1984-08-23 adjAugust ~23, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from August 16, 1984)
AugUst 16 1 84 Adjourn d Mee in -
367
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Bowie told the Board that a meeting scheduled for August 21, 1984, with a speaker from
Texas to discuss methods of resource recovery will not be held because the gentleman could not
come.
Mr. Fisher told the Board members that the ground-breaking ceremonies for Broadus Wood
School renovations, was held at 3 p.m. this afternoon and were very good; people in the area are
quite happy with the project.
Agenda Item No. 5- Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Lindstrom made motion to
adjourn at 5:08 p.m. to August 23, 1984, Meeting Room 12, at 3:00 p.m. Mr. ~Bowie seconded the
motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
~ESm-~Mr Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
August 23, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from August 16, 1984)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held oB August 23, 1984, at 3:00 P.M., in Meeting Room 12, Phase II, Second Floor, COunty
Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from
August 16, 1984.
Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (Arrived at 3:07 P.M.),
Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.~, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
Absent: None.
~Officers Present:
Agenda Item No~. 1.
Fisher.
Deputy County Executives, Ray B. Jones and Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Mr. Frank Buck, Mayor. called~the City Council to order with the following persons
present: Mr. Lindsay Barnes, Mrs. Elizabeth Gleason, Mrs. Mary Alice Gunter and Mr. E. G.
Hall.
Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meeting with City CoUncil.
Mr. Fisher said this joint meeting was requested by Mr. Buck and both have worked
together on the items for discussion. Mr. Buck said he felt ther~ is a lot of common
i~terest between the two governing bodies. Although some misunderstandings have occurred
in the ~past, he felt there is a need to jointl~y meet to discuss items of mutual interest.
al) Parks and Recreation: Presentation by County Staff.
Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Director of.Parks and Recreation, w~as present and ga~e a summary
of the parks and recreational facilities available in the County. He also noted that the
State Division of Game and In'land Fisheries is looking for a-' boat launch site on the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir with same to be maintained by the County Parks Department. It is
hoped that this site can be developed .within the next two years. Further, Mr. Mullaney
noted that County parks staff has developed a good relationship with the Albemarle C?unty
School Board in using school sites for recreational activities~. Over the last four
years, approximately $100,000 of parks and recreational funds~have been used to ~de~elop~
school sites which .range from lighting tennis cou~rts to installing backstops on softball
fields. Another $50,000 ~is planned to be spent in the coming year on improvement of
various school sites. Mr. Mullaney said school sites provide: fifteen soccer fields,
seventeen softball fields, eight full-size gyms, six small gyms., ten Outdoor tennis courts,
and there is playground equipment at all school sites. Mr. Mullaney said development of
exist, ing County lands especially usage of school sites has been a high priority and continues
to be. Another priority is deVeIopment Of a southern reg.ion~at swimming facility to serve
the Scottsville, Esmont, Covgsville and N~orth Garden areas. Two other CoUnty priorities
are development of a section of school property on Whitewood Road for a Jogging and exercise
trail and development of a site off of Route 712 (commonly known as Pancake Falls) for
recreational purposes. Mr. Mullaney concluded by notihg that the~projects mentioned are
already priorities in the County's Capital Improvements Program, but additional work is
always involved in maintaining the number of County facil~ities.
388
August 23,__1984 '(Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from August 16, 1984)
a2) Presentation by City Staff.
Mr. Gene German, Director of City Parks and Recreation, was present. He discussed
the fact that the City cannot continue to effectively conduct the eXisting softball program
with the amount of growth involved-in the activity. Specifically, the number of teams
over the last ten years has grown from 40 to 197 City Leagues, and 19 in the County coupled
with church leagues for a total of 3,876 games to be played this year. There are four
lighted and four nonlighted softball fields which are located at McIntire Park, Washington
Park, Rives Park, Piedmont Community College field, and the V.F.W. field. There are over '~
3,400 participants in the program with 38% City residents (1,350) and 62% County residents
(2,200). Mr. German said there are only two solutions at this time to remedy the problem.
One is to reduce the size of the softball program and the second is to expand the facilities
needed for the program through a joint City/County effort. It is felt that eight lighted
fields are needed to conduct the games. This would provide enough fields, space and time
to play a maximum of four games per night rather than the five short games currently being
played. FourTeen acres would be required to provide parking, concession stands, restroom
facilities, safety lighting, landscaping and other related items. Mr. German said there
are substantial shortages in other recreational activities such as 20 acres necessary to
construct ten soccer fields, four acres to construct 18 tennis courts, five acres for~four ~'
baseball fields, and another two acres for three lighted football fields. Therefore, Mr.
German said the City staff's recommendation is for a site consisting of one hundred acres
to be purchased and same be designated as a jointly-owned recreational, facility. Mr.
German said the initial construction would include four lighted softball fields, bleachers,
etc., as well as support development such as restroom facilities. The initial construction
is estimated at approximately $1.1 million broken down as follows: land acquisition
$300,000; site development $100,000; four lighted softball fields $300,000; one concession
and restroom, facility $100,'000; parking area for 250 cars $250,000; and $50 000 for a
maintenance facility. '
Mrs. Gleason asked if Mr.. German ~w~a:s~ proposing that the entire 100 acres be purchased.
Mr. German said yes with the development of the other facilities such as soccer and football
fields being pursued at a later date.
Mr. Buck said these are capital costs and asked if he understood correctly that these
programs have been self-supporting. Mr. German said yes, and the amount of profit from
same has been small.
Mrs. Cooke said according to an article in the newspaper about a sports complex, the
City's concern appeared to be the amount of traffic that 'is' generated from the softball
fields. She felt a larger area would attract even more traffic. Mr. German said that is
true but the type of complex proposed should be situated in a location and developed in a
way that the impact to the area would be minimized. Further, a 100 acre site is not
available in the City but there are a number of sui'table sites immediately outside of the
City limits with some being close to residential areas.
Mr. Buck said available land will become less and less ~-as time passes. The City
cannot even put together 15 acres of contiguous land within the City for this facility.
Mr. Buck said access to aertia! street's is an important factor as well as not adversely
affecting landowners in an area. As he under-stands, the County has a program aimed at
neighborhood parks. Mr. Buck said he felt there is a need to recognize that a large
segment of the population, both City and County as well as surrounding counties, is engaged
in organized sports. Therefore, existing facilities, especially in the City, are reaching
the point of not being able to serve those people without a significant impact on the
neighborhood and parks. Mr. Buck said the idea of a sports complex resulted from the C~ity
having to spend $500,000 to upgrade McIntire Park which is rapidly deteriorating. Mr.
Buck further noted that with the extensive use of the park, deterioration will continue
and in five more years, more funds will be needed ~for upgrading the facility. Therefore,
he felt there is some wisdom to use the money being required to maintain and renovate the
current facilities, to finance a facility designed to meet the current needs and address
future needs. He felt the facility should be located in the urban area because the majority
of City and County people 'live or work in that area. Mr. Buck said that concept does not
conflict with the County's concept which is to have. neighborhood parks. Mr. Buck said a
larger facility is definitely needed and the conflict is where to find the funds needed
and where to locate such a facility. In conclusion, Mr. Buck noted that the situation
will only get worse and at least the planning for such a facility should be pursued.
Mr. Way said he agreed__with~some comments made by the Mayor because the need obviously
exists. However, he feels vnere~a couple of solutions rather than having just one central
facility with everything located in one. place. The County has smaller areas which might
be an alternative. He asked Mr. Mullaney to comment on that approach.
Mr. Mullaney said there a're some County areas that are not being used and could be a
short-term solution. Two centrally located fields are at Jouett and McIntire Schools.
Also, there are two fields for women at Western Albemarle High School and a field for men
at Brownsville School. Another fieId is at the Greenwood Community Center as well as a
field being available on a lease basis at Claudius Crozet Park. Mr. Mullaney said although
there are not enough men fields in the County to help, there are some to handle games fbr
women and church leagues. Mr. Mullaney felt the County could take 1,000 people in the
women's league and church league which would allow the City to offer more for men league~.
He felt the leagues would prefer that as an immediate solution rather than being, split. A
facility is something he agreed needs to be considered in the future and now is a good
time to look for the property. However, he was uncertain of the need to develop a site at
this time. Mr. Mullaney noted tha~ when the City requested some County field space several
years ago, the Jouett field was offered. Then the following year, the County participated
in the lighting of the fields at Piedmont College. Upon doing that, the nonresident fee
was dropped. Mr. Mullaney said when the City was asked about using the Jouett field this ~
year, he was informed that the 'field was not needed since the field at.the Community
College has lights. In conclusion, Mr. Mullaney said there is some field space available
at this time in the County.
August 23, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from August 16, 1984)
369'
Mr. Buck said these solutions do have some merits but also create some problems as a
long-term solution. One is the travel distance if a team is playing in the western part
of the County. A physically central location near the population center where the vast
majority of people work would be better. The other problem is the general concept of
splitting the leagues into many different facilities. Mr. Buck felt there are some problems
with the suggestion in that the sites would be scattered as well as the programs.
Mr. Fisher said what he is hearing is that McIntire Park is so heavily used that same
is a nuisance to the community. Mr. Buck said the problem is greater than that, and that
is not what he said. McIntire Park in itself is not a nuisance because it is somewhat'
isolated. The nuisances are ara Rives and Washington Parks. Mr. Fisher said he stands
corrected. He thought he had heard neighbors complaining about McIntire Park. However,
he did feel the bigger a park, the mor~ likely to create a nuisance to the residents who
either live near or build around same in the future. Therefore, the idea of developing
100 acres intensively over a period of time in the suburbs of the County may create some
significant problems for the County. However, he does not see that as a fatal or basic
underlying concern. Rather, the County is trying to build recreational facilities all
over the County to deal with the various population masses by placing such facilities near
neighborhoods. Therefore, the idea of centralizing everything is opposite to all County
planning and thinking since the County is dealing with 740 square miles. Another concern
is that once there is a facility, same will be heavily~used by people outside of the
community for regional and state tournaments. Although that is good for the community
(which he suspects was the thought behind the complex in the first place) it will not
necessarily serve the citizens well.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not disagree with the concerns of the City. He did agree
with Mr. Way that the County has facilities which are not being used. He also felt use of
those facilities might impact surrounding neighborhoods in the future because same have
not been used in that manner in the recent past. However, he did feel there is some merit
in looking at accessible County facilities. He represents a fairly compact and urbanized
district and could agree with the statement that a large amount of the population lives
not very far from the Cityts limits. Mr. Lindstrom said it would be interesting to know
where most of the people playing in the games are actually travelling from. Further,
there may be some benefit to considering the location of a larger facility in the urban
area since there will be more and more concentration of population in this area as time
goes on. Mr. Lindstrom said he would not want to foreclose looking into what the City has
suggested and does agree that the amount of suitable land for such a facility is diminishing.
