Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1984-03-14
March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) 013 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 14, 1984, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Frederick R. Bowie, Gerald E. Fisher, Joseph T. Henley, Jr., and Peter T. WaY. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and~Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Stem No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher noted that Mrs. Cooke was absent due to an illness; Mr. Lindstrom was out of the state, but the four members present constitute the necessary quorum. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Stem No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Henley, to accept the consent agenda with the items presented for approval and the items presented as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Item No. 4.1. Request from Mr. Michael T. Boggs, dated October 3, 1983, that Forestvue Drive in Blue Ridge Forest Subdivision located off Route 660 near Earlysville, be accepted into the State secondary road system. The following resolution was adopted: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥irginia, that the Virginia Department Of Highways and Transp5rtation be, and is hereby requested~ to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway DePartment, the following road in Blue Ridge-Forest Subdivision: Beginning av-a'-station 0+00 a point common to the centerline intersection of Forestvue Drive and the edge of pavement of State Route 660, thence in a northerly direction 0.293 miles to station 15+80, the end of the cul-de-sac of Forestvue Drive in Blue Ridge Forest Subdivision. BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be, and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right- of-way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 786, page 23, and Deed Book 736, page 60. Item No. 4.2. Statement of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attarney and Regional Jail for the Month of February, 198~ ~s~'£~t~d with the State Compensation Board, was approved as presented. Item No. 4.3. Reports of the Department of Social Services for the months of December, 1983 and January, 1984, were presented in accordance with Section 63.1-52 of the Code of Virginia. Item No. 4.4. Letter from Oscar ~. Mabry, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Highways and Transportation, dated February 16, 1984, as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated November 9, 1983, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective February 16, 1984: ADDITION LENGTH BENNINGTON TERRACE SUBDIVISION Biltmore Drive - From Route 656 at a point 0.15 miles North of Route 1~47~', 'Southeast 0.05 miles to a Cul-de-Sac. 0.05 miles" 014 March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Item No. 4.5. Letter from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Department of Highways and Transportation, dated February 15, 1984, entitled "Albemarle County 1982-83 Secondary Improve- ment Budget Operational and Fiscal Summary" as follows: "Section 33.1-77 of the Code of Virginia requires the Department to present an operational and fiscal summary of its expenditures for improvements on the secondary system at the close of each fiscal year. Attached is the report for Albemarle County for fiscal year 1982-83. The Department has changed the format for this report this year. The attached computer printout indicates all improvement projects which have an allocation or which were involved in a transfer of funds during the fiscal year or which had an expenditure during the fiscal year. I think it is important to note that as of July 1, 1983, there was a balance of $1,864~033 credited for improvements on the secondary system in Albemarle County. Expenditures for construction on the Park Street bridge and Hydraulic Road, as well as Route 618 and two small state force projects have drastically reduced this balance. Also attached to this report you will find a recapitulation of the spending of funds designated for the improvement of gravel roads. You will note that since the enactment of this law in 1979, we have spent some $870,654 more for the improvement of gravel roads than the minimum required by the Code. I request that you advise the Board of Supervisors of this operational and fiscal summary. Should there be any questions concerning information Contained in this summary, I would be happy to respond to the questions or discuss the matter with the Board at some convenient meeting." Item No. ~.6. Letter from the Highway Commissioner, dated March 2, 1984, concerning pre- ~liocation hearings for the 1984-1985 Highway budget. Mr. Roosevelt explained that pre-allocation hearings are held in each of the eight construction districts each spring, to obtain comments from the citizens of Virginia regarding road improvements on the primary system of highways. In the past, each of the local government in the Culpeper district has sent a representative to indicate that County's priorities; Albemarle County has senv either a Board member or the County Engineer to these hearings. Mr. Roosevelt said that most recently the Board's emphasis has been on Route 29 North and completi of improvements to Route 20. Mr. Fisher noted that a hearing is scheduled for 9:00 A.M., April 13, 198q, in Culpeper, and asked if any Board member wished to attend this meeting. Mr. Bowie and Mr. Way stated they felt unqualified to address highway matters. Mr. Roosevelt recommended that the Board send someone to voice its views to the Commission. Mr. Fisher suggested placing this on the April tl agenda and requested that Mr. Agnor select a qualified staff member to present a statement for the Board's consideration regarding allocation of construction funds at the hearing. The Board will review suggestions and comments by staff at the April 11 meeting, and in lieu of any Board volunteers, perhaps a staff member can present the Board's comments at the hearing. Mr. Agnor noved that at hearings of this type, more attention is given to elected officials than to staff members. Mr. Bowie commented that while he did not feel qualified to discuss highway matters, if a qualified staff person would attend to address technical questions, a Board member could also be present to serve in the capacity of an elected ~ff~cial. Mr. Fisher felt this would be a wise method of dealing with the matter Item No. 4.7. Annual Review of the Activies of the Office of Watershed Management Officia] January 1983 - January, 1984. (Report dated February 23, 1984). Mr. Fisher called attention to this report noting that in general there was some progress made relative to instituti'on~l arrangements in 1983. Mr. Fisher noved that this report is required as part of the County's agreement with the City of Charlottesville. Item No. 4.8. Report of refunds issued on real estate, personal property and business and professional licenses for October 1983 - February 1984 from the Director of Finance. Item No. q.9. Report of raffle, bingo and lottery permits issued December 1983 - February 1984, from the Director of Finance. Item No. 4.10. Monthly Building Activity Report for January 1984, from the Department of Planning and Community Development. Ztem No. 4.11. Report of the County Executive for the month of February, 1984, as required by Section 15.1-602 of the Code. Mr. Agnor noted in presenting this report that both the Planning Department and Staff Services have experienced some expenditure problems which will be taken up at the budget work session later this same day. In addition, the Education budget has a number of changes which the School Board has examined and which Mr. Agnor received this morning. As soon as staff has reviewed these changes recommended by the Education Department, this will be passed along to the Board. March 14~ar~ Da~ Mee~ 015 Item No. 4.12. Letter from Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, dated February 3, 1984, informing public officials of the types and locations of Columbia Transmission's pipeline facilities near their areas in order that officials might be better prepared to respond to the concerns of their constituents. Facilities in Albemarle County are described as-follows: "A 20 inch natural gas pipeline that enters Albemarle County, Whitehall District at approximately 2000 feet west of the Skyline Drive and continues on into Greene 0ou~ty leaving Albemarle County, 'Whitehall District at approximately 4000 feet east of Route 663-. Within the above mentioned section, we also own and operate Measurement and Regu~latio~ facilities near the pipeline crossing at Route 673, and Measurement and Regulations facilitias at the pipeline crossing at Route 601." Item No. 4.13. Letter from the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, dated February 15, 1984, concerning the inclusion ~of Faulkner House in Albemarle County on the Virginia Landmarks Register and its nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, such action expected to take place at the next meeting of the State Review Board on March 20, 1984. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: November 16 (afternoon), November 16 (night), December 14, 1983, January 3 and January 18 (afternoon), 1984. Mrs. Cooke was not present to comment on the minutes of November 16 (afternoon) and November 16 (night)', 1983. Mr. Fisher noted he had read the minutes of December 14, 1983, pages 1 through 14 and found no errors. Mr. Henley had not read the minutes of December 14, 1983 pages 15 through 26~ Mr. Way had read the minutes of January 3, 1984 and noted the following correction: On page 511, under Agenda Item No. 2, the fourth paragraph, line 17 should be changed to read,... "there has been any real change .... " Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of January 18, 1984 (afternoon) and noted finding no errors. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the minutes of January 3 and January 18, 1984 (afternoon with the correction as noted. Roll was called and the moti~on carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke a~d Mr~ Li.ndstrom. Agenda Item No. 6(.a). Highway Matters. Request from G. F. Bell and Myrtle Bohrer, dated February 26, 1984, to abandon an old section of right-of-way on Route 641 across the front of Mr. Bell's property. Mro Agnor explaine~d that the letter from Mr. Bell is addressed to the Clerk and includes a plat indicating that Mr~ BelZ is the owner of Lot C which fronts on that portion of old Route 641 requested for abandonment.- Mr. ~gnor indicated that Miss Neher has researched the ~% Supervisor's Minute Books back to 1922, but was not able to ascertain the status of the old right-of-way, nor was anyone at the Highway Department able to provide information as to this right-of-way° Therefore, Mr. Bell is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to take steps necessary to formal~ly abandon this right-of-way. Mr. Agnor noted that both Mr. Bell and Mrs. Bohrer are prasent and then drew the Board's attention to the aforementioned letter as follows "Zt~has come to my attention by,checking county and state ~ighway records ~hat a portion of the Advance Mill Road or Route 641 west of highway Route 29 North~ approximately three-fourths of a mile, was never declared abandoned. This part ~of the road was'replaced by land given Bob Estes for public use. ! believe before 1932. My property line and Mrs. Myrtle Estes Bohrer's property line is one and the same. Our proper~y line follows the center of the old road bed. Therefore, I/we am/are requesting the County Board of Supervisors to declare this portion of the old road be abandoned. Apparently this old road hasn't been used for public use for more than fifty years. Therefore, this action will nov landlo¢~ anyone. ~iease refer to plat drawing. Signad, Guy F. Bell Myrtle Estes Bohrer" Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John to comment on the request. Mr. St. John said that assuming this was an old pnbli¢ road at some time, the Board does have authority to approve Mr Bell's request and he outlined the procedure set out in Virginia State Code Section 33.1-156. Mr. Fisher then informed Mr. Bell that he proposed to set this request for public hearing in accordance with state law~ in order for the Board to be able to grant his request. Mr. Bell said this is agreeable to him. Mrs. Bohrer felt it was not necessary to follow such an elongated process when there are ont~ two property owners involved. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to set a public hearing on the aforementioned request for Ma~ 9, 1984 for abandonment~ Of a portiOn Of the old right-of-way of Route 641. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher~ Henley, and Way~ NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting Agenda Ztem No. 6(b). Request re: road off Route 746 from Mr. M. B. Norford. Mr. Ag~©? ~x~Zadned that in 1976 Mr. Norford petitioned the Board to take this road into t~e state system using Rural Addition Funds. The Road Viewers recommended approval of the request if Mr. Norford constructed the entire three-tenths of a mile to an acceptable State standard. The Board agreed with the request and adopted a resolution to that effect. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Norford completed the work to the specifications furnished him by Bob Warner, who was Resident Engineer at the time the orginal request was made. Since that time, state standards have changed, and Mr. Norford is now petitioning the Board to accept the road into the system as built. Mr. Agnor then referred to a letter from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, dated September 17, 1976, as follows: "Zn reference to the Resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors at the August 11, 1976 meeting concerning rural additions, I have been in contact with Mr. M. B. Norford. I advised Mr. Norford of what the applicable State Standard for a rural addition would be, which is 16 foot surface of compacted 21-A's six (6) inches deep, three (3) foot shoulders, and proper ditches with a 40 foot radius cul-de-sac at the terminus. Also, needed would be the replacement of a 30 inch pipe with a 60 inch pipe to provide adequate drainage. Mr. Norford indicated that he was unaware that such a high standard for rural additions was necessary. In view of these standards, Mr Norford indicated that he would need to get additional estimates for this work before deciding whether or not he would like to complete his request. As of this date I have not received word from Mr. Norford concerning his desires. As soon as he makes his intentions known.,~ Z~will advise." Mr. Agnor suggested that since the time Mr. Roosevelt wrote the letter in September of 1976, additional changes in the state standards may have occurred. Mr. Norford, the petitioner, was present and said that at the time of his original request he was told he had ten years to see this matter through to its completion. He said that Mr. Warner and Mr. Perry told him in 1976 that if he extended the bridge an additional four feet and made a few other improvements, the road would be taken into the state system. Mr. Norford said he had done as suggested at that time. Following this, Mr. Perry and Mr. Warner left their positions. Mr. W. B. Coburn, Jr. subsequently followed and told Mr. Norford that since the time Mr. Norford had improved the road the standards had changed. Mr. Nerford said that Mr. Roosevelt then presented him with the new standards which Mr. Norford has met. ~He now understands that the standards have again changed. Mr. Roosevelt said that he has had no contact with Mr. Norford since he wrote his letter in September of 1976. He does not know how close Mr. Norford has come to complying with the standards, or the present service on the road. Mr. Roosevelt said that to his knowledge, there has been no contact either with his office or with himself. Mr. Norford interjected saying he had talked with Mr. Coburn on several occasions and since Mr. Coburn was replaced by Mr. Echots, he has also spoken with him recently. Mr. Norford said that Mr. Echols told him he had no knowledge of the request nor could he find any correspondence relative to Mr. Norford's request. Mr. Norford then said that the Highway Department apparently has no record of any of the correspondence to which he is referring. Mr. Roosevelt requested copies of any corree spondence Mr. Norford has relative to his request. He said he would like an opportunity to review all the pertinent material passed between Mr. Norford and the Department of Highways over the last several years, and would make a report to the Board at the April meeting. Mr. Fisher then suggested postponing this request until April 11, 1984 to give Mr. Roosevelt ample time to review the correspondence. Agenda Item No. 6(c). Parkway Design Study for Remainder of Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., read the following staff report: "At its meeting on February !, 1984, the Board of Supervisors requested staff to determine how best to complete the parkway design study for Meadowcreek Parkway, a portion of which was completed this past summer. Current workload of County staff, both Planning and Engineering, negates the use of in-house staff to complete the study within the next fiscal year. Current development interests along the proposed parkway corridor, however, emphasize the need to complete the study as soon as is practicable. t have discussed this matter with Mr. Harry Porter at the University's Landscape Architecture School. From our discussion there appear to be two alternatives: using graduate students or contracting with a professional landscape architect. Since we have attempted in the past to provide the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation with a preliminary align- ment which meets parkway design criteria and from which they can prepare final engineering design plans, I feel that a qualified graduate in land- scape architecture could continue and complete the Meadowcreek Parkway study this summer. If the Board wishes to complete this study project by the end of this summer or early fall, additional funds will be needed in the Planning Department's budget as follows: Total Intern Cost Graphics Material Printing and Copying Cost TOTAL $ 3,070 100 100 3,270 March 14, 1984.