design that will result
in an inadequate facility should not be accepted. There is more to
consider than just the time of travel and inconvenience to motorists.
An inadequate road is also an unsafe road. A decision to accept the
inconvenience means also accepting a high accident rate."
With regard to Option 5, Mr. Elrod stated that the existing Route 29 roadway could be
widened and improved so that in the center there could be two lanes of traffic heading south,
and two lanes heading north neither impeded by any red lights or intersections. On either
side, separated by a grass median and grades, would be two-lane service roads which would be
at the level of the existing entrances on Route 29 North. Mr. Agnor asked Mr. Elrod where
this roadway would start and stop. Mr. Elrod responded it would start at the intersection
with the 250 Bypass, in the City and go all the way to the South Fork Rivanna River bridge.
Mr. Elrod stated that adding four lanes to the existing lanes on Rt. 29 North is to
provide six lanes of traffic, not an interim step that will allow just adding to it in the
future, to go to the expressway concept, because of the grades and the locations within the
right-of-way of the existing lanes. This concept would mean eliminating all existing
roadways. He attended a meeting in Richmond last week with the Highway Department's engineers
and he asked them if the County is in danger of losing the funds. They responded that there
has been no discussion concerning withdrawing funds. There is a limit on how long the
Department will wait before putting pressure on to make a decision one way or another.
Mr. Elrod said there was a lot of talk at the last M.P.O meeting about how terrible implement-
ing a concept like this would be as opposed to just six-laning. The engineers said this
concept would take longer, but it can be done without any massive impact on traffic or the
environment.
Mrs. Cooke said the figure of $25 million was mentioned and 25 to 30 years in the future
before any of this could become a reality. What comment did the engineers have on these
figures? Mr. Elrod responded that these sound like huge numbers but that is what it will take
to solve the problem. Think of what the cost of a western bypass would be if $10 or $11
million were put into six lanes on Route 29 North and then later a western bypass were added.
Mrs. Cooke asked what the engineers suggest be done on Route 29 North from now until 30 years
hence. Mr. Elrod said the road could be built in segments. That was one of the items
discussed at the meeting. They looked at construction sequence and tried to decide the best
way to get the most out of the money. One way would be to build the outer lanes. As the
traffic flow builds, void existing lanes in the center right-of-way and build an express lane.
Mr. Fisher asked how much additional right-of-way would be required. Mr. Elrod stated none.
This plan could proceed now which is one of the advantages of Option 5. The facility can be
built within existing right-of-way. Mr. Fisher said that was not luck, but somebody's
thinking ahead a long time ago. Mr. Way asked if this plan includes interchanges. Mr. Elrod
stated there would be no interchanges as such, although there would be overpasses. With any
options that include interchanges, businesses at intersections would be destroyed. If the
Board insists on the six-laning concept, the Highway Department will immediately start
considering overpasses at Hydraulic and Rio Roads. Those overpasses would be interchanges and
would require ramps.
Mr. Elrod stated that safety is also a consideration. If the County accepts this
inconvenience, it is also accepting a higher accident rate. Mr. Elrod then summarized the
following handout that was attached to the map distributed to the Board:
Improve Route 29 to six lanes divided between Rio Road and Airport Road
(was part of alternative 5 of the Highway Department). Add crossover
at Carrsbrook Road. Improve crossover at Woodbrook Road to allow left
turns. Do not permit additional connections to Route 29 between Rio
Road and the South Rivanna River.
Mr. Elrod said this option would save $7 million over the cost of putting in an
expressway and service roads. He has talked with several developers who either own or are
interested in large tracts of land in the area, and some of the roads shown on the proposal
fit their plans. The Highway Department when it first analyzed this proposal, refused to
consider this because they felt it would never come to pass.
2, 3, 4 & 5. Add overpasses to carry a four-lane expressway over Rio Road,
Dominion Drive (see item 32), Greenbrier Drive, and Hydraulic Road.
Add two lane, one-way service roads on the east and west sides of
Route 29 with slip ramps to allow traffic to move from the expressway
to the service roads and vice versa.
Add ramps and a fly-over at the Hydraulic Road intersection with the
Route 250 bypass.
Mr. Elrod said this was part of a study done a few years ago and of which he was unaware
until he was at the Highway Department last week. At the start of the current project on
Hydraulic Road this proposal was discussed with the City, but there was not enough money.
There was no particular objection to the idea.
Widen Georgetown Road to three or four lanes and extend it across
Barracks Road to the Route 29/250 bypass. Provide overpass over
Barracks Road, skirting the Faulconer property and tieing back into
29. This would be about one-half way between Barracks Road
Inter6hange and 250 Interchange. This would help alleviate some
turning movements at the corner of Hydraulic and 29.
Add fly-overs in the vicinity of Sperry/Comdial to connect to the
northbound and southbound service roads.
Add fly-overs at Berkmar Drive to connect the northbound service road
to the southbound service road, and to connect the southbound service
road to 'Fashion Square Shopping Center'.
478
Augus~14, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
12. Connect Greenbrier Drive from Hydraulic Road to Whitewood Road. (This
item is already shown in the County's Comprehensive Plan.)
13. Connect existing section of Commonwealth Drive from Peyton Road to
Greenbrier Drive. The road would have to cross a major ravine so is
not a possibility.
14. Improve Hydraulic Road and Rio Road to four lanes from Georgetown Road
to Route 29.
15. Construct the 'Branchlands Collector' road from Michie Drive in the
City to Hillsdale Drive in 'Squire Hills Apartments'.
16. Connect Hillsdale Drive into 'Fashion Square Shopping Center'
17. Construct a road between the post office (Route 29 North) and the
Pepsi-Cola plant (lying behind the post office property) from
'Seminole Square Shopping Center' to Greenbrier Drive. This would
provide a way to the post office without going onto Route 29 North and
having to make right and left turns.
post office.
18. Realign small section of Hillsdale Drive just built, so would intersect
with Rio Road at Old Brook Road (road into Raintree Fieldbrook,
Westmoreland Subdivision, and then to Carrsbrook Road).
19. Construct connector roads from Route 29 to Old Brook Road and then to
intersect with Rio Road at Bonanza Steak House at existing rear
entrance to "Fashion Square'.
20. Construct a network of roads between the Hilton Hotel on Route 29 and
Rio Road, tieing into SPCA road to serve future commercial and multi-
family developments. The locations of these roads could vary but
connections to Route 29 should be at the locations shown. One addi-
tional connection to Route 29 could be allowed. As an alternate, a
north/south road could tie-in to Rio Road at the SPCA road.
21. Realign Carrsbrook Drive to intersect Route 29 at the location of the
new road beside the 'Better Living' complex.
22. Improve Rio Road to four lanes from the Meadowcreek Parkway to Route 29.
23. Construct the Meadowcreek Parkway from the Route 250 bypass to Rio
Road.
24. Construct the Meadowcreek Parkway extension from Rio Road to Airport
Road..
25. Construct a connector road from Route 250 on Pantops Mountain to Rio
Road at the Meadowcreek Parkway.
26 & 27. Construct park and ride facilities in conjunction with:
a) Providing adequate bus service, and b) substantially increasing
parking fees for all day parking (other than van pools and car pools)
in inner-city government and private parking facilities.
28.. Improve Barracks Road by constructing a fourth lane between West Park
Drive and Georgetown Road.
29. Construct a connector road between Route 20 and Avon Street (proposal
has been presented previously).
30. Construct a connector road between Avon Street (Route 742) and Route
631 (Old Lynchburg Road).
31. Construct a diamond interchange at Interstate Route 64/Avon Street
(Route 742) intersection beside the Jail.
Mr. Elrod said he believe it is too close to put another interchange between the two
existing interchanges, but after the meeting with the Highway Department last week, where it
was mentioned that it is a possibility, he decided to write and ask if it would be permitted
if someone else wanted to build it.
32. Abandon all or a portion of Dominion Drive and extend Four Seasons
Drive to Route 29 with a connector to 'Shoppers World'."
Mr. Elrod said the Highway Department's position has been that if there were a western
bypass constructed, plus six-laning of Route 29 North and with overpasses at Hydraulic and Rio
Road, would give an acceptable level of service. Mr. Elrod said he still does not understand
why that proposal would give acceptable service and yet the service roads and expressway would
not. Mr. Elrod said if a suitable solution is not found in the corridor, and Route 29 North
10. Relocate Berkmar Drive to allow construction of fly-overs.
11. Connect Commonwealth Drive to Berkmar Drive behind 'Shoppers World'.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that there is quite a bit of history behind this particular
connection that Mr. Elrod has not been privy to, but Mr. Roosevelt must find this highly
entertaining.
477
D Meetin
is six-laned, he feels the only solution will be a western bypass. Mr. Fisher said this is
basically a commuter road during the peek hours and he knows that in many parts of the country
commuter roads are being used with reversible lanes. Why have not reversible lanes been
considered here? Mr. Elrod stated he has never heard that discussed. An expressWay would
give an "A" level of service for traffic going to the 250 Bypass. The problem is with east-wes
traffic. Reversible lanes would give a lot more capacity in the mornings and then going out
in the evenings. Mr. Lindstrom asked if all of the proposals by the Highway Department to
deal with north-south traffic, left-hand traffic, and six-laning will take care of that
traffic. When the Highway Department came up with the different alternatives, the level of
service for traffic north and south was very good. The problem was the cross traffic.
Hr. Elrod said that about 7500 vehicles per day use Hydraulic Road at Route 29 North for right
turns. The capacity is only 2000, so the Highway Department is trying to find a way to pull
this traffic somewhere else.
Mr. Fisher said he gathers from the conversation that the Highway Department's staff is
not working on plans for Rt. 29 North and have not for over a year, and to get that planning
back on track some decision must be made that is acceptable to all parties. Is there any such
solution? Mr. Elrod stated there is. The M.P.O. is beginning to get into the realm of things
that the Board told them not to do. If the Board decides that the changes to Georgetown Road
are not acceptable, then they have reached a stopping point. Mr. Elrod stated that Georgetown
Road is basically the ridge line of the watershed. Georgetown carries 8000 to 9000 vehicles
per day which is a lot of traffic for a road of its capacity.
Mrs. Cooke said she is a representative of this Board and the MPO Policy Committee. She
feels it is time to make some decisions. She has not felt comfortable dealing with these
problems until the Board had an opportunity to review Mr. Elrod's proposal and make comments.
Mr. Fisher said the Board must look at the year 2000 as well as what will be done in the near
future. Realistically there is not going to be enough money to do much unless there are
significant changes in funding. Chesterfield County is about to hold a referendum on a $92
million bond issue, most of which is to build secondary roads. Fairfax County citizens also
passed a referendum to borrow over $100 million for roads. Mr. Lindstrom noted that in
~DoIx~n~itt~ Highway Department projections, in about ten years, Albemarle County will be
allocated only one-half of the money it received last year for secondary roads. Mr. Fisher
stated that if the current situation continues, the County will be faced with some enormous
questions about efficiency, how to spend the money, when to spend the money.and for what
projects. That is the reason he raised the question about reversible lanes because multiple
use of lanes during peek traffic volumes has proved to be very efficient. Mr. Lindstrom
stated that the proposal for a western bypass was estimated at $25 million. Mrs. Cooke said
she does not know if the $25 million mentioned at the MPO meeting includes right-of-way
acquisition. Mr. Elrod stated that his expressway idea requires very little right-of-way.
Option five requires practically no additional right-of-way. The original cost of the express-
way concept was estimated at $28,750,000 for a roadway from the 250 Bypass out to Airport
Road (Route 649). The four bridges and fly-overs proposed would not require any access roads.
Adding in the cost of the fly-overs and subtracting the cost of the service roads, the total
cost will be $26 million which would allow $2,700,000 to do ~something else with.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that in regard to the following, items: construction of the
Meadowcreek Parkway (already a part of the planning process, and the environmental impact
study is pending in the City with regard to its connection across McIntire Park) an eastern
connector (or bypass) which is worthy of further consideration, and some improvements in the
vicinity of Rt. 20 South where developers could be required to contribute to improvements, the
Board should go forward with a resolution to support: the six-laning concept for Route 29
North which is already a part of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, plan grade separated
interchanges which are part of the adopted plan, TSM suggestions (ride-sharing, staggered
shift hours, encourage changes in parking policies with the City and the University to
discourage use of individual automobile with a single driver), to reevaluate the adopted
Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Route 29 North corridor particularly where the
Comprehensive Plan shows increased densities for properties which have not yet been zoned, and
finally ask that money available to the County through the MPO ($30,000 to $35,000) be appro-
priated to an independent consultant who will evaluate again the impact of the Comprehensive
Plan changes the County might consider and reevaluate the basic data on which all of these
projections were based. This does not mean holding off on the construction that has already
been funded for six-laning Route 29.r The pattern of development shown in the Comprehensive
Plan for Rt. 29 North is based on data that was generated in the early 1970's and ~e~.l~
significantly higher rate of population growth than has actually been experienced and also the
level of income that was used in traffic generation figures..-r-~-~-' has not increased at the
rate projected in the initial study. ~'~iL~ ~-~~s and ~ith almcst_tcn ycars of
~ these factors should be reevaluated by'an independent consultant. Mr. Lindstrom
said he feels the Highway Department has gone about as far as it will go with the County. It
appears that Mr. Elrod's proposal would delay the six-laning. In addition; there are many
aspects of Mr. Elrod's proposal that are not appealing to some people. The Board is going to
have to accept some of Mr. Satyendra Huja's comments (City Planning Director) who said that
people come to Albemarle County and Charlottesville because these are pleasant places in which
to live and not because there is fast transportation. Part of the job of planners is to look
not only at transportation, but land use, water availability, etc. The County must accept a
lesser level of service than what it considers ideal. Safety is also a consideration.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he believes that all of these suggestions will alleviate signifi-
cantly the traffic burden, assuming continued construction on Rt. 29. When the County
considers changing the land use patterns in this area, it may find that traffic on Rt. 29
North, over the twenty-year planning period, will be at acceptable levels. If the adoption of
option five threatens the County's ability to proceed with six-laning in the future, then this
option is not acceptable. That is a decision the Board must make now.
Mr. Fisher restated Mr. Lindstrom's Proposal as the Board continue to support the
Meadowcreek Parkway; an eastern connector for further study; support the standard proposal for
six-laning of Route 29 North with grade-separated interchanges; ridesharing, change of shifts
and parking changes; and examine the whole concept of Comprehensive Plan densities in areas
that are planned for higher densities but not yet zoned; hire an independent consultant to
help with Comprehensive Plan revisions and reevaluate the Comprehensive Plan using planning
funds from the M.P.O. that were left over from completed projects.
478
August 14, 1985 ~Re-ular Da?~ Meeting)
Mrs. Cooke noted that at the last meeting of the MPO POlicy Committee, it was suggested
that Albemarle County attempt to work with counties to the north (Greene and Madison)
concerning densities and commercial development along the Rt. 29 North corridor. It would do
little good for Albemarle County to proceed with its plans if Ruckersville and that area
continue to grow and allow commercial development directly on Rt. 29 North. Mr. Lindstrom
reiterated the Board's long standing policy of opposition to construction of highways in
public drinking water supply watersheds. Mr. Bowie said trying to solve traffic problems by
putting roads on stilts and widening roads makes big, ugly roads tha~ are just as crowded.
Variable use lanes generally work well. He has a lot of problems with the concept of over-
passes, underpasses and elevated highways. He supports six-laning and does not understand why
the plan presented today, which is just step one of a far larger plan, does not include
six-laning. Mr. Lindstrom stated that the lane configurations presented today is different
from that of six-laning. Mr. Bowie then stated that he does not believe that just six-laning
of Rt. 29 North will solve the problem unless something else is done' The County has two ways
to go east or west w ' ':~
, hlch~the only alternatives; an eastern bypass or a western bypass. No
matter where the County wants the bypass there will be people that do not it. Options 22, 24
and 25 seems to him to be the least objectionable, which has not been ruled out.
Mr. Lindstrom said that options 23 and 24 are part of the Meadowcreek plan already, which the
University is supporting at this point. Mr. Fisher said although this road is to go through
Pen Park, it was in the Comprehensive Plan when the City bought that land, was reviewed when
the City site plan for construction of the park was approved, so should be no serious problem.
Mr. Bowie stated that after receiving a complete review for the first time, this plan
makes sense. There are more alternative ways to get to one place instead of just six lanes.
He does not want to see this plan abandoned. Mr. Lindstrom said that the major problem will
be pressure if the County does not take money that is available for six-laning. Mr. Bowie
said that if money and jurisdictions were not a problem, he would say do it. Mr. Lindstrom
stated that there is no solution to the problem; traffic on Rt. 29 is a thorn and is a
. The County can try to divert the traffic but if people want to drive in their own
car alone they will have to realize it is something they can't do in five to ten minutes.
Mr. Way stated that any tactic used to delay action on Rt. 29 North such as more studies
is a mistake. The Board needs to take advantage of any funding available and not delay the
process any longer. Mrs. Cooke stated that there is no meeting of the MPO for several weeks,
so she had asked that this plan be presented to the Board for its consideration and thought.
If the Board members would like to consider the plan for a week or two and put it back on the
agenda, before the MPO meeting, and then give some guidance, that would be acceptable.
Mr. Tucker stated that the MPO Technical Committee meets tomorrow and it would be helpful to
provide those County members some guidance then. Mrs.'Cooke suggested that this item be
discussed later this afternoon. Mr. Lindstrom told Mr. Elrod he appreciated his work on this
problem. He said it seems to be "fish or cut bait" with the money that is available, and
although Mr. Elrod said that is not so, there has been a lot of pressure recently to do
something. One of the routes proposed today is one which he and Mary Alice. Gunter had a
public battle over, and she finally said she would not ask that it be considered by City
Council.
Agenda Item .No. 7. Report on Road Block Program re:
Board requested a report on this program.
Drunk Driving.
Mr. Fisher said the
Mr. Frank Johnstone, Chief of Police, stated that sobriety checkpoints and roadblocks are
as valuable to the County as selective enforcement and random control. He said the State
Police will participate with the County Police Department in further planning and supplying of
manpower for the checkpoints. Mr. Johnstone presented the following memorandum dated
August 9, 1985 to the Board:
"SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
In the last.few years the public's perception of the problem of drunken
driving has been sharpened due, in part, to the nationwide attention
focused on it by the media and by groups striving for legislative changes,
more intensive enforcement and improved treatment for drunk drivers.
Selective enforcement has long been a tool used by law enforcement agencies
to direct attention at specific problems or to specific areas to intensify
the enforcement of the law or to educate the public as to those specific
dangers.
Selective enforcement-aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road is
generally approached in two ways:
1. The use of specially trained and specifically assigned officers
either working alone or two in a car. They are either assigned as a roving
patrol or to watch specific high incident areas.
2. The use of sobriety checkpoints, usually involving a larger
commitment of manpower at a fixed location which is not normally known in
advance, and usually for a fixed period of time.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Each of these approaches is a legitimate tool for enforcement purposes.
Each has advantages and disadvantages and each can be productive and
cost-effective. However, a comparison between the two approaches may not
be as simple as first thought because of the different objectives under-
lying the use of each tool.
For example, the use of roving selective enforcement units is often seen to
be highly productive. Each unit may make two to three Driving Under the
Influence (DUI) arrests in a five-hour period. But these units and their
work product are normally not as visible to the public as are sobriety
Au ug_u~t 14, 1985 (Regular Day ~eeting)
479
checkpoints. They normally do not receive the media attention that sobriety
checkpoints do, so there is a lessened opportunity to maintain a highly
visible enforcement presence or to increase the fear of apprehension by the
drinking driver. Studies have shown that in areas where selective enforcement
is the only tool used, one out of three drinking drivers feel that they can
alter their driving habits enough to avoid detection or can avoid random
police observation.