Therefore, the sooner an area can be found, the more forewarning residents will have that
the area is proposed for a sports facility. He did feel that there may be locations east
or south which would be fairly accessible to both City and County residents. Mr. Lindstrom
said although he is not sure the suggestion of Mr. German is the kind of thing he has in
mind, he did feel there is a growing need and would be interested in knowing the origins
of people using the existing facilities.
Mrs. Cooke said that by developing facilities in outlying areas, an opportunity is
offered people who cannot transport themselves into the City to take advantage of the
leagues. Therefore, a broader program may be developed as well as serving those who
cannot participate now. Mrs. Cooke also noted that she is not completely opposed to the
City's proposal. However, the County's first priority is service to those areas not
currently being served.
Mr. Buck said he did not think the City presumes to say the neighborhood parks should
not be in the outlying areas because all the Council members understand the reason for
providing the facilities. However, he did feel the question is where priorities are
placed on other facilities and how same matches up with other priorities of neighborhood
things other than recreation. He felt the impact on neighborhoods is important. Howe~er,
there are some sites in the County with a river on one side and topography on the other
side which shields the site where same would not impact the residents but would be accessible
to Route 29. As for the comment regarding tournaments, suggestions were made at the
City's public hearing on this matter about the desire of having these located in Charlottesvil
as opposed to having to go to northern Virginia or Richmond as is currently the case.
However, the City is not promoting the sports complex for an economic development boost,
but rather due to the demand for softball as well as other sports such as soccer. In
conclusion, Mr. Buck said more facilities are needed and a centralized facility is needed
for this community.
Mr. Barnes said he had lived half of his life in the County and half in the. City and
can relate to the comments made by the Mayor about driving a great distance which can
discourage participation in recreational activities. The comments of Mr. Lindstrom also
have merit. Mr. Barnes said he is uncertain at this time as to the need for the facility
proposed although he can see the necessity in future years. In regards to the offer by
the County for the scattered sites, he is interested in knowing if same could be set-up as
northern, southern, eastern and western divisions in order to reduce the amount of traffic
to the sites being offered by the County. Also, he would like to extend appreciation for
the offer by the County. He felt this is something that should be pursued wholeheartedly
as a short term solution to the problem.
Mr. German said the divisions could be set up in the manner suggested by Mr. Barnes.
However, most players either live in Charlottesville or the immediately surrounding area.
Mrs. Gleason said the immediate problem she sees is that of mixing businesses or
sponsorships and not residents. She asked the length of the softball season. Mr. German
said the season is from April through October.
Mr. Bowie asked the number of lighted fields in the County. Mr. Mullaney said there
is only one softball field and that is at Piedmont Community College. There are a few
lighted tennis courts.. Mr. Mullaney said he would like to point out that a ten-minute
drive on the interstate'to the western part of the County would not in his opinion affect
whether someone wanted to play softball or not.
37O
August 23, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from August 16, 1984)
Mr. Lindstrom suggested a joint City/County staff committee be appointed to investigate
the immediate use of existing County facilities, the necessary upgrading of the County
facilities, how to "divvy" up the games currently being played, and try to use those
facilities as quickly as possible. Secondly, on a longer term basis to study the possible
sites available for a complex as suggested by the City to see what locations might be
available and what level of develoPment~is necessary at this time given the other facilities
available with a rough estimate of costs for same. Included with the determination of
sites, also a study on the origin of the current players in the leagues for usage in
determining where a site should be located. He also felt the County should be concerned
about residents from other counties participating in the program that do not currently-
participate. Mr. Lindstrom also suggested the program be examined in regards to creating
regional divisions and to avoid disrupting the current teams. He was ~ot certain how long
such a study would take but felt the first question is how to use the existing County
facilities and the impact on the neighborhoods as well as cost estimates for capital
improvements.
Mr. Robert Tucker said some of this work has been done in terms of cost estimates,
but dividing the leagues w~ll take a while. The impact on the residential areas can be
done fairly quickly but he felt at least a month is necessary for the entire study. He
did feel an answer could be given on the usage of the existing County facilities at the
September 12, 1984 Board meeting. Mr. Fisher felt usage of the existing County facilities
should be the first priority. A million dollar complex being built in one location is not
something he can support. Mr. Lindstrom clarified his suggestion that he felt it was
reasonable to look at potential sites recognizing that there may be a potential need.
Until he sees the inventory of sites, where the people are coming from and the amount of
money necessary, he cannot state that he is not interested in dealing with the problem.
If a million dollars had to be spent this year and next, he would agree but he is not
suggesting that. Mr. Lindstrom said he is only suggesting to do what is necessary to keep
the door open in order that a response to the need can be made in the future if necessary.
Mrs. Gunter said she did not favor spending a million dollars building a complex for
softball when tennis courts are also overcrowded. Therefore, she did not feel softball is
the only sport being discussed but other recreational programs as well. Mrs. Gunter felt
there is an urban need being discussed for many recreational programs.
Mrs. Gleason said she would like to think of this complex as a community facility.
Mr. Buck said the cost estimates given by Mr. German are only projections. .He felt
the idea needed to be examined closely and minds not be closed to the idea due to the cost~
estimates given today.
Mr. Fisher felt the City had determined the problem,.and found the solution, and then
asked for help when the price tag got big enough. He felt the County and City should work
on a solution together. Even though County goals and objectives are different, the County
does realize there is a problem. The County may not like the solution but Mr. Fisher
suggested working together from ground zero to see if there are any other solutions to
serve both communities at a lower cost. Mr. Buck said he will keep his mind open if Mr..
Fisher does the same.
Mr. Barnes felt the suggestion of Mr. Lindstrom has merit by suggesting a short term
study, a regionalization concept for the leagues, and neighborhood impact in the urban
ring. He felt that is a proper place to start. The $1.1 million figure given by the City
is not set in granite and it is not suggesting that to be the only solution.
Mr. Lindstrom said his statement is only to suggest a means to study the problem and
is not a commitment to a 100 acre site. He did not feel working with the City was un~easona~l
and did not intend to create the impression that he is in favor of the facility as outlined.
He felt that was one approach to the problem and hoped the study could provide a better
handle on the nature of the problem and the possible solutions for same. He-assumed~that
there may be some site or sites selected for a sports complex and to that extent, something
needs to be done other than relying on existing County facilities. In conclusion, Mr.
Lindstrom said he is not committing anything but only suggesting steps to take together.
Mrs. Gleason said this plan was not presented for final agreement but rabher as a
starting point for discussion.
Mr. Henley did not feel having a study in thirty days would help a lot and would only
be wasting staff time. If anything can be done by the County Parks Department to help
alleviate the problem, then same will be done.
Mr. Buck agreed with the suggestion of Mr. Lindstrom because this is a long-term
discussion.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was under the impre~ssion 'that something could be done to alleviate
the problem now but if that is not the case, then he agreed that a report by September is
not necessary. Mr. Henley felt the City and County recreational departments need to work
on this together and since the season will be over in thirty days, he did not feel there
was a need to expedite the study.
Mrs. Cooke felt the short term is dealing with the problem for next~ April. If the
two departments can work together and come up with a short term solution, then that is the
first step. Mr. Fisher agreed for the two departments to work together and look at the
overall problem.
August 23, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adj°urned from August 16, 1984)__
37:!.
Mrs. Cooke agreed that with the number of County residents in the program, the County
does have the responsibility to find out where the players come from and in fact, offer
some alternative site close to their residences. She felt that is the first priority and
same should be done prior to the next season which begins in April.
Mr. German Said determining the origin of the players will be difficult because
addresses were not required when the nonresident fee was eliminated several years ago.
Mrs. Gleason also suggested that the location of where the players work be determined.
Mr. Hall asked if the players are all City and County residents. Mr. German said no,
some of the players are from surrounding counties. Mrs. Cooke noted interest in knowing
how many other counties are involved.
Mr. Fisher said the consensus appears to be a joint staff committee to determine how
to relieve the existing load regarding the softball program by next April.
Mr. Bowie did not care for major staff efforts on this problem since only 2% of the
County's population is involved. If the existing problem could be solved by using the
County's existing facilities, then he would support same before building the complex as
suggested. However, Mr. Bowie said he will support the staff examining the problem between
now and April, 1985.
Mr. Buck said that suggestion is agreeable to the City. He asked if the suggestion
by Mr. Lindstrom was that after the study was completed, future needs be examined and some
information provided regarding a centralized facility.
Mr. Lindstrom said no one has explained to him why information on this subject would
be harmful. He felt there_are defensive attitudes to the idea because of this coming from
the other side of the table and because the County heard of same through the news media.
Aside from what the feelings may be, he did feel the County has some responsibility to
plan for these things. He did not feel there' was any harm in asking the staffs to examine
the questions such as a need for a larger facility sometime in the future; specifically,
how much land is available for a possible facility, the investment necessary with all to
conincide with the County's capital improvement budgeting cycle sometime in the spring.
Therefore, Mr. Lindstrom felt that should be included in the study. Both Mr. Bowie and
Mrs. Cooke supported the suggestion.
Mr. Fisher said he could support the suggestion but felt same is looking at a single
solution rather than stepping back and looking at the entire problem to see if there are
other alternatives. Mr. Lindstrom did not object to that being included. He then offered
motion to ask the County staff to work with the City staff on the aforementioned discussion
in relation to the City's softball/athletic complex proposal. Mr. Bowie seconded the
motion. Mr. Fisher said the idea is to focus on the problem not just a solution. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Buck made a reciprocal, motion for the City.
all Council members present voted in favor.