~ (Regular Day Meeting) 017 In lieu of this approach, however, the use of a professional landscape architect would provide a more experienced person familiar with principles of parkway design standards. This approach would be more costly, since we would be contracting for experience and expertise not evident in a recent graduate of landscape architecture. If the Board chooses to contract a professional architect, I would recommend an amount of $10,000 be appropriated for professional contractual services." Mr. Tucker informed the new board members that last summer an intern was hired to create a parkway design for that portion of the Meadow.Creek Parkway beginning at the intersection of Preston Avenue~ running along McIntire Road, the extension of McIntire through the McIntire Park and intersecting Rio Road near the Vocational Technical~ Center~. This saction of the design, continued Mr. Tucker, has been completed and submitted to the Highway Department. At the FebruarY meeting, Mr. Lindstrom suggested the study be compl~eted for the proposed extension of this~road to the Hollymead Community and to Route 29 North. Mr. Tucker commented that the parkway design~studY to Holiymead will be a great deal more complicated than the design study done last summer since there is a railroad and river to cross, and since there is no definite alignment for this proposed road. Mr. Tucker said, however, that staff feels a graduate student would be adequate for the work because only a preliminary design is necessary; the Highway Department will do the final engineering. Mr. Bowie felt the Board is being asked to consider three alternatives; one is a study costing three thousand~ dollars, one is a study costing ten thousand dollars, and the third is to take no action. He suggested the possibility of the Planning Department postponing some other work in deference to the Meadow Creek Parkway study. Mr. Bowie also suggested that perhaps the Meadow Creek study need not take place during the coming year feeling that develop- ~of any significant degree will not take place in the area for quite a few years. Mr. Bowie concluded by saying he would like~-the opportunity to consider options other than the ones posed. Mr. Tucker mentioned the possibility of hiring a landscape architect for a position which will be available in July in the Planning Department. Mr. Tucker said a landscape architect is interested in this position and if hired, may be well qualified to create the Meadow Creek Parkway design study. Mr. Fisher. said he was concerned about the technical details to which Mr. Tucker referred concerning river and railroad crossings and wondered if even a qualified landscape architect would be adequate. Mr. Henley said that regardless of what a landscape architect creates, the H~ghway Department will have the last word. Mr. Fisher feels that creating a design specifying the parkway route may be premature, considering that it may later be found the the proposed route is in error. Mr. Tucker said it is his hope that when the design study is completed and submitted to the Highway Department, its engineers will inform his department of any~problems as soon as possible~ Mr. Fisher felt that the Highway Departmen may not review the study until time to begin construction and speculated that this may be ten years from the time the plan is submitted. Mr. Fisher said the purpose of this study is to design the route and then tG prevent development along that route. If development is prevented in the wrong location, this could present serious problems. Mr. Tucker pointed out that this could happen regardless of who does the design study. Mr. Roosevelt said that developing a landscape plan on the section of Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 By-Pass to the Vocational Technical Center on ~ Road was a profitable exercise because at the time the plan was being developed there was a definite alignment established and an approved location for the roadway; the landscape design ran along that alignment. However, on the se6tion from Rio Road to the Hotlymead Community, there is no established alignment, and he fee!~ Mr~ Fisher's comments are very appropriate. Mro Roosevelt said that ~lthough there is a l~ne drawn on an aerial photograph, this is not an approved line and there is no reason to believe this will be .the approved line. Given this~ Mr. Roosevelt suggested that some generalized landscaping drawings could be valuable, but he did not feel it would be prudent to create a dasign as detailed as the section from the Route 250 By-Pass to the Vocational Technical Center. Mr. Roosevelt said that determining an alignment for the r.emaining section must be done so there will be an approved alignment when this corridor deveiops. ~ He added that he is not sure this work can be accomplished by the Highway Department without an allocation from the County's Secondary funds~ Mr. Henley wondered why the Metro- politan Planning Organization responsible for this study cannot determine the alignment. Mr. Tucker said it is his understanding that Mr. Lindstrom requested a study which would not merely determine the route, but which would create a preliminary drawing following some parkway design criteria. Mr. Henley felt the route should be determined first before the landscape design is done and added that determining the road alignment may well be beyond the capabilities of a landscape architect. Mr. Tucker said the alignment must be determined by someone in conjuction with the Highway Department. Mr. Henley suggested.having the Highway Department establish the route, and at that time, the landscaping design can be undertaken. Mr. Roosevelt said the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MP0) has been granted some planning funds. Once a roadway plan has been developed, there are no funds available to the MP0, either state o~ federal, to expand the study into a detailed roadway design. Mr. Rooseve! feels that any location and design studies leading toward an approved alignment or design will have to come from highway funds; the only funds available to the County at the present time are Secondary Highway funds. Mr. Fisher said the highly technical aspects of this project will need to be addressed, keeping in mind a design goal for a parkway. He wondered how this can be accomplished in the next year so the alignment can be set out on paper. Mr. Tucker said that determining the actual right-of-way is the responsibilty of the Highway Department. Mr. Henley voiced his agreemenv. Mr. Henley sa~d he would prefer that the Highway Department determine the alignment rather than having an intern create a landscaping design only to have the Highway department change the alignment. 018 March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Bowie felt it would be more logical to spend money on critical issues such as the river crossing and~othar highly technical areas. Mr. Tucker said the Board members are discussJ a detailed alignment while his focus at the moment is strictly on a preliminary alignment. He said that the only preliminary line at'the present time is shown on an aerial photograph and while he feels the need to focus on something more definitive than this, he is not concerned with final engineering drawings at this time; these drawings will be done by the highway department in any case. Mr. Fisher said an accurate choice of alignment is critical. If the Hollymead Community and the area north of Rio Road are going to develop as contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan, the location of the parkway should be well known. Mr. Fisher feels that once an alignment is established, it should not be changed because many decisions are going to be based on this alignment. Mr. Tucker agreed with Mr. Fisher but added t. hat it is his hope to avoid situations where developers will have nothing more available to them than a line on an aerial photograph, because neither the Planning Department nor the Highway Department will be able to indicate with any degree of accuracy where the alignment is going to be. Mr. Tucker said that while a preliminary line may not be that accurate, at the very least it will provide the Highway Department with guidelines that can be used to reserve land for a ro~d in certain general areas. Without this alignment, however inaccurate, determining an alignment will fall on the Highway Department. Mr. Henley said he feels this is as it should be. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if a preliminary alignment could be completed during the summer. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Roosevelt said ha could not meet that kind of schedule adding that if the Board feels strongly that the alignment from Rio Road to Hoilymead needs to be defined, a project should be included and financed in the Six-Year Highway Plan for secondary roads. Mr. Henley said he would be reZuctant to prevent an individual from developing in a certain location because at some unspecified time in the future a highway might come through that location. However, he would not mind preventing development in an area predetermined by the highway department for a roadway. Mr. Roosevelt agreed and added that while the alignment is being determined, comments and suggestions regarding the landscaping and parkway effect of the road would be helpful. In developing a design for this roadway it is possible that as development occurs, the developer can assume some re'sponsibility for construction of the road. Mr. St. John said the situation presently before the Board is what the Code of Virginia refers to as the formation of an official map. Mr. St. John referred to Chesterfield County's adoption of an official map in its attempt to preserve several corridors for a future section of primary highway. A corridor was selected and development was prohibited in a certain area. This action was taken before the Virginia Supreme Court; it was "thrown out" for two reasons. One, Chesterfield County did not abide by the Virginia Code Section 15.1-458 which states that "...No future or proposed street or street line, waterway, nor public area, shall be shown on an official map unless and until the centerline of such street, the course of such waterway, or the metes and bounds of such public area, have been fixed or determined in relation to known, fixed and permanent monuments by a physical survey or aerial photographic survey thereof. In addition to the cen~erline of each street, the map shall indicate the width of the right-of-way thereof .... " The second reason for the Virginia Supreme Court's action concerned a temporal aspect of the official map litigation. One must be able to indicate a certain time frame within which a roadway will be constructed. Development cannot be prohibited for an unspecifie~ or unrealisti~ period of time. This temporal element is not contained in the Code of Virginia, but was created by the Supreme Court in its decision involving Chesterfield County. Mr. St. John said that before Albemarle County can have the type of protection it envisions, it is necessary to have a more substantive alignment. Also, an official map must be submitted to, and reviewed by the State Highway Commission before suchmap can be adopted by the Board or any land preserved for a roadway. Mr. Fisher pointed out that some individuals may build pieces of the road if it serves their Own development interests. Therefore, until the design and location of the road are specified, it will be difficult to get this done. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt if he wanted comments from the Planning staff prior to the Highway Department doing a location study. Mr. Roosevelt said not at the present time. If such a study is to be developed, Mr. Roosevelt feels the study should be of a more general nature designed to indicate the County's preference regarding the handling of the river crossing or the way landscaping should be designed in the median. However, until the Board takes action to allocate funds in the secondary budget, even a generalized study would be premature. The Highway Department will not review the roadway dasign and location until funds ars available. Given the existence of funds, a generalized approach to landscaping the .project would assist the Highway Department in choosing a location. Mr. Fisher asked how long it would take the Highway Department to comPlete its study if the money was available. Mr. Roosevelt answered it would take a minimum of three years and could only be completed in that time frame if the Board took the position that the development of this plan was a high priority item. Mr. Roosevelt said that the Meadow Creek Parkway out to Rio Road plans are still not completed because of the work load involving projects with a specific advertisement date. Because that project does not have a specific advertisement date, it is continually postponed. Mr. Roosevelt said that if the Highway Department concentrated on the Meadow Creek Parkway project it could conceivably be done in less than three years. However, in the normal process of events, it takes about three years to develop a set of plans to the point of purchasing right-of-way. Mr. Fisher said that if this is so, perhaps Mr. Tucker is wise in wanting to create a preliminary design this summer. Mr. Tucker said he would like to prevent piecemeal development and this will be difficult to do without an alignment and some type of right-of-way. Mr. Fisher concluded by sayin~ he feels there is some merit in attempting to achieve even a tentative alignment; three years is too long to wait before determining where the route will be located. ~g March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) 019 Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that the McIntire/Meadow Creek Parkway has been listed by the County as its highest priority behind Hydraulic Road since 1978, yet an approved location and design is no closer to completion~today than it was years ago. Mr. Roosevelt said that' while the Board continually presses this issue and he is in frequent contact with the City of Charlottesville to maintain this as a high priority project, there is still no approved locatio~ Mr. Roosevelt sees the further~extension of the roadway from Rio Road to Holtymead as being a similar situation. Mr. Fisher said the general location for the McIntire Road/Meadow Creek Parkway has been protected from development since about 1966 and this is the only reason the road can be built. Mr. Roosevelt said that while this appears to be the most logical route, federal funding makes it necessary to hold another location hearing to compare the line through McIntire Park against other alignments the federal government feels are necessary to review. Mr. Roosevelt