The use of sobriety checkpoints, on the other hand, is more highly visible,
and usually receives greater media attention; this, in turn, helps to
increase the public's perception of DUI enforcement measures and, according
to some studies, heightens the fear of apprehension by the drinking driver.
Obviously, efforts can be made by the drinking driver to try to learn of
checkpoint locations and to avoid them. However, that will not normally
happen to the vast majority of people going through the checkpoints.
SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT OBJECTIVES
With the foregoing in mind, our goals for a sobriety checkpoint program
would be:
1. To achieve higher visibility for the County police's efforts to
remove drunk drivers from the road;
2. To help educate the public as to the dangers of driving after
drin][lng and to heighten the perception as to the risk of being detected as
a dr~.nking driver; and
3. To arrest and remove drunk drivers from the County highways.
PLA~ lNG FOR THE CHECKPOINTS
1. Officers: Sobriety checkpoints are a labor-intensive approach.
Howe,,er, given the much larger number of vehicles which we would anticipate
comi~g through a road check, the actual officer-to-driver ratio may be
signLficantly increased through the use of this device.
Other agencies are intere'sted in this approach; the Greene County
SherLff's Department, the Scottsville Town Sergeant, and possibly at a
late: date, the State Police. We would be helping each other by sharing
)wer at
manp,
ment
nary
near
and
rece
duri
memb
by t
repr
and
Drun
Com~
prow
can
of s
task
whic
More
Drur
past
poll
appE
that
too]
rig~
helt
do ~
che¢
Mr. Ac
Driving is'
in the eff¢
It was unf¢
to the Boa]
selected sites, thus enhancing all of our collective enforce-
efforts.
2. Training: A Commander II and three officers have received prelimi-
training and will be observing the City's sobriety checkpoint in the
future. Additional training will take place after those observations
.s planning comes closer to implementation.
3. Equipment: The James River Alcohol Safety Action Program Board
ntly purchased the van which the City of Charlottesville had been using
ng its sobriety checkpoint program and has donated it for use by
~rs of the region.
4. Site Selection: An initial number of sites have been recommended
Le staff of the County Police Department. A meeting will be held among
esentatives of the agencies interested in participating in the program
other sites will be considered and selected.
5. Other Program Support: In July, 1983, an Action Plan to Combat
k Driving in Virginia was promulgated by the Governor's Task Force to
at Drunk Driving. It states, in part, 'The use of sobriety checkpoints
ides an essential component of a system whereby enforcement personnel
raise the perceived probability of being apprehended for DUI...the use
obriety checkpoints in combination with actions proposed in the other
force recommendations, will aid in producing sure and swift sanctions
h...create a higher public perception of DUI detection and conviction.'
recently, the Charlottesville/Albemarle area Task Force to Combat
k Driving also endorsed the use of sobriety check points.
6. Court Challenge: There have been a few court challenges in the
few years concerning the use of roadblock or checkpoint programs by
ce departmentS. The U. S. Supreme Court and a number of state and
llate courts have upheld the use of road blocks or checkpoints, provided
certain procedural guidelines were followed, as a viable law-enforcement
subjecting the motoring public to only minimal intrusion of their
ts to drive on the highway.
7. Evaluations: An evaluation component has been designed which will
us to measure the objectives of the sobriety checkpoints. We plan to
preliminary evaluation after three or four experiences with these
kpoints."
inor stated that the Charlottesville/Albemarle Area Task Force to Combat Drunk
endorsing the use of this method. In addition, ASAP is offering equipment for use
~rt. The Board should look at this as a means of what it means to Albemarle'County.
trtunate that the news media learned of this new program before it had been brought
'd.
480
August 14_ 1985 (Re_ular paZf_Meetin_~)
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. JOhnstone how many officers are required to set up and man such an
operation on an unlighted road with a 55 mph speed limit. Mr. Johnstone responded if the road
is one lane, it would probably take between six and eight officers, and if the road was
two-laned, the department would use eight or higher. Mr. Fisher commented that this is a
heavy investment for a department that feels it needs additional manpower just to manage
normal operations. Mr. Johnstone replied that if the County reviewed the results of the
Charlottesville City program, the City had approximately a 25 percent reduction in alcohol-
related crashes and while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not completed
its evaluation of the program, their original assessment is that part of the success in
driving that rate down is the increased visibility and increased media attention given to that
type of cost. This is another tool in the department's arsenal to impact alcohol-related
crimes in the County. Mr. Fisher stated that he supports the .goal, but is concerned about how
frequently this will be done, how many officers will be tied up and for what periods of time,
and any liability should an accident occur that is in any way related to stopping people on
unlighted roads at the 55 mph speed limit. Mr. Johnstone said even with a single officer on
regular control points, there have been accidents at the scene of accidents. This program
would, of course, have barricades, flares and signs warning the public of what they are
approaching. Mr. Way stated that this plan has been well thought-out and he supports the
program. Mr. Johnstone stated that he is keeping an open mind. There are colleagues of his
who are not sold on the idea of using sobriety check points. That is the reason the police
are proposing to do three of four of these and then evaluate the program to see if the costs
are going to be appropriate to meet the objectives. Mrs. Cooke stated that she agrees with
Mr. Way and feels the program is well worth trying. Mr. Bowie stated that he supports this to
the extent that it is a test to see how it works. Mr. Fisher requested that Mr. Johnstone
keep the Board informed on the progress of the program. (Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at
11:56 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 8.
Report on County Decal Enforcement.
Mr. Agnor said the following memorandum is provided as information and comes about
through a citizen complaint earlier in the year re: the sale of automobile decals:
"TO: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive
FROM: Robert J. Walters, Jr., Deputy Director of Finance
Frank W. Johnstone, Chief of Police
DATE: August 2, 1985
SUBJECT: County Decal Enforcement
The Police Department began its warning/decal enforcement program on April
16th. Between April 16th and April 30th, 247 decal warnings were issued to
parked vehicles. In addition, the following summons were issued for moving
vehicles:
181
9
32
222
No County Decals
License Violations
Other Traffic Offenses
Total Violations
The 247 warnings were issued to 188 Virginia registered vehicles and 59 out
of state vehicles. Of the 188 Virginia registered vehicles, 121 were
registered in Albemarle county and 67 in other localities. A total of 68
warnings were returned with the purchase of decals and 53 warnings were not
returned. The 53 unreturned warnings were not concentrated in any particular
area.
The 68 warnings which were returned generated $1,020 in decal revenues and
$2,365 in delinquent taxes and penalties. Taxes were not delinquent for 52
of the 68 warnings returned. The 53 unreturned warnings represent out-
standing decal revenues of $795 and delinquent taxes and penalties of
$1,244. Taxes were not delinquent for 47 of the 53 warnings not returned.
The aforesaid revenues are only a small portion of the revenues collected
which may be attributed to the enforcement action. The following will help
to quantify additional collection efforts:
March Taxes Collected
April Taxes Collected
April Decal Revenues
Decals (YTD thru April)
1985 1984 Increase Percent
161,370 $ 158,077 $ 3,293 2.08%
357,755 $ 206,925 $ 150,830 72.89%
383,270 $ 333,588 $ 49,682 14.89%
38,055 32,738 5,317 16.24%
The amount of April 1985 taxes collected was significantly greater than
April 1984. Additionally, this significant increase was materially greater
than the percentage increase in both decals sold and decal revenues collected.
It appears that much of this increase can be attributed to the increased
advertising of the deadlines, additional hours of operation by the Finance
Department and especially the public awareness of increased enforcement
efforts by the Police Department.
Both the Finance Department and the Police Department are continuing to
pursue collection/enforcement actions. The Finance Department is sending a
letter to each owner of all Albemarle registered vehicles for which decals
have not been purchased and/or taxes are delinquent. The letters will
inform the owners of these vehicles of their responsibilities under the
Albemarle County Code and the consequences of their failure to comply. The
Police Department will continue to issue summons for failure to display
decals when manpower is available."
Mr. Bowie stated that he thought it was excellent the County collected over $209,000
additional monies apparently strictly'due to enforcement and changes in Finance Department
procedures and he feels that is excellent.
48i
Au~u_st 14x_1985~ar Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 15. Introduce 4-H'ers from Japan who are here on yearly 4-H exchange.
Ms. Ann Perkins introduced the 4-H delegates to Albemarle County from Japan. She said
the students have been here for a month. Mr. Fisher stated he was glad that the students came
here and hope that they enjoy their stay in the United States.
Agenda Item No. 14. Request from Health Department to approve new program and employee
position. (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 12:01 P.M.)
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated August 9, 1985 to the Board re:
Federally Funded Health Department Program Contract:
"(Attached) is a memorandum from Dr. Richard Prindle describing two programs
funded by the Federal Center for Disease Control and targeted for jurisdic-
tions in Planning District 10. One program called Health Education - Risk
Reduction (HERR) would employ a health educator to assess the need and
develop a program for health education aimed at providing wellness and
preventing premature death and disability. The second program would employ
a public health nutritionist and educator to reduce the incidence of dis-
ability and death in newborns and infants.
Both programs require a local government jurisdiction whichwould contract
with the Virginia Department of Health to provide personnel for these
projects to be assigned to the District Health Department. Costs of
salaries and benefits are paid from the Federal funds. With six juris-
dictions in the district, and two-thirds of the population in Albemarle
County and Charlottesville, Dr. Prindle is requesting that Albemarle be the
contractor for the HERR project, and Charlottesville the contractor for the
infants and newborn project.
From a personnel administrative perspective, there is no anticipated
problem with this request, provided the contract clearly limits the employ-
ment to the Federal or State funding. From a program needs perspective,
Dr. Prindle indicates the programs are needed and are underway in other
parts of the state.
It is recommended that the Executive, Legal, and Personnel staff be authorized
to prepare and execute a contract for the HERR project."
"July 10, 1985
TO: Guy Agnor, Albemarle County Executive
Cole Hendrix, Charlottesville City Manager
FROM: Richard A. Prindle, MD, MPH, Director
Thomas Jefferson Health District
SUBJECT: Program Under Contract
Thomas Jefferson Health District has been offered the opportunity to
participate in two programs funded by the federal government through the
Virginia Department of Health.
The first is the Health Education-Risk Reduction Grant Program (HERR)
funded by the federal Centers for Disease Control. This project would
provide a community health educator to work with the health department
staff throughout the district for three years (subject to annual review).
This person would conduct a health education needs assessment among health
department patients, community residents and leaders. An evaluation of the
assessment would then lead to development and implementation of a plan to
address community health education needs aimed at providing wellness and
preventing the leading causes of premature death and disability. Lifestyle
behaviors such as nutrition, stress, exercise and substance abuse will most
likely be targeted by this plan. All of Planning District 10 would be
included.
Two similar projects have been underway for some time in the state. One is
in the Hampton City Health District; the other is in the Alleghany Health
District (comprised of the cities of Salem, Covington and Clifton Forge and
the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke). A third project
has just been started in the Prince William Health District, which includes
the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park as well as the county. Thomas
Jefferson is one of two health districts to be added this year. Because of
the variety of resources and needs within this district, the Division of
Health Education and Information of the Virginia Department of Health--
which directs all these projects--is very eager to implement a project in
this area. Many members of our staff from all local offices have also
expressed a desire to have such activities incorporated into public health
programs, but we have lacked someone with the time and expertise to direct
them.
The second program involves outreach and nutrition services to reduce the
incidence of disability and death in newborns and infants; it~is funded
from the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) block grant administered by the
Virginia Department of Health. Projects under this program are planned for
nearly all the health districts in the state. The project in Thomas
Jefferson will provide a public health nutritionist and a community health
educator to work with pregnant women, women anticipating a pregnancy,
health professionals caring for these women and the public at large.
Direct patient services and group or public education will be provided
throughout PlanNing District 10. A three- to five-year term is anticipated
for the MCH Outreach project.
482
Auqust 14_~19.85 ~eetin ~ _- .- _:
In order to take advantage of these opportunities, a local governmental
jurisdiction or other community entity must be identified which could
contract with the Virginia Department of Health to provide personnel for
each of these projects. Because of severe restrictions on state employment
in all agencies, especially in the health department, the only way these
projects funded with federal funds might be implemented is by contracting
with another entity which would provide the positionls) to be assigned to
the district health department. All costs for salaries, insurance, benefits,
etc. are paid by the Virginia Department of Health under the contract.
Recruitment, supervision, support, etc. is handled by the district health
department through its cooperative budget. (The Virginia Department of
Health is currently negotiating with the Office of Planning and Budget to
raise the agency's employment ceiling. In such an eventuality, however,
the new positions would be used for some of the hourly employees who are
relied upon for routine health department functions. In this district
about 30 percent of our employees are in the group that currently do not
have state positions nor fringe benefits.)
Funds are now available at the state level to hire the personnel for those
projects. All we lack is the commitment from some entity to become the
contractor. We are at a disadvantage with a district that includes six
governmental jurisdictions, each of which is understandably reluctant to
hire personnel--even at no cost to itself--that will work in other juris-
dictions. However, there is no alternative to local contracting, other
than being left out of these federally funded projects available only on a
district basis. There is no possibility that the personnel can be hired by
the health department.
Because roughly two-thirds of the district's population lives in
Charlottesville and Albemarle County and the remaining one-third is
scattered among the other four counties, it seems most reasonable to ask
the governments of Charlottesville and Albemarle each to enter into one
contract with the Virginia Department of Health. We propose that
Charlottesville, which has the higher rates of infant mortality and peri-
natal problems, contract for the MCH Outreach Project. Albemarle, with its
growing population of younger and middle-aged adults most prone to life-
style diseases, is a gOod candidate for the HERR Project. A sample
contract for these purposes is attached. Changes may be negotiated.
I urge you to consider this request. You may contact either Dr. McLeod or
me if you have questions or wish to discuss this proposal further."
Mr. Agnor stated that staff looked at this from a personnel and program need point of
view and recommends authorization of the Health Education - Risk Reduction program. He said
this situation comes about because of the freeze on hiring of State employees. Mr. Fisher
said he knows this situation came about through the Governor's promise that there would be
fewer employees on the State payroll when he left office. Mr. Fisher asked what type of
program this is. Dr. Prindle responded that this is an educational program funded with
federal grants from the Center for Disease Control. The State started this program in two of
the districts and now there are four districts, besides this one. The rationale for the
program is based on the fact that the leading cause of premature death and disability in the
U.S. is chronic disease and that a national strategy for prevention and risk reduction is
needed. Risk factors they will be looking at all relate to lifestyle situations such as
nutrition, alcohol and drug abuse, tobacco, exercise, etc. Another part of the program is to
get the Health Department's image out into the public so the public is aware of what the
Department does and what it has to offer. Mr. Fisher asked if it is acceptable, that this
program be authorized on the basis that employment is limited to the availability of federal
funding and the job will terminate when the funding is complete. Dr. Prindle responded that
is correct. It is assumed that the funding will last for three years. Dr. Prindle said he
wanted it to be clear that this person will be used district-wide. Also, at the end of the
three years, it is hoped that if this program is successful, that the localities will join in
and support the program.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if the Board has to create a new position in the employee pay
plan. Mr. Agnor responded yes; and said that paperwork will be returned to the Board for
adoption into the Personnel Plan. Mr. Fisher said if Mr. Agnor recommends approval of the
request, he recommends this simply in the interest of expanding the program in this district.
Mr. Agnor said he does not like this from the stand point of having to administer personnel
employment this way. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to authorize the Executive, Legal, and
Personnel staff to prepare and execute a contract for the Health Education - Risk Reduction
(HERR) program for the Thomas Jefferson Health District. This contract to provide for employ-
ment of one person whose salary and benefits will be reimbursed by Federal funds. Mr. Way
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 12. Annual Report - Clean Community Commission (CAC3).
Mr. Chick Thompson, President of the Clean Community Commission, addressed the Board. A
year ago he came before the Board and asked for office space to house CAC~ activities. The
County granted them an office. This has been a very successful year. Throughout the last
twelve months they have been able to organize over 1,500 volunteer hours which have gone into
school programs, business education programs and cleanup efforts. The organization has
received various media coverage, two editorials, seven newspaper articles, two television
shows and over 100 radio spots, etc. With the help of the Highway Department, they have been
, 83
/7
Auaust 14~ .1985 (Re-ular Da._-.Meeting)
able to clean up over thirty miles of road side areas. They now operate three recycling
centers. Next year they plan to start a clean business award. They will coordinate with
businesses and award these every quarter for keeping their places clean. Also, they plan to
have another one-day cleanup. He presented a certificate of appreciation to Mr. Rick Bowie
for his help.
Mr. Lindstrom asked when the. next one-day cleanup will be. Mr. Thompson responded in
April 1986. The cleanup will be once a year. Mr. Bowie thanked CAC~ for the certificate and
stated that it is evident tha.t communities which have successful litter control programs are
in localities where these programs are not run by the government, but run by groups like CAC3.
Agenda Item No. 16. Report from Architect on Auditorium Renovation Plans.
Mr. Byron Sample of Stainbach and Scribner addressed the Board. Two major items are
planned for the auditorium; one to improve the lighting system and the other to improve the
sound system. A certain amount of acoustical work is involved in the sound system. This
involves placing curtains on the windows of the auditorium and on the back wall of the stage,
placing acoustical material on the end walls of the auditorium both below and above the
balcony. It has been suggested that speaker outlets be added in the auditorium floor and also
in the lobby. They have been asked to lower the front ledge of the conference table and
reduce the size of the lectern. The proposed schedule is to advertise the project in the
newspapers a week from next Sunday at which time bid documents and specifications will be
available. One advertisement will be for the electrical and sound work only. The other will
be for other items, lowering of the table ledge, carpentry, millwork, acoustic treatment which
will include the Curtains and the track. It was decided that it would be better not to put
all of the project under one contract because one person would have to be in charge and that
would then involve general contractors who would put a markup on electrical and sound work
which they basically would have nothing to do with anyhow.
Mr. Don Stimpson of Hankins & Anderson, Consulting Engineers in Richmond, presponsible for
lighting and sound work, addressed the Board. The sound system proposed has been installed in
Henrico County for its Board of Supervisors and is working well. He is satisfied that a
single microphone will work for the sound system and recording use. He proposes directional
microphones. Mr. Fisher asked the Clerk if she had been requested to furnish information on
her recording needs. Miss Neher responded no. Mr. Stimpson stated that he would be willing
to get the name of the Board Clerk in Henrico County so Miss Neher could talk directly with
this person. Mr. Fisher said uppermost, the Board wants to be sure the public will be able to
hear the proceedings.
Mr. Sample stated that to make the lectern similar to the one in Room 97, it must be
reduced in size (this work has not been included in the bid documents at this time). The
color of the work surface will be changed to something that will not provide as much contrast.
Recessed lights are to be installed from the catwalks and existing attic space. He asked that
someone be appointed to work with him on the colors to be used in the auditorium. Mrs. Cooke
volunteered. Mr. Sample said the existing acoustical tile in the back of the auditorium has
been painted several times, so will be removed and replaced with cloth-faced, absorption
board. In the balcony, where the seats are directly adjacent to the walls, the existing walls
will be removed and perforated hardboard with fiberglass insulation will be installed. The
existing stage curtain is not the full width of the stage so the back wall of the stage will
be painted, as will the end walls. Mr. Fisher noted that would increase light levels on the
stage without an increase in electrical illumination costs. Mr. Stimpson handed out technical
data on the sound system and the lighting fixtures for the auditorium.
Mr. Fisher asked that Mrs. Cooke work with Mr. Sample on the color scheme. Mr. Lindstrom
asked about the status of the public address system in Room ~7. Miss Neher said there are
microphones available which clip on lapels. Mr. Lindstrom said that unless the Board members
sit close to the microphones people in the audience cannot hear. Mr. Agnor stated that new
microphones should not be bought until after they have been tested. Mr. Fisher said he does
not think any microphones should be purchased until the new system in the auditorium is tried
to see whether the system proposed Will work for both the public address system and recording
by the Clerks. A decision to purchase can be made at that time. Mr. Fisher asked the time-
table for the work in the auditorium. Mr. Ray Jones replied that work should be completed by
April or May. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board tried the lapel microphones, and they work, all
the other microphones could be eliminated.
Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Personnel and Land Acquisition. At 12:35 P. M.,
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the Board adjourn into Executive Session for discussion of
personnel and land acquisition. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:50 P. M.
present.
The County Attorney was not
Agenda Item No. 18. 1:30 P.M. - Public Hearing: 1985-86 Budget/Capital Improvement
Program. (Notice of the public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3, 1985
Mr. Agnor stated the proposed Capital Improvement Program is a five-year program
totalling $18.1 million in project costs. Of that amount, the County is expected to provide
$15.7 million. Three million dollars of that amount has already been appropriated for ongoing
projects so the balance of $12.7 million will be needed over the five-year period;
484
~Auoust 14_~_~1985 (ReGular
$1.4 million of that amount is for the 1985-86 fiscal year. There will be $7.843 million in
current revenues during that five-year period, with the $4.9 million coming from existing fund
balances. Mr. Agnor then proceeded to summarize the categories of projects that was reviewed
in detail by the Board on July 10, 1985.
Mr. Agnor stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Bill Brent of the Albemarle
County Service Authority indicating that its Board of Directors appropriated $57,000 for the
Scottsville Levy Construction Project. Mr. Brent requested in the letter that the County
participate-with the Service Authority in the cost of these utility adjustments. Mr. Agnor
recommended that the Board leave the $93,000, that was tentatively allocated for this project,
in the program until it is known specifically what amount will be needed from County funds.
There are some grants being applied for, and some other sources of funds being pursued.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor if the Whitewood Road Park property has been completed.
Mr. Agnor replied that the project has been funded, but the exercise stations have been
completed. The Board does no~ need to allocate any more funds to this project.
Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing and asked for comments on items in the order in
which same were presented. The first item mentioned was "Administration & Courts". There
were no public comments.
The next category was "Education". Mr. Bob Taylor, Chairman of the School Board,
addressed the Board. He expressed the desire of the School Board that communication with the
Board of Supervisors continue to improve as they have in the past year. He stated that the
School Facilities Plan Committee has advised the School Board that the Meriwether Lewis School
should be vacated within two years. In order to do that, construction would need to begin in
March 1986. The School Board does not know what alternative to this school will be chosen,
but there is not time to debate the issue at length. Mr. Taylor asked that the Board
appropriate a certain percentage of the $250,000 contingency in the CIP to the School Board
for planning, and then that the Board appoint a committee to get started on studying alterna-
tives instead Of waiting for the full consultant's report. He will ask Mr. Overstreet to
forward this request in its entirety in writing to Mr. Agnor. The School Board needs
direction from this Board now. Mr. Fisher suggested that a way to improve communications is
that on the question of site selection and other issues before the School Board, that one
member of the Board of Supervisors be included on any committee appointed. Mr. Taylor stated
that.is absolutely essential. He would ask that the people currently serving on the School
Facilities Plan Committee ~ontinue serving'because this study will be a volatile issue.
Mr. Ed Bain on behalf of the Meriwether LeWis-Murray Joint School Facilities Subcommittee
of those PTO organizations, addressed the Board. Mr. Bain Stated that he just wanted to
reiterate what Mr. Taylor said. They urge the Board to go forward and appropriate the
necessary funds for the planning so construction can begin as soon as possible.
There were no further comments on the "Education," category nor were there comments on
"Police, Fire Rescue & Safety," "Highways and Transportation," "Libraries, or
"Miscellaneous '! .
The next category was "Parks and Recreation". Mr. Franz Stillfried of the Independence
ResoUrce Center and a resident of the County addressed the Board. Speaking for himself and
different members of the staff, they are very excited and hopeful that the Board is making
park facilities accessible for handicapped persons. He urged the Board to keep in mind that
the population in the country is becoming older and to plan for the future, the County needs
to make as many of these facilities accessible to old and young people as possible. He thinks
the Board will get community support for this action.
Mr. Way asked if the Southern Regional Park is suggested by Mr. Mullaney and not the
Planning Commission. Mr. Agnor said yes and said the staff is close to reporting on site
ion for this facility.
The next category was "Utilities". Mr. Tom Bruce addressed the Board and stated that the
Town of Scottsville has applied for other sources of revenue for funding of the floodwall
contingency items. As of today, they have not received a reply from the State Community Block
Grant Program; September 1 is the expected date of reply. The town is in full agreement with
staff's recommendation that the $93,000 be left in the budget. The Mid-Atlan%ic Office of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has accepted this as assurance that the contingency items will be
funded. The town does expect the final appropriation request from the County to be less than
that amount. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Bruce if he had any feedback on the application for the
Community Block Grant. Mr. Bruce stated the town has not heard anything from the State. The
application was for approximately $40,000 and went through the Planning District Commission.
With no further comments from the public on the proposed 1985-90 Capital Improvements
Program, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the 1985-90
Capital Improvement Program (set out in full on the following sheets) as advertised for public
hearing. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
HAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
County Projects
ALBEmaRLE COUNTY - CAPITAL ~IMPROVI1MENTS PROGRAM
Total Proposed FundingbyFiscal Year Contingency
Project County Prior For Future
Cost Share Allocations Request 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 Needs
I. Administration and Courts
II. Education
III. Police, Fire, Rescue & Safety
IV. Highways & Transportation
V. Libraries
VI. Miscellaneous
VII. Parks & Recreation
VIII. Utilities - County Projects
$ 10,0o0 $ 10,ooo $ -o- $ lO,000 $ lO,OOO $ -o- $ -o- $ -o- $ -0- $ -o-
14,795,370 12,607,854 2,303,050 10,304,804 394,804 160,000 -0- -0- -0- 9,750,000
1,288,975 1,125,000 675,000 450,000 225,000 225,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
50,000 50,000 -0- 50,000 5,000 45,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-'
835,600 760,2~0 -0- 760,270 121,500 92,450 113,450 146,770 286,100 20-
888,920 888,920 -0- 888,920 413,320 455,600 20,000 -0- -0- -0-
233,000 231,000 -0- 233,000 200,000 33,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
GR~\~ TOTALS
$18,101,865 $15,673,004 $2,978,050 $12,696,994 $1,369,624 $1,011,050 $133,450 $146,770 $286,100 $9,750,000
-1-
Project Title
Total
Project County
Cost Share
Prior
Allocation
Request
Proposed Funding byFiscal Year Agency
1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 Priority
I. ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
1. Old Jailor's House Improvements
$ 10,000 $ 10,000 $
$ 10,000 $ 10,000 $
-0- $ 10,000 $10,000 $ -0- $ -0- $
-0- $ 10,000 $10,000 $ -0- $ -0- $
-0- $ -0- Urgent
-0- $ -0-
II. EDUCATION 1. BrOadus Wood Addition/Remodeling
2. Piedmont Cc~nunity College Addition
3. Asbestos Removal
4. Hollymead School Roofing
5. Burley Baseball Field Lights
6. Western ~rle/Structural Improve/nents
7. Contingency-Future School Needs
Sub-Total
$ 2,303,050 $ 2,303,050 $ 2,303,050 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $
2,200,000 12,484 -0- 12,484 12,484 -0- -0- -0-
71,000 71,000 -0- 71,000 71,000 -0- -0- -0-
160,000 160,000 -0- 160,000 -0- 160,000 -0- -0-
37,320* 37,320 -0- 37,320 37,320 -0- -0- -0-
24,000 24,000 -0- 24,000 24,000 -0- -0- -0-
10,000,000 10,000,000 -0- 10,000,000 250,000 -0- -0- -0-
$14,975,370 $12,607,854 $ 2,303,050 $10,304,804 $394,8.04 $160,000 $ -0- $
-0- $
Under
-0- Contract
-0- Urgent
-0- Urgent
-0- Desirable
-0- Urgent
-0- Urgent
-0- Desirable
-0-
III. POLICE, FIRE, RESCUE& SAFETY
1. Fire Service Training Center
2. Volunteer Fire Departments-
Advance Allocation Program
Sub-Total
$ 288,975 $ 125,000 $
1,000,000 1,000,000
$ 1,288,975 $ 1,125,000 $
75,000 $
600,000
50,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ -0- $ -0- $
400,000 200,000 200,000 -0, -0-
675,000 $ 450,000 $225,000 $225,000 $ -0- $ -0- $
-0- Urgent
-0- Urgent
--0--
IV. HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
1. Hydraulic Road Pathway
$ 50,000 $ 50,000 $
Sub-Total $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $
-0- $ 50,000 $ 5,000 $ 45,000 $
-0- $ 50,000 $ 5,000 $ 45,000 $
-0- $ -0- $ -0- Necessary
-0- $ -0- $ -0-
V. LIBRARIES
1. No Requests
$ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0-$ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $
-0-
This amount represents half of the cost of the project. The Department of Parks and Recreation is also requesting
$37,320 for this project for a total project cost of $74,640.
Total
Project County
Project Title Cost Share
Prior
Allocation
Request
Proposed Funding by Fiscal Year
1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90
Agency
Priority
VI. MISC~.ANEOUS
1. County Computer Upgrading:
a. Hardware $ 431,600
b. Software 404,000
~Sub-Tofal -- $ 835,600 $ 760,270 $
-0- $ 760,270
$121,500 $ 92,450 $113,450 $146,770 $286,100
VII. PARKS AND RECREATION
HANDICAPPED ACCESS:
1. Chris Greene Lake
2. Meadows Ccxmntznity Center
3. Greenwood Connunity Center
4. Scottsville Cormnunity Center
5. Mint springs Valley Park
6. Beaver Creek Park
Greenwood Cc~wnunity Center:
7. window Replacement
8. Parking Lot SurfaceTreatment
9. Outdoor Basketball Court
Scottsville Conmmanity Center:
10. Parking Lot Resurfacing
11. Asbestos Removal
12. Crozet Park-Improvements to Ballfields
13. Burley Baseball Field Lighting
and Backstop Replacement
14. Southern'Regional Park
VIII. UTILITIES - COLIVi~ PROJECTS
1. Berkshire Channel
2. SOlomon Road Improvements
3. Four Seasons Drive Channel
4. Berkeley Storm Sewer-Phase II
5. Lynchburg Road Storm Sewer
6. woodbrook Channel
7. Scottsville Levy Project
Sub-Total
$ 66,000 $ 66,000 $
3,000 3,000
10,000 10,000
8,000 8,000
45,000 45,000
20,000 20,000
10,000 10,000
8,000 8,000
10,600 10,600
6,000 6,000
57,000 57,000
4,000 4,000
600,000 600,000
$ 888]).20 $ 888,920 $
$ 15,000 $ 14,000 $
15,000 14,000
19,000 19,000
65,000 65,000
8,000 8,000
18,000 18,000
93,000 93,000
-0- $ 66,000
-0- 3,000
-0- 10,000
-0- 8,000
-0- 45,000
-0- 20,000
-0- 10,000
-0- 8,000
-0- 10,600
-0- 6,000
-0- 57,000
-0- 4,000
-0- 41,320
-0- 600,000
$ 66,000 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0-
3,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
10,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
8,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- 45,000 -0- -0- -0-
,0- -0- 20,000 -0- -0-
10,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
8,000 -0- -0- --0- -0-
-0- 10,600 -0- -0- -0-
6,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
57,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
4,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
41,320 -0- -0- -0- -0-
200,000 400,000 -0- -0- -0-
-0- $ 888,920
-0-
15,000
15,000
19,000
65,000
8,000
18,000
93,000
$413,320 $455,600 $ 20,000· $ -0- $ -0-
$ -0- $15,000 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0-
15,00'0 -0- -0- -0- -0-
19,000 -0- -0-' -0- -0'
65,000 ~0- -0- '0- -0-
8,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- 18,0'00 -0- -0- -0-
93,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
$ 233,000 $ 231,000 $
-0-
$ 233,000
$200,000 $ 33,000 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0-
Necessary
Urgent
Urgent
Necessary
Desirable
Necessary
Necessary
Necessary
Necessary
Necessary
Necessary
Urgent
Urgent
Urgent
Necessary
Deferrabl~
Desirable
Desirab/&
Urgent
Necessary
Necessary
Urgent
FOR INFORMATION ONLY - NO COUNTY FUNDING REQUIRED
PROJECT
TOTAL
PROJECT
COSTS
COUNTY PRIOR
SHARE ATJOC. PROJECT
TOTAL
PROTECT COUNTY
COSTS SHARE
A. OTHER UTILITIES
Rivanna Water Service Authority
1. Ragged Mountain DamRepair
2. Crozet Sewer Interceptor
3. South Rivanna Water
Treatment Plant
4. Observatory Water Treatment
Plant Improvements
5. Buck Mountain Reservoir
Land Acquisition
6. Lickinghole Creek Basin
Rivanna Water Service Authority TOTAL
$ 250,000
6,469,100
2,833,825
1,372,000
4,877,000
551,235
$15,801,925
Albemarle County Service Authority
1. Mapping of Remaining
Storage Area
2. Maintenance Storage Building
3. Scottsville Improvements
Phase I
4. Brownsville Extension to
Western Albemarle High School
5. Pantops - 250 Extension
6. Annual Water Systems
Improver Program
$ -0- $ -0-'
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
125,000 FY85 -0- -0-
329,000 FY 85-86 -0- -0-
426,000 FY 86 -0- -0-
418,000 FY 86 -0- -0-
140,000 FY87 -0- -0-
500,000 FY 85-90 -0- -0-
Albemarle County Service Authority TOTAL $1,938,000
B. HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
Ce
De
Secondary Road Six Yeaz
Road Plan
HOUSING
CDBGHousing Pehab Center
OCS Discretionary Grant Program
Section 8 Rehabilitation Program
AIRPORT
No figures are available.
$5,604,154 $ -0- $ -0-
$5,604,154 $ -0- $ -0-
$1,042,250 $342,248*
(700,000 CDBG)
116,260 (OCS) *
1,434,240 -0-
$1,158,510 *
See narrative for information.
-0-
*Dollars shown are allocated to AHIP by Albemarle County through its operating budget. Both grants utilized a portion of
the County's con~nittment to fund AHIP for FY 85-86 (a total of $342,248) as match.
-4-
August 14, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
4:89
Mr. Agnor stated that the Board needs to appropriate funds for all CIP projects except
the Scottsville Levy Project, Education-Contingency and Southern Regional Park. All of the
other projects are ready to be funded. The projects total $1,275,300 and funds will be
provided as follows: $1 million from the General Fund transfer; $26,300 in Rescue Squad and
$109,000 from Fire Department repayments; the sale of McIntire School will provide $100,000;
and $40,000 in interest earned on the Capital Fund Balance during the past fiscal year.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following appropriation resolution for the
1985-86 year of the Capital Improvement Program as set out by Mr. Agnor. Mr. Way seconded the
motion. Mr. Fisher said this is not what he thought the School Board's request was. He
thought the School Board wanted the funds appropriated. Mr. Lindstrom said he understood that
as soon as the School Board had a firm dollar amount, they will request an appropriation.
Mr. Taylor stated that the school division will need some funds to allow the committee to
begin its work. To his knowledge it is not necessary for them to have the entire $250,000 in
order to do the study. He suggested that the Board allocate $50,000 to the School Division
for the hiring of a consultant for the study of the Meriwether Lewis/Murray School replacement
project. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $107,000 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the
Capital Improvement Project Fund and coded to the following:
1 9100 41042 704000
1 9100 41043 704000
1 9100 41040 704000
1 9100 41041 704000
Solomon Road Improvements
Four Seasons Drain Channel
Berkeley Storm Sewer Phase II
Lynchburg Road Storm Sewer
TOTAL
$ 15,000
19,000
65,000
8,000
$107,000
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $107,000 in the following
codes:
2 9100 16000 161710
2 9100 51000 512000
Solomon Road Improvements
Transfers from Capital Fund
TOTAL
$ 1,000
106~000
$107,000
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $1,275,300 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the
Capital Improvement Project Fund and coded to the following:
1 9000 05803 975803
1 9000 12200 700100
1 9000 41000 702011
1 9000 43000 701009
1 9000 60763 701010
1 9000 64010 701001
1 9000 71000 701011
1 9000 71000 701012
1 9000 71000 701013
1 9000 71000 701014
1 9000 71000 701015
1 9000 71000 702009
1 9000 71000 702010
1 9000 71000 702012
1 9000 71000 702013
1 9000 71000 702014
1 9000 93010 596003
1 9000 99999 999998
Fire Training Center
Computer Upgrade
Hydraulic Road Pathway
Old Jailor's House Improvements
Western Albemarle Stage Improvements
Piedmont Va. Comm. College Addition
Meadows Comm. Center-Handicapped Access
Greenwood Comm. Center-Handicapped Access
Scottsville Comm. Center-Handicapped Access
Greenwood Comm. Center-Window Repairs
Scottsville Asbestos Removal
Burley Field Lights
Chris Greene Lake-Handicapped Access
Greenwood Lot Surfacing
Scottsville Lot Resurfacing
Crozet Park Field Improvements
Transfer for Storm Drainage
Undesignated Fund Balance
TOTAL
$ 25,000
121,500
5,000
10,000
24,000
12,484
3,000
10,000
8,000
10,000
57,000
78,640
66,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
106,000
720,676
$1,275,300
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $1,275,300 and coded to the
following:
2 9000 1500~ 15010.1
2 9000 18000 189907
2 9000 19000 190304
2 9000 51000 512000
Interest on Investments
Sale of Real Estate
Fire-Rescue Refunds
Transfer from General Fund
TOTAL
$ 40,000
100,000
135,300
lt000,000
$1,275,300
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 19a. Budgetary Items: Amend Education Budget re: Vo-Tech Center.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, summarized the following memorandums. The first
from his office dated July 25, 1985, and the second July 23, 1985 from N. Andrew Overstreet,
respectively:
490
August ~ 1985 (Re~_u.lar Dal Meetin~[l
"Based on the attached memorandum from Mr. Overstreet, the Federal and
State funding for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center
which in the past has been paid directly to the City of Charlottesville as
fiscal agent must now be passed through each locality involved in the
operation, in this case Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
In order to comply with this change in funding method, the City and County
School Boards agreed that the total funding would be allocated on the basis
of the percentage of students attending from each locality which is 30
percent City, and 70 percent County.
During Fiscal Year 85/86 it is projected that the County will receive
$167,774.60 which must be passed on to the City of Charlottesville as
.fiscal agent for CATEC.
I would recommend that this amount be included in the School Fund Revenues
and appropriated in the School Board cost center as shown on the attached
schedule."
"At its June 10, 1985 meeting, the Albemarle County School Board approved a
recommendation to request an amendment to the 1985-86 budget to indicate
revenue and expenditure for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical
Education Center of $167,774.60.
In the past federal and state funding for jointly operated vocational
education centers has flowed directly from the state to the fiscal agent
for the center. State regulations have been changed to require that state
and federal funds flow through each school division that shares in the
operation. The Charlottesville and Albemarle school divisions agreed that
thirty percent of the vocational funding from the state should flow through
Charlottesville City School budget and seventy percent should flow through
Albemarle County School budget to reflect the percentage of students who
attend CATEC from each division."
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolutions.
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Roll was called and the
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $167,774.60 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the
School Fund and coded to 1-2000-60100-600801 entitled CATEC - Flow Through;
and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $167,774.60 to code
2-2000-24000-240222 entitled CATEC - Flow Through; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 19b. Budgetary Items: Revised Data Processing Budget.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated August 6, 1985 from his office to the
Board:
"Attached is a line item comparison of the original 'FY 85-86 Data
Processing Department budget and a revised one incorporating the changes
recommended by the consultant report, with notes A through J explaining the
changes. Line item numbers from the consultant report are not'available
because they were calculated in lump sum categorical estimates, and not by
line item.