Mrs. Gleason seconded the motion and
b) Highway Plans.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., was present and spoke concerning the long-range highway
improvement plans for the County. Several years ago, the Charlottesville Albemarle Trans
tion Study ('CATS) committee' completed a study and made several recommendations. Those
recommendations were then made a part of the County's Comprehensive Plan for the year
2000. The County's highest priority is construction of a new road, Meadow Creek Parkway,
an extension of McIntire Road. The priority is broken down into four different phases of
construction. The timetable is very general and optimistic. Phase I encompasses improving
Route 29 North to six lanes with that improvement being broken down into two sections.
One section is improvement from Hydraulic Road to Rio Road, and later from Rio Road to the
South Fork Rivanna River bridge. The section of Route 29 between Hydraulic and Rio is
presently in planning and preliminary engineering stagesl It is hoped that the actual
construction can occur in the next two to three years. Another improvement is the four
laning of Rio Road broken into phases. One is the improvement from Route 29 down to
intersect with Meadow Creek Parkway at the Vo-Tech Center. Second is the improvement of
Rio Road from Route 29 westward around to Hydraulic Road. A final improvement will be on
Route 250 East bypass between East High Street in the City and Route 20 which includes
Free Bridge and the four laning of that section of Route 250 East. Hopefully, these
improvements can be started and completed between now and 1992. Mr. Tucker said Phase II
(which hopefully can occur between 1986 and 1994) is the construction of the Meadow Creek
Parkway which will connect Route 29 North to the Route 250 East bypass. Another project
is the completion of four laning the section of Route 250 East from Route 20 out to 1-64
at the Shadwell interchange.
Mr. Tucker said another major improvement is to Route 250 West which will be broken
down into three phases.. One 'to begin in the City at Emmett Street with same to be four
laned all the way to the 29/250 bypass with a flush median. The next section is from the
bypass out to Route 677, and then a final section is from that point into Ivy. Mr. Tucker
said also in Phase II improvements, is the realignment of Route 631 from Fifth Street at
the 1-64 interchange down to the terminus of the County's urban growth area. Phase III,
which is projected between 1988 and 1996 is improvement of the alignment of Georgetown
Road with same to remain a two lane facility but the alignment to be improved. Another
372
A~u~t 23, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from August 16, 198~
improvement is Greenbrier Drive from within the City extending from its intersection with
Whitewood Road, and then out to the intersection of Rio and Hydraulic Roads. Another is a
grade-separated interchange to be located at Rio ROad and Route 29 North. The last phase
is expected to commence between 1990 and 2000 with a grade-separated interchange at Hydraulic
Road. Mr. Tucker said another improvement is the four-!aning of Fontaine Avenue from the
City limits out to the Route 29/Route 250 bypass. Lastly, is an improvement to Route 63?
north, the connector road between Ivy and 1-64. Mr. Tucker said that is a complete list
of the long range highway plans the County adopted from the CATS study. However, the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (formed since the completion of the CATS study), may
have other alternatives that the Highway Department is considering in regards to some of
these plans. He has discussed this with Mr. Ken Lantz, Transportation Planner, for the
Highway Department. Computer models have not been completed but it is anticipated that
some of the alternatives for transportation needs on Route 29 will be reexamined.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker if he knew anything regarding a recent article in the
Daily Progress in which Commissioner King was quoted about the Piedmont Corridor. Mr.
Tucker said the article was very confusing because the article referred to what is known
as the Piedmont Corridor which runs from Maryland to North Carolina. The article did not
refer to any of the improvements anticipated along Route 29. Mr. Tucker said he was as
much in the dark about the article as everyone else.
Mrs. Gleason asked if the Free Bridge project has been assigned a priority. Mr.
Tucker said the projects have not been prioritized beyond the Meadow Creek Parkway which
is the highest priority. However, when the County representatives met in the Spring with
the Highway Department in Culpeper, the two highest priorities given were Route 29 North
and Free Bridge. Mr. Bowie noted being a representative at that meeting and it is his
hope to get some action soon on these two projects.
Next to speak was Mr. Satyendra Huja, Director of the City Planning and Community
Development. The first five priorities of the City are safety improvements at four intersecti~
specifically, at the 5t'h, 7th, 9th and llth Street railroad crossings. The second priority
is the Ridge Street bridge which is in poor condition. Next is 9th and 10th Streets to '
eliminate problems with joggers late at night, and the railroad crossing at 9th Street to
be improved because that is. considered, to be the most dangerous from the City's perspective.
This connection would allow for. an alternate access to the new University of Virginia
Hospital which is to be built between the C & 0 Railroad tracks, West Main Street and
Jefferson Park Avenue. Therefore, this is considered a high priority. After that, Mr.
Huja said completion of the McIntire Road extension from downtown to the City boundary at
Melbourne Road is planned. Mr. Huja said the last priority is improvements to Free Bridge.
Mr. HuJa said he was pleased to hear the comments of Mr. Tucker regarding same.
Mr. Fisher asked the timetable for beginning construction from the Route 250 bypass
northward on the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Huja said the project is being designed by the
Highway Department. Mr. Fisher asked the schedule for the County. Mr. Tucker said that
project is in the six-year plan for either 1988 or 1989. Mr. Cole Hendrix noted that the
Highway Department has been persuaded-to hire an environmental engineer to design the
section lying in the City's boundaries. Mr. Lindstrom noted appreciation for that.
Mr. Hall asked if there are any definite plans for the bridge on Ridge Street. Mr.
Hendrix said it has been agreed to proceed with the design as soon as possible and a three
year time span appears to be involved. Mr. Huja said the City has hired a consultant to
work on this project this summer.
c) Advanced Waste Treatment Facility.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Lindstrom brought to the Board's attention several weeks ago that
the AWT Plant is actually not an advanced wastewater treatment plant due to the final
stages not being constructed because of a lack of federal funds. He discussed this with
the Director of the State Water Control Board and was told that advanced treatment filters
will not be put anywhere in the State until all plants are up to a secondary level.
Mr. Lindstrom said this community is part of a larger watershed which is the Chesapeake
Bay. He recently attended a conference which dealt with the very significant deterioration
of the quality of the Bay due not only to point source pollution but also with nonpoint
source pollution. Ail of the communities within the watershed are contributing in their
own way to the deterioration of the Bay by things such as construction, erosion, runoff,
and the fact that many wastewater treatment facilities are not in existence, and facilities
in some small communities are very primitive~ He felt the decision of the State Water
Control Board is a very wise one in order that all the plants can be on a secondary treatment
level before expending funds on the final stages; Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine
when funding will be available. Mr. Lindstrom asked what funding would be required for
this final phase. Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority, was present. He said 75%.will come from Federal funds and 25% local funds.
Mr. Lindstrom said the history of the funding for the interceptor shows that the cost of
the project increased so much from the original amount that the local share was close to
the initial total cost if same had been built in 1952. Therefore, he felt the County and
City should consider and arrange for the completion of the AWT Plant. Mr. Lindstrom felt
the County's responsibility to its neighbors downstream should be acknowledged now. One
thing pointed out at the conference is that this is a unique'American body of water completely
surrounded by the territory of the United States. This is a unique resource for fisheries,
pleasure, etc. Mr. Lindstrom said if the plant'had been built as planned, less would be
contributed to the Bay. Essentially, the costs for putting the final filters in now is
$2.3 million which is more than the amount of $1.5 million estimated six years ago. He
has asked a member of the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors to translate
that amount into an increase in sewer rates and same would be about 10% for current customers.
With that background, Mr. Lindstrom said he would like for the two Jurisdictions which
created the Rivanna Authority to consider the possible funding for the final filters.
as;
August 23, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned fr~m August 16, 1984)
373
Mr. Williams said his computations would show a 12% increase on the City's wholesale
rate, and 16.4% for the County's wholesale rate. He then read the following memorandum:
"TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Board of Directors
George W. Williams, Executive Director
Final Filters for Moores Creek Plant
August 17, 1984
This is in response to Mr. Agnor's request for an update on the final filters
for the Moores Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority designed final filters into Phase II of
the Moores Creek Plant. This was consistent with previous directions from
the State Water Control Board to design advanced waste treatment facilities.
The estimated capital cost of the filters in 1978 was $1,500,000.
The State Water Control Board in the fall of 1978, decided to defer construction
of the filters for economic reasons since there were insufficient Federal' grant
funds available to meet all the treatment needs in Virginia. In essence,
the advanced portion of the plant was given a lower priority in order to meet
secondary treatment needs in other parts of the State. The RWSA took the
position that the filters should be built with other plant construction
and that deferral was not really cost effective especially at the 12th hour
creating redesign problems. This position was supported at a public hearing
at Virginia Beach on September 27, 1978 by both the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors and the City Council of Charlottesville.
The current estimated cost of the filters is $2.3 million. The estimated
annual operational cost is $4,347. This yields an equivalent annual cost of
$257,733 with resultant rate structure as follows:
ANNUAL' COST
S/THOUSAND WHOLESALE RATES
CITY COUNTY
Capital 253,386* .057 .114
0 & M 4,347 .001 .001
TOTAL $257,733 $.058
*Based on amoritization at 10% over 25 years
$.115
The plant with filters would produce an effluent quality of 8 mg/1 BOD5
and suspended solids at design loading of 15 MGD. The current permit level
is 15 mg/1 BOD5 and 22 mg/1 suspended solids. The plant is classified as an
enhanced secondary plant under present EPA terminology. You will note that
the critical parameter is BOD5 which is limited to meet the dissolved
oxygen requirements in the Rivanna River.
It may also be of interest to note' current performance of the Moores Creek
Plant. During the past twelve months, the plant has performed at an average
effluent quality of 9.9 mg/1 BOD and 9.2 mg/1 suspended solids at an average
flow of 10.1 MGD. ~Obviously, the plant is performing extremely well even
without the filters. However, it is unlikely that the plant can perform
at this level as the design flow of 15 MGD is approached. The Federal
Clean Water Act requires municipalities to meet water quality standards by 1988.
Certainly, the locality is on record as to being ready, able and wil-ling to
proceed with final filters when the Federal grant, funds are available.