said he hopes the alignment that was selected several y~ars ago will be the approved alignment. Mr. Fisher said he will support Mr. Tucker's request to find some way of establishing a preliminary design. Mr. Henley said that in view of Mr. Tucker's mention of a landscape architect ~ossibly being hired as of July 1, 1984, he would prefer to wait until that time to determine if the preliminary design can be done in-house. Mr. Bowie and Mr. Way concurred. ?! Mr. Tucker said that assuming a study could be done by this person, it would not be completed until possibly the beginning of 1985. Mr. Henley said he preferred to wait. Agenda Ztem No. 6(d). Highway Matters: Route 6~19 - Airport Access Funds~ Mr. Agnor referred to vhe letter from A. S. Brown, State Secondary Roads Engineer, dated February 21, 1984 as follows: "Pursuant to a resolution dated June 10, 1981, from the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the State Highway and Transportation Commission allocated $150,000 of Airport Access Funds on December 17, 1981, to improve Route 649 which is the access road to the Charlottesvilte-Albemarle~Airport. It is a requirement of the Commission's policy governing the use of Airport Access Funds that the cost of acquiring right-of-way and/or adjustment of utilities must~be financed from sources othe~ than the Airport Access Fund. Thus, in deference to the commitment of the Charlottesville,Albemarle Airport Board, the Commission,s allocation is contingent upon this provision. Inasmuch as all previous efforts have failed to result in satisfying this requirement and indications are that no one is actively pursuing this objective, it is not proper to continue to tie up these funds in this manner. The allocation should .be Withdrawn and returned to the unaltocated balance. Since the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was the applying governmental body, it should, in turn, request release of these funds for the aforementioned reasons. Such action would not prejudice a reapplication at some future time when these requr~ements ~can be me~ If our assessment of the status of the negotiations is accurate, it will be appreciated if the Board.would adopt a resolution accordingly." Mr. Agnor said that the only way the requirements for utiZity and right-of-way acquisition can be met is through the secondary road funds which are very scarce. Mr. Agnor explained that there were so many projects of a higher priority, that he did no~ think it appropriate to use ~eeon4ary road funds for straightening two curves on Route 649. Mr. Agnor then recommended that the Board comply with Mr. Brown's request and release the funds back ~o the' Sta~e. Mr. Bowle seid he hates to-~see the County lose $150,000. He asked if improving Route 649 will become the responsibility of an Airport Authority if one is constituted. Mr. Agnor said that at the present time there would be no funds for purchase of the necessary rightzof-way although at some time in the future, funds may be available. The only alternative is to use ~secondary road funds, but such funds are scarce. Improvements to Route 649 were included in the secondary plan, but not in the present Six-Year Plan. He referred again to Mr. Brown's letter whioh stated that releasing.-these funds would not prsjudice the County applying again in the future. Mr. Henley then offered motion to accept the recomendation of the County Executive and release tMe $150,00 funded for improvements to the CharlOttesville-Albemarle access road (Route 649). This motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Hen~l.ey and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 6(e). Highway Matters: Acceptance of Subdivision Street Construction to Less than Ultimate Standards. Mr. Agnor referred to the letter from A. S. Brown, Secondary Roads Engineer, dated r February 6, 1984~as follows: "The Board's request of November 9, 1983, relative to the Department's acceptance for maintenance of certain subdivision streets constructed to standards less than that necessary to properly handle the ultimate anticipated traffic, was furnished the Commission's Subdivision Standards Committee for its consideration. O20 March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) On January 19, 1984, the committee mev to consider several proposed changes to the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, including your request. It was the Committee's decision that while the reasons for this request were fully appreciated, it could not agree to the acceptance of subdivision streets constructed to standards less than adequate to accommodate the traffic ultimately anticipated until such a time as an acceptable mechanism is available to assure the timely financing and construction of the complete roadway facility without cost to highway allocations. In light of the many existing needs on the Secondary System and the limited funds available for improvements, the acceptance of additional obligations to the system would create an untenable situation. The Commivtee regrets it must deny this request. In the event the Board has any suggestion regarding a feasible method for providing this assurance, such would be welcomed by the Committee for further consideration." Mr. Fisher said this is basically the response he expected. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission was very concerned about the Highway Department's response. He continued that there are requests coming in for approval (specifically in the Hollymead area) and the county cannot require the developers to construct a road to the ultimate standard when the development does nov generate the need for such. Mr. Tucker said the only alternative is to allow development of some-roads outside of the parkway design which would nov be within that ultimate right-of-way. Mr. Fisher said this is the same problem the Virginia Association of Counties has been pushing for about seven years. He contined that every year there are several bills presented to the General Assembly in an attempt to alleviate the problem, however, nothing much can be done until the Counties find a sympathetic ear in the General Assembly. No action was taken by the Board. Agenda Item No. 6(f). were discussed. Highway Matters: Other Highway Matters. No other Highway Matters Agenda Item No. 7. Request to connect Inglec~ess Subdivision to water service area. The following letter, dated February 15, 1984, was received from James W. Gercke, Presiden- of Inglecress, Ltd.: "Z would appreciate it if you could add to your agenda for the March 14 meeting of the Board, a request to include the Inglecress Subdivision in the water service area for the Albemarle County Service Authority." Mr. Tucker then read the following staff report: "Proposal: Amendment of the Albemarle County.Service Authority's service area for water service only. History, Zoning and Current Utility Service: Inglecress Subdivision (formerly Berta Jones Estate) is located on the south side of Garth Road (Route 601) and north of Farmington. The plat was approved by the Board of Supervisors, after appeal, on September 10, 1980. The subdivision consists of 4.3 lots avaraging 4.2 acres per lot. property is currently zoned RA Rural Areas. The A public waterline is located along Ivy Creek contiguous to this property. Public water was requested but nov permitted at the time the subdivision plat was approved in 1980. Comprehensive Plan: This property is nov located within a designated growth area of the Comprehensive Plan, but is adjacent to the "water only" service area of the Service Authority's jurisdictional area. Staff Comment: It has been the Board of Supervisor's policy in the past to limit water service to those areas designated for future growth and development, existing water service areas and existing structures that are contiguous to an existing waterline. Recently, the Board did approve an amendment to the "water only" service area in Ivy, but limited the number of waver con~ections based upon the number of existing development rights. Should the Board choose to approve this request, Staff would recommend that approval be limited to 43 water connections." Mr. Gercke said that the plat showing 43 lots has been signed, and several of the lots have been conveyed to other owners. The only interest of Inglecress, Ltd. is to provide water facilities for water protection to the existing 43 lots. Mr. Gercke said he is not interested in obtaining any additional sub'division rights by virtue of having water available. The Albemarle County Service Authority line is approximately 10 to 15 feet from the property and can be readily accessed either by means of an easement across a private piece of property, or along the State H~'ghway'right-of-way. March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) 021 (Mr. Henley left the meeting at 10:16 A.M.) Mr. Gercke said the Planning~ Commission initially approved the subdivision plat on July 22, 1980 with several conditions Two of which were "Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans; and Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow of 750 gpm. On September 10, 1980, the Board of Supervisors approved the plat on appeal but deleted both these conditions, i.e., allowed no access to public water. Mr. Fisher asked for futher public comments. There being none, he suggested this issue be deferred until the March 21 meeting because Mr. Lindstrom is not present and has considerable interest in this request. Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to defer the request by Mr. Gercke for expansion of the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Znglecress SShbdivision, to March 21, 1984. (Mr. Henley returned at 10:22 A.M.~) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 8. Requests to connect to Crozet Sewer Interceptor. Letter from W. J. Kirtiey, Jr., dated March 2, 1984, requesting service for 3.5 acres designated as Parcel 23B1 on Tax Map 59. Letter from Terence Y. Sieg, dated February 16, 1984, requesting service on property owned by J. W. Sieg and Company on Route 250 West. Letter from Henry J. Javor, dated March 8, 1984, requesting service to his property on Route 250 West; property lies between properties of Kirtley and Sieg. Mr. Tucker noted that all the properties are located in the same general area on Route 250 West. He then read the following staff report: "Staff Comment: In lieu of a complete staff report on these requeSts, Staff offers the following comments with regard to general policy and precedence set for a simi.lar request.in the past. The general policy for access to utilities in the past has been to limit utility service to.those areas located outside of the County's designated growth areas and/or those areas located within the watershed of a drinking water impoundment. This policy is used as a~tool to discourage intensive development in those areas not designated for future growth and development, as well as those areas of drinking water impoundments which are most sensitive to development impact. This policy has basically been the guide- line~ along with the Comprehensive Plan, for establishing the Albemarle County Service Authority's service areas. The most recent request for which this policy was followed was in July, 1983, in which Christian Aid Mission (located just west of these currently requested properties) was denied access to the Crozet Interceptor." Mr. Tucker said that the properties belonging to Mr. Kirtley and Mr. Sieg contain structur at this time. Mr. Javor did have an approved site plan several years ago, but that site plan subsequently expired; there are no structures presently on the Javor property. Mr. Fisher said that when these requests were first-received, he had suggested that the staff review the entire length of Route 250 West in reference to the Crozet Interceptor line to determine the growth areas which might be served by this line, and areas outside of the South Fork Rivanna'~watershed and then draw a map which would comply with the Board's past procedures. The Board could then determine whether the areas which could be served meets the needs of the property owners. Mr~ Fisher said the staff is really looking for some directions from the Board. Mr. Tucker referred to a map indicating the impoundment watershed boundary line which has been used in the pa'st as the growth area boundary as well. Ail properties lying outside of that boundary technically drain to the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. Mr. Fisher then asked for~pubtic comments relative to this application. Mr. W. J. Kirttey passed out a fact sheet to th~ B0ard~'members, dated March I3, 1984 and read as follows: "We have been in our building since 1970 - 14 years. The property was purchased, graded, road~built and railroad siding constructed. This is ~a Bus~ness.~Property and~Zoned M~I. Location - Route 250 West, ParCel 23B1, approximately one a~d one-half miles west of'City limits on north side of Route 250 West. Easement for new sewer line is in road area which was constructed to accommodate our purpose. This new line runs north to south in this road to Route 250 at top of hill, present plans call for line to go under Route 250 at top of hill and then run from west to east to and through Ednam and Boar's Head property. Proposed line is now planned to be on south side of Route 250. Manholes to accommodate sewer lines are located at proposed points. There is a manhole, number 29, located in roadway aasement on north side of Route 250 at Kirtley property and it has been determined that hook up is ~ossib!e ~here. · 022 March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) ~ravity- flow of runoff water from Kirt!ey property, goes east on Route 250 to bottom of hill across fr~om Boar's Head and Ednam property. There is no problem with water being discharged in Rivanna runoff a~ea~since it runs under Route 250 to drainage ditches on south side of Route 250. We understand that permission has already been granted in the Boar's Head area for hook up to new buildings to this new sewer line. We request that the Board of Supervisors change the jurisdictional lines pertaining to the sewe~ line location so as to accommodate our business needs. Very truly yours, Signed, W. J. Kirtley, Jr." Mr. Kirtley handed our two maps one of which indicated the sewer line passing under Route 250 West. Mr. Kirtley feels that since there is a manhole located on the north side, it is r_ mechanically possible to h'ook into the sewer line. Mr. Kirtley said the .only reason hook up is not possible is because that area has not been placed in the jurisdiction of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Kirttey then referred to his~plat saying that portions of his property do not drain into the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Mr. Henry J. Javor was the next person to speak. He expressed his desire to obtain sewer service to his property. Mr. Javor then presented the Board with a brief history of his property. He referred to his site plan which was approved by the Planning Commission to use septic tank and drainfield. This was subsequently appealed and the site plan approved by the Board of Supervisors on SePtember 16, 1981 with the condition that public sewer be available to all the units. Mr. Javor understands that this site plan was approved because not all of the property drains into the South Fork Rivanna watershed and Route 250 was used as a convenient demarcation line to separate the service areas. He could not proceed with development of the property at that time because it was nov economically feasible to connect to the public sewer line which was approximately two thousand feet away. However, at the present time the public sewer line is about one hundred feet across the road from his property and his property could easily be served by gravity flow to manhole 27. In view of this, he feels the Board should grant a jurisdicvional waiver. Mr. Roy Patterson, President of Citizens for Albemarle, said he sympathizes with the property owners located along this route. However,. he feels that if the Board grants connec- tions in this location, it will be difficult to determine where to stop in the future. He feels the best description of the situation is contained in the Comprehensive Plan as foZlows: "it is strongly recommended that access t.o the interceptor between the force main section east of Crozet and the urban area boundary be either prohibited or severely restricted during the plan period." Mr. Patterson asked that the Board adhere to its past precedents in these matters and to the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. James Netligan, a representative of J. W. Sieg and Company, was the next person to speak. He stated that the areas in which these businesses are located do present some question regarding the watersheds into which these parcels drain. This is why the applicants are requesting the right to connect to the interceptor. Mr. Fisher cautioned the Board to exercise care in approaching this issue or precedents may be set for many other decisions concerning not only the South Fork Rivanna watershed, but connections along the entire route of the Crozet line. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Kirtley has stated that portions of his property do not flow into the South Fork Rivanna watershed and he asked Mr. Tucker to indicate what portions of the properties in question lie outside the South Fork watershed. Mr. Tucker said that the line on the large~scale map to which Mr. Fisher refers is simply an approximation. The right-of-way of Route 250 West was used as the boundary by the Board with the understanding that.part of the frontage of these properties does in fact drain away from the South Fork watershed. He said that the Engineering and Planning staffs can determine a more definitive line than the estimated line on the map presently before the Board. Mr-. Bowie said he would like to iknow which portions of the properties in question do not flow towards the South Fork watershed and where the proposed sewer line will be located. Mr. Fisher suggested determining which portions of the properties in question can be served by gravity flow. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to have staff examine the areas along Route 250 West from the city limits to FZordon Subdivision to determine if portions of these properties drain into a watershed other than the South Fork Rivanna and if any portion~ of these properties can be served by gravity flow. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and'Way. None. ~ Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher recommended that this issue be placed on the April 11 agenda for further discussion. Agenda Item No. 9. Division of Woodbrook Precinct - request from Electoral Board. March 14, 1984 (R~gular Day Meeting) 023 Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews said the Electoral Board, at its February meeting, voted unanimousl to establish a second polling place for the Charlottesville District at the Seminole Trail Fire Department. Mrs. Matthews said she had received written permission from the fire department that they would be pleased to have their building used for this purpose. Mr. Fisher asked if Matthews had discussed this proposal with Mrs. Cooke. Mrs. Matthews said no. Mr. Fisher said he felt uncomfortable acting on this in Mrs. Cooke's absence and recommended deferring the matter unt~i March 21 when Mrs. Cooke will be present. In the interim, Mr. Fisher requested that Mrs. Matthews discuss this issue with Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing. Appeal: Bobby Martin Preliminary Subdivision Plat of Lots iA, 1B~ tC and iD, a division of Tax Map 89, Parcel 74, located on State Route 631 near intersection of Route 706, Samuel Miller District, Albemarle County Virginia. (Plat dated December 20, 1983, revised January 24, 1984, drawn by William S. Roudabush, !nc.) It was noted that a l~tter was received from J. Tom Gale of Roudabush, Inc., dated Z February 27, 1984, appealing decision of Planning Commission on February 21, 1984 denying this preliminary plat. Mr. Tu6ker read the following staff report: "Location: Acreage: Zoning; History: Proposal-: We~t side of Route 631, just north of its intersection with Route 706. Tax Map 89~ Parcal 74. 29.6 acres. RAj Rural Areas. June 15~ 1982 - Berta Shaver Final Plat - Approved with conditions for three parcels on private road. November 16, 1982 - Berta Shaver Reconsideration - Two lots on existing driveway. Plat signed December 7, 1982. To create four lots of 2.0, 2.0, 2.1 and 23.5 acres on a private road. The applicant is requesting approval under the previous private roads provisions because his plat was submitted in December, 1983. Reason for Planning Commission Review: Preliminary plat approval. Topography of the Area' Level near Route 631, steeper to the rear of the property - over twenty percent. C6ndition of'Roads S~rving Proposal: Route 631 between Route 706 and Rout~ 781 carries 1,099 vehicle trips per day and is listed as non-tolerable. Watershed Impoundment: Not in water supply watershed area. Rivanna River. Biscuit Run Basin. Drains into Soils: Etioak loam and Culpeper fine sandy loam, deep to moderately deep well drained clay soils. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: SchoOl Impact: Slight. Rural Area IV. Utilities: Individual well and septic. b~een rece±ved. Health Department approval has Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation: An acceptable private ~treet commercial entrance is existing. Any further Subdiv'ision shodld have additional Highway Department review. Staff Comment: The four new lots, as well as existing Tax Map 90, Parcel 4, ..... all will use the private road. There is presently a mainteflance agreement between the applicant and the owner of Parcel 4.. If the plat is reviewed under the current private roads provisions, then lots lA, -lB, and lC d.o not comply with the five acre rule. The County Engineer is recommending 'di~approva! for that reason and because there is no reason from an environmental or engineering standpoint why this should not be a public road. There is one remaining development right on lot iD. The Commission Should address the question of administrative approval of final plat. If the Planning Commissi.on approves the waiver of lot size, then staff recommends approval as follows~ ' Recommended Conditions of Approval: The final plat may not be signed until the following conditions have been met: CoUnty Engineer approval of private road; County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement; Note 75 foot setback from private road on lots lB, lC, iD." March 14, 1984 (R'egular Day 'Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the reason this appeal is before the Board is that the applicant is requesting review u~der the pri~ate road provisions Which were in effect'at the time his request was made in December, 1983, prior to the time Changes were made in the private roads section of the Subdivision Ordinan'ce. Mr. Tucker added that lf~this preliminary plat is approved as is, there is one additional ~evel~pm~nt right~ remaining on parcel iD. Mr~ Tucker sai~d~the Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 21, 1984, recommended denial of the plat because it did not comply with the revised private'roads provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance-regarding minimum five-acre lot size The new private road provisions require'that any road in the rur~al area must serve lots five-acres mn size. Mr. Fisher askad Mr. St. John wh~ther this request should be considered under the new ordinance provisions or under the former provisions. Mr. St. John answered that the request should be reviewed under the current ordinance provisions. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr.. Tucker if he was aware of any other applications that had been filed under similar circumstances. Mr. Tu6ker replied that as far as he knew Mr. Martin's is the only such application. Mr. J. Tom Gale, Certified Land Surveyor with Roudabush, Inc., addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Martin. ~Mr. Gale referred to the original Plat which ~ad been approved by the Planning Commissmon, but which was never recorded. On approval of the original Plat, construc- tion of a private street commercial entrance and a portion of a private road was required. Mr. Gale then referred to subsequent revision of the plat reducing the number of lots from three to two; this plat was put to record. The reason for revising the original plat was to circumvent the private road ordinance and the need fo~ a priVate street commercial entrance. The existing entrance on the property has poor sight distance, but at the~time the plat revision was complete neither the entrance or the road required improvement for just two lots. The application under consideration tonight tO develop the ~roperty i~to three a~ditional parcels was filed too late; this appeal is one las~ attempt to obtain Consideration under the former private roads section of the ordinance. Mr. Gale said that at the Planning Commission meeting Mr. Martin was left with two options to build a state road or to divide into five-acre lots. Mr. Gale continued that there is only one place to locate an.-~ntran~e on this property and~ satisfy the HighWay Department but there is no flexibility to shift this entrance in either direction. 'If Mr. Martin were to construct a state road he would need a forty foot right-of-way and that would lie entirely on his property The owner of Lot 2 does not want a state road; Mr. Martin would in effect have to purchase additional land from Lot 2 which would create a setback violation for the house on Lot 2. Since the entrance is ~nfl~x~ble, Mr. Martin's only option is to design five-acre lots; building a state road is not a viable alternative. Mr~ Gale then referred to the preliminary subdivision plat indicating the house which Mr. Martin has built, and indicated where the five-acre lot lines would be located for Lots lC and lB. 'Lot iA would require an additional 2~9 acres. Mr. Gale said that while this can be done, Mr~ Martin would be greatly inconvenienced as he had the lot lines in mind when he built his house. Moving the lines would reduce his protection from the other property lines. Mr. Gale said that Mr. Martin is willing to relinquish his one additional development right on Lot iD. Mr. Bobby Martin, the applicant, stated his concurrence with Mr. Gale's comments. Mr. Tucker contradicted his earlier statment regarding other plats in a similar situation as Mr. Martin's. He said that Mrs. Mary Jo Scala had informed him there is a plat containing three two-acre lots which was also submitted in December. Earlier this year, the PIanning Commission deferred this plat indefinitely but it is basically in the same situation whereby three two-acre lots will be served by a private road. With no further comments to come before the Board, the public hearing was closed at 11:06 A.M. Mr. Way asked if this application ~had been reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the changes in the the Subdivision Ordinance, if the plat would ha~e been approved. Mr. Tucker said he feels it would have been approved. 'Mr. BoWie wondered if, by using the term proffer, there would be any way to accept the waiver to make it permanent. Mr. St. John said a waiver could be granted in this case conditioned ~pon the applicant placing on the plat a statement that the one remaining development right on Lot ID is extinguished. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if the Highway Department is requiring a commercial entrance because of the number of residences being served by this road. Mr. Tucker said this is difficul to say; it depends on th~ road location and the merits of the proposal. Mr. St. John suggested that approval of this plat be conditioned upon Highway Dep~rtment approval of the entrance. Mr. Fisher then suggested that the applicant's proposal be accepted but in return for the right to creave smaller lots and have a privats road, that Mr. Martin forfeit his one additional development right, and that the entrance meet Highway Department requirements. Mr. Tucker said that if the Board wishes to follow the Chairman's suggestions it may consider two additional conditions be added to the three conditions suggested by staff as follows: Virgninia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance into property; and note On the plat that there are no further development rights on Lot ID. Mr. Bowie feels that since the applicant's proposal was in progress before the rules were changed, he can support the request. Mr. Bowie then offered mot±on to approve th~ Bobby Martin Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: a) b) c) e) County Engineer approval of private road; County Attorney approval' of maintenance agreemenv; Note 75 foot setback from private road on lots lB, lC, iD; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance into property; Note on the plat that there are no further development rights on Lot iD. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. the following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 11. Bus Service Contract. Mr. Keith Mabe, Director of Community Development, presented the following report: "For the current fiscal year, Albemarle County allocated $18,243 for transit service along the 29 North corridor. The proposal before the Board of Supervisors from the Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) recommends to increase the service in three areas and to decrease the total costs to $9,421. The three areas recommended for service and local costs are: - Route 29 North - $5,370; - Georgetown/Hydraulic/Rio - $2,826; - Piedmont Virginia Commun'ity College - $1,225. Each of these routes are described briefly below and are shown on a display map provided at the meeting. Zn addition, information on a separate request for three benches and two bus shelters along the Route 29 corridor is provided. Route 29 North The County currently purchases bus service on 30 minute headways (two buses an hour) between the City and Albemarle Square Shopping Center. During the first six months of the current fiscal year, this route carried approximately 111,000 passengers. The proposed route for FY 1984-85 will remain the same and is estimated to carry over 233,000 passengers for the twelve-month period. From a survey of passengers conducted this summer, the projected ridership would indicate: - 159 one-way trips are made daily by Albemarle CoUnty residents; - 512 people are either boarding or leaving the bus in Albemarle County daily; - 317 people are using the route daily to get to and from work; - 281 people use the route to shop each day. As the projected ridership indicates, there are considerable amounts of Albemarle County residents as well as trips made in the County that are served by this CTS route. This use of alternative transportation modes does and should continue to assist in removing some traffic and congestion along Route 29 North. Also, considering the low cost for the twelve-month period, staff believes the local share by the County is justified. Georgetown/Hydraulic/Rio Several transit studies have recommended that public transportation could work in this part of Albemarle County's growth areas. The route proposed by CTS would begin in September 1984 and run until July 1985 at a local cost of $2,826 from the County. During morning and afternoon peak commuter hours, service would be provided every hour. During mid-day service and on Saturday, the route would provide service every other hour. The new route would proceed from the University of Virginia to Barracks Road Shopping Center, follow Georgetown Road to Hydraulic Road, follow Whitewood Road and Commonwealth Drive, along Four Seasons and Rio Road and to Albemarle Square. The return trip would follow Route 29 southwardly to Greenbrier Drive and Commonwealth Drive and follow the same path to Barracks Road Shopping Center. Projected ridership for the new route is estimated at a conservative level of 26,000 passengers. Bus ridership requires at least six months to build a stable level of service; therefore, the conservative level for nine months is low. Ail transit studies do, however, project this route to show great potential for the present and even more so as the County's Comprehensive Plan is implemented further. The local share for the County is very low and is calculated by hours of service in our locality (a very appropriate local-share formula). Studies also indicate increased efforts to promote ridesharing at the major employers adjacent to this area should be pursued. Piedraont Virginia Community College (PVCC) Beginning September, 1984, CTS has proposed to provide new hourly service to P¥CC and the Blue Ridge Hospital. The route would provide transfer capability at the.downtown station stop to County residents who live along the two routes discussed above. According to CTS, ridership along the route has been estimated at 15~000 passengers for a nine-month period. Again, this level is conservative due to the six-month building period. CTS also estimates through surveys conducted at PVCC that 103 students who attend PVCC live along the two proposed routes in the County. The route would of course be a direct link for City residents served along their existing routes. 