It is recommended that the rew[sed line items be approved using the grand
total of the original budget, with the amount for supplies being adjusted
from $16,820 to $16,725 to accommodate the difference between the original
and revised grand totals."
REVISED DATA PROCESSING BUDGET
LINE ITEMS
ORIGINAL D.P. REVISED
DATA CENTER STUDY 85/86
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
NOTE
SALARIES & BENEFITS
100100 COMP-REGULAR
100200 COMP-OVERTIME
200100 FICA-EMPLOYER SHARE
200200 VSRS-EMPLOYER SHARE
200500 HEALTH INS-EMPLOYER SHARE
200600 LIFE INS-EMPLOYER SHARE
201100 WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION
TOTALS
$226,080 $233,672
14,000 I0,000
17,045 17,179
25,930 26.872
7,370 6,700
2,490 2,570
-0- -0-
$292,915 $297,389 $296,993
ao
Au ust 14 1985 (Re u. lar Da .Meetin
-4@1
HARDWARE: LEASE/MAINTENANCE
300500 MAINT CONTRACT-OFFICE EQUIP
$ 43,650
$ 52,420
CONTRACT SERVICES
301200 CONTRACT SERV-OTHER
$ 12,000
$ 16,000
SOFTWARE: LEASE/,MAINT
800400 LEASE/RENT-SOFTWARE
80,320
$ 57,967
OTHER
300204 MICROFILM SERVICES $ 500
300400 REPAIR/MAINT-OFFICE EQUIP -0-
520100 POSTAL SERVICE 350
520300 TELEPHONE SERVICE 4,500
540100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,310
540104 COPY SUPPLIES & EXPENSE 700
540105 DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES 16,820
550101 TRAVEL-POOL CAR EXPENSES 1,000
550300 TRAVEL-SUBSISTENCE 1,000
550400 TRAVEL-TRAINING 4,000
580100 DUES & MEMBERSHIPS 200
700200 FURNITURE & FIXTURES-NEW 3,000
800100 LEASE/RENT - EQUIPMENT 4~500
TOTALS
37,880 $ 33,380
$ 500
-0-
35O
5,000
1,810
700
16,820
1,300
1,300
5,000
2OO
6,000
4~500
$ 43,480
GRAND TOTALS $ 466,765 $455,935 ~:~ $466,860
EXPLANATION OF NOTES
THIS INCLUDES 11 POSITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY D. P. STUDY INCLUDING SIX MONTHS OF
SALARY FOR THE "MANAGER OF SYSTEMS & PROGRAMMING." SEVERAL OTHER POSITIONS WILL
BE FILLED THROUGHOUT THE FISCAL YEAR THEREFORE REQUIRING LESS THAN 12 MONTHS OF
SALARY. (IN FY '86/87, FUNDING FOR 12 MONTHS FOR THE POSITIONS WILL BE
REQUIRED. SEE ATTACHMENT A.)
Bo
OVERTIME (OT) FOR SOFTWARE UPGRADE WAS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN D. P. STUDY EXCEPT FOR
A SMALL AMOUNT FOR BASIC OVERTIME.
NOTE THAT $4~000 HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM ORIGINAL REQUEST OF $14,000 ($4,000 OF THE
REMAINING $10,000 IS FOR BASIC OVERTIME AND $6,000 IS FOR STAFF TiME DURING
SYSTEMS SOFTWARE UPGRADE EFFORTS). THE D. P. STUDY SUPPORTS THE USE OF: A
SECURITY SOFTWARE PACKAGE, NEW SECURITY PROCEDURES AND ADDED PHYSICAL SECURITY.
THESE IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR OPERATORS TO BE
PRESENT DURING WEEKEND WORK BY PROGRAMMING STAFF AND ALLOW PROGRAMMERS TO RUN THE
COMPUTER ALONE.
EXACT COST OF MAINTENANCE ON ALL UPGRADED HARDWARE PLUS SECOND SHIFT MAINTENANCE
ON UPGRADES WAS NOT COMPLETELY COVERED BY D. P. STUDY.
D. SEE ATTACHMENT B.
D. P. STUDY DID NOT REFLECT ADDITIONAL EXPENSES CAUSED BY BOTH THE ELEVENTH
EMPLOYEE OR ADDITIONAL DATA CENTER RESPONSIBILITIES.
F. SAME REASON AS E. ABOVE.
G. ADDITIONAL EXPENSES REQUIRED TO EDUCATE STAFF IN MICRO COMPUTERS.
H. SAME REASON AS G. ABOVE.
I. SAME REASON AS G. ABOVE.
D. P. STUDY DID NOT PROVIDE FUNDS FOR CRT, FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT FOR ELEVENTH
EMPLOYEE.
ATTACHMENT A
SALARIES AND BENEFITS FY 85/86
STAFF SALARIES DETAILED
CURRENT STAFF
DIRECTOR OF D.P.
SENIOR PROGRAMMER/ANALYST
PROGRAMMER/ANALYST
PROGRAMMER/ANALYST
COMPUTER OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR
COMPUTER OPERATOR
SECRETARY/DOCUMENTATIONIST
TOTAL
COMPENSATION
$ 39,090.71
26,332.47
22,152.58
21,612.28
25,063.63
14,558.56
15~295.56
$164,105.79
NEW STAFF
MANAGER SYSTEMS/PROGRAMMING
SENIOR PROGRAMMER/ANALYST
PROGRAMMER/ANALYST
COMPUTER OPERATOR
TOTAL
$ 16,041.78
23,054.90
18,922.00
11,547.60
$ 69,566.28
NOTE
10 MONTHS
10 MONTHS
10 MONTHS
GRAND TOTAL $233,672.07
4@£
August 14, 1985 (Re ular Da Meetin )
~ kKe-u±ar Da- Mee~inz) -~
ii. SALARIES AND BENEFITS RECAPPED
SALARIES
OVERTIME
FICA
VSRS
HEALTH
LIFE
TOTAL COST
$233,672
10,000
17,179
26,872
6,700
2~570
$296,993.
NOTE
(SAL + OT) X .0705
(SAL) X .115
10 EMPLOYEES
(SAL) X .011
ATTACHMENT B
SOFTWARE LEASE/MAINTENANCE BUDGET COMPARISONS
ION NUMBER
FOR CLASS 1SCP
COBOL COMPLR & LIB 5746-CB1
FOR DOS/VSE 5746-RC5
5746-AM2
5746-SA1
5746-UT3
MGMT SYS/CICS 5746-XC4
5746-XE3
FUNCTIONS 5746-XE8
~ICS/DOS/VS 5746-XX3
[NTERACTIVE PROD FAC. 5748-MS1
5746-TS1
/czcs
~ICS/HELP
]OBOL GLOSSARY
(PAID UP THI{U 8/89)
SPREADSHEET
~ECURITY PACKAGE
TO MICRO PACKAGE
ORIGINAL FY 85/86
DATA CENTER BUDGET
RENT/LEASE SUPPORT TOTAL
$ -0- $ 4,200 $ 4,200
2,460 180 2,640
732 108 840
1,620 300 1,920
600 120 720
564 96 660
6,240 1,560 7,800
960 240 1,200
3~840 960 4,800
8,400 1,800 10,200
720 120 840
720 160 880
-0- 1,200 1,200
-0- 840 840
-0- 360 360
5,640 -0- 5,640
1,020 -0- 1,020
-0- 360 360
-0- 60 60
2,880 -0- 2,880
-0- 4,500 4,500
-0- 6,840 6,840
-0- 360 360
-0- 360 360
-0- -0- -0-
-0- 1,200 1,200
12,000 -0- 12,000
6~000 -0- 6~000
REVISED FY 85/86
DATA CENTER BUDGET
RENT/LEASE SUPPORT TOTAL
$ -0- $ 9,198 $ 9,198
2,406 196 2,602
220 91 311
410 313 723
185 78 263
200 65 265
6,265 1,334 7,599
320 209 529
3,910 797 4,707
3,430 1,948 5,378
654 78 732
720 160 880
-0- 1,200 1,200
-0- 1,200 1,200
-0- 360 360
5,640 -0- 5,640
1,020 -0- 1,020
-0- 360 360
-0- 60 60
2,880 -0- 2,880
-0- 4,500 4,500
-0- 6,840 6,840
-0- 360 360
-0- 360 360
-0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0-
$54~396 $25,924
$80~320 $ 28~260 $29,707 $57rg67
]N OF NOTES
INCREASE DUE TO SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT FOR THE LARGER COMPUTER (IBM 4361-M5)
REVISED BUDGET REFLECTS THE PURCHASE OF THE DOS/VSE OPERATING SYSTEM WHICH WILL SAVE AT
LEAST $12,836 PER YEAR. FUNDS ARE NEEDED TO RENT SOFTWAREFOR SEVERAL MONTHS UNTIL
PACKAGE CAN BE PURCHASED AND UPGRADED.
REVISED BUDGET REFLECTS THE SHIFT OF BOTH THE SECURITY AND MAINFRAME TO MICRO SOFTWARE
PACKAGES TO THE C.I.P. BUDGET WITH A REDUCTION IN THE OPERATING BUDGET OF $18,000.
NOTE
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
Mr. Agnor stated the difference between the total of the original budget and the total of
:he revised budget is $95. Rather than changing the budget, he recommends that the $95
be taken from the "supplies" line item. Mr. Agnor requested that the Board
tze a transfer from its Contingency Account to the Data Processing Department which will
the Data Processing Department $466,765 which is the amount originally requested for the
[985-86 budget. Mr. Bowie stated that he has no particular problem with the budget as
zed, but would like to be assured point by point that the County is heading toward
~omething. This department has been held up while the study was being made, but he would like
~ome simple way to track what is going on instead of having to "wade through" forty pages.
are still a couple of areas in the consultant's report where what they recommend and
the County is actually doing are far apart. Mr. Bowie then offered motion that the
~evised budget for the Data Processing Department as based on the consultant's report be
~pproved and that a transfer of funds be approved, as follows. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
Roll was called and the motion was adopted by the following recorded vote:
: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
: None.
Mr. Henley.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $60,553 be, and the same hereby is transferred from the
Board of Supervisors Contingency coded 1-1000-11010-999997 and coded to
the Data Processing Department as follows:
1 1000 12200 100100
1 1000 12200 100200
1 1000 12200 200100
1 1000 12200 200200
1 1000 12200 200600
COMPENSATION-REGULAR
COMPENSATION-OVERTIME
FICA
VSRS
LIFE INSURANCE
31,448
1,000
2,183
3,678
322
Auqust 14 1985 (Regular Da~ Meeting)
1 1000 12200 300500
1 1000 12200 301200
1 1000 12200 800400
1 1000 12200 540105
1 1000 12200 520300
1 1000 12200 540100
1 1000 12200 550100
1 1000 12200 550300
1 1000 12200 550400
1 1000 12200 700200
MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
LEASE/RENT SOFTWARE
DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES
TELEPHONE
OFFICE SUPPLIES
POOL CAR EXPENSE
TRAVEL-SUBSISTENCE
TRAVEL-EDUCATION & CONVENTI°N
FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT
AND, FURTHER, that this transfer is effective this date.
13,770
4,000
(4,353)
(95)
500
500
300
300
1,000
6,000
Agenda Item No. 19c. Budgetary Items: Amend budget to incorporate State Compensation
Board approval for Sheriff and Registrar's Office.
493
$203,691 $203,500 $ + 191
1,500 -0- + 1,500
5,530 4,520 + 1,010
$210,721 $208,020 $ + 2,701
Revenues from the State will increase by the same amount.
Approval of these increases in appropriations is requested."
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion for approval of an amendment to the Sheriff's budget to
reflect State Compensation Board approval, and approval of an amendment to the Registrar's
budget to reflect State Electoral Board approval, and to adopt the following resolutions.
Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion was adopted by the following
recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher~ Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $1,691 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the
General Fund and coded to the following:
1-1000-31020-100101
1-1000-31020-100200
Compensation-Regular
Compensation-Overtime
$ 191.00
1,500.00
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $1,691 to code
2-1000-23000-230201 entitled Sheriff - Salaries; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $1,010 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the
General Fund and coded to 1-1000-13020-100101 entitled Compensation-Board
and Commissions; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $1,010 to code
2-1000-23000-230600 entitled Registrar/Electoral Board; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 19d. Reappropriations.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, summarized the following memorandum dated
August 7, 1985 to the Board:
"A number of departments were unable to finalize projects or obtain
delivery of items which were funded for fiscal year 1984/85 by
June 30, 1985. In order that funds be available to pay these obligations
it will be necessary for these funds to be reappropriated into fiscal year
1985/86.
Listed below are the reappropriations being requested:
1. Board of Supervisors: Minute book, 350; Personal Computer $ 27,925.00
Word Processor) 14,285; Optical Scanner, 11,595; Equipment,
Equipment, 1,220; Furniture, 475.
State County
Approved Budget
Difference
Sheriff's Dept. Salaries
Sheriff's Dept. Overtime
Registrar/Electoral Bd. Salaries
Total
"A comparison of the FY 85-86 Compensation Board and Electoral Board
budgets has been made with the County's approved budget to determine the
adjustments needed to reconcile any differences. Adjustments in appropri-
ations to reflect State approved salaries are needed, as follows:
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, summarized the following memorandum dated August
12, 1985 from Mr. Agnor to the Board:
~-~ ~
Auqust 14, 1985 (Regular Day Meetinql
e
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
County Executive: Furniture
Finance Department: Insurance Management, 300; Computer
Printer, 4,250; Computer Equipment, 14,000.
General District Court: Office Furniture
Commonwealth's Attorney: Office Furniture
Inspections: Vehicle Replacement
Refuse Disposal:
Staff Services:
Social Services:
Contract with City
Office Furniture
Vehicle Replacement
10. Planning: Computer Consulting, 3,900;
Office Furniture, 800; Personal Computer, 9,800.
11. Housing: Computer, 6,700; Computer Maintenance, 450.
12. Joint Dispatch Center: Communications Equipment
13. Joint Security: Sprinkler System
14. Schools-Business Administration:
Insurance Management
TOTAL
$ 665.00
18,550.00
700.00
6,000.00
5,780.00
159,274.90
1,200.00
6,992.00
14,500.00
7,150.00
23,253.90
14,592.50
250.00
$ 286,833.30
Several of these requests are due to the delay in completion of the Court
Square renovations which made it impossible for the vendor to deliver the
furniture or equipment prior to June 30, 1985. Those requests related to
computer equipment are the result of delays by the vendor in being able to
meet their original delivery dates. The request for insurance management
is due to this contract overlapping the fiscal years and not being funded
for 1985/86. With the exception of item 7, requisitions or purchase
orders were placed prior to June 30, 1985."
Mr. Fisher asked if there were sufficient funds left in the budgets at these individual
departments end of the fiscal year to cover these reappropriations. Mr. Breeden replied that
in all cases there were sufficient funds left in the budgets from 1984-85. In fact the
department heads could not have placed the orders without having the funds in the accounts.
The only exception is in the Inspections Department which was $1,000 short for purchase of a
vehicle. Mr. Vaughn has been advised that the amount will have to be made up in the current
year's budget. Mr. Way moved approval of the reappropriation of funds into fiscal year
1985-86 for projects and items which were funded for fiscal year 1984-85, and to adopt the
following resolution. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion was
adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr, Henley~
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $286,833.30 be reappropriated as follows:
1-1000-11010-540100
1-1000-11010-700100
1-1000-11010-700200
1-1000-12010-700200
1-1000-12140-300214
1-1000-12140-700100
1-1000-12142-700100
1-1000-21020-700200
1-1000-22010-700200
1-1000-34000-700501
1-1000-42040-601000
1-1000-43000-700200
1-1000-53010-700501
1-1000-81010-301200
1-1000-81010-700100
1-1000-81010-700200
1-1000-81030-700100
1-1000-81030-300500
1-4100-31041-700300
1-4000-33021-701007
1-2000-60130-530700
Office Supplies
Machinery & Equipment
Furniture & FiXtures
Furniture & Fixtures
Consulting Fees
Machinery & Equipment
Machinery & Equipment
Furniture & Fixtures
Furniture & Fixtures
Vehicle - Replacement
Ivy Landfill
Furniture & Fixtures
Vehicle - Replacement
Consulting Fees
Machinery & Equipment
Furniture & Fixtures
Machinery & Equipment
Maintenance Contracts
Communication Equipment
Sprinkler System
Consulting Fees
$ 350.00
27,100.00
475.00
665.00
300.00
14,000.00
4,250.00
700.00
6 000.00
5 780.00
159 274.90
1 200.00
6 992.00
3 900.00
9,800.00
800.00
6,700.00
450.00
23,253.90
14,592.50
250.00
FURTHER RESOLVED that these reappropriations shall be taken from the
following fund balances:
2-1000-51000-510100
2-2000-51000-510100
2-4100-51000-.510100
2-4000-51000-510100
Appropriation from General Fund
Balance
Appropriation from School Fund
Balance
Appropriation from Joint Dispatch
Fund Balance
Appropriation from Joint Security
Complex Fund Balance
$ 248,736.90
250.00
23,253.90
14,592.50
FURTHER, that these appropriations are effective this date.
~August 14, 1985 (Regular:Day Meeting_
495
"SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
A. Scope of Study
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on June 12, 1985
deferred action on the recommendations outlined in the Athletic Needs Study
pending review by the Department of Planning and Community Development.
The Planning Department was directed to:
1. Prepare a more detailed site analysis of approximately five
potential locations for a softball complex and related uses;
2. Describe neighborhood impacts of the development of a lighted field
complex; and
3. Assess the priority of the development of additional adult softball
facilities relative to other immediate and long-range athletic
needs.
B. Assumptions Utilized by Staff in Reviewing Athletic Needs Study
Along with the Board's directive, the scope of Planning staff review of
the Athletic Needs Study was established by assumptions and recommendations
from that report. The assumptions included:
The Athletic Needs Study stated that a site of a minimum of 100
acres was needed to 'accommodate league sports programs'. Planning
staff therefore only examined approximately 100-acre scale sites.
The development of the proposed 100-acre site would include a
four-field lighted softball complex and a variety of other unspeci-
fied recreational facilities.
The scale of the cursory needs assessment was based only upon the
combined City/County softball needs. Large-scale tournament
quality fields or any additional field development which would be
necessary to attract major tournaments were not addressed in this
review.
The Athletic Needs Study, prepared jointly by st~aff of City and
County Park Departments, suggests that the development of a lighted
softball complex would be financed cooperatively by the City and
County.
SECTION II. SITE ANALYSIS
A. Methodology
1. Site Selection:
The Athletic Needs Study identified approximately nineteen
possible softball complex sites. That report utilized site analysis
criteria which had been generated in 1984 for locating a County Fair site,
since many similarities exist between desired locations for these activi-
ties. The Parks Departments' Athletic Needs Study recommended a site on
Elk Drive for the development of a four-field complex.
The Planning Department was directed to conduct a more detailed
analysis of these sites to result in a reduced list of approximately five
sites for final evaluation. As previously stated, one constraint of site
identification was the 100-acre criteria set by the Parks Department's
study. A computer listing of 100-acre sites was reviewed for potential
locations. Other locations were identified which could be utilized by
aggregating separate smaller parcels.
Analysis was then undertaken to narrow the potential 100+ acre
sites down to the most desirable locations for a field complex. This
analysis was done by reviewing nine site conditions important to the
development of an athletic field complex. The conditions were then weighed
to reflect their overall importance when the sites were ranked.
Agenda Item No. 20. Second Report: Athletic Needs.
Mr. Tucker said that at the June meeting of the Board, the staff had been directed to
evaluate the list of about 19 recreational sites presented in a report at that meeting in
relation to the County's Comprehensive Plan - growth areas, transportation, etc. - and reduce
the list to approximately five sites considered most suitable; make an evaluation of the
effect of night recreation at the City's Penn Park on the park and surrounding neighborhood;
give an analysis of a central site; and, related problems from a planning perspective.