Current Stare'law prohibits the State Water Control Board from requiring
a higher level of treatment unless they can provide grant funds for the Faderal
share of the project. There is a move in the Commonwealth-to change this
existing legislation.
It is the writers' opinion that the locality should remain ready to proceed
with this phase of the project when grant funds are available. However,
construction solely with local funds may place an excessive financial burden
on the water and sewer users."
Mr. Lindstrom said the figures are based on the fact that the facility is not bein~
used at the level for which it was designed. Mr. Williams said that is correct. The
facility was designed at the flow of 12 to 15 million gallons per day and same is operating
at l0 million gallons per day. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much the flow will increase when
the Crozet interceptor comes into operation. Mr. Williams said the increase will be less
than 1,000,000 gallons per day, so there will be in excess of 4,000,000 gallons p~er day
capacity.
Mr. Fisher asked if the question is that of spending money on the final ~£ilters
versus spending ~local funds to reduce infiltration which is more cost effective. Mr.
Williams said that is not easy to answer because the amount of infiltration will vary each
year according to how much rain is received. The way this plant is designed is that the
emergency holding ponds and surge basins retain which is known as the first flush; that is
the major portion of the stormwater runoff through the sanitary sewer system.. The ponds
will only hold 15,000,000 gallons and beyond that some is discharged as diluted waste.
Mr. Williams said another item being argued in the State is dechlorination, how much
chlorine is going into the receiving waters.
374
Au_ ust 2 84 · __ · a
Mr. Fisher said one of the statements in the memorandum from Mr. Williams is an issue
he has heard a lot about. It seems that State law prohibits the State Water Control Board
from requiring a higher level of treatment unless they can provide grant funds for the
Federal share of the project. There has been some discussion about changing that to allow
the State Water Control Board to require enforcement of the Federal law with or without
the Federal grants. He asked what effect that change would have. Mr. Williams said the
Federal law requires full compliance with Water Quality standards by 1988. However, there
is conflict between the State 'and Federal law in that situation and if "push comes to
shove", the Federal law will probably take precedence. He is aware that there is a move
in the State to change the State law to allow compliance regardless of grant funds.
Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official, was present. He said that with
the current amount of flow, the. change is very minimum with what the strength of the raw
sewage would be. When the Crozet Interceptor is in place and the flow starts increasing,
not just the stormwater but the actual effluent flow starts, then if there are not any
Federal funds at that point, local funding could be involved. He felt that with the State
and Federal emphasis on the protection of the Chesapeake Bay, there may be a release of
Federal funds.
Mr. Lindstrom extended appreciation for the reports from the persons present'and
noted the feeling that the communities have a responsibility in this matter. He felt
there will be an increasing demand on the plant and observation of same is necessary.
d) McIntire School.
Mr. Ray Jones, Deputy County E~ecutive, was present and gave a brief history of the
process involved in selling the McIntire School property. The property was advertised for
sale, and the most successful-bidder was the Charlottesville Housing Foundation which
offered $1.00 per year for thirty years. The Foundation's intent for the property is to
develop same as a PUD under its current R-I zoning. The committee involved with the
process felt the City should be invited to participate in the discussion as far as its
interest on the matter is concerned. One of the reasons for the City to be involved is
because the County is very limited in the types of grant funds that can be received but
there is a possibility that the City could apply for grant funds for this type of project.
Mr. Buck said this has not been discussed formally. However, he would note that
there are two problems when looking at the request for Community Development Block Grant
Funds. One, is that this is not an eligible area because same is not under stress or.a
poverty area. Sepondly, the City has areas within the City with higher priorities for the
funds. Mr. Buck said he did not feel the grant funds would be legally available for the
school property. His personal reaction is that although he appreciates the problems of
the County and the fact that the County would like to dispose of the building in a ~
or creative manner, he could not support applying for a grant for this building with all
the priorities that the City has.
Mrs. Gleason said she is concerned about the access in and out of this property.
e) Consolidation.
Mr. Buck said as all are aware, that the revenue sharing agreement between the City
and County contains a provision that the City and County would study and discuss consolidati
different services. Studies have been done. One was by the University of Virginia's
Institute of Government on governmental consolidations in general. Another area studied
was Inspections which could be consolidated but with no real significant savings in funds
or gain in efficiency. Another area studied was Social Services but same would have
problems being in separate jurisdictions. Education is still being studied as far as
special education and other programs are concerned. Mr. Buck said this subject has been
on the agenda long enough and the reports and studies have been received. Therefore, he
felt a decision should be made on which course of action to pursue, if any. Personally,
Mr. Buck felt a decision should be made and announced to the community and if there are
any alternatives which have not been explored, to move forward on same.
Mr. Fisher said he served on the Consolidation Committee and did not see any fiscal
advantage to consolidate any of the areas studied. However, the Joint Dispatch System
(911) has come to a reality although it took ten years. He felt that if there are particula:
services or things that need to be put together, an examination of. same should be made-,
otherwise, Mr. Fisher agreed with Mr. Buck on the subject.
Mr. Lindstrom said to his surprise there is virtually no support from his constituents
for consolidation. He had been skeptical about this from an economic standpoint. He
feels the City and County are of different political persuasions in significant ways. He
does support meeting together and hopes both jurisdictions can cooperate more. In c
he hoped more informal meetings could occur instead of having formal committees. He did
not see any immediate need for the consolidation committee and did not object to the
termination of same. Further, as needs arise such as the earlier discussion about recreatio
facilities, same can be reviewed together. Mr. Lindstrom did not see any basic support
politically for the consolidation and again noted that the vast majority of people in his
district do not support the formal uniting of the two jurisdictions.
.1
August 23, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from August 16, 1984)
Mrs. Gleason said she too, served on the consolidation committee, and started off
with a great deal of enthusiasm about the idea of conscientiously studying consolidation.
The study has shown that in many cases consolidation may be a political threat and a
hinderance to cooperation. Therefore, she felt that is the end to the whole effort. She
would like to see cooperative ventures of the two jurisdictions but not necessarily
leading to consolidation.
Mrs. Cooke felt the same as Mr. Lindstrom since she too-represents a very urban
district and Has not found any constituents interested in consolidation. She felt that any
discussion of conso!idation~hinders cooperation between the City and Count~ and preferred
pursuit of cooperation rather than consolidation.
Mrs. Gunter agreed that the course taken in the past may not have been productive,
but she does not feel that meeting once a year accomplishes much, and suggested holding
regular meetings several times a year. She felt the two jurisdictions need to learn how
to talk together. In conclusion, she suggested regular meetings to deal with issues of
mutual interest.
Mr. Hall asked if that implied that the committee remain. Mrs. Gunter said no~ she
agreed with the termination of the committee but did feel both governing bodies should
meet as a group regularly.
Mr. Fisher agreed and suggested meeting twice a year as a beginning step to the
suggestion.
Mr. Buck felt the idea of meeting twice a year was reasonable. If there are items of
common interest to be studied, committees can be formed to work together. With what he
has heard expressed, the continuation of the Consolidation Committee does not make sense.
Although, he is convinced that efforts to consolidate certain services or agencies does
not seem very profitable either in terms of saving money or increasing efficiency~ he did
feel if the City and County merged together and worked together, this would be a stronger
community. Beyond the political energy, he felt same would be a healthy thing to do.
However, there does not appear to be much hope at the present time for consolidation and
he felt that was unfortunate.
Mr. Fisher asked if the general consensus is to discontinue the consolidation committee
as a specific function but that both bodies meet more often to discuss issues of common
concern. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to that effect. 'Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYEs:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Gleason asked for the motion to be restated. Mr. Fisher said the motion was to
discontinue the consolidation committee as an entity but to increase the frequency of
meetings of the Board and Council for discussion of items of mutual concern.
Mrs. Gleason offered motion to make the Consolidation study committee nonfunctioning
with the understanding that endeavors be made to cooperate and meet more frequently. Mr.
Buck said that is creating some sort of legal problem with the agreement and puts the
County in a breach of same. Mrs. Glea~on then offered the same motion as stated by the
County. Mrs. Gunter seconded~the motion.
Mr. Buck said he will not support the motion on the principle that he preferred a
study of consolidation of the entire governmental jurisdictions rather than the studies
which have been conducted regarding consolidation of services. Mr. Hall opposed the
motion as well because he would rather see consolidation. Roll was called for the City
and the motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Barnes, Mrs. Gleason and Mrs. Gunter.
Mr. Buck and Mr. Hall.
Not Docketed. At 5:13 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Henley,
to adjourn into executive session for discussion of personnel matters as requested by Mr.
Fisher. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. The Board reconvened at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building without Mr. St. John.
Agenda Item No. 5.
Agenda Item No. 6.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: 1984-89 Capital Improvement_?rogram and the 1984-85
Budget from the Program. (Notice of this public hearing ~as adyertised in the Daily Progress
on August 7 and August 14, 1984.)
Mr. Fisher made the following statement. "These two items are the way to guide the
County's spending plan for capital improvements, and to plan when funds will be available for
these items. The 1984-85 budget forms the basis for appropriation to these projects. This
plan has been in the works for a long time. The Planning Commission has made a recommendation
and this Board held a work session and made some minor revisions to come up with the Program
which is the subject of public hearing tonight." He then asked Mr. Robert Tucker, Deputy
County Executive, for a summary of the Plan.
August 23, 1984'(A~ternoon--Adjourned from Augustine6, 1984)
Mr. Tucker said the Program is divided into nine major categories.
the plan as set out in the minutes of July 18, 1984.
He~ then, summarized
Mr. Fisher said he feels the proposed budget for "EdUcation'' is unrealistic, and when
the School Board has made its plans for the neXt fiVe-year period, there will be requests
made in future years for much larger amounts of funds.
Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing and asked for comments on items in the order
in which same were printed in the newspaper advertisement. The first item mentioned was
"Administration & Courts". There were no public comments.
The next category was "Education".
Voters presented the following letter:
Mrs. Sue Lewis, President of the League of Women
"The League of Women Voters would like to commend David Papenfuse and his staff
for the five-month, on-site Comprehensive Facilities Assessment, and for
putting maintenance and needed capital improvements in priority order over
the next five-year period.