825 March 14~_1984 (R__~ular Davy Meetin_g0_ Jefferson Area united Transportation Service (JAUNT) presently provides express service between the University of Virignia and Blue Ridge Hospital; however, the route proposed by CTS would not conflict nor duplicate this direct shuttle operated by JAUNT. One of the transit studies recently conducted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the City recommended that fixed'route service was nov feasible for the area at this time due to the unusual working and/or studying hours of the employees and users of these institutions. The options recommended for transit in this area include extra ridesharing efforts by JAUNT and shared-ride taxi service for other persons in the urban area. For this reason and the limited use of the route by County r~sidents, staff recommends that the cost of $1,225 from the County is not justified at this time. If the Board of Supervisors allows CTS to operate the system at its own expense, staff could examine ridership after a six-month period. Capital Needs Amenities that are associated with transit routes include shelters and benches at bus stops. Most of the capital funding for these amenities are provided by State and Federal funds. Presently, localities are required to pay only one percent of the total costs. There is some possibility that the State may reduce its contribution and re~ire localities to pay ten percent o~f the costs. At the higher percent, local costs for two shelters· and three benches at the following l~cations would be $623. The one-percent share from Albemarle would be only $62. Locations suggested are: Shelters Albemarle Square Benches Greenbrier Drive and 29 north of Greenbrier Greenbrier Drive and 29 south of Greenbrier Shoppers World - Fashion Square If the Board of Surervisors approves the other routes, additional benches may be appropriate to consider, i.e., Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads. Summary Two routes, Route 29 North and Georgetown/Hydraulic/Rio area, appear to be justified for some local ccntribution from the County. Both routes will serve major destination points in the County, as well as provide excellent transit possibilities for a l~rge urban population and rural commuters. As stated previously, any tran.sit routes along and adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor can only help to relieve some of the traffic and congestion in that area. Total local costs for these two routes are $8,196. Amenities along these routes (local share from $62 to $623) are needed. CTS will provide signage and scheduling changes for the proposed routes if approved. Staff does not believe that the-PVCC route is justified at this time for County contribution. The County could consider funding this route following a ridership building period (if the County approves the route). Funding for these routes is predominantly from Federal and State funds and is expected to continue at similar current levels; these funds are not demonstration monies for one year only. Finally, staff will be looking at long-range transit operations in the County (legal, financing, implementation issues) early this summer. This project is being funded by the MPO and should provide the Board of Supervisors with relevant information on this subject." Mr. Mabe said that a report on the proposed transit routes was presented to the Planning ommission last night. The Planning Commi~sion expressed concern about the two-hour bus service luring mid-day on the Georgetown/Hydraulic/Rio route. It was felt that this would not be of ~ignificant benefit to this area in light of the fact that the. re will be service every hour luring morning and afternoon peak commuter hours. The Planning Commission suggested that bus ~ervice to this area be provided on an hourly basis. Mr. Mabe said' that with this exception, ~he Planning Commission concurred with staff concerning the bus routes. Mr. Fisher said there are really two questions before the Board. One, is the Board going to amend the contract with the City to allow one or more of these service routes as proposed; and two, is the County going to fund the routes. Mr. Mabe said there is also a separate request asking for a local contribution of between $62 and $623 for amenities associated with the route, should the routes be approved. Mr. Agnor said he believes that if the County does not participate financially, CharlOttesville Transit Service will have no interest in these routes. Mr. St. John mentioned that the County can refuse to pay for the routes while at the same time authorizing the City to go ahead with the service if it wishes to do so on its own. Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Helen Poore, City Transit Manager if she had any other information to offer Mrs. Poore said no. ' · March lq, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) 827 Mr. John Carter addressed the Board saying that the two new routes presented to the - Planning Co~mission last night may appear to be a bargain to the County, but in fact, the stavistics and data used to gain the Board's approval raise many questions. Mr. Carter said he finds the ridership statistics, derived from a survey last summer, are not only incorrect but grossly misleading because these statistics do not indicate where the Albemarle County resident are boarding the bus. Mr. Carter then referred to the Georgetown/Hydraulic?Rio bus service proposal, stating his belief that the statistics posed are "flagrant misrepresentations" of actual evidence. He pointed out that the County cost for the next year is based on an assumption of increased ridership that he feels will simply not occur. Mr. Carter then quoted various figures from a study conducted for the Metropolitan Planning Organization by JHK Associates expressing his belief that these data are unsubstantiated and purely speculative. He challenged the City to provide evidence of any nature which warrants such estimates. Mr. Carter pointed out that no actual door-to-door or mail survey has been made relative to the Georgetown/Hydraulic/Rio bus route in order to determine possible bus usage. Assumption based on the ridership of established routes and census tracks have been made but no one actually asked people if they would be willing to purchase a $24°00 bus pass eYery six months. In conclusion, Mr. Carter suggested that before the county obligates itself to these routes, a careful survey be undertaken to determine the number of people who actually want this bus service. Mr. Agnor said the purpose of this discussion today is to determine whether any of these routes will actually be funded. Mr. Fisher said that from a budgetary standpoint the Board needs to establish which figure should be included in nexv year's budget which will go to public hearing soon. Mr. Henley said he cannot support the Piedmont Virginia Community College bus route. Mr. Fisher asked if JAUN~ still runs a shuttle to Blue Ridge Hospital. Mrs. Poore said yes, but that route does not include PVCC. Mr. Fisher said bus service to PVCC was encouraged several years ago, but apparently could not be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. Mr. Bowie said he was not sure he could vote to support any of the bus routes. The PVCC route runs from the City to PVCC a~d there is another route which serves a little area of Georgetown Road every few hours; no survey has been taken, there is no evidence that anyone wants this service or will buy tickets. Mr.~ Bowie said he personally sees no justificat±on for the Route 29 North rouve either. If enough county residents do nov ride the bus to make it profitable, then bus service is not necessary. Mr. Fisher said he has long felt that public transportation should pay its own ~way; if people do not support the system, the system should not run. However, over the years, being a member of the JAUNT Board, he has reached a different perspective. Mr. Fisher said that the priYate bus system in this community went out of business, and rather than have no public transportation system at all, the City of Charlottesville took it over. Mr. Fisher said there is a large segment of the population that does not drive, does not own a car, and needs public transportation. This is why he supported JAUNT so heavily as one means of providing transpor- tation for rural people who have no alternative. Mr. Fisher speculated that one reason for Albemarle County's good present economy is that people are shopping at county stores. He would like for them to have the means to get to these stores. He expressed his support of the two routes recommended by the staff. Mr. He~!ey asked how the cost of the Route 29 North route decreased so dramatically. Mrs. Poore said the state instituted a funding grant after the contract had been negotiatiated with the County. It was felt by the City that the same benefit should be passed to the County. Mr. Way asked the present cost for a r±der on a Charlottesville Transit bus. Mrs. Poore answered that the regular fare is forty cents and twenty centS for the elderly and handicapPed. Mr. Fisher asked the total CTS budget for the 1984-85 fiscal year. Mrs. Poore answered that it is in excess ~of' one million dollars. Mr. Fisher asked what percentage of the budget is provided by state funds, and what percentage is provided by federal funds. Mrs. Poore said less than one third is from the state. A little over one third is from the federal government, and the remainder is from the fare box and local subsidy. Mr. Way said he supports the staff's recommendations. Mr. Mabe said the new contract indicates a fare increase; fifty cents for regular fare and twenty-five cents for the elderly and handicapped. Mrs. Poore said an attempt is being made to assign more of the costs to the actual users of the service so there will be a slight fare increase for the bus service. Mr. Henley said he would support continuing the Route 29 North bus route for another year. Mr. Bowie then offered motion that the Route 29 North bus route be continued for one more year at a cost of $5,370 and the other two routes be denied. This motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher said he would supp~ort the motion and the Board could discuss this again after the public hearing on the budget when there will be an opportunity to make final adjust~ ments. Mr. Henley said he does not feel that people living in the Georgetown area will ride ~he bus. He thinks there is a need for bus service along Route 29 North; this route helps with traffic congestion and will support this route. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher and Henley. NAYS: Mr. Way. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked if the Board members would be willing to approve the other two routes without any County subsidy. Mr. Way said he saw no reason not to approve the routes. Mr. Way then offered motion to support the Georgetown/Hydraulic/Rio Roads and Piedmont Virginia Community College routes without any Albemarle County subsidy. Mr. Henley said he could support this motion, adding that he feels most-of the students riding the bus to PVCC will be city students and he does not feel the County should support this route with a subsidy. Mr. Way said he had no objection to the city running this route if they so choose. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher~ Hen-ley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr~ Lindstrom. Mr. Mabe said the Board ~eeded to act on the separate request relative to the amenities connected to the Route 29 North bus service. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to approve Albemarle County's fair share of the cost of two shelters and three benches to be contructed on the Route 29 North bus service route; if the bus route remains in the budget after the public hearing, fair share to be an amount between ~62 and $623. This was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriation - Drunk Driving Program. Mr. Agnor referred to the memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, dated February 15, .1984, as follows: "The County is fiscal agent for a Division of Motor Vehicles' grant which is the result of the efforts of the County Transportation Safety Commission's Task Force in conjunction with the Planning District Commission to combat drunken driving in the Charl'ottesville-Albemarle'-area. The official award of $4,680 was made in November, 1983, on Project AL83-00-809; however, no appropriation has been made of the grant funds. The Planning District incurs the .costs and applies to the State for reimbursement. The State makes payment to the CounTy which in turn.reimburses the Planning District Commission. Since there have been costs incurred in the program and reimbursement requests made, I request an appropriation in the Grant Fund." Mr. Agnor then provided the Board members with a description of the project as follows: Statement of the Problem. The Area Task Force to. combat Drunk Driving will be composed of representatives from Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, Greene County, Nelson County and the University of Virginia. It will address the problem of drunk driving with its related loss of life, personal injury and economic loss. Problem Solution Narrative. following tasks: The Area Task Force proposes to accomplish the a) Identify the extent of the drunk driving problem in the Charlottesville- Albemarle area. b) Identify and assess current efforts to address drunk driving in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. This study should encompass both specific and general deterrents. c) Review the state task force recommendations and determine the local implications of their implementation. Determine how the coordination of management and resources can be improved at the local level. e) Prepare a report on the~findings of the local task force and recommendations for action to deliver to local governing bodies. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $4,680 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Fund and coded to 1-1203-31120-562500 - Drunk Driving Program; AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1983-1984 County budget is hereby amended by the addition of $4,680 to Code 2-1203-31120-80000 - Grant Proceeds; AND FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 13. Transfer of Appropriation between Housing and Planning Departments. Mr. Agnor referred to the memorandum from Mr. Ray B.. Jones,-Director of Finance, dated February 13, 1984, as follows: "The Fiscal Year 1983-84 budget carried the half-time salary of a Secretary I position in cost center 81030 (Housing) which was transferred to cost center 810101 (Planning) last July. Recent budget reviews indicate that salaries in Planning will be more than the appropriated amount, but funds will be left in Housing. Therefore, t request your approval of the following transfer: FROM: 81030 Housing 100100 Compensation $ 5,126 200200 Retirement 614 200500 Hospital and Medical 210 200600 Life Insurance 46 201100 Workman's Compensation 171 TOTAL $ 6,167 TO: 81010 Planning 100100 200200 200500 200600 201100 Compensation $ 5,126 Retirement' 614 Hospital and Medical 210 Life Insurance 46 Workman's Compensation 171 TOTAL $ 6,167 The above transfer will solve a large majority of the potential over- expenditure for salaries and fringes in cost center 81010 - Planning. Additional problems of potential over-expenditures result from the departure of two employees with combined accrual leave of approximately $2,500 in salaries and fringe costs. If this excess salary cost cannot be absorbed during the year, an additional appropriation will be necessary at a later date." Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the transfer of $6,167 from Housing to Planning as recommended by the County Executive. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 14. Transfer of Appropriation for Voting Machines. Mr. Agnor referred to the memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones dated February 28, 1984 as follows: "The County Registrar, Mary Lou Matthews, is requesting an appropriation for 'ffv8 voting machines. The background of this request is primarily due to several conditions: 1) The Governor's effort to make it easier for the citizens to vote. 2) The new guidelines by the State Board of Elections as to the number of machines per precinct in relation to the number of registered voters. 