Mr. Tucker then summarized the report entitled "Athletic Needs Study Review, August, 1985"
drawn by the County Department of Planning and Community Development" to the Board:
Mr. Agnor stated that the Financial Report through June 30, 1985 has been completed and
will be presented to the Board next week. The revenue accounts must be held open for 45 days
after the end of the fiscal year before the accounts can be closed and the report produced.
If the report had been presented at today's meeting, some of the revenues would have been only
estimated figures.
496
August 14, 1985 (Reg__ular Da~__Meeting_~)
2. Ranking of Sites:
The four proposed park sites were evaluated on the basis of nine
objective site conditions. These nine site conditions included;
topography; access; zoning; location; population density; closeness to
other facilities; soil types; acreages; and vegetation.
Each site condition was given a score ranging from 1 to 5 (highest).
All four sites were evaluated, after which the scores were weighted and
totalled. This process resulted in a ranked order of the sites. The Elk
Drive site had the highest numerical score, followed by the Biscuit Run,
Hollymead and Milton Airstrip sites.
B. Site Analysis
ELK DRIVE (MAHANES) SITE
Site Description: This site contains a total of 110.57 acres and consists
of two tax parcels 62 and 63. The property is located west of Route 20
North and north of Elk Drive with extensive Rivanna River frontage. It is
located in Neighborhood 3 of the Comprehensive Plan in the Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Access: Elk Drive and State Route 20 from Route 250 East access the site.
Route 20 between Route 33 in Barboursville and Route 250 East carries 2,115
vehicle trips per day. The Virginia Department of Highway~ & Transportation
considers this road to be tolerable. Elk Drive (State Route 1421) carries
495 vehicle trips per day. Given the number of vehicle trips and the
narrow width of this road, the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
considers this road to be nontolerable.
Soils: Riverview loam and Starr silt.
with a moderate flooding hazard.
Riverview loam soil is associated
Zoning: R-I, except approximately 12.4 acres, Rural Area
Assessment (fair market): land, $593,800; building, $67,600 (1 dwelling unit)
Utilities: Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area water
and sewer lines on property.
Favorable Site Conditions:
Close proximity to the City of Charlottesville's corporate limits and is
within the County's designated Urban Area.
Adjacent to existing recreation area (located across the Rivanna River from
Penn Park).
At least 80 acres of site are 'open; therefore site preparation costs are
reduced.
Topography and soils on at least 50 acres of site can be graded for athletic
field development.
There are no residential developments within approximately one-third of a
mile from the site.
Replacement of Free Bridge is a Phase I project and the widening of Route
250 East is a Phase 11 project in the Comprehensive Plan. These road
improvements are not scheduled in the Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation's 1986-1991 Urban System Construction Program.
Twenty-four inch public water and fifty-four inch sewer lines are on the
property.
Disadvantaqes of Site:
Historical properties visible from site include Monticello, the George
Rogers Clark birth site, and Franklin. Night illumination of the complex
may impact views from these properties.
Free Bridge is considered nontolerable by the Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation due to its narrow width. Traffic to the complex
site using Free Bridge would aggravate the existing conditions.
Elk Drive would require widening from its 16 foot width to accommodate
present and future traffic loads.
Power lines located across the southern portion of the property may need to
be relocated. The right-of-way and voltage of these lines is presently
undetermined.
As seen on the map of the site, some areas of the site are subject to
periodic flooding.
Au_9_qst 14, 1985 :(Regular Day: Meeting)
BISCUIT RUN SITE
Site Description: This site consists of approximately 100 acres out of. a
total parcel (Tax Map 90, parcel 6) acreage in excess of 1,000 acres. The
property is west of Route 20 South within the Urban Area boundary. It is
located in Neighborhood 1 of the Comprehensive Plan in the Scottsville
Magisterial District
Access: State Route 20 South from Virginia Route 53 to Route 712 in Keene
carries 3,520 vehicle trips per day. Although the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation does not have standards for tolerability for
primary routes, they recognize that the carrying capacity of State Route 20
South is limited due to horizontal and vertical alignment deficiencies.
Soils: Myersville silt in open areas. Average drainage characteristics,
~eep to bedrock and deep to high water table-
Zoning: R-l, Residential
Assessment: Land use non-qualifying
Utilities: Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area located
in jurisdictional area for water and sewer.
Favorable Site Conditions:
In excess of 150 contiguous acres are open, thereby reducing site prepara-
tion costs.
No residential neighborhoods located within a mile of site.
Soils and topography on open areas of site allow easy grading for athletic
field development.
Current owner of site may consider donation of the property to public use.
Site is located within the Comprehensive Plan growth area and Albemarle
County Service Authority Jurisdictional area.
DisadvantaGes of Site:
Location may seem remote. It is three miles south of the southern corpo-
rate limits of the City of Charlottesville.
State Route 20 South is a designated scenic highway.
require improvement.
Road alignment may
Public water lines are located approximately 1.7 miles from the site.
Public sewer lines are presently located approximately two miles from the
site.
HOLLYMEAD SITE
Site Description: Composite site consisting of eight tax parcels with four
existing dwelling units. Located on the west side of Route 29 North, the
site is located in the Comprehensive Plan growth area of Hollymead and
recommended for industrial use. Total acreage is approximately 126.00
acres and lies in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Access: Route 29 from Rio Road to Ruckersville averages 19,830 vehicle
trips per day. Since this is a primary route, the Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation does not have a standard of tolerability for this
access. The site has a secondary access from Route 643. The 1.1 mile
section of Route 643 adjacent to the site is in poor condition, and averages
162 vehicle trips per day.
Soils: Deep, well-drained soils of less than six percent slope are on a
majority of the site.
Favorable Site Conditions:
Close proximity to the urban area, and located within a designated growth
area.
Topography and soils on at least 50 percent of site can be graded for
athletic field development.
A 12 inch public water line is presently located under the center median of
Route 29 North.
Disadvantages of Site:
Access to site from Route 29 North would further aggravate existing congested
conditions.
Negotiations with four property owners may be complex.
The removal of the four existing dwelling units on the site may be costly.
The closest public sewer lines are located over a half mile from the-site.
498
August 14z 1985 ~Da~__~eetin~)
MILTON AIRSTRIP SITE
Site Description: This parcel owned by. the University of Virginia includes
the airstrip and related structures of the University Airport (Tax Map 93,
parcel 7). This facility has not been used for a number of years. The
site is located in Rural Area 1 of the Comprehensive Plan and lies in the
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Access: Route 729 from Route 250 East to Route 732 carries 2,213 vehicle
trips per day and from Route 732 to Route 1120 (Milton Hills) it carries
1,252 vehicle trips per day. The Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation considers this road to be nontolerable.
Soils: Majority of soils consist of Toccoa fine sandy loam. These are
deep, well-drained soils but are subject to occasional flooding.
Zoning: Rural Areas.
Assessment: land, $242,700; building, $54,400
Utilities: Not in a jurisdictional area for water and sewer.
Favorable Site Conditions:
Flat topography and soils suitable for athletic field development.
Only one neighborhood is within a half mile from this site (Milton Hills).
Majority of neighborhood is well-buffered by existing vegetation and
topography..
Over 100 acres of site is open, thereby reducing site preparation costs.
Low land value assessment relative to size of parcel.
Disadvantages of Site:
Some urban-based traffic would access site over Free Bridge (Route 250
East). Traffic accessing the site from Interstate 64 is not considered a
problem.
Site is~not in jurisdictional area for water and sewer; closest public
water and sewer lines are approximately four miles away.
Site is not in a Comprehensive Plan designated growth area.
Site may seem remote as it is 5.5 miles from eastern corporate limits of
the City of Charlottesville.~
Majority of property subject to periodic flooding.
Site Recommendation:
Based on the evaluation of site selection criteria, the Elk Drive
(Mahanes) property is the recommended site for an athletic field complex.
Major considerations in selecting this site included its proximity to the
population concentration and its separation from existing residential
neighborhoods. Also, due to its size and location, the site has potential
for the development of a variety of recreational opportunities. Along with
an athletic field complex, this site could accommodate fishing on the
Rivanna River, picnicking in the forested areas of the site, and the
construction of tennis courts, basketball courts and bicycle/jogging
trails. The proximity to Pen Park further enhances the site's recreational
potential.
Though the Elk Drive site outranked the other propOsed sites, there
are characteristics of the site and proposed activities that merit special
consideration. These include:
1. Topography and Utilities. Though over 50 percent of the site has
less than six percent slope, extensive grading and smoothing would be
required to develop athletic fields and a parking area. Public water
and sewer lines are immediately available to the site. Large electri-
cal power lines crossing the property would have to be relocated.
Large areas of the site are prone to periodic flooding.
2. Condition of Access Roads. With an estimated increase in vehicu-
lar traffic associated with park activities, ROute 20 North and Elk
Drive would eventually require road widening and road improvements.
Access from Free Bridge is an immediate concern; however, the comple-
tion of its proposed improvements would alleviate this constraint.
Also, the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Technical Committee is
considering a future link between the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway and
Route 250 East that might impact on the Mahanes site, and if acquired,
should be planned for.
3. Night Illumination/Visual ImpactS/Noise. Night illumination of
athletic fields and tennis courts will visually impact areas surrounding
the park. Historic landmarks visible from the site include Monticello,
George Rogers Clark birth site, and Franklin. Noise levels in the
area would be expected to increase, but are not anticipated to adversely
impact surrounding neighborhoods.
August 14,~985 (Regular ay Meeting) _
499
In summary, the Elk Drive property is the preferred site for a sports
complex. However, traffic, noise, lighting and other impacts of this
development will need to be assessed in more detail in planning a park for
this site.
SECTION III. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS OF RECREATION COMPLEX
This section of the report lists the impacts that can generally be
anticipated with the development of a softball complex. Impacts associated
with other recreational improvements are not discussed since an overall
measure of local recreation facilities is not available.
Traffic:
Roads serving a proposed complex will need to have a carrying capacity
able to absorb 1,000 to 1,200 additional vehicle trips per day. These
trips would be concentrated on weekdays between the hours of 5:00 p.m. to
11:00 p.m. Since a measure of player and spectator travel to existing
fields is not available, Planning staff calculated a preliminary estimate
of traffic volume at 1100 to 1650 vehicle trips per day using the following
assumptions:
1. Four lighted fields would be located at the complex;
2. Five games would be played on each field each night; and
3. Two teams of 15 players would use one field per game.
Parking:
Based on the previous discussion of traffic volumes, it is estimated
that between 400 and 500 parking spaces should be available for a four-field
sports complex. During week night league play, many team players and
families will stay for some or all of the evening games. During weekend
tournaments, each field averages 12 games/day. Therefore, peak parking
demand will occur on weekends.
Spectators:
The presence of spectators at adult softball league games is an undeter-
mined variable. Spectator volumes will likely peak during tournament play
when overall traffic and player-volumes are also at their peak. Prior to
any site design, an assessment should be done to accurately estimate
spectator seating demand. The volume of spectators may also influence the
need for police supervision to minimize such problems as drinking in
public.
Noise:
A lighted four-field sports complex would sustain activity until late
in the evening, five to seven nights per week, during the peak season. The
exact radius of noise impact cannot be measured at this time. Noise impact
levels will vary with the clustering or dispersing of the fields and
attendant crowds.
Night Illumination:
Based on current scheduling, outdoor field lights would be in use five
to seven nights per week during the peak season. An exact measure of the
area visually impacted by night illumination of recreation activities
cannot be determined at this time. Factors influencing the intensity of
night illumination include:
1. The clustering or scattering of fields;
2. Height of light poles;
3. Angle of illumination; and
4. Possible buffering of lights by topography or vegetation.
Vandalism:
Although some rural County parks have experienced difficulties with
vandalism, the City Parks and Recreation Department reports this has not
been a severe problem at Mclntire Park (where night games are played). The
most frequent targets of vandalism are the concession stand and the restrooms.
City Park officials noted, however, damage could be minimized with properly
designed facilities.
Concessions:
A concession stand could be operated by a private lessee or by. the City
and/or County. Regular trash removal will be necessary to reduce health
and safety hazards and to maintain aesthetic site qualities.
Police Supervision:
If a central complex is developed, police supervision could be concen-
trated into a single area. The concentration of services into a central
location may reduce emergency response time and associated travel costs of
dispersed field locations.
August 14, 1985 (Regular D~inq/)
SECTION IV.
ATHLETIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT
As stated previously, the Athletic Needs Study prepared by the County
and City Departments of Parks and Recreations, and presently under review
by the County Planning Department, focused on (1) immediate softball needs,
and (2) some limited analysis of longer range field sport needs. After
review of a variety of information, it is the staff's opinion that an
overall assessment of both immediate and long-range area athletic needs is
necessary before a specific type of athletic improvement, such as a four
field lighted softball complex, can be recommended. The only source
available to review overall athletic needs presently is the 1984 Virginia
Outdoors Plan. This plan is based on a regional survey of recreation
facilities, including interviews with some 3,200 Virginia families.
B. Specific Information With Regard to Current Softball Programs
Keeping in mind that softball field needs cannot be evaluated outside
the context of overall recreation needs (both current and long-range), the
staff did request and review very detailed information on the current use
of fields including the number of teams, playing times and days of play,
location and field utilization, maintenance Schedules, etc.
TABLE 4.1
SHARED RECREATION NEEDS OF CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1982 Need Gape
Activity Albemarle County Charlottesville Units
Pool, swimming 4 3 pools
Hiking, backpacking 10 33 miles
Jogging 79 56 miles
Bicycle/work-school 4 3 miles
Horseback riding 12 15 miles
Basketball 31 24 courts
Football 11 9 fields
Ice Skating 1 1 rinks
Skiing 6 4 acres
1990 Need Gap
Activity Albemarle County Charlottesville Units
Fishing 408 1219 acres
Pool, swimming 7 4 pools
Hiking, backpacking 24 35 miles
Jogging 103 60 miles
Bicycling/work-school 5 3 miles
Horseback riding 19 16 miles
Picnicking 64 202 tables
Golf 1 2 courses
Tennis 10 2 courts
Softball/baseball 3 4 fields
Basketball 52 27 courts
Football 18 10 fields
Ice skating 1 4 rinks
Skiing 1 8 acres
This information is based on the 1984 Virginia Outdoors Plan.
C. Establishing Athletic Need Priorities
Planning for local softball facilities requires consideration of both
County and City population needs. Based on City and County recreation
participation records, virtually all City and County programs contain a mix
of City/County residents. Therefore, recreation demand is a City/county
regional issue. Coordination must occur in the planning of future facilities
to best utilize local resources. Presently, neither the City or County
have itemized their field needs in order to adequately meet future recreation
demand. A comprehensive assessment of immediate and long-term recreation
needs should be undertaken by both the County and City.
The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 contains a brief
discussion of the now expired Interim ~Park and Recreation Plan 1980-1983.
The interim plan recommended policies for expanding parks and recreation
services in the County at minimum costs. The highest priority for funding
was established as the upgrading of existing County facilities. While no
updated facility plan for Albemarle County Parks and Recreation has been
formulated or adopted, the County is presently conducting a Comprehensive
School Facilities Study. The recommendations of this study will provide
important planning tools for an overall County assessment of recreational
needs.
The County/City Athletic Needs Study identified the development of
adult softball fields as a high priority item. The recommendation to
construct additional softball fields was in part due to future redevelop-
ment plans for City parks. Also, it was assumed in the Athletic Needs
Study that the relocation of the adult softball program from certain fields
would open existing fields for youth sports. There is presently a shortage
of available field space for some youth field sport activities. However, a
long-range plan to meet these demands has not been itemized.
August 14,. ~985 (Regular Day Meeting..)
Until a comprehensive assessment of recreation needs has been conducted,
it is very difficult to establish the relative priority of softball respec-
tive to other demands. Recreation needs are varied. A comprehensive
analysis should include recommendations regarding City- and County-wide
recreation facility planning including passive recreation '(picnicking,
hiking), and indoor recreation needs, in addition to all field sports.
Once local needs and priorities have been established through a
comprehensive recreation needs analysis, appropriate facilities can be
planned for the proposed urban district park.
RECOMMENDATIONS
BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THIS REVIEW, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:
1. Comprehensive Athletic Needs Assessment Recommendation
A comprehensive assessment should be conducted to determine
immediate and long-range recreation and athletic needs and establish
priorities for development. This study should be undertaken coopera-
tively with the City of Charlottesville to assess which athletic
facilities could benefit from joint City/County sponsorship.
Presently, the participants of athletic programs and the use
patterns of City and County recreation facilities are a variable mix
of City and County residents. Therefore, comprehensive planning of
recreation facilities by both the City and County is essential to
maximize local resources. The proposed County recreation needs
assessment should also be coordinated with the recommendations of the
pending School Facilities Plan Report. It is estimated that a prelimi-
nary recreation needs assessment process would take approximately ten
months to complete.
2. Recommendations Regarding Elk Drive (Mahanes) Site
Due to the very desirable qualities of the Elk Drive (Mahanes)
property and the scarcity of undeveloped land within the urban area
suitable for park development, staff recommends that the Board of
Supervisors obtain an option to purchase the Elk Drive (Mahanes)
property. It is recommended that this proposed park contain both
areas for field sports and other recreational facilities. Overall
development plans for this site should be contingent upon the
completion of comprehensive recreation needs assessment for both the
County and City.
The development of a 100-acre park located in the urban area
offers economies of scale: a high occupancy capacity, opportunities
for a wide variety of facilities, and a maximization of parking and
other features of site development. Additionally, the concentration
of facilities may have cost savings in minimizing maintenance costs
and travel time. The location of some regional scale activities in a
large park may allow development of school properties to be focused on
the needs of youth activities. Additionally, such a facility may
alleviate over use of existing neighborhood based parks.
Additionally, the Elk Drive (Mahanes) property contains certain
physical features which are particularly attractive for park develop-
ment. The site has extensive river frontage for passive recreational
use. The property is well-buffered from existing residential neighbor-
hoods. The site contains many mature hardwoods, as well as an area of
clearing suitable for field development. Access to the site is
projected to be excellent once Free Bridge is replaced. The potential
for a Rio Road/Route 250 East connector in this vicinity would also
enhance site accessibility.
Related community needs which may be feasible in conjunction with
this site include a farmers market or county fairgrounds. These items
should be included within the comprehensive needs assessment of
recreation activities.
B. POTENTIAL SCOPE OF STUDY FOR RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
1. Inventory all County (and City) recreation facilities and measure
existing use. Essential to this process will be the establishment of
an accurate data base of current facility use. This is important to
determine place of residency and examine maximum potential for existing
facilities. This analysis should cover all recreation needs including,
but not limited to: field sports, indoor sports, swimming and water
based sports, and passive recreation.
2. Recommendations should be prepared regarding the number of needed
facilities of each type required to meet demand. This process will
include the analysis of population projections by age cohort and
demand trends.
3. Examine the County (and City) land use plans to identify general
locations where parks will be needed in the future.
4. Analyze potential and desirability of joint planning and program-
ming of specific activities between the County and City.
August 14, ~uiar Da~)
5. Recommend activities which should be developed at school sites in
conjunction with the School Facilities Plan and master plans of the
Department of Education.
6. Provide complete site plans for each existing park in the City
and County indicating the ultimate development potential for each
site.
7. Analyze various financing and management options for park development.
8. Review the needs of program planning and scheduling to best meet
community use of facilities.
9. This assessment process should culminate in the development of a
major parks and recreation element to be included within the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan. The five-year update of the Comprehensive
Plan is scheduled for completion and adoption in early 1987.
Mr. Tucker stated that a letter dated August 5, 1985 was received from Mr. Pat Mullaney,
Director of Parks and Recreation entitled "Capital and Operating Expenses of an "Athletic
Complex". Mrs. Joan Davenport and Miss Patricia Nielsen from the Planning Department are also
present to answer statistical questions.