The League also thanks school administrators for making written proposals
available to the public.
We also support the school board's efforts in developing a comprehensive plan
for school facilities.
The League of Women Voters urges the Board of Supervisors to approve the
education portion of the Capital Improvements Program for !984r89."
There were no further comments on the "Education" category, nor were there any on the
categories of "Police, Fire, Rescue and Safety", "Highways & Transportation", "Libraries", or
"Miscellaneous".
The next category was "Parks and Recreation". Mr. Clifton McClesky, a resident of the
Scottsville District, said he wanted to speak about the proposal to build a swimming pool at
Walton Middle School. He feels most of the people in this district recognize the need for
recreational facilities in the southern part of the County, so his. comments are directed not
at the question of recreational facilities, but at the type of facility planned. He lives in
the vicinity of Walton School. It seems that use of County funds for a swimming pool would
serve a very limited clientele in terms of age and would require a great deal of transportation
and would be used for only a few months of the year. Given the initial and then the operating
costs involved, it seems to be a limited return on the public's investment. He urged the
Board to consider a plan he has heard about for a lake/park facility located in this district.
This operation would provide the same kind of opportunities the pool would offer plus many
more. He urged the serious consideration of that idea, and hoped the Board had received a
letter from the president of the Rivanna Ruritan Club expressing their opposition as well
(letter dated August 21, 1984, signed by Robert I. Dinning is on file in the Clerk's Office).
Next to speak was Mr. Roger Flint, President of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Tennis
Patrons. He thanked the Board members for the facilities already constructed and commended
the Board for foresight in wanting to resurface the courts at Albemarle High School and those
at Jack Jouett Middle School. There are between 5,000 and 7,500 people in the area who play
tennis. About 1,000 new people are entered into'the programs each year. Almost every day
there are people waiting in line to get on the courts at Albemarle High School. There is a
Virginia Outdoor Plan prepared by the Commonwealth of Virginia which states that for its
size, Albemarle County should have 24 courts; there are now ten courts. The Tennis Patrons
would like to give any help needed in helping with this project.
There were no further comments to make on the category of "Parks and Recreation", nor
were there any comments on the category of "Solid Waste".
On the category of "Utilities", Mr. Harvey Spangler said aithough he pays taxes in
Albemarle County, he is a resident-of Greene County. He understands from correspondence
received about a year ago that his property is under consideration for placement of a detention
basin. He has had no formal notice from the Board of Supervisors about this. He accepted a
~Qn~r~c~ fro~ pe~s~to buy his property last December That person came to the County
~$ '~~ ~ ~§ told that the property was soon ~o be condemned. This scared the
buyer away, and he threatened to sue Mr. Spangler, Mr. Spangler said he has since lost a
substantial amount of money in interest payments this person was obligated to pay, and to
this day there has been no formal notice of any use of the property. There was one piece'of
correspondence from Mr. Maynard Elrod in August or September of 1983 which just asked for
comments. That correspondence contained a topographic map showing that a detention basin
would be built primarily on his property extending across onto the property of adjoining
landowners and would leave Mr. Spangler with .69 acre, two houses, no water supply, and no
way of expanding the septic tanks and drainfields if same failed. Mr. Spangler called Mr.
Elrod to say his plan was ridiculous, but he would be considerate of a plan from the Board
that would take the total piece of property. Mr. Spangler was told that he would probably be
taken care of in a court situation. Mr. Spangler said he would like to know if his property
is under eminent threat of condemnation, if not, he would like a statement from the County so
that he can dispose of this piece of property without being accused of selling the property
in bad faith. He feels his reputation has been damaged. Mr. Fisher said he did not blame
Mr. Spangler at all and asked for staff comments.
Mr. Elrod asked if he was to answer the question of whether Mr. Spangler's property is
under eminent threat of condemnation. Mr. Fisher asked if that was the q~stion. Mr. Spangler
said that when his buyer came to the County Office Building to make inquiries about what he
wanted to use the property for, he was confronted, so he said, with the statement that the
property was being considered for this detention basin. Mr. Elrod said he spoke with a real
estate agent from Northern Virginia and he never said any such thing. He never said there
was any threat of eminent domain because that power can only be exercised by the Board of
Supervisors. At the time that he talked with this man, the plans had not been presented to
the Board (for Lickinghole Creek Impoundment). Mr. Elrod said he had explained to Mr. Spangler
the County's plans and he had at no time mentioned eminent domain since he has no power in
such matters. Mr. Spangler had suggested that the County either condemn or threaten to
condemn the property since it would be a tax advantage for him.
377
August 23, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from AuguSt 16, 1984)
Mr. Spangler said that conversation took place a year ago last August, and he had informed
Mr. Elrod that if the County had any intention of taking the property that he would prefer
that it take place by condemnation since there were some tax advantages aa to investing the
money. He is not a speculator in real estate. Mr Spangler said he did not have this property
listed for sale, but was approached by the buyer, who then subsequently threatened to sue him
because of what he was told when he visited the County Office Building. Mr. Spangler said he
had to hire an attorney and spend a great deal of money to keep the prospective buyer from
suing him, and he had to forfeit two-thirds of the deposit.
Mr. Fisher asked how the County staff will go about working on all of these drainage
projects if this Capital Improvements Program budget approved. Mr. Elrod said the Lickinghole
Creek project is one where property acquisition would be required, so the County would need
to hire an appraiser and then make offers to the property owners. Until the project is
approved by the Board, final plans cannot be drawn, and without final plans, it is not known
exactly which parcels will be needed.
Next to speak was Mr. Jim Cox of Michie, Hamtett, Donato & Lowry, representing Mrs. Helen
Keyes, who objects to having any of her property taken for the Lickinghole ~Creek project
because she does not think the project will achieve the desired goal of reducing the phosphorus
and sediment loading on the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. The issue here require the
expertise of a water resource specialist. Dr. Winston Lung, an assistant professor of civil
engineering at the University of Virignia, was present to help with the presentation. Mr. Cox
then listed Dr. Lung's credentials and his area of expertise.
Dr. Lung noted that he is a resident of Albemarle County and is in favor of the Board's
efforts for pollution control for a better environment. However, he has some problems with
the engineering report on the Lickinghole Creek Impoundment. He finds the basin will have
little significant effect on the water quality in the reservoir. Dr. Lung then showed to the
Board some information concerning his calculations, and explained same. Dr. Lung concluded
that the Lickinghole Creek Basin could very well be eutrophic also, and would just create
another eutrophic condition in the same watershed. Also, some other alternative to what is
called regional control or local control can probably be found. A regional basin at a location
of Lickinghole Creek will catch everything, not just from the Crozet growth area, but also
from farmlands. Dr. Lung questioned the wisdom of~such a practice.
Mr. ~iSher thanked Dr. Lung for his analysis of this proposal, however, noted that he
had not heard Dr. Lung say this was wrong, only that he does not think it will help very
much. Dr. Lung said that was correct, every little bit helps, and this is o~rtainly a step
in the right direction. Mr. Fisher said that if the County moves in the wrong direction or
does nothing, the situation will certainly get worse. The Board realizes that the situation
is serious and knows that many things will have to be done in many places because this County
has no rivers and no groundwater to depend on as a source of drinking water.
Mr. Lindstrom said Dr. Lung had mentioned earlier that 1,750 pounds of phosphorus could
be removed by this basin. He asked if this figure was based on current development levels.
Dr. Lung said the figure was taken from a report of the County Engineer. Mr. Maynard Elrod
said it does not make any difference, his report shows that "x" amount can be removed no
matter how much is actually coming into the basin. Mr. Lindstrom said that ~eport discUssed
the amount of sediment loading not just in terms of phosphates. He asked if Dr. Lung had
addressed that_in his report. Dr. Lung said he had not addressed that question specifically
because phosphorus associated with the suspended particles is the issue.
Mr. Cox said for the record he would like to state the three main propositions that Dr.
Lung had made in his report: 1) Using the figures provided the County by the consultants,
the phosphorous load change would be 'insignificant and unappreciable on the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir; 2) the County did not adequately address several environmental, ecological problems
that would take place in the locality of the basin; and 3) Dr. Lung states in his report that
he is not sure the County has considered the alternative of local control as opposed to
regional control, which has been tried in other parts of Virginia.
Mr. Fisher said the County has required some local control basins, and the citizens have
complained about them. It was felt that a regional basin might be of more help, and that is
the reason this proposal was made.
Next to speak was Mr. Nathaniel Brown, a member of the Board of Directors 'of the Central
Virginia Advocacy Group which sponsors the Independence Resource Center:
"I have been asked to address you, the-members of the Commission to Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, to express our interest in seeing that the County
continues its efforts to make all its facilities accessible, whehter they are
private or public.
It is our hope that you continue to insure that any new construction within
the boundaries of Albemarle, be it for housing, single dwellings or apartments,
restaurants, shopping centers, entertainment establishments, as well as County
facilities, be designed for easy use of ~the disabled community, i.e. the blind
and wheelchair users. We also encourage the County to correct older buildings,
such as court houses, administrative offices, polling places and park and
recreation facilities, to which the disabled community may require access.
The Independence Resource Center is a community based project committed to
promoting the needs and rights of individuals with a disability. Of prime
importance at this juncture is architectural accessibility for the disabled.
We therefore off.er our services in evaluating accessibility plans and designs.
We offer this service to improve the way of life for this community's disabled
population."
3'78
Au~-ll~4 'Afternoon ~eetin --Ad'ourned from Au ust 16 1'84
Mr. Fisher then asked the County Engineer for comments on the Lickinghole Creek Basin
project. Mr. Elrod thanked Dr. Lung for his report. Since Dr. Lung is an expert in this
field, Mr. Elrod said he will certainly not take issue with his comments. The County's goals
have been to control the increased amount of pollution from development. It has been recog-
nized from the 208 study that it will take additional basins in the Rivanna watershed in
order to produce any improvements in the eutrophication of the watershed. There are other
projects which can be undertaken which are listed in the report,'and there is'an on-going
program which has 75 percent funding, from the Federal government for agricultural operations
to install BMP's to help control non-point source pollution. There are a lot of other things
going on which are alluded to in the County Engineer's report which are not specific to-just
the Lickinghole Creek basin. Also, Dr. Lung's report talks about potential problems that
could occur after the basin is constructed. The County Engineer's office had considered a
few of the items Dr. Lung has mentioned, and a few that he has not mentioned will be taken
care of during final design of the project,. At th'e same time, what is actually being estab-
lished is a sewage treatment plant. This basin is not something that can be built and left
to take care of itself. It will have to be operated. Ail of this is in the plans and is
being discussed .with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Also, steps have been taken
during the last years to apply for every Federal grant that might be used to help pay for
construction of detention basins outside of the Crozet growth area. It is recognized that in
the growth area funding can be gained from developers to help off-set the cost of the project.