3) There .was an increase in the number of registered voters in Albemarle County last November. The local Board of Elections reviewed the County's situation and determined there was a need for six additional machines., however, did some shifting of voters in several precincts, that reduced the need to five. As explained in Mrs. Matthews' request, the County can obtain a savings of $1,000 on a $6,475 purchase by ordering before April 1, 1984, rather than placing the order in July. This is a significant savings amounting to over 15 percent. Therefore, E request the following transfer in the General Fund: FROM t-1000-91012-410800 Urban Bus Service $ 6,475 TO 1-1000-13020-700100 Machinery and Equipment $ 6,475 This transfer was made possible by a federal grant which reduced the County's share of the Route 29 North Bus Service from $18,243 to $6~,830 in FY 83-84." 030 March 14 , 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Agnor then referred to the memorandum from Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews, General Registrar for the Electoral Board to the Board of Supervisors explaining the Code (Section 24.1-203) which requires that these machines be purchased and detailing the location of the voting machines: "...the increase in the number of registered voters in certain precincts, and anticipated increase in the number being registered prior to the November 6 Presidential Election are as follows: Woodbrook has 4,918 registered voters and 7 machines (anticipated +); Jack Jouett has 2,863 registered voters and 4 machines (anticipated +); Monticello has 1,611 registered voters and 2 machines (now over) Porters has 822 registered voters and 1 machine (now over) Crozet has 2~548 registered voters and 3 macMines (now over); We now have 37 voting machines, one being a spare. We used the spare machine in 1980 ~to count the voted absentee ballots and would like to do'the same t~is year. The number of absentee ballots is greater than the number of registered voters in some precincts; (ex., Covesville has only 184 registered voters)." Mr. Agnor explained that the state law sets out how many voting machines a precinct must have and also requires th&t the local governing body buy these machines. Mr. Agnor then recommended that the purchase of these machines be authorized now so the machines can be purchased before April 1, 1984 at a cost of $6,475 and that the money be derived by transfer from the Urban Bus Service. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the transfer of $6,475 from Urban Bus Service to the Registrar for the purchase of five voting machines-. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messr. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 15. Request for refund - Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company. Mr. Agnor referred~.to the memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, dated February 14, 1984 as follows: "A copy of a letter from Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company was presented to me recently for review. (Letter dated March 25, 1981, requesting reimbursement for various permits and charges paid in the course of constructing the fire house.) Apparently, no action was taken on the request at the time the letter was received. A recent inquiry by Dr. F. A. Iachetta resulted in my review of the status of the request. By official action of the Board of Supervisors, a refund was made to the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company in December, 1976 of a building permit fee. Apparently, a decision was made at that time that building permit fees to fire companies would be made when the fees were paid directly by the fire company and nov by the contractor. I recommend a refund be made to Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company in the amount of $966.15 for various permits and fees connected with building of the fire department building in 1977 and 1978. It is not necessary to make an appropriation for this refund at this time. It can be paid from the existing appropriations (Account Number 1-1000- 92010-580305) f.or this purpose. However, it may be a contributing factor for an over-expenditure at a later date depending on refund transactions during the remaining months of the current fiscal year." Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the refund of $966.15 as recommended by Mr. Jones. Mr. St. John said the motion should be stated as a constribution in the amount of $966.15. Mr. Bowie amended his previous motion stating his intent to approve a contribution of $966.15 for the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company, and then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, pursuant to Section 15.1-25 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, that the sum of NINE HUNDRED SIXTY SIX DOLLARS AND FIFTEEN CENTS ($966.15) be paid to the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company as reimbursement for various permit fees heretofore paid by said Company pursuant to Section 5-3 of the Albemarle County Code. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 16. Recreational Facility. Capital Improvement Appropriation - Crozet Elementary School Mr. Agnor referred to the memorandum from Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, dated February 28, 1984 as follows: "Our Department would li~ke to request that the Board of Supervisors approve funding in the amount of $3,000 to replace the baseball back- stop a~ the Crozet Elementary School Field. As you probably know, the .fie!d is one of the main game fields for the Peachtree Little League. The volunteers who. run the little league have been trying to patch up the old backstop for the past six or seven seasons, but at this point, the posts are deteriorating and need to be replaced. This project is scheduled for 1983-84 in our Capital Improvements, Budget request and is listed as an urgent priority. If possible we would like to have this request placed on the Board's agenda as early as possible in March so if the project is approved we can complete installa- tion before the little league season begins in mid-April." Mr. Agnor then mentioned the memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones which requests approval ~f this appropriavion. Mr. Jones writes that this project was included in last year's Capital Improvements Program for funding in the 1983-84 Fiscal Year. Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT ~RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Aibemarle County, Virginia, that $3,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund for a backstop on the Croz~t Elementary School ballfield, and coded to: 1-9000-97000-975609 Crozet Recreation Facility ~oll was called and the mo~ion carried by the following-recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT.: Messrs~ Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 17(a). Public Hearing: Budget Amendment: Repairs to telephone equipment - County Office Building.(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 6, t984). Mr. Agnor referred to the memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, dated February 29, 1984 as follows: "Bill Sullivan, Director of Staff Services, is requesting funds to make the necessary improvement in the small basemen~ room where the telephone equipment is currently located. The room has to be controlled from a temperature and moisture standpoint-in order for the equipment to function. Currently, the automated equipment is malfunctioning due to build up of moisture and aecumuleted 'dust. Since this building ~pened, there has been considerable "down time" on the entire telephone system. There 'are sixty control panels in the'automated controls which cost about $1,200 each to replace or $400 each to repair. I request an appropriation from the General Fund Balance to: 1-1000-43000-300500 Maintenance of Equipment - Staff Services - $5,000." Mr. Fisher asked if there was any guarantee that this will fix the problem. Mr. Agnor said that Centel has assured the County that if a cooling system, special door and tile floor are installed, the problem will be alleviated. Mro Agnor said he has seen the effects of this system in City Hall and added that City Hall has had no problems with it. Agenda Item No. 17(b). Public Hearing: Budget Amendment: Operational Costs - McIntire Building (Advertised'in the Daily Progress on March 6, 1984.) Mr. Agnor referred to the memorandum of Mr. Ray B. Jones, dated February 23, 1984 as follows: "The Department of Education funded the maintenance and operation of Mcintire School through June 1983 with the intent of moving all of its programs to the main County Office Building by September 1983. However, there were delays in completing Phase II of the County Building which resulted in the Media Center not being moved to the County Building until January 1984. Since July, 1983,, 'the operational costs of the McIntire Building have been absorbed by the Department of Staff Services but no funds were budgeted for the ~facility.~ The operational costs are astronomical - estimated at approximat~ely $50,0g0 per'year exc!ud±ng-custodial care and snow removal costs. Fortunately, there has'been no snow. Arecent budget review of the Department of Staff Services indicated there will be significant overexpenditures due primarily to the utility costs at McIntire. The budget review by the County Executive, Director of Staff Services, and myself indicated the need for the following appropriation: 032 March 14,. 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) FROM: General Fund Balance TO: 1-1000-43000 Staff Services $45,500 510100 Electrical Services $ 7,500 510200 Heating Services 32~500 510300 Water and Sewer Services 500 510500 Janitorial Supplies 5,000 TOTAL $45,500 Approximately one-half of the above expenses will he recovered as revenue in Fiscal Year 1983-84 from rent charges to the YMCA and~other agencies. occupying the facility at this tame. As you know, the Board authorized the staff to advertise this facility foli.owing the public hearing last October on its future use. The advertisement was placed in the paper this month with a deadline of May 7, 1984. We are proposing in next year's budget only three months operating costs. Hopefully, the future use or disposition of the property can be finalized by September, 1984" At 12:10 P.M., the public hearing on both the special appropriation for the McIntire Building and the appropriation for repairs to the telephone equipment was opened. There being no one present to address these issues, the public hearing was closed at 12:11 P.M. Mr. Bowie said he understands that the YMCA last year had offered to pay the full amount but for various reasons did not get a response from the County. When the YMCA was formulating its budget they asked how much money the County wanted for this year, and again did not receive a response until February 22, 1984. The YMCA had already created its budget and spread its ~osts over the winter and spring season. Mr. Bowie said he feels advertising the building for sale, etc., will bring many responses. His understanding is that on March ~9, 1984, representa tires of the YMCA are going to meet with the County Executive and with Mr. Jones. He understan the YMCA is still willing to pay its fair share. Mr. Bowie said since the School Board used the building for six months, it has some obligation to fund these costs. He recommended that this matter be deferred to March 21 until Mr. Agnor talks with the School Board and the YMCA to see if it is really necessary to transfer $45,500 out of the General Fund. This motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Mr. Agnor said the YMCA did, in fact, receive an answer from the County but was not pleased with the response. This is the reason for the meeting on Monday. Mr. Agnor continued that when the School staff announced that the McIntire Building would nov be included in the current budget, the question arose as to how the building would be funded. The decision was made at that time not to put more money into the School ~budget since it would not be msed further for School purposes, and the County would assume responsibility for the buildin out of General Fund monies. Under the circumstances, Mr. Agnor said he agrees that since the School Board occupied the building for several months, it should participate in the costs. Mr. Way asked when the School Media Center moved out of the McIntire Building. Mr. Agnor answered that it moved ay the end of December, 1983. Mr. Henley referred to a comment in Mr. Jones' memorandum that no funding has been include in the Department of Staff Services for upkeep of Greenwood Elementary School for FY 84-85. Mr. Henley said he certainly hopes this building will not be allowed to deteriorate. Mr. Agnor said there has been no formal decision by the School Board at this time to abandon Greenwood Elementary ~chool, but should such a decision be made, the property will revert to the general county go~vernment. Until such time, the school system must maintain the building. Mr. Fisher restated the recommenGation offered by Mr. Bowie saying a motion had been made to defer action on the appropriation for Staff Services re: the McIntire Building until March 21, 1984, pending a meeting between staff and the present tenants. Roll was called and the motion c~rried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the following resolution relative to the telephone equipment repairs in the County Office Building: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $5,000 be, and the .same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund Balance for repairs to the telephone equipment room in the County Office Building on McIntire Road and coded to: 1 1000 43000 300500 Maintenance of Equipment - Staff Services Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Henley sai'd he is very interested in learning what is to be done with the Greenwood Elementary School property. Mr. Agnor suggested this answer may be forthcoming next Wednesday, March 21, when the School Board will present its 1984-85 budget. March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 20. Executive Session - Personnel. At 12:18 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn into Executive session for discussion of personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom'. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:53 P.M. Agenda Item No. 21. Work Session -- 1984-85 Budget. Board of Supervisors. Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, was present. Mr. Agnor summarized the budget and noted the most significant change is the transfer of the salary of a Secretary II position (the person who acts as receptionist for the two offices) to the County Executive's budget due to the recent reorganization of the Country Executive's staff. Mr. Agnor concluded by stating that the budget decreases by 11.2 percent or $22,870 for a total budget recommendati of $181,190. Mr. Fisher asked about the salaries of the Board members, stating that the salaries have been the same for eleven years. Mr. Agnor said the salaries are based on Virginia Code Section 14.1-46.01:1, and any change is at the discretion of the Board. No suggestions were offered to change the recommendation of the County Executive. COu.n~Y Executive. Mr. Agnor distributed a corrected salary sheet and note~$~ change on page 37 to change the total salaries and fringe benefits from "$239,520" to 53,895" to reflect the salary of two deputy county executives as well as the Secretary II. The overall increase of the budget is 87.26% or $116,207 for a total recommended budget of $263',755. No suggestions for changes were offered by any Board member. Personnel. Mr. Agnor said this is the first year tha~ a Personnel Department has been in operation. Since the majority of its work is for the School system, the majority of this department is carried under the School budget. He referred to a line item entitled "salary adjustments" which is the lump sum included in the budget each year for merit increases and promotionS. Mr. Agnor explained that the funds are retained in this line item and transferred to individual departments once each year if the departments cannot fund the merit increases from operational changes. He further explained that the $47,250 shown represents enough funds for about onethird of the general government staff to receive a merit increase. After a brief discussion about the personnel budget, Mr. Bowie expressed his hope that departments saving the County money are recognized for these efforts. Mr. Way asked if the School system funds its portion of unemployment insurance. Mr. Agnor said yes, and noted that the amount is divided by the total number of County employees; 300 general, and 1,100 s~hool employees. Mr. Fisher asked if the amount shown for merit is only for~the general county employees. Mr. Agnor said yes. No changes were suggested. Legal Services. Mr. George St. John, County Attorney, was present. Mr. Agnor said Mr. S~'.' John had requested that the salaries of the two deputy county attorneys be examined because he felt the salaries were too low and needed to be adjusted. Therefore, a five percent increase is shown for the County Attorney, and a five percent increase plus an additional $5,000 for the two deputies. Mr. Agnor said although the two deputy county attorneys are not full-time County employees, eighty percent of their time is spent on County business. Mr. Agnor further noted two other line items showing a large increase; books and subscriptions, due to the need for a set of law books, and rent which has not changed since 1978. Mr. St. John explained the increase in the rent category and noted that same is basically for deferred maintenance of the building. He also explained that the two deputies have been specializing in local government law for ten years and are only receiving the beginning salary of a law school graduate. Mr. St. John said most other counties employ outside attorneys for major litigation, but at this time, his office does not. No changes were offered to the $153,565 recommendation of the County Executive. Data Processing. Mr. Fred Kruger, Director, was present. Mr. Agnor said the work level in this department has reached the point of justifying a second shift. The total increase in the operating budget is $42,635 which is primarily due to the purchase of additional software in the amount of $30,760. Mr. Agnor noted that Mr. Kruger has been extremely careful in the management of~ his budget and very often saves funds by buying used items. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 2:28 P.M.) Mr. Bowie asked if purchase of this software was anticipated previously. Mr. Kruger said this software was not acquired last year due to the economy~ Mr. Kruger said this software will help improve the computer's efficiency during the programming activity, maintain and control program source library, and improve on-line development capabilities in order to help maintain the programming s~aff at the current level. Mr. Bowie said for his own p. ersonal information, he would like to meet with several department heads to examine the detailed report furnished with the budget information relating to purchase of March 14, 1984 QRegular Da~ Meeting) this additional software. these department h~eads. Mr. Way said he. too is.interested and wauld like to meet with No changes were offered to the total budget~recommendation of $398,100 which is a 21.79% increase over current funding. Finance. (Administration, Collections, Accounting and Payroll Sections). Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, was present. Mr.. Agnor said t~he administrative section of this budget is 4.95% lower due to the replacement of the Director of Finance and the salary of the new Director will be lower than the present Director. He further noted that the operations part of the budget increases by 4.93% due to a $10,000 appropriation to hire a consultant for what is known as "Coost Allocation Plan". This study has not been conducted for three years. Mr. Agnor explained the consultant looks at federal and State programs and allocations of costs to determine appropriate administrative fees for agencies that the County is fiscal agent for. Mr. Agnor said another item transferred to the Finance budget is $5,000 for insurance consultants. This was previously in the Board of Supervisors budget and has been agreed to by both he and Mr. Jones that this is a function of the Finance Department. The total recommended is $638,510 for 4.95% increase. No changes were suggested. Real Estate. Mr. Agnor said the total recommended is $356,200 which is a 5.95% increase. He noted that costs for outside services relating to data processing and service bureau costs have been deleted from this budget request since the County now has its own Data Processing Department functioning. No changes were recommended. Purchasing. Mr. Agnor said the total recommended is $84,440 which is a 58.81% increase. This is due to the addition of one account clerk and a $7,700 item for a remote terminal to the computer. Mr. Agnor said the account clerk is necessary due to the increased work load this department. No changes were suggested. Refunds. Mr. Agnor said the largest item in this category is for the land use deferral program which increases 1.67% or $35,000. Mr. Agnor also noted that the category entitled "Excess Fees Paid to State Treasurer" are fees collected by the Clerk of the Circuit Court and the amount is increasing 2.35%. No changes were offered. Registrar. Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews, Registrar, was present. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is for $81,290, a 28.58% increase which is due primarily to compensation and related expenses for a full-time staff person from July 1 to November 30 while the Registrar is out of the office at various registration sites. Operational expenses have increased 13% basically due to the cost of storage for the voting machines. Mr. Fisher asked if the County now has space of its own to store these machines and reduce the expense of storing voting machines. Mr. Agnor said the cost £or the voting machines includes hauling same to the precincts and from and that is the major part of the contract. Mrs. Matthews was present and explained the services provided by the contact and noted that the contract includes such items as paper ballots, maintenance and various items other than storage. No change was offered to the recommendation. Engineerin'g. Mr. Maynard Elrod, Engineer, was present. Mr. Agnor said the total budget recommended is $263,290 which is an 18.07% increase. Mr. Agnor said an additional part-time person is needed with the increase of work and if this position is approved by the Board, the person will be hired immediately by using existing funds. In the operational part of the budget, two vehicles with high mileage are to be replaced. No changes were offered to the recommendation. Refuse Disposal. Mr. Agnor said the increase for the Keene Landfill is $10,000 due to excavating a new cell during fiscal year 1984-85. He noted that the Ivy Landfill budget increases $113,018 or 27.87% due to improving construction procedures in the developmen: of cells in order to protect the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Mr. Way asked about funds for improving the road into the Keene Landfill; in particular, some sort of dust control. Mr. Agnor said that this' road is part of the State Highway Department system, so is a part of that budget. Mr. Bowie asked about charging the University of Virginia for use of the Ivy Landfi~lt to offset some of the costs involved with the facility. Mr. Agnor said this has been discussed for years. The University contends that the number of City/County 6itl.z~ns cared for at the University are well over the amount the University would have to pay to use the landfill. However, the University has said they would be pleased to pay a fee if the same fee were applied to all entities using the landfill. Mr. Agnor then noted that Mr. Elrod has a report on the tipping fee charged at the Landfill, the report will be distributed to the Board members. Mr. Bowie felt the problem of littering and trash control is larger than whether a charge should be applied for the use of the landfill and he feels the problem should be examined in detail. March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) 035 The report regarding costs and possible ways to collect for the use of the landfill was distributed, but time did not allow for discussion. Mr. Fisher asked the usable life span of the Ivy Landfill. Mr. Elrod said it could be as long as twenty-five or thirty years. No changes to the recommendation were offered. Staff Services. Mr. William Sullivan, Director of Staff Services, was present. Mr. Agnor said when the renovations are completed to the County Building and Courthouse on Court Square, this department will then settle into management of the McIntire Road office building, the Court Square buildings, functions of the motor pool and copy center.. Further, he noted that the motor pool and copy center are self-sustaining since the users for both pay for the service out of the respective departmental budgets. Mr. Agnor said the largest operational increase is for electrical service because this category was underfunded last year. (Mr. Fisher left the room at 3:21 P.M.) Mr. Agnor pointed out that funds have been provided for one-quarter year maintenance and upkeep on the old McIntire School Building with the anticipation of some decision being made as to lease or sale of the building by September. Mr. Bowie asked the amount of savings when the decision is made. Mr. Agnor said the savings would be approximately $13,000. (Mr. Fisher returned at 3:25 P.M.) No changes were offered to the recommendation for the Department of Staff Services in the amount of $532,005 which is a 20.88% increase. Planning. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present. Mr. Agnor said the work load in this office has become overwhelming. Therefore, this budget contains a request for one full-time planning technician and one part-time planner for a total cost of $29,600', including both fringe benefits and salary costs. Mr. Agnor said the overall increase in the department for next year is 13.75% or $46,135 with a total budget recommended of $395,420. Mr. Fisher asked the amount of fees collected for such applications as site plans, subdivision plats and rezoning requests. Mr. Agnor said that information is shown in the Revenues section and is estimated at $12,000 for next year. Mr. Fisher asked if the fees collected are the maximum amount allowed. Mr. Tucker said Albemarle County is charging less than most other Counties on these fees. Mr. Bowie said he is concerned that if work loads in departments such as Planning and Engineering demand more employees then persons causing that demand should be required to pay for the service. He felt the fees should be examined to determine if an increase is appropriate. Mr. Fisher noted surprise that the amount collected covers such a small percentage of the total planning budget. Mr. Tucker said the fees for site plans and subdivision plat review applications have not been changed for nearly six years. Mr. Fisher asked if there are any state limitations regarding these charges. Mr. Tucker said there are none that he is aware of on site plans or subdivision plats. There mayhe.~me~limitations on zoning applications and special permits, but he would have tm investigate that further. The general consensus of the Board members was to examine laws regarding fees for a determination as to whether same may be increased. No changes were offered to the County Executive's recommendation. ~ Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is for $55,500 with a total increase of 17.35%. Mr. Agnor noted that this budget is heavily funded by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Of the recommended amount, $45,000 will be reimbursed by the State with $10,000 being the local cost. Mr. Agnor pointed out the most significant item in the budget is the purchase of a word processor for which the State will provide some funding. Mr. Tucker said the original request contained the salary of a part-time secretary. However, the word processor will be used for three months before determining if a part- time person is needed. Mr. Bowie asked if the salary for this position is included in this budget request. Mr. Tucker said yes but only for nine months. He further noted that the word processor can be used in the Planning Department also. Mr. Agnor emphasized that if the word processor is not purchased, the funding will have to be increased for the part-time secretary position for the entire year. Watershed Management. Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official, was present. Mr. Agnor said the total budget is $30,790 which is a 15.73% increase. These costs are completely reimbursed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as well as one-fourth of the secretary's salary in the County Executive's office for secretarial services provided to Mr. Norris. Mr. Agnor said the revenues to cover costs of this department will be approximately $38,010. Therefore, a savings wi~ll be reflected. He pointed out that $300 has been added to the line item for furniture and fixtures as well as $1,180 for rent of Mr. Norris' office which is located on the fourth floor of the County Office Building. Mr. Fisher expressed appreciation for the activities report for 1983 submitted by Mr. Norris. No changes were offered to the recommendation. Parks and Recreation. Mr. Pat Mutlaney, Director, was present. Mr. Agnor pointed out that this department submits one of the best budgets that the staff has to review. Mr. Agnor said the total budget recommended is $484,260 Which is a 7.40% increase. He further noted that the department produces revenues which are projected for next year at $146,000. No changes were offered to the recommendation. 038 March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Inspections. Mr. Robert Vaughn, Director, was present. Mr. Agnor said the need for employees in this department fluctuates according to the economy. For the 1984-85 Fiscal Year~ one additional inspector is requested due to increased activity. However, when the activity decreases, the position will not be necessary. He also noted that this departme~ generates revenues. The total recommendation is $428,115 or a 12.76% increase. No changes were offered, Police Department. Mr. Frank Johnstone, Chief of Police, was present. Mr. Agnor said there will be forty-four employees in the Police Department next year and ten in the Sheriff's Department. Of this number, there are four new employees in the Police Department and two in the Sheriff's Department. The combination of both budgets is only a 16.58% increase or $233,000. If the six new employees were deleted, as well as related equipment, the increase would only be 3.9% or $54,814. Mr. Agnor said the Victim-Witness program has been recommended for inclusion in the Police Department budget instead of the Commonwealth Attorney's budget for next year. Mr. Agnor said the total law enforcement budget which includes the Police Department, Animal Control (Dog Warden) and the Victim,Witness program is $1,~79,002. No changes were offered to the recommendation. Victim-Witness Program. Ms. Charlene Easter, coordinator, was present. Mr. Agnor said last year the coordinator's position was only part-time and the total salary paid was $7,500. The request is $25,500 for a full-time position including the fringe benefits associated therewith, however, the staff only recommends $19,920 for total compensation and fringe benefits. Operational expenses are recommended at $7,505. Therefore, the total budget is $27,425 which is a 242.81% increase due to the position becoming full- time. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Lindsay Dorrier has requested the State Compensation Board to pay for full funding of this position. However, he does not feel this request witZ approved. , Mr. Way asked if the proposal is to locate the Victim-Witness office in the County~ Office Building. Mr. Agnor said yes, plus keeping some space in the Commonwealth Attorney'as office for dealing with witnesses. A brief discussion followed on where the office should be located. Mr. Bowie felt the most appropriate location is in the office of the Commonwealth's Attorney. He expressed concern with any new operation being added to the Police Department since that Office is new itself. Mr. Bowie said he had requested information (when the report was made to the Board in January) comparing the number of cases before and after the establishment of the program and same has not been received. Therefore, he was not prepared to support a full-time position. Mr. Agnor said the information regarding the number of persons served is contained in the Program Review Report (page 38) on this program. Mr. Bowie said he had seen that information, but he is interested in whether or not the County has had a higher arrest rate, etc., since the program was established. Mr. Henley said he thought the program was to help victims and he was not sure if the position should be full or part-time. Mr. Frank Johnstone, Chief of Police, was present and said the program tends to serve victims of such crimes as rape and assault. However, he would like to see the services expanded to crimes regarding property loss as well. If the services can be expanded, then the need is evident that the position be full-time. Mr. Henley said he did not mean to say that the program is not needed, but he does feel the program should be part of the law enforcement departments. Mr. Bowie said he also did not mean to imply that the program is not needed, but he is concerned that the program has only been operating for six months; this budget request is for $27,000, and no quantifiable proof is furnished that any victim has been helped. Ms. Easter said she is not certain that proof could ever be submitted to show that the program has helped convict more people, but certainly the program increases the likelihood of same. She further stated that the idea of the program is that the community owes its citizens that much. The services provided to victims of crime are not the types of services that police officers could furnish. Mr. Agnor said many calls .have been received from persons assisted by this program. Further, the overall response has been that the program is one of the first to help someone other than a criminal and great appreciation of the service has been offered by Ms. Easter. Mr. Fisher agreed, but he did question whether the position should be part or f~tl~%~a as well as the location of the office. Mr. Bowie recommended that the program be located in the Commonwealth Attorney's budget. Mr. Fisher felt that question is less important than the question of funding. Mr. Lindsay Dorrier was present and said that although the position has only been part-time, Ms. Easter has spent at least forty hours on a weekly basis with services offered during all hours of the night. Therefore, the position has been serving more of a fm!%-time capacity. Mr. Fisher said he was willing to go to public hearing with the full-time position funded, and with the question of location of the office to be discussed at a later date. Mr. Henley supported the program, but was not in favor of this being a department. He expressed some fear that this might occur. No changes were offered to the cost recommendation of the County Executive. March lq, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) O37 Sheriff's Department. Sheriff George Bailey was present. Mr. Agnor said the total recommended amount is $253',265 and the amount to be received from the State is estimated to be $205,000. Therefore, only $48,000 is requested from local funding. Sheriff Bailey commented that he had not received anything in writing from the State Compensation Board regarding funding, but in meeting with the Executive Secretary he had been assured that 100% would be funded excluding fringe benefits which are paid by the County. No changes were recommended. Fire Dep..artment. Chief Julian Taliaferro of the City Fire Department was present. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is $323,572 for a 4.74% increase. Mr. Agnor also noted that the fire services contract with the City is being negotiated and should be completed within the fiscal year. Mr. Henley said he has heard comments from some volunteer firemen that if the County had one more volunteer company, the County would not have to depend on the City Fire Department. He asked if the Jefferson Country Firefighter's Association had ever discussed this idea. Mr. Agnor said yes, and the Association has asked that this be considered in the revision of the contract. No changes to the recommended amount were offered. Volunteer Fire Departments. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation, for each volunteer fire department is $30,000, a $2~,000 increase, plus the insurance policy the County carries on the volunteers for a total budget of $218,800 or a 6.47% increase. No changes were offered. Forest Fire Extinction. Mr. Agnor explained that this is an assessment from the State Division of Forestry regarding the cost of fire protection services provided within the County and the amount recommended is $3,020 which has been the charge for a number of years. No change was offered. Commonwealth's Attorney. Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, Commonwealth's Attorney, was present. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is $177,955 which is a 5.09% increase. The request for the office space lease was $9,000, however, the staff only recommended $6,750 which is for a nine month lease since the Commonwealth's Attorney will be moving to county-owned property after that time. The state revenues for the department are estimated to be $125,000. Therefore, the total local costs are $53,000. No changes were offered to this recommendation. Circuit Court. Mr. Harry Young, was present. Mr. Agnor said this budget is primarily funded by the State with the County incurring some office expenses, fringes for the secretary and juror fees. Since the budget was submitted, a request has been received from Judge Gerald Tremblay for $1,500 to be added for travel regarding a convention benef.icial to his profession. Mr. Agnor pointed out that this particular item has been carried in the budget for the General District Court but has never been included for this court. Mr. Fisher did not object to the request. No changes were offered to the recommendation of Mr. Agnor for a total budget of $22,095 including the additional $1,500. Rescue Squads. Mr. Agnor said $7,800 has been recommended for the Charlottesville- Albemarle Rescue Squad, and $15,600 for both the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad and the Scottsville Rescue Squad. The overall increase for the three squads is seven percent. No changes were offered. Soil Conservation Service. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is for $9,720. This is basically due to a 5.31% salary adjustment with fringe benefits for the part-time secretary that is provided by the County in lieu of a donation. No changes were offered. SPCA Contract. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is $4,800 which is a $36 decrease over Fiscal Year 1983-84 funding. He further noted that the funding is based on the use of the shelter. No changes were offered. District Home. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is $18,000 which is a $4,500 increase. Mr. Agnor explained that the increase is primarily due to recent withdrawals of State and Federal eligibility funding for the occupants of the District Home. He also explained that the County has ownership in the Home and all the localities owning a part of same are required to assume costs of fees not covered by State or Federal funding. No changes were offered. E~.~.gency services. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is $7,365 which is a 17.28% increase. He explained that the funding for this office is shared by three sources, 25% County, 30% City, and 45% State. No changes were offered. March 14, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Visitors Bureau. Mr. Agnor said the recommended amount is $36,730, a 10.07% increase. Mr. Agnor explained the history of the bureau and the division of costs between the City, County, Chamber of Commerce with some funds being generated by the center itself. Mr. Agnor said this is to be the first year that the bureau will share the building with the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation assuming that the proposed purchase contract is consummated. Mr. Bowie asked about an agreement to rent the building to the Foundation and the effect that will have on the County's share of funding the Center. Mr. Agnor said the amount of funding recommended is based on the agreemen~ being consummated. However, action is pending a decision by the General Assembly which would allow the Community College Board to sell the building. Mr. Bowie said he thought that when the process of buying and leasing the building was completed, there would be no further County costs for the Center. Mr. Agnor said it has not been determined that tourist will generate enough revenues to handle the costs of operations of the Visitor's Bureau. No change was offered to the recommendation. C.o.unty./.City Revenue Sharing Agreement. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is $1,579,753, a 3.18% increase which is based on the formulas contained in the City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement. Capital Improvement Transfer. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is for $1,000,000. That was the amount originally agreed upon. However, in recent years with the unstable economy, this amount has not been possible to transfer. Due to improved revenues for the County this coming year, this amount will financially improve the Capital Improvements Fund. E~erge~c.y Medical Communications. Mr. Agnor said this is the annual cost to maintain the regional radio system of rescue squads to the area hospitals and the recommended funding is $226. The funding for this system is shared by all the localities in Planning District 10. Urban Bus Service. This item was discussed under Agenda Item No. 11 during the morning session and only the Route 29 bus route was extended for another year for a total amount of $5,993. General District Court. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is for $14,970 which is a 68.58%' increase. He noted the two major reasons are that professional health services increases from $1,000 to $2,000 due to the increased cost of nurses involved in driving under the influence situations. The second major increase is a nonreptitive cost for the purchase of a filing system included in the furniture and fixtures line item which increases same from $860 to $5,000. Since the matter of travel to conventions was discussed during the Circuit Court budget presentation, Mr. Agnor noted the $1,500 included in this budget for same. Mr. Fisher suggested an agreement be made between the two judges to take turns on a yearly basis for the use of this fund. Mr. Agnor said he would examine that possibility, however, he understands that Judge Tremblay only plans to use the travel money this one year. No changes were offered. Magistrate. Mr. Agnor said this is a budget primarily funded by the State with the rental of the office and related expenses shared between the City and County. The amount recommended is $2,720 which is a 25.93% increase due to a nonreptitive cost for four arm chairs that are desperately in need of repair. No changes were offered. Juvenile Court. Mr. Agnor said this office is primarily funded by the State and the recommendation is for $26,073 or a 3.95% increase with the funding being shared on a 50/50 basis with the City. No change was suggested. J~venile Detention Home. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is for $9,090 which is a $2,184 decrease over current funding. The reason for the decrease is lower usage of the home this fiscal year, and funding is based on the use of the home as contained in a contractural agreement. No changes were offered. 9.~1 .~ystem. Mr. Agnor said this system is anticipated to be operating by November or December of 1984. The amount of $97,085 was the estimated amount when the operations agreement was signed, but that was for a twelve-month operation. Therefore, with the system not being in operation for the entire year, he recommends $52,000 or a $7,000 increase for the partial year operation. He further noted that none of the $45,000 budgeted last year was used. No changes were suggested. WVPT Television. Mr. Agnor said WVPT has requested $4,000 each year from the County for this Harrisonburg station. He has never recommended any funding because there is a Richmond public television station that serves citizens on the eastern part of the County but has never requested any funding. No changes were offered. Animal Control. Mr. Agnor said the recommendation is for $60,285 or a 5.39% increase. He also noted that the category for repair and maintenance of vehicles should not be as high as in past years due to replacement of a vehicle last year. March 2114, 11998844 (.Afternoon Meeting,-A~djourned from March 14, 1984:) March , ~Regular Day Meeting) 039 Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments. Mr. Henley nominated and offered motion to appoint Mr. Louis Rauch of Crozet to the Equalization Board with said term to expire on December 31, 1984. Mr. Way seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. There were none offered. Agenda Item No. 22. At 5:32 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to.adjourn to March 21, 1984, at 1:00 P.M. for a work session on the 1984-85 Budget. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. (~HAIRMAN March 21, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from March 14, 1984) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 21, 1984, at 1:00 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesvill Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from March 14, 1984. Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (Arrived at 1:05 P.M.), Messrs. Gerald E. FiSher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: County EXecutive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Executive, Ray B. Jones and Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 1:05 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: 1984-85 County Budget. Agenda Item No. 2a) Education. The following School Board members were present: Mr. Charles S. Armstrong, Mrs. Jessie Haden, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Walter R. Perkins, Robert E. Taylor, Charles R. Tolbert, and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. The following Education staff members were present: Carlos Gutierrez, School Superintendent, and David Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Administration. Dr. Gutierrez said budget year 1983-84 .is the first year under the "cost center" approach introduced by Mr. Papenfuse and this process has worked well. The principals have reported feeling good about the process since they are directly involved. At this time, it is also expected that the fiscal year will end without a deficit. School administrati recently received permission from the School Board to use five percent of the discretionary funds which had been frozen, t As for the 1984-85 budget, at least ninety-five percent of the objectives were easily met. Some capital requests will not be met and a "hold" has been placed on some programs started in earlier years where equipment cannot be purchased. Computer education is one of these programs. Also, the School Board is not funding as many school buses as it had been hoped to purchase, but this proposed budget meets major goals; one of those being salaries for teachers. The proposed compensation plan will place Albemarle County in the top half of the school divisions in Virginia. The central office staff has been reorganized and four positions eliminated. The teaching staff is to be reduced by thirty full-time equivalent positions although the actual number of people affected is thirty-nine due ~o some being teacher aid positions. Deletions of these positions will be through attrition if at all possible. Dr. Gutierrez said his staff has developed a teacher evaluation plan which has not yet been approved by the School Board. By July 1, the staff will also have completed an administrative evaluation plan. A middle school study will soon be completed. An updated five-year plan has just been completed. As far as school redistricting is concerned, the major hurdles are behind. There will be more efficient utilization of school buildings, with most buildings being used at close to eighty percent of capacity. Dr. Gutierrez said many excellent things are happening in all of the schools and he is proud of his administrative cabinet. This group has set a high tone of expectations for all employees. The message has gone out that performance and results are expected from employees and nothing less will be tolerated. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Papenfuse and asked the Board's support now and in the years to come.