Mr. Lindstrom said presupposing that the Board would approve this concept, with regard
to the Biscuit Run property, (which the report indicates might be donated) there does not seem
to be a major difference between the two sites and he asked why the Elk Drive site was chosen.
Mr. Tucker replied that the staff is not sure the Biscuit Run property will be donated,
particularly the property the County is most interested in topographically. When discussions
were held, it was more toward the interior of the larger property. The other land has greater
value for some other type of use. He does not think the property right off of Avon Street is
what the owners would donate. Lake Reynovia is adjacent to that property and this would be an
excellent location for the southern neighborhood. A disadvantage to the site that was not
mentioned in the report is that while this property lies in the Urban Area, the entire area is
shown for residential development and an intensively-used park could create a possible conflict
for future neighborhoods. The northern part of the Biscuit Run site is in the northern part
of the County's Urban Area on Route 20 South, and to the west is the Rivanna River.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this would be true of the Mahanes site. Mr. Tucker said no; on the
east side of Route 20 North there is low density; Franklin Subdivision. The rest of the land
to the north and east is RA zoning. Mr. Lindstrom asked the estimated cost of the Mahanes
property. Mr. Tucker replied $700,000.
Mr. Bowie asked the advantage of purchasing the Mahanes property. What is the advantage
if the County does not intend to build a sports complex? Mr. Tucker replied there are uses
that could be made of the property other~than just a sports complex. Even after a needs
assessment is completed, the staff feels there will be a need shown for some type of sports
complex. There are other field needs such as for soccer, a fairground or a carnival site.
Those needs are not continuous uses; they are there for maybe one weekend out of the year.
Mrs. Cooke asked if there would be adequate land-to accommodate a fair if the land were
developed with softball fields. Mr. Tucker stated that the long range needs of the
City/County for the site will need to be drawn up. The original study indicated a need for a
four-field, lighted softball complex. That complex would not take up that much of a 100-acre
site. There are other needs that could be placed on the site. It will have to be taken into
account if an area is to set aside for a fairground or just an area for large gatherings
(farmers' market, etc.). There would be times when existing parking areas could be used for
an event.
Mr. FiSher referred to the report and asked if the site is developed with six, lighted
softball fields, five soccer fields, two playgrounds, eight tennis courts, six picnic shelters
and a junior league baseball field, will there still be room for a county fairground?
Mr. Tucker replied it would be tight. Mr. Mullaney used a study that the City commissioned
approximately a year ago and those were items the City needed. He used that study instead of
just pulling something out of the air for a long-range plan of development.
Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board enters into something with the City, there will be a
battle from now until the facility is completely filled or there will be a short battle, but
he does not feel the battle can be avoided, or can avoid having the facility filled up. He
feels it is just a matter of time. If there is a 100-acre site and the City and County get
together, before too many years, all of the uses that pressure can be brought to bear to have
on the land will be or there will be constant conflict. Mr. Tucker replied that could be
correct, but if this project is done jointly, the County will at least have a chance to say to
what its needs are and the standards for those needs.
Mr. Fisher stated that if the Board decides to take an option or purchase the property
and goes into a year-long consultant study, the Board is moving in the direction of doing that
and no other outcome can be predicted. The Board must make a decision soon as to how far it
will "walk down that road". If all options could be kept open without investing anymore money
than that required for an option, that is one thing, but a lot more is invested if a consultant
study is done and then the expectations are there for many parties. He stated that the issue
is whether the County wants to continue with this idea of a joint facility or go back to the
County's original idea of having only scattered sites. A recreational complex is really
foreign to everything that has been done in the past in the County.
Mrs. CoOke stated that these public recreational programs are very closely related
because City and County people participate on these teams. If it was not for that, then
possibly the County could go its separate way.. This all came about because the County does
not have this type of facility and has not addressed the need which has caused the County
people spill over into the City and use their facilities. If the Board decides not to go this
August 14, 1_ ~85 (Regular Day Meeting)__
5O3
recommended route, then it must provide quickly for its own citizens. Mr. Fisher stated that
those roads go both ways. There are numerous people from other jurisdictions using County
parks. The County has provided certain types of facilities and the City has done likewise and
what is needed is to pool these facilities.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the whole idea of the sports complex is something he does not
automatically gravitate toward. He does not like the idea, but if the County is going to
continue to grow and if more and more of the future growth is going to be in the area around
the City. Where is already substantial participation in outdoor athletics, somehow the Board
has a responsibility to provide recreational facilities. If this assumption is used, scattered
sites will cause a lot of small conflicts at a lot of different places with problems with
police, lights, litter, noise, traffic and congestion. All of these problems may not be as
big if they are all contained at a central site. If the Comprehensive Plan concept is
followed, the very scattering of sites that would generate this type of activity would be in
conflict. If the City is willing to participate, the ultimate scope would be bigger than if it
were just the County, but the County would participate in determining its future. The County
would have a financial partner. This park would not be just for baseball or softball which
makes it a more desirable idea.
Mr. Way stated that he agrees with a lot of what Mr. Lindstrom just said. There obviously
is a tremendous need for additional facilities and especially facilities for organized sports.
Mr. Pat Mullaney states in his letter that, "All of our sites can't be utilized by people just
enjoying them because they are all taken up in reservations for some kind of organized event".
Mr. Way said one advantage he sees to a centralized complex is that a larger number of
large-scale organized activities can be taken care of which will allow more neighborhood-tYPe
activities in other areas. Even with these stated needs in the back of his mind he is
wondering what type of report this Board will receive in October about the from the School
Facilities Plan Committee. As far as he is concerned, school priorities must come before a
central sports complex.
Mr. Fisher stated that he feels the Board should consider doing two things. First, none
of this expense for acquisition or development of a park facility is in the Capital Improvement
Program, and second the property which is now vacant is not controlled by the City or the
County even though it is for sale. He suggested the Board accept the staff's recommendation
to acquire an option on the property for a period of time no less than through December 31, 198
to allow time for planning and discuss financial processes, and discussion of definitions,
since the City has proposed a softball Complex but he is not sure what that definition is.
The Board does not know if the City is pushing this for whether for local softball needs or to
fill up its hotels and restaurants. Before the Board knows the real purpose of this, he is
reluctant to commit himself to the project. If the County can acquire an option at a reasonabl
price for a reasonable length of time, then he might recommend the Board do that to maintain
maximum controll. Then the Board could consider putting this proposal to a referendum this
November on acquisition of a site. Community feelings seem to be mixed on the issue. There
is not a very good proposal to put to County citizens at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Fisher proposes to "punt" in this decision. Mr. Fisher said
that may be Mr. Lindstrom's definition of this proposal.
Mr. Bowie stated that he sees little difference in building softball diamonds at the
taxpayers expense as building bowling alleys at taxpayers expense. Smaller communities he
knows of have built such facilities with money from the private sector. He has no problem
with large area, low density parks since they enhance everybody's quality of life. Nineteen
hundred softball games does not do much for anyone except the softball players. He has no
problem with an option on the land or putting this idea to a referendum, but short of that he
will not support $2 million for four softball diamonds.
Mr. Fisher said if the Board wants to acquire this property for any use, it should defer
trying to acquire an option. Mr. Lindstrom stated that a referendum will not be approved by
County citizens and Mr. Fisher knows that which is why the idea was suggested. It is a very
slick way of avoiding the responsibility for a decision that must take into consideration
people who are not here now. Mr. Lindstrom said he appreciates Mr. Bowie's comments and he
may end up agreeing with them, but he does not want to sidestep the issue by suggesting a
referendum because the responsibility to make that decision should lie with the Board. The
Board is making a planning decision that must be done in the light of 20 or 30 years of need,
not what people right here and now want. This idea only makes sense for the future, not for
now. If the Board is going to depend on a referendum, he doubts very much that would be
sufficient public interest for only this one issue. If the Board is talking about a bond
issue for this project, he thinks that everybody's time and effort would be wasted. There are
simply not enough people in the County interested enough in this idea to support this. Given
the p~pulation growth the County is experiencing, he anticipates this will be needed for the
future. The issue of a referendum negates the Board's responsibility to perceive future
needs. Mr. Fisher stated that is a cynical way to interpret his recommendation, but in order
to go with a referendum someone must design a system and make drawings and define it. Right
now nothing has been defined. Mr. Lindstrom stated he feels it is unusual for anyone to take
that approach. Mr. Fisher said it is because the idea is "fuzzy". Mr. Bowie said if this is
forced into an arena where it must serve other purposes, that is a different thing.
Mr. Lindstrom said he, also, is not in favor of anything that is only for one or two limited
uses; that cannot be justified. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board members would agree that if
there is to be any public use made of that property, an option should be acquired. Mr. Bowie
suggested that staff review the Biscuit Run property simultaneously with the Elk Drive
property. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with that suggestion.
Mrs. Cooke said she thinks the staff has done a very thorough, comprehensive analysis on
the needs of the County's citizens and the staff has made a very comprehensive, intelligent,
well-thought through recommendation. She then offered motion that the Board accept the
recommendation of the Planning staff concerning the athletic needs and assessments and
recommendations regarding the Elk's Drive (Mahanes) site to acquire an option on the property
as a joint venture with the City. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this motion is to include exploring
possibilities with respect to Biscuit Run. Mrs. Cooke said her motion does not include
August 14~ 1985 (Regular Da_~Meeting~
Biscuit Run. Mr. Lindstrom stated he cannot support the motion. Mr. Lindstrom offered a
substitute motion that the Board accept recommendations number one and two, subject to the
Board's review of the terms of the option, and that the staff simultaneously explore the
possibility of acquiring land in the Biscuit Run area as outlined in proposal number two of
the four proposals of the staff. Mr. Bowie said that motion does nothing but get information
on what an option would cost and what is available at Biscuit Run' Mr. Lindstrom said to make
it simpler, he would amend his motion to do just that; the comprehensive athletic needs
assessment can be done in a separate action. His motion just deals with the option and
Biscuit Run and does not commit the Board to the option, Only that the option be explored and
if the terms look favorable, that would be the subject of separate action. Mr. Bowie seconded
the motion. Mr~ FiSher restated'the motion to be: explore options on both properties.
Mr. Agnor asked if this is to be done jointly with the City or singly by the County.
Mr. Lindstrom said it would be difficult to deal with the Mahanes property given the City's
history, alone. As to the Biscuit Run property, there is no need to involve the City on just
exploring that site.
Mr. Lindstrom restated his motion which is to accept recommendation number two contained
in the above ~mentioned report with respect to the Mahanes property, subject to the Board's
final review of the terms of the option. Also, separately as the County, to explore whatever
possibilities there might be for recreational purposes in the Biscuit Run (Breeden) tract.
Mr. Bowie stated that he would like to know what is available as an option and what is avail-
able at Biscuit Run with, or without the City. Mrs. Cooke asked how this is done without a
study? Mr. Lindstrom said just send somebody out and ask terms. Mr. Tucker stated the study
would deal with what uses would be most critical for the community. Mr. Bowie again seconded
Mr. Lindstrom's motion. Mr. Agnor asked if this motion included setting a joint meeting with
City Council or if that will be a separate action. Mr. Lindstrom said that is separate
action. The County cannot deal with the Mahanes property in a responsible fashion on its own.
The Board has to deal with City Council and work cooperatively with them. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vo~e:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke (Prefaced her vote by stating that she feels strongly the need to
look at this proposal with the City and come up with a joint venture. She does not see the
need to go further than the report mentioned. So it will not look like she is voting against
the report and cooperation with the City, she will vote for the motion), Messrs. Fisher,
Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Mr. Fisher further requested that staff try to determine what the City actually wants to
accomplish Other than four lighted softball fields. Does the City intend this facility for
local use versus regional/state tournaments, or what? Mr. Fisher thanked the staffs of both
departments for the work they did on this report. He said it got him to vote a way he did not
think he would, and maybe that is good.
Agenda Item No. 2la. Personnel Matters:
County's Grievance Procedure
Acceptance of Social Services Employees Under
Mr. Agnor stated under current State law (Title 2.1-114.5:1 C) local welfare departments
are included within the coverage of the State grievance procedure. This section of the Code
provides that these employees may be accepted into the locality's grievance procedure "at the
discretion of the governing body". Mrs. Karen Morris has requested that the Social Services
Department be included in the County's grievance procedure. In addition Mr. Agnor requested
that the Board authorize him to notify the State of this action. Mr. Fisher asked what would
happen if these employees are not included under the County's grievance procedure. Mr. Agnor
replied that they would remain under the State's policy. The County's grievance procedure
provides that the person filing the grievance select one member of the panel, the County
Executive select one member of the panel, and those two persons together, select the third
member of the panel. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that these employees be under County
administrative policies. Mr. Way offered motion to accept Albemarle County Social Services
Department employees into the County's grievance procedure, and that the County Executive be
authorized to notify the State Department of Welfare that this action was taken effective as
of July 1, 1985. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 2lb.
Employees.
Personnel Matters:
Retirement/Life Insurance - Part-time, Permanent
Mr. Agnor explained that this proposal came about through a request from the School Board
that consideration be given to providing retirement and life insurance benefits for bus
drivers who are primarily part-time, permanent employees. The approved budget for the fiscal
year set aside funds for this proposal. The following memorandum dated July 17, 1985 was
received from Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Director of Personnel:
"Attached please find the cost estimate for a retirement/life insurance
plan for part-time, permanent employees in Albemarle County. This proposal
is different from enrolling these employees in the Virginia Supplemental
Retirement System (VSRS) as follows:
The proposed plan does not start upon employment as VSRS would. It is
designed to reward longevity with the County, and as such, does not
begin until the fifth year of service. The rationale behind this
proposal is that there is significant turnover among part-time employees.
Once they reach the five year anniversary, they usually are committed
August 14, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
505
to remaining as a County employee. Under VSRS, employees who left
employment after even a few months of service would be due a refund of
County money paid into VSRS for them. The new proposal would
eliminate significant paperwork involved in enrolling employees and
seeking refunds for individuals who are not long-term employees.
e
The proposal would provide a graduated annuity equal to five to eleven
percent of the employee's annual Salary depending on length of service.
VSRS benefits would equate to approximately 11 percent from initial
employment. There is, however, good reason to have a differentiation
between benefits offered to full-time vs. part-time employees. This
proposal would provide an equal benefit to that provided for full-time
employees, i.e. 11 percent of salary, after the twentieth year of service.
The difference is that with the annuity the part-time employee would
receive the full value upon leaving employment whereas the full-time
employee can only withdraw the employee's share of VSRS benefits
unless they retire. This employee's share is approximately five
percent of salary and is available only to those hired after July, 1980.
The proposal provides the same life insurance benefit as that provided
under VSRS, i.e. a term policy equal to twice the annual salary and
providing an accidental death and dismemberment clause. The life
insurance would be effective from the initial date of employment. The
County could also allow full-time employees to purchase this additional
life insurance at their own expense.
The proposal represents a significant savings to the County over the
VSRS option. Life insurance under this proposal would be approximately
45 cents per thousand dollars of payroll vs. 60 cents per thousand
under VSRS. The annuity plan, because of its graduated nature based
on service, will cost $40,679 annually vs. nearly $100,000 for VSRS.
The total cost of the plan, $53,488, would be divided as follows:
$49,847 School Division, $ 3,641 Local Government.
In summary, the proposal would provide a retirement and life insurance plan
for part-time employees that would be an incentive for long-term County
Service and be a cost-effective means of providing such benefits.
Mr. Agnor said that in order to put this plan into effect, the following personnel policy
need to be adopted.
LONGEVITY INCENTIVE PROGRAM
The County values the service of all of its employees, both full-time and
part-time. Since part-time employees are not covered under some benefit
programs, i.e. retirement and life insurance, the County has an interest in
establishing a program which encourages these individuals to increase their
longevity with the County.
SCOPE OF PROGRAM: Ail permanent, part-time employees of the County will be
covered by the program providing they meet the minimum work hours require-
ment for benefits and are not elected or appointed members of boards and
commissions.
BENEFITS:
LIFE INSURANCE: A term life insurance policy will be provided
equal to twice the employee's annual salary with double indemnity
for accidental death and dismemberment payments for the
accidental loss of one or more limbs or of eyesight.
ANNUITY PROGRAM: Based on length of service in the County,
part-time employees will be provided with an annuity program
according to the following:
Five years up to 10 years of County service--
annuity equal to five percent of annual salary.
be
Ten years up to 15 years of County service--
annuity equal to seven percent of annual salary.
Fifteen years up to 20 years of County service--
annuity equal to nine percent of annual salary.
de
Above 20 years o'f County service--
annuity equal to eleven of annual salary."
Mr. Agnor stated that if the Board accepts this proposal, the proposal will then go to
the School Board for approval. If the School Board is in agreement with this proposal, it
will take approximately 60 days to get the plan into operation.
Mr. Fisher noted that there were several employees present who want to speak about this
proposal.
Mrs. Katherine Burton speaking on behalf of the Transportation Advisory Committee of bus
drivers addressed the Board. She stated that the Committee has reviewed the plan. More than
two-thirds of the bus drivers have been with the County more than five years, most between ten
August 14
1985 (Regular D~
and fifteen years. This plan would help compensate some of the bus drivers for long hours
without benefits. This plan would enable the drivers to feel they have been heard and given
something for their service. It is a plan that will help lift the morale of the drivers.
Mr. Kenneth Wade of the Advisory Committee next addressed the Board. He stated that this
is a good plan and he thanked the Board for considering it.
Mr. Agnor said if the County starts making contributions on a monthly basis immediately
and then next year someone decides to retire, that one year's contribution will be'available
to the person who could draw the amount out in one lump sum, or on a monthly basis. The
person does not have to wait five years or for vested rights. There are no vested rights in
an annuity program. Mr. 'Fisher stated that if a driver has 15 years service now, the County
will start putting in nine percen~ of his salary. Mr. Agnor stated that is correct. For a
driver who has less than five years, there is no contribution made. This is a benefit for the
person who has been employed for a number of years.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the County approve the proposed retirement/life
insurance plan for part-time, permanent employees as outlined in memorandum from Carole A.
Hastings dated July 17, 1985, and set out above. The proposed plan must be forwarded to the
School Board for its consideration and approval. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 21c. Personnel Matters: Delineate Territory for Annual Salary Survey.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from himself to the Board dated August 7, 19
(Mr. Way left the meeting at 3:51 P.M.)
"Prior to conducting an annual salary survey, it is my understanding the
Board wanted to define the market area that would be considered acceptable
for salary comparisons. The staff in earlier years has used a market area
of approximately fifty miles, considered to be an appropriate commuting
distance, and has also used selected communities of comparable operations
without following a defined market area. The fifty mile radius had a
limitation of very few localities of comparable operational size, and the
selected community procedure was perceived to have the problem of potential
applicants for most staff positions having to relocate rather than commute
to a new job.
Comments have been considered that we should survey state-wide for depart-
ment head comparisons, but use a more limited area for staff positions. To
assure commonality in reviewing data with our two primary local competitors,
(the City and the University), it has been proposed that our market area be
defined the same as theirs, which is a statewide survey for all positions.
It is recognized that clerical employees, for example, would not apply for
work in Albemarle from Roanoke or Norfolk. But, it is also recognized,
that averages from statistical surveys, which may ultimately assign salaries
to positions, may vary the results slightly if the market area from which
statistics are gathered is different. We do want to remain competitive
with the City and University for staff positions. It is therefore important
that staff positions,~ as well as department heads, be surveyed similarly.
It is recommended that a statewide market area be used.
approval, are requested."
Your comments, and
Mr. Fisher said he studied the last survey in great detail and the term state-wide survey
is terribly misleading. When using that term it makes people think the County is looking at
every locality in the State which is not the case, the county is only looking at selected
localities around the State. The most urban areas are the ones that seem to be picked and he
is not sure that is a valid basis on which to do this. He stated that he has suggested that
the County use local data for clerical levels up to a certain grade, and for department heads
and assistants a broader market could be used. The only other option is to prepare jointly
with the City a salary survey. He cannot understand why the County and City do separate
surveys. If the County is going to do the same thing the City is doing, they should do it
together to try and save money. Mr. Bowie said that if the City and University are already on
a state-wide system and the County compares with them, we should know what the parameters of
the state-wide system are. He further stated that he is in support of the original position
that for anything other than department heads and senior positions, it should be a market-
place comparison. The County competes within computing distance and that should be the market
survey area. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to return to the practice used in past years of
conducting the annual salary survey within a fifty-mile radius of Charlottesville, that area
considered to be within commuting distance, for classifications below department head level.