In other parts of the watershed, those funds must come from somewhere else, so.everytime a
new Federal grant is available, the County applies. At this time, there are funds from the
State for the Chesapeake Bay clean-up program. Meetings have been held wi'th Dr. Shaw Yu~at
the University, and with County staff to select a project to apply for those fUnds.. The.
staff would like to obtain funds for the Lickinghole Creek project so the University might
monitor the data being obtained. There are a lot of models available to analyze th~ results
from such a structure, but they don't match up. Every researcher's reports give a fairly
wide range of results. This basin will be used as a learning tool for future basins to be
constructed around the County.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is any question that this basin Will not make some improvements
in the reservoir. Mr. Elrod said he feels it will make improvements.not only to the reservoir,
but if the flow situation of the impoundment during a storm is considered, (a portion of a
storm will be stored in the five or six vertical feet) it wil~reduce the amount of flo~ to
the Mechum River downstream, and that reduction and flow will help to reduCe erosion in the'
stream itself. That is a benefit to the reservoir also. ~ .
Mr. Fisher said this is just one of many projects being considered to m~ke improvements
to water quality. Mr. Elrod said that is correct.
At this time, with no one else rising to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Cooke said several people have asked her about the proposed renovations to the'
Auditorium in this building. She asked what is being proposed. Mr. 'Tucker said t~e sound.
system will be improved along with the lighting, some seats will be repaired, and the podium
changed. There were to have been some additional repairs made to the heating and ventilation
system, but those have been dropped from consideration at this time.
Mr. Bowie said there is $5,500 shown for a gas pump canopy, and he thought there had.
been some discussion of moving the gas pump to another location. Mr. Tucker said a Tinal
decision has not been made. When McIntire Road is improved, the main entrance to this buildi'ng
will be eliminated, so that traffic will have to feed through the employee parking lot across
the back of the building to exit on Fourth Street. Concern has been expressed that this
roadway might become a "freeway". Since the gas pumps sit in the middle of that roadway, the
idea of moving the pumps to another location is being considered.
Mrs. Cooke said she has heard comments about the fire engine that the County-is going t.o
purchase that is based out- of the City Fire Station. Comments she has heard are that the
volunteer firmen do not think this purchase is necessary to serve the needs of the County.
Mr. Ray Jones said this issue was considered by the Jefferson County Firefighters' Association
and they said the engine is needed, and have recommended that it be funded. This is the
third year this item has been apart of the CIP and purchase has been put off waiting for a
revision of the Fire Service Contract with the City.
Mr. Bowie asked about the item shown as Radio Equipment and asked if this includes the
hand-held radios used by the policemen. Mr. Jones said it does.
Mrs. Cooke said this CIP stiil does not give any definitive answer to her questions
about the use of the County bookmobile from the RegiOnal Library.
Mr. Fisher said he understands that Item #1 under Miscellaneous, "County Computer Upgrade"
will be held pending an analysis of the Data Processing Department.
Under the item of Parks and Recreation, Mr. Fisher said he feels the Board is getting
into a crunch situation regarding a decision on a southern park facility. Mr. Way said he
has read the Chairman's memorandum dated July 6, 198~ on the subject, and he does not have
that much of a problem with what Mr. Fisher has stated. Mr. Way said when he originally made
the proposal for a swimming pool, he felt that the Scottsville District already had a park at
Totier Creek Park. There is the lake and picnic areas, but the one thing that is not available
is swimming. He originally proposed that swimming be put into Totier Creek to make that park
equal to other parks. Since that time a report has been received on the spread of population,
but he is not convinced that Totier does not have the potential to become a southern regional
park. Since swimming cannot take place in the water impoundment itself, the obvious solution
is to put in a swimming pool. He does not believe that just because a swimming pool would be
placed at this location, that the County would have to constrict pools in other locations.
He personally does not feel the County will be able to construct a completely new facility
for $400,000. He does nov agree that the location of Totier Creek Park is a problem. Original[
the project carried a balance of $600,000, but has been reduced to $400,000. He said it
might even be possible to have two smaller facilities somewhere in the County.
August 23, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from August 16, 1984)
379
Mr. Fisher said he understands that the $400,000 figure carried in the CIP is just the
cost for the swimming pool itself and does not include any land acquisition costs, or anything
else. Mr. Fisher agreed that some type of swimming facility is needed in the southern part
of the County. For a number of years, such an idea has been a part of the Comprehensive Plan
and the facility has been shown as located between Route 29 South and Scottsville. There are
no recreational facilities in that area at this time. Walton Middle School lies toward the
eastern part of the district. Mr. Fisher said a full-fledged park serves people of all ages.
If some provision is not made for such a facility before development occurs, it will be hard
to do so at a later time. Mr. Fisher said he has no real objection to a pool, but he feels
that placing one at a school will lead to a demand for pools at other schools in the County.
He asked that the Board maintain its goal of constructing a regional park in the southern
part of the County.
M~. Bowie said he has no problem with the idea of a regional park, but he does have a
problem with 'the cost estimate for a swimm±ng pool. He has checked with three, different
contractors about the cost of a pool, and they do not think a pool could cost $400,000. Mr.
BoWie S'aid he was not on the Board when the idea was first placed in the CIP so he asked how
the ~cos~ estimate of same came about. Mrs. Cooke said the cost also intrigues her. She
asked if this is just for a pool, or if it also includes support facilities. Mr. Pat Mullaney
Director of Parks and Recreation, said the $400,000 estimate for putting a pool at Walton
le School ~here parking facilities are already available, would include support facilities
-as perimeter fencing, pump house, bath house, and that type of thing. Mr. Mullaney said
.ad talked with several organizations who have built junior, olympic-sized swimming pools
he last. two. years_, an architect who worked with those orgainzations, and the State Office
.ee'reation. In-light 6f the timeframe being discussed for construction of the pool, they
th~ought $400,000 was a safe number to use. Mr. Mullaney sa~d the. City of Charlottesville
~tructed ~a similar pool severa~ years ago, and because of problems encountered during
~C~nstruction,' that pool had cost $600,0.00. This project has also been discussed with the
COunty Engineer who thinks the cost estimate is reasonable.
Mr. Li~dstrom said the Board previously discussed spending $600,000 for a southern
~egiOna! park.~': He ask~ed how that estimate came about. Mr. Mullaney said no firm price can
be e~'t~ma~ted until a proposal is site-specific. This price was based on the purchase of 100+
acres, construction of a ten-acre lake, a picnic area and shelters, access road, etc. Mr.
rom aksed ilf a study'has been made to see if there is acceptable land. Mr. Tucker said
st'aff had looked at a si~te,, one with several embuttments from an old railroad track, and
an old structure that could still be used as a dam, and based its estimate on that site.
Another site, degending on what type of problems arose in reference to soils and terrain,
could vary greatly..On costs. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the amount of acreage was chosen. Mr.
Mullaney said the st~ff looked at the site and tried to determine what could be done with
same. Mr. Tucker said that impounding a lake on that property would make a fairly long lake,
so the access roads would be longer.
Mrs. Cooke asked if any actual contractors had helped to derive the estimated cost of
the swimming pool. Mr. Mullaney said yes, a person who had worked on a swimming pool in
another County, had concurred with a cost of $300,000. It was felt that because of the delay
in construction time~, the additional amount would be needed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had read the Chairman's memorandum, and between the two proposals
(a swimming pool~, or a southern regional park) he would be more inclined to support the idea
of a park. A park has the potential to house many more uses, and as the County grows, having
a moderately large acreage set aside for such a use would be of benefit. He said he would
support an appropriation of a sufficient amount to do a study of such a facility. He agrees
that as time goes by, there will be a need for more than just a swimming facility.
Mr. Way agreed that whether there is a pool or a lake, that there is a need for more
than just a swimming facility. That is one reason why he suggested that this be placed at
Totier Creek because other facilities are already there.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the amount of funds needed to study the idea of a park. Mr. Jones
said the staff could make an estimate by the September 12 meeting.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the staff be requested to arrive at an
estimated cost for study of a specific site .for a Southern regional park. Mr. Bowie said he
has no problem with that suggestion, but he wondered if the Board will just ignore any
improvements for swimming in that part of the County while this study is being made. Mr.
Fisher said he felt the two things could be studied concurrently. Mr. Bowie said he will
Support the motion, but does not want to see the Board Just drop the idea of a swimming pool.
MrJ Lindstrom said this is an entirely different type of recreational facility than the
County has ever funded in the past. He is not convinced that a swimming pool is an idea he
wants to support. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not in favor of funding both projects unless the
Board wants to fund different types of recreational facilities in the future. He feels that
a swimming pool is a different approach to recreation than the County has undertaken thus
far, and construction of a pool may generate requests for pools in other areas of the County;
people do not consider a swimming pool and a lake as equal facilities.
Mrs. Cooke said she is in favor of swimming facilities, but thinks that a regional park
can fulfill a broader need. She will support study of a park as opposed to the cost of
constructing a pool, particularly in light of the meeting the Board had this afternoon with
City Council. She fears that the County is not addressing the full need for recreation in
the County for the masses of people. A swimming pool seems to draw a very young group of
people.
Mr. Way said he does not have any strong feeling that a regional park is not a correct
decision, but feels the Board should give the Director of Parks very specific instructions,
so a decision might be made quickly.