Mr. Agnor noted that smaller counties such as Fluvanna and Greene were not included in the
survey. Since Charlottesville City and the University of Virginia are the biggest competitors
in the local market, Mr. Agnor said just looking at those salary scales to be sure the County
stays competitive because there are no mean averages to study. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
foregoing motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Mr. Agnor said the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia Municipal League did
a salary survey for localities, but this survey does not work on the County budget cycle.
August 14~ 1985 (Regular Day M~eting)
507
Agenda Item No. 21d. Personnel Matters: Employees not Receiving Four Percent General
Salary Increase.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from himself to the Board dated August 7, 19
"When the Pay and Classification revisions were made, reductions in salary
ranges resulted in the existing salaries of five employees ending above the
top step of the revised salary range for their position. Ail employees
were assured that the reclassification would not lower their current
salaries.
When ranges are raised or lowered by reclassification, existing salaries
are not similarly raised or lowered. When an existing salary ends up being
above the salary range, it becomes frozen until the salary range catches up
via annual increases in the range, usually referred to as cost-of-living
increases, or by future reclassifications.
The five employees affected by the recent revision were of the opinion they
were entitled to the four percent general increase given on July 1. My.
response was that the general increase is an overall salary range adjustment
to assure that our range remains competitive, and is not a guaranteed
annual cost of living increase to each employee.
This memorandum is for your information. If you have questions or concerns
with this procedure or my response to the employees please advise."
Mr. Agnor stated that he brought this to the attention of the Board because he did not
want the members to hear of this secondhand and to see if there were any questions or concerns
about the procedure for administering the pay plan. Mr. Agnor said he has discussed this with
Mrs. Carole Hastings, Mr. Ray Jones, Mr. Robert Tucker, and several department heads.
Mr. Fisher stated he felt Mr. Agnor's interpretation was correct. If people get a raise when
they are above the salary range it defeats the purpose. He did not realize this was going to
happen. They do not ~ anything, just don't get the four percent increase. Mr. Agnor said
that was correct. There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 21e. Personnel Matters: Revisions: Classification Plan.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from himself to the Board dated August 8, 19
"When the Pay and Classification Plan was amended in May, I indicated there
were several positions which needed further review and possible amendment,
and these positions would be studied and amendments, if any, requested at a
later date.
The positions known at that time were Account Clerks I, II, and III,
Engineering Technician, and Appraiser I, II. Department heads added
Eligibility Supervisor and Zoning Inspector for reconsideration.
Of these positions, only Engineering Technician is recommended for
amendment. The job description and duties of this position are comparable
to a Construction Inspector both in the State Highway Department and in the
Charlottesville City classification plans. An Engineering Technician is a
title used for duties different from inspection work.
The County's Technician performs construction inspection and soil erosion
inspection duties. The distinction or difference in the titles between a
technician and inspector were not recognized in the Pay and Classification
survey and revisions. Those revisions reclassified the County's
Engineering Technician from a range 16 ($17,738 - $25,064) to a range 14
($16,070 - $22,706). The comparable positions in the State Highway
Department are $17,512 - $23,934 and in the Charlottesville Plan $17,784 -
$23,862.
It is recommended that the County's Engineering Technician position be
retitled to Engineering Inspector, and the range restored to range 16
($17,738 - $25,064).
In a later report, new classified positions may be presented for your
consideration and approval to distinguish between assigned duties in tax
assessment, cashier and accounting clerks in the Finance Department. The
need for these new titled positions was determined in the review of the
Account Clerk classifications, and in a reorganization plan which the
Director of Finance is considering. No amendments from your May approval
are needed, and the reorganization plan needs further study by this office.
Approval of the Engineering Inspector at Range 16, is requested,
retroactively effective to July 1, 1985 to coincide with the May adoption
of the Classification Plan, which was effective July 1.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve the "Engineering Technician" position being retitled
"Engineering Inspector" and the position range being restored to a range 16 from a range 14.
This change to be retroactive to July 1, 1985. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
5O8
August 14, 1985 (Regular D_~ Meeti~
Agenda Item No. 21f. Personnel Matters: Personnel Policy Manual.
Mr. Agnor suggested that the Board set a work session for September 4, 1985 at 3:00 P.M.
to go through the proposed Personnel Policy Manual in detail. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to
set a work session for Wednesday, September 4, 1985 at 3:00 P.M. to review the proposed
Personnel Policy Manual. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
At this time, the Board returned to the morning part of the agenda to consider certain
items which had not been discussed because of time constraints.
Agenda Item No. 9. Resolution: Fish Passage Facilities on the James River.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from himself dated July 31, 1985 to the
Board re: Resolution to Area State Legislators and Virginia Commission of Game and Inland
Fisheries regarding Fish Passage Facilities on the James River:
"Reverend Way has requested staff to review A Paper of Position and
Petition by Concerned Sportsmen prepared by Mr. R. C. Watkins and the
Concerned Sportsmen's Cause of Central Virginia. The specific section of
the paper we were requested to review concerned a proposal to construct and
maintain fish passage facilities in the Richmond area of the James River.
At one time the James River and its tributaries, as far up stream as
Lynchburg, serVed as spawning grounds for several species of anadromous ~
fish (salt water fish which spawn in fresh water), mainly shad, herring and
striped bass. In the early 1800's, however, a series of dams constructed
in the Richmond area blocked the migration of these fish.
Based upon a feasibility study authorized by Joint House Resolution No. 233
in February, 1981, the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries indicates
that fish passage facilities properly constructed and maintained at five
dams in the Richmond area, would allow these species to return to their
natural spawning ground. If these facilities were installed, it could be
financially beneficial to the southern area of the County as well as
improve sport fishing opportunities to area residents.
If the Board of Supervisors wishes to support this project, a resolution to
our General Assembly representatives, with a copy to the Commission of
Game and Inland Fisheries, would be appropriate."
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution. Mr. Bowie seconded the
notion. Roll was called and the resolution was adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors supports
the findings of the feasibility study authorized by Joint House Resolution
No. 233 (February, 1981), which indicates that the construction of fish
passage facilities ~on dams in the Richmond area of the James River could
allow for anadromous species of fish to return to their natural spawning
grounds as far upstream as Lynchburg, Virginia. It is believed that this
construction would enhance the sport fishing and support businesses along
the James River in Albemarle County.
Agenda Item No. 10. Compensation: Social Services Board.
Mr. Agnor~stated that the staff recommended that the Welfare Board be brought under the
Equalization of Pay Ordinance so their pay per meeting would be reduced to $25.00 instead of
the $33.3'3 they currently receive. The Welfare Board was notified of the proposed change and
staff members met with the Board Chairman, Mrs. Regina Withers, and the Welfare Board has
requested that the change not be made. Mr. Agnor stated that he would recommend that this
matter be dropped. Mr. Bowie said he disagrees because other Board members receive only
$25.00. Mr. Agnor said they are of the opinion that being a policy making board that their
services are of more value than some of the other boards covered by that ordinance. He plans
to recycle this item at budget time. No action was taken.
Agenda Item No. 11. Tentative Allocation of Space in Court Square Buildings.
Mr. Agnor said the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) will occupy all of the
first floor in the Old Jailor's House with a State agricultural office on the second floor
leaving two small offices vacant in that building. In the Old Real Estate building, space for
the Emergency Medical Services Council and an office of OIC has been provided. The Chairman
passed to him a request for several hundred square feet for a group called the Community
Mediation Center on an interim basis free of cost. Mr. Ray Jones received a call from a
member of the Board of Directors of the Mediation Center stating the Center has budgeted $200
a month for rent and the Mediation Board may authorize paying the $272.67 a month value of the
1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
509
square footage of space that was offered to them in the Old Real Estate Building. Mr. Agnor
said there was no action for this Board to take until the Mediation Board has its meeting.
Mr. Bowie said he would object to putting this into the budget by the "back door", giving free
space and then funding the space. No action was taken on this matter.
Agenda Item No. 13. Funding of Personnel to Administer SectiOn 8 Moderate Rehabilitation
Program. Mr. Agnor summarized the following letters to the Board:
"TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive
August 2, 1985
Funding of Personnel to Administer Section 8 Moderate
Rehabilitation Center
With the award of the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program Grant
earlier this month, staff is requesting an initial appropriation of $19,580
to fund the salary of an administrative assistant position to begin the
implementation of the program. This position, as well as others that will
be needed in the future to administer the program, is fully reimbursable
through the grant. Additional appropriation needs for other staff
positions and office operating expenses will be prepared after the scope of
the office needs can be accurately determined.
I have attached for your information a copy of a memorandum from Ms.
Katherine L. Imhoff, Chief of Community Development, which explains the
initial responsibilities of this position. Should you have any questions
concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me."
"TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive
Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Chief of Community Planning
July 30, 1985
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program
As you are aware, the County of Albemarle signed on July 2, 1985 a contract
with the Department of Housing and Urban Development for an annual
contributions authority of $1,434,240 to rehabilitate 240 rental units.
With the execution of this contract, the County is now able to initiate the
Moderate Rehabilitation Program. The County received special consideration.
from HUD in that a variety of budgetary information and forms were not
required to be submitted prior to the ACC execution. However, the County
will not be able to access grant monies until these forms are submitted.
Albemarle County will, however, be reimbursed for expenses. Given the
volume of work required to get this program going, in particular to submit
the required financial forms, the Department of Planning & Community
Development requests to fill one position for management of this grant as
soon as possible. This position's salary will be reimbursed under the
grant and is considered by HUD to be an appropriate preliminary eXpense.
In addition, a portion of the Chief of Community Development's salary will
be reimbursed by HUD as well for all preliminary work.
The new position, the Moderate Rehabilitation Housing administrative
assistant, in conjunction with the Chief of Community Development, will be
working on the following items during the next three months:
Completion of HUD 52671, 52672, 52673 forms:
payment, and program schedule forms;
budgetary, partial
Development of informational packet for owners;
Advertisement for request for proposals (RFP) and follow-up with
interested parties;
Pre-proposal conferences with owners and local lending institutions;
Contact and coordination with community organizations;
Variety of required equal opportunity employment actions including
contact with minority contractors;
Required amendments to Equal Opportunity Plan;
Hiring additional staff for program.
A description of the requirements for this position and salary range is
attached. The Department of Planning & Community Development looks forward
to the initiation of this program."
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following appropriation resolution in order to
fund the salary of an administrative assistant to implement the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilita-
tion Program. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
5].O
August 14, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $19,580 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the
Grant Fund and coded to 1-1227-81900-100100 entitled Compensation; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $19,580 to code
2-2227-33000-330001 entitled Federal Grant Revenue Moderate Rehabilitation
Grant; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 22. ZTA-85-3. Amend Zoning Ordinance to Delete Bonus Factors (deferred
!rom July 17, 1985). Mr. Tucker said at the work session on July 17, it was decided to strip
Lll of the changes which had been agreed to into a copy of the ordinance so they might be
· eadily seen.
Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development
the Board. She reviewed the changes recommended by the Planning Commission and the
agreed to at the work session. Ms. Scala proceeded to summarize changes to the bonus
Irovisions; the Board proposed to keep four bonuses out of the seven. They are as follows:
2.
3.
4.
Low and moderate cost housing would stay at a 30 percent density
increase;
Dedication of land to public use stays the same and allows up to a 15
percent increase in density;
For using an internal road system, decrease the density increase from
20 to 10 percent;
Maintenance of wooded areas which now allows a 10, 15 or 20 percent
increase depending on the district, would change to a 5 to 10 percent
increase.
The remaining three bonuses were deleted:
Locational standards which allowed a five percent increase;
Significant landscaping which allowed 10, 20 or 25 percent increase
depending on the district;
For construction of a pedestrian system a five percent increase was
allowed.
Two new bonuses were added:
Street trees in the lower density zones which allowed a five percent
increase;
To allow a density increase up to 20 percent for road improvements to
public roads.
In addition to the Changes in the bonUses there were are several other changes:
Under Section 2.4.1 - Application of Bonuses Factors, it now states
that the resulting density shall not exceed the recommended density
shown in the Comprehensive Plan;
Under Section 2.4.-2 - Procedures--Generally, it now states that
following the approval of a plan or plat which utilizes a bonus
provision, such density increase shall be designated on the official
Zoning Map with an appropriate symbol for reference purposes;
Under "Area and Bulk Regulations" in the RA district, "conventional
development" and "standard development" were struck since those terms
had no meaning;
Under the Village Residential Statement of Intent, "and/or yard" was
struck because this did not provide an incentive for decreasing yard
requirements;
Under Section 19~i, the PRD Statement of Intent, the last paragraph was reworded. At the
.ast work session, there was some discussion as to whether the language meant it was compulsory
)r voluntary to submit a PRD plan for projects in ~$~c~ of 15 dwelling units per acre. The
.ntent was not make it compulsory, although it would be a good idea. If the bonuses are
~dopted as now proposed, there are two ways in which a developer can exceed 15 dwelling units
)er acre: 1) use the maximum number of bonuses allowed in a district; and 2) go through the
· The PRD is not the only way to exceed 15 units an acre. Ms. Scala said she feels the
Language of the paragraph be left as-presently written. Mr. Fisher suggested that instead of
it is specifically intended" that the wording be "it is recommended but not required".
Mr. Fisher said he feels these amendments make a better Plan and he would like to see the
.hanges adopted. Mr. Bowie said his original reaction was to "scrap" all of the bonuses, but
now supports these changes. He then offered motion to adopt ZTA-85-3 by amending and
~eadopting certain sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as set out in the
~ollowing ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion saying he was not too excited about
at the work session, but is willing to support the changes now. Roll was called and the
carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Au_g_ust 14_~ 1985 (Re:gular Day Meeting)~
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended
and reenacted through the following changes:
SECTION 2.0 - APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS
2.4..1 - Application of Bonus Factors - Amend the first
paragraph to read:
Bonus factors shall be applied to the gross density-standard level in
accordance with the regulations of the applicable district, except
that the resulting density shall not exceed the recommended density
shown in the comprehensive plan.
2.4.2 - Procedures--Generally - Add the following
paragraph:
Following the approval of a plan or plat which utilizes a bonus
provision, such density increase shall be designated on the official
zoning map with an appropriate symbol for reference purposes.
SECTION 10.0 - RURAL AREAS DISTRICTt RA
10.4 - Area and Bulk Regulations - Delete chart titles Conven-
tional Development and Standard Development. Chart will now read:
REQUIREMENTS DIVISIONS BY RIGHT DIVISIONS BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Sross Density 0.5 du/ac 0.5 du/ac
~inimum lot size 2.0 acres 2.0 acres
Minimum frontage
existing public
roads 250 feet 250 feet
~inimum frontage
Lnternal public
)r private roads 150 feet 150 feet
~ards, minimum:
Front 75 feet 75 feet
Side 25 feet 25 feet
Rear 35 feet 35 feet
~aximum
~tructure
35 feet 35 feet
12.0 - VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL~ VR
12.1 - Intent, Where Permitted - Amend sentence reading:
"-Provides incentives for residential development by allowing
variations in lot size, density, and/or yard requirements;"
Sentence will now read:
"-Provides incentives for residential development by allowing varia-
tions in lot size, density and frontage requirements;"
12.4.1 - Environmental Standards - Delete all of the existing
language and in its place put the following paragraphs:
For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to: ten (10) percent
to nineteen (19) percent of the site, a density increase of five (5)
percent shall be granted; twenty (20) percent or greater of the site,
a density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted.
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified
in section 32.8.2.3 shall be required.
For provision of significant landscaPing in the form of street trees
as specified in section 32.8.4, -a density increase of five (5) percent
shall be granted. This bonus shall not be granted if existing trees
along road frontages have been needlessly removed.
12.4.2 - Development Standards - Amend language of first
paragraph to read:
For~serving all lots with an internal road system which is the sole
a~cess to the existing state-maintained road system, a ten (10)
percent density increase shall be granted.
Delete second paragraph concerning low and/or moderate cost
housing and add a paragraph reading:
512
August 14, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
For provision of road improvements to secondary or primary roads not
otherwise required by this ordinance or Chapter 18 of the Code of
Albemarle, a density increase up to twenty (20) percent shall be
granted, to be agreed upon by the commission and the applicant, based
upon the relative need for transportation improvements in the area.
The need for such improvements shall be established by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation.
Change existing section 12.4.3 to be a section entitled Low
and Moderate Cost Housing reading:
For provision of low or moderate cost housing units as follows, a
density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted:
At least thirty (30) percent of the number of units achievable
under gross density-standard level shall be developed as low or
moderate cost units; and
The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a
period of five (5) years for rental units shall qualify as low or
moderate cost housing under either the Virginia Housing Develop-
ment Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and Urban
Development Section 8; and
Ce
If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with
the County of Albemarle restricting the rental rates of the low
or moderate cost units for a period of five (5) years or until
the units are sold as low or moderate cost units whichever comes
first; and
de
If sale units, the developer shall provide the director of
planning and community development with confirmation of the
initial sale price for the low or moderate cost units prior to
the issuance of building permits for the bonus units.
Renumber existing section 12.4.3 as section 12.4.4.
SECTION 13.0 - RESIDENTIALr R-1
13.4.1 - Locational Standards - Delete in its entirety.
Renumber 13.4.2 as 13.4.1 - Environmental Standards - Delete
all existing language and in its place put the following paragraphs:
For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to: ten (10) percent
to nineteen (19) percent of the site, a density increase of five (5)
percent shall be granted; twenty (20).percent or greater of the site,
a density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted.
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified
in section 32.8.2.3 shall be required.
For provision of significant landscaping in the form of street trees
as specified in section 32.8.4, a density increase of five (5) percent
shall be granted. This bonus shall not be granted if existing trees
along road frontages have been needlessly removed.
Renumber 13.4.3 as 13.4.2 - Development Standards - Delete the
existing language and in its place put the following paragraphs:
For serving lots with an internal road system which is the sole access
to the existing state-maintained road system, a density increase of
ten (10) percent shall be granted.
For dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law,
density may be increased as follows:
The acreage of the land dedicated and accepted shall be multiplied by
twice the gross density-standard level, and the resulting number of
dwellings may be added to the site, provided that the density increase
shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. The dedication shall be
accepted by the board of supervisors prior to final approval.
For provision of road improvements to secondary or primary roads not
otherwise required by this ordinance or Chapter 18 of the Code of
Albemarle, a density increase up to twenty (20) percent shall be
granted, to be agreed upon by the commission and the applicant, based
upon the relative need for transportation improvements in the area.
The need for such improvements shall be established by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation.
Renumber 13.4.4 as 13.4.3 - Low and Moderate Cost Housin~ -
Delete the existing language and in its place put the following
paragraphs:
For provision of low or moderate cost housing units as follows, a
density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted:
August 14, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
513
At least thirty (30) percent of the number of units achievable
under gross density-standard level shall be developed as low or
moderate cost units; and
The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a
period of five (5) years for rental units shall qualify as low or
moderate cost housing under either the Virginia Housing Develop-
ment Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and Urban
Development Section 8; and
If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with
the County of Albemarle restricting the rental rates of the low
or moderate cost units for a period of five (5) years or until
the units are sold as low or moderate cost units whichever comes
first; and
If sale units, the developer shall provide the director of
planning and community development with confirmation of the
initial sale price for the low or moderate cost units prior to
the issuance of building permits for the bonus units~
Renumber section 13.4.5 as section 13.4.4.