380
August 23, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from August ~6, 1984)
Mr. Jones suggested that the $400,000 figure be left in the CIP at this time, with the
staff bringing back a cost estimate for a study in FY 8485, and the remaining amount being
spread over future years. Mr. Lindstrom accepted the suggestion as part of his motion, and
Mrs. Cooke accePted this as part of the second. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher then asked for comments on the Lickinghole Creek Project. Mr. Lindstrom said
he feels this is a piecemeal approach to dealing with the Reservoir problems, but the master
plan for the County's future has committed the County to letting Crozet be developed as a
community. There is no way to deal with the runoff/drainage problems using individual site ~
specific drainage basins as was suggested earlier. He feels a regional basin will be more
efficient. Mr. Lindstrom said he sees no way to go forward and be consistent with all of the
other pieces which have been put into place to deal with the problem of development without
leaving a very large hole in the County's planning process.
Mr. Fisher said if this were the only thing that the County might do to help the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir, he would agree that it is not the answer, but there are many pieces
to this puzzle, and it has taken many years of dilligent effort to get all of the pieces in
place. He feels it is imperative that this basin be constructed and is sorry that the project
cannot be moved along faster.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the 198485/198889 Five Yea~~
Capital Improvements Program (set out in full on the following sheets) as presented for public
hearing tonight, but incorpor.ating the following suggestions: -~
1)
Under "Miscellaneous", Item No. 1, County Computer Upgrade put project
on hold until after review by an independent consultant of the Data
Processing Department as to the need for this upgrading.
2)
Under "Parks and Recreation", Items No. 7 and 8, are as shown, but the
staff is to present a recommendation at the September 12 meeting as to
a figure for more advanced planning of a southern regional park that
may contain some type of swimming facility.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
385
.... ~AuE~ ~ust 23, 1984 (Afternoon Mesting--Adjourned__ from August 16, 1984)
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-84-47. Elmer Snow. Request to locate a single-wide mobile home
on property located on the west side of Route 827 adjoining railroad tracks about fourw~B~hs
mile west of intersection with Route 691. Tax Map 54, Parcel 30. White Hall District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 10 and August 17, 1984.)
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff's report as follows:
"Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Mobile home.
7.25 acres.
RA, Rural Areas.
Property is located at the end of State maintenance of Rt. 827
(locally known as Beagle Gap Road), approximately 5/10 mile
past the intersection of Rt. 691 in the Greenwood area.
Character of Area:
The site is mostly wooded, with a mix of hardwoods and evergreens. Approxi-
mately one acre is cleared near the northwestern property boundary shared
by the C & 0 Railroad.
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant wishes to locate the mobile home behind an area of existing
mature hardwoods. This area may be partially visible from two existing homes.
Staff Comment:
After filing for the mobile home special permit, the applicant moved the
mobile home onto the property with the understanding from the Inspections
Department that no one would occupy the unit until the special permit had
been reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. The staff has been informed that
the existing location of the mobile home is not the desired final location.
The applicant stated he intends to locate the mobile home in the center of
the property, which has not been cleared.
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve this application, staff
recommends the following conditions:
Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Location and/or screening to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator so as to minimize visibility from adjoining landowners."
Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 14, 1984,
voted unanimously to recommend approval of this petition with the two conditions recommended
by the staff, and the following two conditions:
The Planning Commission's intent is that the mobile home'be located
centrally within the property as represented by the applicant and only
those trees necessary for location of mobile home be removed;
This special permit and all authority granted hereunder shall expire
seven (7) years from date of approval by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Fisher asked why this mobile home request is before the Board. Mr. Donnelly said
there were objections filed, but some have been removed because of the time limit recommended
by the Planning Commission. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Snow was
present and said he thought the objections were filed because a rumor started that he had a
life-right to the property. After he sent out a letter to the adjoining owners, they lifted
their objections based on the permit being approved for only seven years. Mr. Way asked if
it is Mr. Snow's intention to build a permanent home. Mr. Snow said he would either build,
or reapply for a permit. Mr. Fisher said the Board has had some experience with these requests
and found that even when people said they would build a home, this did not occur, and this
caused a problem with the neighbors. He said he would like to be sure it is the intent to
remove the trailer from the property in seven years. Mr. Snow said he has an understanding
with the landowner that he has to move the trailer or reappty for a permit.
Mr. Elwood Shifflett said he owns this property, but does not live in Albemarle County
although he was born and raised here. He has owned this property since 1974. He was here in
January and there was shooting on the property. A few days later he' found vandalism on the
property, and he needs someone to help care for the property. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr.
Shifflett concurs with the condition that the mobile home can be on the property for seven
years. Mr. Shifflett said he had talked with all of the neighbors, and then had an agreement
between he and Mr. Snow drawn up and notarized (a copy dated August 1, 1984, was offered for
the file).
There being no one else present to speak about this special permit request, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff had any figure on the number of permits which have been
approved either administratively or by this Board for occupancy of the mobile home by other
than the owner of the property. Mr. Tucker said he did not have an exact number, but it
would be very few. The Planning Commission seldom makes a recommendation of approval for
same.
Mr. Fisher said he has always been concerned about such applications. On this particular
application, with a non-resident owner, if it were not for the time period on the lease he
would be more concerned, but with the lease, he thinks it might be all right. At this time,
motion was offered by Mr. Way to approve SP~84-47 with the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission as follows:
l)
2)
Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Location and/or screening to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator so as to minimize visibility from adjoining landowners.;
386
August 23, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Ad ourned from AuEust 16_~4~
3)
4)
The Planning Commission's intent is tha~ the mobile home be located
centrally within the property as represented by the applicant and
only those trees necessary for location of mobile home be removed;
This special permit and all authority granted hereunder shall expire
seven years from date of approval by the Board of Supervisors (or
August 23, 1991).
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bowie noted that the Audit Committee had forwarded to the Board members a letter
dated August 20, 1984 containing a list of questions relative to the study of the Data
Processing Department. He asked for comments from the Board members in the very near future.
Mr. Bowie said that he had received a telephone call earlier today stating that the
office of the Head Start Program is being evicted from the school where they are presently
located; they have two classrooms and an office at that location. They asked if it would be
possible to use space in the McIntire School building for their staff. Mr. Bowie said the
Buildings and Properties Committee has no objection to the request, as long as space not
presently being utilized in the building does not have to be reopened. He asked if the staff
will investigate to see if there is space that can be used while this organization is looking
for more suitable space. Mr. Joens said he thinks the group can be accommodated.
The following letters were received for the record:
"August 8, 19 84
Miss Lettie E. Neher
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Dear Miss Neher:
Thank you for sending me a copy of the resolution adopted by the Board
of Supervisors of Albemarle County regarding the proposed Piedmont Corridor
highway being currently studied by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation.
It is very useful to me to know how the peoPle of Virginia feel about the
problems facing us today, and I feel I am more fully able to represent
Virginia when people such as yourself take the time to share their thoughts.
I am pleasadto have the benefit of your views and hope you will continue to
keep me informed of your interests and concerns.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
(Signed) John W. Warner"
"August 9, 1984
Piedmont Highway Corridor Study
Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Miss Neher:
This is to acknowledge receipt of and thank you for your July 20, 1984
letter and attached resolution by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
regarding the Piedmont Highway Corridor Study.
As we are still in the process of identifying the types and locations
of improvements that are heeded in the Route 29 corridor, it has not been
determined if new roadway construction in the South Fork Rivanna River
watershed will be necessary. However, be assured that we recognize the
concerns of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, and will certainly
take them into account in the development of our recommendations. Also,
we would welcome the full involvement of interested citizens and Albemarle
County staff in all facets of the process leading to the development and
implementation of the study's recommendations.
The Board's interest in this study is greatly appreciated; please let me
know if I can provide further information on this subject.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Harold C. King, (Highway) Commissioner"
387
August 23, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from August 16, 1984)
The Clerk noted that only one item has been advertised for the meeting of September 5,
1984. If it is the desire of the Board, that meeting can be cancelled and that one item
rescheduled for September 12. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to
cancel the regular night meeting scheduled for September 5, 1984. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie', Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 10. At 9:28 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.
amrman
September 5, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
scheduled for September 5, 1984, at 7:30 p~m., was cancelled by vote of the Board taker
August 23, 1984.
PROJECT
TOTAL
PROJECT
COST
COUNTY PRIOR
SHARE ALLOCATIONS REQUEST 1984-1985
III. POLICE~ FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY
1. Western Albemarle Rescue 190,O00 170,000
Squad--Land and Building
2. JointDispateh Center - 911 210,000 58,800
3. yo!unteer Fire Depts. 1,000,000 1,O00,O00
4. Fire Service Training
5. Dry Hydrants - East Rivanna
6. Dry Hydrants - North Garden
7. Dry Hydrants - Earlysville
8. Dry Hydra~ts - Crozet
9. Dry Hydrants - Stony Point
125,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8.000
162,000
175,400
284,420
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
15,000 15,000
10. Dry Hydrants - Scottsville 8,000
11. County Fire Engine 162,000
12. Police Department Radio 175,400
System
13. Police Department Car
Tachometers
14. Joint Security Complex
Sprinkler System
49,875 24,938
PROPOSED FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR
~1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988
1988-1989
AGENCY
PRIORITY
-0- 170,000 -O- 170,000 -0- -0- -0-
-0-- 58,800 58,800 -0- -0- -0- -0-
400.000 600,000 200,000 200,000
50,000 75,000
-0- 8,000
-0- 8,000
-0- 8,000
-0- 8,000
-0- 8,000
-0- 8,000
-0~ 162,O00.