Renumber section 13.4.6 as section 13.5.
SECTION 14.0 -RESIDENTIAL~ R-2
14.4.1 - Locational Standards - Delete in its entirety.
Renumber 14.4.2 as 14
the existing language and in
For maintenance of existing
to nineteen (19) percent of
percent shall be granted; twE
a density increase of ten (1(
.4.1 - Environmental Standards - Delete
its place put the following paragraphs:
,ooded areas equal to: ten (10) percent
~he site, a density increase of five (5)
:nty (20) percent or greater of the site,
) percent shall be granted.
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified
in section 32.8.2.3 shall be required.
For provision of significant landscaping in the form of street trees
as specified in section 32.8.4, a density increase of five (5) percent
shall be granted. This bonu~ shall not be granted if existing trees
along road frontages have been needlessly removed.
Renumber 14.4.3 as 14.4.2 - Development Standards - Delete the
existing language and in its place put the following paragraphs:
For serving lots with an internal road system which is the sole access
to the existing state-maintained road system, a density increase of
ten (10) percent shall be gr~nted.
For dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law,
density may be increased as ~ollows:
The acreage of the land dedicated! and accepted shall be multiplied
twice the gross density-stan¢
dwellings may be added to th~
shall not exceed fifteen (15
accepted by the board of sup,
by
lard level, and the resulting number of
site, provided that the density increase
percent. The dedication shall be
rvisors prior to final approval.
For provision of road improv,
otherwise required by this ol
Albemarle, a density increas~
granted, to be agreed upon b~
upon the relative need for tl
The need for such improvemenSs shall be established by the Virginia
Department of Highways and T~ansportationl
Renumber 14.4.4 as 1~.4.3 - Low and Moderate Cost Housin9 -
Delete the existing language and in its place put the following
paragraphs:
~ments to secondary or primary roads not
~dinance or Chapter 18 of the Code of
up to twenty (20) percent shall be
the commission and the applicant, based
ansportation improvements in the area.
For provision of low or model
density increase of thirty (
At least thirty (30) pe
under gross density-sta
moderate cost units; an,
The initial sale price
period of five (5) year
moderate cost housing u
ment Authority, Farmers
Development Section 8;
~ate cost hoUsing units as follows, a
~0) percent shall be granted:
~cent of the number of units achievable
5dard level shall be developed as low or
~or sale units or the rental rate for a
for rental units shall qualify as low or
.der either the Virginia Housing Develop-
Home Administration or Housing and Urban
~nd
;514
August 14, 1985 (Reqular Da~_Meetinq)
Ce
If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with
the County of Albemarle restricting the rental rates of the low
or moderate cost units for a period of five (5) years or until
the units are sold as low or moderate cost units whichever comes
first; and
If sale units, the developer shall provide the director of
planning and community development with confirmation of the
initial sale price for the low or moderate cost units prior to
the issuance of building permits for the bonus units.
Renumber section 14.4.5 as section 14.4.4.
Renumber section 14.4.6 as section 14.5.
SECTION 15.0 - RESIDENTIALr R-4
15.4.1 - Locational Standards - Delete in its entirety.
Renumber 15.4.2 as 15.4.1 - Environmental Standards - Delete
the existing language and in its place put the following paragraphs:
For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to; ten (10) percent to
nineteen (19) percent of the site, a density increase of five (5)
percent shall be granted; twenty (20) percent or greater of the site,
a density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted.
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified
in section 32.8.2.3 shall be required.
Renumber 15.4.3 as 15.4.2 - Development Standard~ - Delete the
existing language and in its place put the following paragraphs:
For dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law,
density may be increased as follows:
The acreage of the land dedicated and accepted shall be multiplied by
twice the gross density-standard level, and the resulting number of
dwellings may be added to the site, provided that the density increase
shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. The dedication shall be
accepted by the board of supervisors prior to final approval.
For provision of road improvements to secondary or primary roads not
otherwise required by this ordinance or Chapter 18 of the Code of
Albemarle, a density increase up to twenty (20) percent shall be
granted, to be agreed upon by the commission and the applicant, based
upon the relative need for transportation improvements in the area.
The need for such improvements shall be established by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation.
Renumber 15.4.4 as 15.4.3 - Low and Moderate Cost Housinq -
Delete the existing language and in its place put the following
paragraphs:
For provision of low or moderate cost housing units as follows, a
density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted:
At least thirty (30) percent of the number of units achievable
under gross density-standard level shall be developed as low or
moderate cost units; and
The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a
period of five (5) years for rental units shall qualify as low or
moderate cost housing under either the Virginia Housing Develop-
ment Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and Urban
Development Section 8; and
Ce
If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with
the County of Albemarle restricting the rental rates of the low
or moderate cost units for a period of five (5) years or until
the units are sold as low or moderate cost units whichever comes
first; and
If sale units, the developer shall provide the director of
planning and community development with confirmation of the
initial sale price for the low or moderate cost units prior to
the issuance of building permits for the bonus units.
Renumber section 15.4.5 as section 15.4.4.
Renumber section 15.4.6 as section 15.5.
Renumber section 15.4.7 as section 15.7.
Renumber section 15.5 as section 15.6.
Au ust~Lq~_~ 1985 (Regular DaY Meeting.) .
515
SECTION 16.0 - RESIDENTIAL~ R-6
Renumber section 16.4 as section 16.5 and re-title "Cluster
Development Option Regulations".
Renumber section 16.5 as section 16.4.
Renumber 16.5.1 as 16.4.1 - Environmental Standards - Delete
the existing language and in its place put the following paragraphs:
For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to: ten (10) percent
to nineteen (19) percent of the site, a density increase of five (5)
percent shall be granted; twenty (20) percent or greater of the site,
a density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted.
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified
in section 32.8.2.3 shall be required.
Renumber 16.5.2 as 16.4.2 - Development Standards - Delete the
existing language and in its place put the following paragraphs:
For dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law,
density may be increased as follows:
The acreage of the land dedicated and accepted shall be multiplied by
twice the gross density-standard level, and the resulting number of
dwellings may be added to the site, provided that the density increase
shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. The dedication shall be
accepted by the board of supervisors prior to final approval.
For provision of road improvements to secondary or primary roads not
otherwise required by this ordinance or Chapter 18 of the Code of
Albemarle, a density increase up to twenty (20) percent shall be
granted, to be agreed upon by the commission and the applicant, based
upon the relative need for transportation improvements in the area.
The need for such improvements shall be established by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation.
Renumber 16.5.3 as 16.4.3 - Low and Moderate Cost Housing -
Delete the existing language and in its place put the following
paragraphs:
For provision of low or moderate cost housing units as follows, a
density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted:
At least thirty (30) percent of the number of units achievable
under gross density-standard level shall be developed as low or
moderate cost units; and
The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a
period of five (5) years for rental units shall qualify as low or
moderate cost housing under either the Virginia Housing Develop-
ment Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and Urban
Development Section 8; and
If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with
the County of Albemarle restricting the rental rates of the low
or moderate cost units for a period of five (5) years or until
the units are sold as low or moderate cost units whichever comes
first; and
If sale units, the developer shall provide the director of
planning and community development with confirmation of the
initial sale price for the low or moderate cost units prior to
the issuance of building permits for the bonus units.
Renumber section 16.5.4 as section 16.4.4.
Renumber section 16.6 as section 16.8.
Renumber section 16.7 as section 16.6.
Renumber section 16.8 as section 16.7.
SECTION 17.0 - RESIDENTIAL~ R-10
Renumber section 17.4 as section 17.5 and re-title "Cluster
Development Option Regulations".
Renumber section 17.5 as section 17.4.
Renumber 17.5.1 as 17.4.1 - Environmental Standards - Delete
the existing language and in its place put the following paragraphs:
For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to: ten (10) percent
to nineteen (19) percent of the site, a density increase of five (5)
percent shall be granted; twenty (20) percent or greater of the site,
a density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted.
August 14, 1985
~(Regular Da Meetinq)
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified
in section 32.8.2.3 shall be required.
Renumber 17.5.2 as 17.4.2 - Development Standards - Delete the
existing language and in its place put the following paragraphs:
For dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law,
density may be increased as follows:
The acreage of the land dedicated and accepted shall be multiplied by
twice the gross density-standard level, and the resulting number of
dwellings may be added to the site, provided that the density increase
shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. The dedication shall be
accepted by the board of supervisors prior to final approval.
For provision of road improvements to secondary or primary roads not
otherwise required by this ordinance or Chapter 18 of the Code of
Albemarle, a density increase up to twenty (20) percent shall be
granted, to be agreed upon by the commission and the applicant, based
upon the relative need for transportation improvements in the area.
The need for such improvements shall be established by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation.
Renumber 17.5.3 as 17.4.3 - Low and Moderate Cost Housing -
Delete the existing language and in its place put the following
paragraphs:
For provision of low or moderate cost housing units as follows, a
density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted:
At least thirty (30) percent of the number of units achievable
under gross density-standard level shall be developed as low or
moderate cost units; and
The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a
period of five (5) years for rental units shall qualify as low or
moderate cost housing under either the Virginia Housing Develop-
ment Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and Urban
Development Section 8; and
If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with
the County of Albemarle restricting the rental rates of the low
or moderate cost units for a period of five (5) years or until
the units are sold as low or moderate cost units whichever comes
first; and
If sale units, the developer shall provide the director of
planning and community development with confirmation of the
initial sale price for the low or moderate cost units prior to
the issuance of building permits for the bonus units.
Renumber section 17.5.4 as section 17.4.4.
Renumber section 17.6 as section 17.8.
Renumber section 17.7 as section 17.6
Renumber section 17.8 as section 17.7.
SECTION 18.0 - RESIDENTIAL, R-15
Renumber section 18.4 as section 18.5 and re-title "Cluster
Development Option Regulations".
Renumber section 18.5 as section 18.4.
Renumber 18.5.1 as 18.4.1 - Environmental Standards - Delete
the existing language and in its place put the following paragraphs:
For maintenance of existing wooded areas equal to: ten (10) percent
to nineteen (19) percent of the site, a density increase of five (5)
percent shall be granted; twenty (20) percent or greater of the site,
a density increase of ten (10) percent shall be granted.
In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified
in section 32.8.2.3 shall be required.
Renumber 18.5.2 as 18.4.2 - Development Standards - Delete the
existing language and in its place put the following paragraphs:
For dedication of land to public use not otherwise required by law,
density may be increased as follows:
The acreage of the land dedicated and accepted shall be multiplied by
twice the gross density-standard level, and the resulting number of
dwellings may be added to the site, provided that the density increase
shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. The dedication shall be
accepted by the board of supervisors prior to final approval.
August 14, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
517
For provision of road improvements to secondary or primary roads not
otherwise required by this ordinance or Chapter 18 of the Code of
Albemarle, a density increase up to twenty (20) percent shall be
granted, to be agreed upon by the commission and the applicant, based
upon the relative need for transportation improvements in the area.
The need for such improvements shall be established by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation.
Renumber 18.5.3 as 18.4.3 - Low and Moderate Cost Housin~ -
Delete the existing language and in its place put the following
paragraphs:
For provision of low or moderate cost housing units as follows, a
density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted:
At least thirty (30) percent of the number of units achievable
under gross density-standard level shall be developed as low or
moderate cost units; and
The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a
period of five (5) years for rental units shall qualify as low or
moderate cost housing under either the V~rginia Housing Develop-
ment Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and Urban
Development Section 8; and
If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with
the County of Albemarle restricting the rental rates of the low
or moderate cost units for a period of five (5) years or until
the units are sold as low or moderate cost units whichever comes
first; and
If sale units, the developer shall provide the director of
planning and community development with confirmation of the
initial sale price for the low or moderate cost units prior to
the issuance of building permits for the bonus units.
Renumber section 18.5.4 as section 18.4.4.
Renumber section 18.6 as section 18.8.
Renumber section 18.7 as section 18.6.
Renumber section 18.8 as section 18.7.
SECTION 19.0 - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, PRD
19.1 - Intent, Where Permitted - Delete the last paragraph in
its entirety and add the following paragraph:
While a PRD approach is recommended for developments of any density,
it is recommended but not required that the PRD be employed in areas
where the comprehensive plan recommends densities in excess of fifteen
(15) dwelling units per acre, in recognition that development at such
densities generally requires careful planning with respect to impact.
Agenda Item No. 23. Authorization to Expend Library Funds
Mr. Agnor stated that the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library has received notification
hat $12,497 has been allocated from Federal Aid through the State Library System for FY '85-86.
]his amount is $637 more than the $11,860 that was estimated in the Library budget. Regulations
~equire that each governing body approve the expenditure of these funds. He recommends that
Lpproval be granted. Mr. Bowie offered motion for approval of the allocation of $12,497 from
~ederal Aid through the State Library System for FY 85-86 for the Jefferson-Madison Regional
library. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
~ollowing recorded vote:
kYES:
;AYS:
kBSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 24. Appointments.
Mr. Agnor recommended that Mr. John T. P. Horne of Winchester Virginia, presently the
)irector of Planning and Community Development of Frederick County, be appointed as the
)irector of Planning and Community Development of Albemarle County with the effective date
~eing two to four weeks. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that John T. P. Horne be appointed as
)irector of Planning and Community Development for Albemarle County. Mr. Bowie seconded the
notion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
bYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
~AYS: None.
~BSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
August 14, 1985 (R~_ular Day_Meetinq3___
Agenda Item No. 6d. Presentation: County Engineer's proposal for Route 29 North
Improvements (continued from this morning).
Mr. Fisher stated that the-Board has struggled with a number of proposals and suggestions
Lbout what to do to Route 29 North since the County staff people who are members of the MPO
.1 Committee want some direction. Mrs. Cooke stated that this item-was carried over
from the morning session at Mr. Way's behest and he is not present. She is prepared to go
and make a recommendation to the Technical Committee. She thinks the Board should take
position that it supports the six-laning of Route 29 North with all the stated recommenda-
tions of Mr. Lindstrom's list this morning and other recommendations of the MPO itself .
· Fisher stated he would like to get the Highway Department back to planning for one
· whether it be a version of what Mr. Elrod has proposed for Route 29 or the six laning
'ect. He does not know which is the best proposal. He is concerned when plans branch out
watershed areas as Mr. Elrod has apparently done to improve the level of service with one
the projects. He is absolutely shocked that it has been 13 or 14 months and no planning
has gone on at all from the standpoint of designing. The urgency is to move it.
Mrs. Cooke motioned that County staff be directed to adopt the six-laning with the
ations as listed by Mr. Lindstrom and the MPO. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Lindstrom said with only two-thirds of the Board present and one-half of those persons on
MPO, and one person who has not indicated full support for the resolution suggested and
other saying he doesn't care as long as something is done, he feels he has as much
~ as he is likely to get. What the Board really needs a resolution on is that the
available through the MPO for highway planning be made available for the County's
review of its Comprehensive Plan so the money can be used to study how shifting
from the North 29 Corridor to other parts of the County would affect statistics and
study in detail the ten year experience factor with theoretical statistics. Mr. Bowie said
he only got a briefing on this idea this morning, he does not understand the difference
n the six-laning and Mr. Elrod's suggestion for an expressway, etc. Mr. Lindstrom
that he would love it if there was a way that Mr. Elrod's proposal could be made
with going ahead and not deferring further action with respect to the money that is
available because that would give more flexibility and more time to think about it. He
been told that the two proposals are not compatible except for the area from Rio Road to
north. Mr. Tucker replied that it is basically an engineering problem. There would be
lanes installed and then those lanes must be ripped out to put down four lanes for the
lanes and then there would be two additional lanes built on each side of the service
. Mr. Bowie asked if the rest of the presentation was compatible with six-laning.
Lindstrom replied yes. Mr. Tucker stated that the Federal Highway Administration would
whether or not t~e funds could be utilized for the type of project recommended. There
Ls money available for the 29 North study, but funds would be pulled from other projects to
up'to enough to do a decent study, but it would have to be approved by the Federal Highway
ation. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt if he has examined the expressway concept
)resented to the BOard this morning.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that Mr. Ken Lance of the Department of Highways and Transportation
Office, is prepared to comment on this plan at the MPO meeting tomorrow.
· Roosevelt said that part of his comments are his own personal opinion and he does not want
hold Highway Department accountable for the statements. The improvements that are shown in
CATS study are going to cost more money than this area is going to see in his lifetime
~rom Highway Department funding, so the local government is going to have to make some choices.
~ome of the options are to fund improvements locally or consider other methods to take care of
.on problems, even considering making drastic changes in the Comprehensive Plan to
)ut population in other parts of the County. Whatever ultimate improvement ideas the Board
:omes up with, he does not think they can be totally financed from highway funds. The only
~hing that is going to save Route 29 North is to go ahead and do something even if it is not
is ultimately needed there. He feels the six-lane, divided concept that has been put
~orward is what should be done. This may not be the ultimate solution, but he feels it will
)e right for as long as most of us are around. After the last MPO Policy Committee meeting,
wrote to his district engineer saying the planning could go for years and if something is
Jot started soon, it will be too late. From the correspondence he has seen, the district
~ngineer is supporting this and the Highway Department is picking up its pencils and have
~tarted designing again. If the Board's concern is getting the Highway Department back
on plans, he thinks they are going to do that. He understands Mrs. Cooke's recommen-
[ation to be to get on with the design of a six lane roadway and for the moment to stop
:tudying any other alternatives, and that the Board wants to pick up the study of alternatives
.n a year or so as part of revisions to the County Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Cooke stated that her motion was to support the following:
The six-laning of Route 29 North which is already a part of the
adopted plan;
Grade-separated interchanges which are already a part of the adopted
plan;
TSM suggestions: ride-sharing, changing of work shifts; parking
changes within the City and the University to discourage one-person
cars coming into the City;
During the next revision of the County's Comprehensive Plan, to
reevaluate the recommendations for increased densities in the Route
29 North corridor on lands which have not yet actually been zoned for
the higher density;
Request that funds available through the Metropolitan Planning
Organization, be appropriated to an independent consultant to
evaluate the impact of these proposed Comprehensive Plan changes on
traffic patterns;
Have this consultant reevaluate all planning assumptions made in the
early 1970's on which the County's Comprehensive Plan is based.
August 14, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
t~y~YS be.cegst~uc~edin the watersheds of public drinking w~2~-i~p2E~dm2~E~? [~u~
1~?~ ne~b°~0°ds~nd alsosupports Construction of t~e ~~e
harlottesville City Limits to the airport, and improvements to Route 20 South of the Cit.
· ~nd construction- of the "Eastern Connector". Roll was called a~ ~=~- ~uz~go~ng ~ ....... mo~lonY-'
Dy the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
None.
: Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the Board and Public.
Mr. Bowie stated that he received a response from Senator Paul Trible concerning the
s resolution supporting the Superfund for EPA. He will pass the letter to the County
e for a proper response.
Mr. Agnor stated that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors met in
)ecial session on Monday and authorized the Chairman to sign a consent order with the State
Control Board to do two things: study Moores Creek and the Rivanna River one more time
determine that stream standards of discharge at the Moores Creek Sewer Treatment Plant, and
results of that study will be used to see if the standards comply with the National
.pal Policy which states that all discharges from publicly owned waste plants by July 1988
meet stream standards. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is proceeding to find out
r the final filters in the Moores Creek Sewer Treatment Plant have to be installed or
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if he was working on the question of mandatory seat belts for
driVing County-owned vehicles. Mr. Agnor said yes, but he has not been able to find
what local governments are doing in this regard. Mr. Fisher requested that Mr. Agnor
a brief response to the Virginia Auto Safety Alliance telling them that the Board has
this under advisement.
Mr. Fisher announced that the banquet for the Italian students here on the exchange
is being held on August 20 at 7:00 P.M. at the Rotunda of the University of Virginia.
Agenda Item No. 26.
adjourned.
Adjourn.
There being no further business, at 4:50 P.M. the meeting