-O- 175,400
200,000
25,000 25,000 25,0~0 -0- -0-
8,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
8,000 -O- -0- -0- -0-
8,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
8,000 -0- -0- -0, -0-
8,000 -0~ -0~ -0- -0-
162,000 ~0. -0- ~0. -0-
175,400 ~O~ -0- -0- -0-
URGENT
URGENT
URGENT
URGENT
URGENT
URGENT
URGENT
URGENT
URGENT
URGENT
~URGENT
URGENT
-0- 15,Q00 15,Q00 F0- -0- -0- -0-
URGENT
-O- 24,938 24 , 938 -0~ - ~0 ......... O- -0-
URGENT
SUB-TOTAL
$2,134,69.5 $,77R,138
$450,00D. $1,32R, 138 $709_,138 $395, Q00 $225,~00 -0- -O-
IV. HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
1. Hydraulic Road Improvements
2. Georgetown Road Walkway
3. Secondary Road-Six Year
Plan
SUB-TOTAL
V~ LIBRARIES
1. Hollymead Branch Library
sUB-TOTAL
93,253
61,775
5,676,543
97,253 -0, 93,253 9.7,25.3 ~.0~ -O- ~0-
61,275 61,775 -O~ -0~ ~0- -0- -0~
-0- -0. -0~ -O? ~O~. ~0~ .~O~
$5,835,571 $159,028 $1,275 $97,253 $93,253 ~0~ -0~ -D~
409; 000 '336; 000 '0, - 336,000 ' -0~ ..... ~O~ ..... .~0.~
336,0O0
$409,000 $336, OOQ -0- $336,000 -O- -O- ~0- $336,000
-0-
-0-
URGENT
DESIRABLE
**Revolving loan fund projected to be operations; no longer require8 allocat$on fr0~ County~S C~p~tal tmproyements ~Fund.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS pROGRAM FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 1984-1985 - 1988-1989
PROJECT
TOTAL AGENCY
PROJECT COUNTY PRIOR PROPOSED FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR
COST SHARE ALLOCATIONS REQUEST 1984-1985 1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 1988-1989 PRIORITY
I. ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS 13,000 $ 6,500 -0- $ 6,500 $ 6,500 -0- -0- -0- -0- URGENT
COurt Basement Renovation 84,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- URGENT
~ - 3. Auditorium Renovation COB 102,140 102,140 -0- 102,140 102,140 -0- -0- -0-
4. Gas Pump Canopy COB 5,500 5,500 ~0- 5,500 5,500 -0~ -0- -0-
-0- -0,
75,000 75,000 -0- 75,000 75,000 -0-
16 ~700 16~.'.'./00 -0-- 16,,700 16,700 -0- -0- -0-
e
Old Jailor's House
Improvements
SUB-TOTAL
-0- -0- -0-
10,000 10,000 -0- 10,000 -0- -0- 10,000 -0-
$312,340 $305,840 -0- $305,840 $295,840 -0- $10,000 -0-
-0- URGENT
-0- DESIRABLE
-0- URGENT
-0- URGENT
-0- NECESSARY
-0- DESIRABLE
II
1.
2.
3;
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
EDUCATION
Brownsville Re-roofing
and Masonry Repairs
Western Albemarle Emergency
Generator
Comprehensive Plan for
Schools
Comprehensive Refurbishment
Phase I
Maintenance Shop Re-roofing
Hollymead Re-roofing
Stone Robinson Re-roofing
Greet Re-roofing
Red Hill POD Re-roofing
Stony Point Re-roofing
Crozet Re-roofing
Rose Hill Re-roofing
Burley Re-roofing
SUB-TOTAL
155,000 155,000 -0- 155,000 155,000 -0~ -0- -0~
86,000 86,000 -0- 86,000 86,000 -0- -0- -0-
35,000 35,000 -0- 35,000 35,000 -0- -0- -0-
169,480 169,480 8.3,114 86,366 86,366 ~.0. TO- -0-
27,000 27,00.0 -0- 27,000. 27,0.0.0 ~0~ ~0~ -0-
200,000 200,000 -0- 200,000. '0- 20~,000 -0~ -0-
40.000 40,080 -0~ 40,000 -0- 4Q,OOO -0~ -0-
110,000 110,000 ~0- 110,000 -0- 10.000 100,000 -0-
28,700 28,700 -0- 28,700 -0- -0- 28,700 -0-
44,000 44,000 -0- 44,000 -0- 4,000 40,000 -0-
150,000 150,000 -0- 150,000 -0~ -0- -0- 150,000
60,000 60,000 -0- 60,000 -0- -0- -0- 60,000
110~000 .110~000 -0- 110~000, -0~ ~O~ ~O- 10:;000
$1,215,180 $1,215,180 $83,114 $1,132,066 $389,366 $254,000 $168,J00 $220,000
-0- URGENT
-0- URGENT
-0- URGENT
-0- URGENT
~0~ URGENT
-0- NECESSARY
-0- ~NECESSARY
-0- NECESSARY
-0- NECESSARY
-0- NECESSARY
-0- NECESSARY
-0- NECESSARY
100,00~ NECESSARY
$10Q,O00
~UJ~£
TOTAL
pROJECT ~C~OUNTY '~!0~
COST S~ARE ALLOCATIONS
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
1. County Computer Upgrade 201,100 201,100
~ County Security System 12,225 12,225
3. Microfilm Center 35,000 35,000
4. Comprehensive Information 13,800 13,800
and Development Review System
Equipment - Planning, Engineering, Zoning
5. Growth Areas Aerial Topo 45,000
Mapping
PROPOSED FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR AGENCY
REQUEST 1984-1985 1985-1986' 1986-1987 1987-1988 1988-1989 PRIORITY
26,600 174,500 ~,000 165,500 -0- -0- -0- NECESSARY
-O- 12,225 12,225 -0- -0- -0- -0- URGENT
-0- 35,000 35,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- URGENT
-0- 13,800 13,800 -0- -0- -0- -0- URGENT
and Inspections Departments
45,000 -0- 45,000. 45,000 ~0~ -0-- -0- -0- URGENT
SUB-TOTAL $307,125 $307,125
$26,600 $280,525 $115,0.25 $165,500 -0- F0- -0-
VII. PARKS AND RECREATION
1. Whitewood Road Park Phase I
2. J~et~Tennis Court
Development
3. McIntireSoftball and
- Baseball Facilitie~
4. Hollymead Little League
Field Fencing
Improvements
6. Albemarle Tennis Courts
.... ~facing
7. Southern Swimming Facility
8. Hardware Rapids Park
9. Old Scottsville School
Parking Lot Re-surfacing
10. Greenwood Center Parking
Lo~ Re-surfacing
11. Chris Greene Comfort Station
12. Mint Springs Maintenance.
Facility Improvements
13. Totier Creek Road Paving
14. Ivy Creek Natural Area
Paving
34,000
31,O00
5,000
6,000
4,000
10,000
400,000
160,000
6,000
8,000
18,352
2,500
16,000
10,00~
34,0.00
31,000
5,000
6,000
4,000
-0- 34,0.00 34,000 ~' 0~- ~0~ ~-0~
'-0- 31,000 3!', 000 ~'0,- ~'0- -0-
10,000.. -O- 10,000 lO, OOO
400,000 -0- 400,0~0 '40~000
160,00_0 -0- 160,000 31,000-
6,000 -0- 6,000 ~0~
8,000
18,352
2,500
16,000
5,000.
-0- 5,0OJ~ -0- 5,000. -0- -0-
-O~ 6,000 6,0.00 ~07 ~07 ~0-
-~- 4,000 4,0.00. ~0~
~0~ ~0~ ~0~
-0' ~-0~ -0-
129-,000 -0- -0-
6,000. -0- -0-
'0- 8,000 -0~ 8~000 ~0- ~0~
18,352 ,'0-
2,500
SUB-TOTAL $710,852 $205,852 $41,852 $664,O0~. $516,000
-0- NECESSARY
-0- NECESSARY
-0- NECESSARY
-0- NECESSARY
-0~ NECESSARY
-0- ERGENT
~0- DESIRABLE
-0- DESIRABLE
-0- NECESSARY
-0- NECESSARY
-0-
PROJECT
TOTAL
PROJECT COUNTY PRIOR
COST SHARE ALLOCATIONS REQUEST 1984-1985
PROPOSED FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR AGENCY
1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 1988-1989 PRIORITY
VIII. SOLID WASTE
No Proj ects.~
IX. UTILITIES
County Projects
1. Berkmar Detention Basin
2. Four-Seasons Detention
Basin
3. Birnam Detention Basin
4. Wynridge Detention Basin
5. Berkeley Storm Sewer
Phase I
6. OldForge Storm Sewer
7. Smith~i~idRoa~torm
Sewer
8. Windham/Jarman Gap Road
200,00.0 161,473 -0- 161,473 161,47.3
40,000 40,000 -0- 40,000. 40,000
56,000 45,838 -0- 45,838 45,838
49,000 49,000 -0- 49,000 49~g00'~
18,000 18,00.0 -0- 18,000 18,0.00
4,500 4,500 -0- 4,500 4,500
8,450 8,450 -0- 8,450 8,450
29,000 17,000 -0- 17,000 17,000
-O- -D- -0- -0- URGENT
-0~ -0- -0.- -0- URGENT
-0- -Q- -0- -O- URGENT
-0- -0- -0- -0- URGENT
-0- -0- -0- -0- URGENT
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
-0- -0-
9. Berkeley Storm Sewer,
Phase II
10. Camellia Detention Basin
11. Lynchburg Road Storm Sewer
12. Four Seasons Drive Channel
13. Solomon Road Improvements
14. Berkshire Road Channel
15. Woodbrook Channel
16. Lickinghole Creek Basin
65,000 65,000 -0- 65,000
10,000 10,Q00 -Q- 10,000
8,O0Q 8,000 -0. 8,000
19,000 19,000 -0- 19,000
15,000 14,000 -0- 14,QQ0'
25,000 23,525 -0- 23,525
18,00.0 18,0010. -O- 18,000 ~O~
551,235 551,235 6,000 545,235 85,635
SUB-TOTAL
'i,116~i85 1i053~021 6,08.0 1~043,021 42R, 936
GRAND TOTAL
$12,040,948 $5,861,184
URGENT
URGENT
~O. ~07 '0~ -0- ~RGENT
65,000 ~0~ ~0~ -0- NECESSARY
10, QO0 -0- ~0- -0- NECESSARY
8,000 -0- -O- -0- NECESSARY
19,000 -0- -0- -0- NECESSARY
14,000 -0- -~- -O- NECESSARY
-0- 23~525 -O- -O- DESIRABLE
~ 18,OOQ ~Q- -0w DESIRABLE
459,560 -Q? -0~ ~ .URGENT
575,560~. '41,525
$669~341 $5,191,843 $2,552,558 $1,538,060 $445,225 $556,000 $100,000