Loading...
1984-01-18541 January 1~y__~8_~__8 1984 ~Re~ular Night Meeting)_ A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle C0unty,.Virginia, was held on January 18, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr , Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M., by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the consent agenda with the one item as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item No. 4.1. Report of the County Executive for the month of December, 1983, was :~ presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. Mr. Bowie suggested that thee report be condensed to an executive summary consisting of several pages which he feels will be more comprehensible and beneficial to the Board members. He agreed to work with the staff on this proposal. Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance, and charged to the following funds for the month of December, 1983, were also presented as information: State Account Fund General County Fund Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Grant Projects Fund Metro Planning Grant Community Development Block Grant County School Fund TIPS Secondary Advocates for Gifted Students Cafeteria Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Mental Health Fund Textbook Rental Fund McIntire Trust Fund Capital Improvement Fund $ 2,570.30 15,270,005.00 467,565.92 1,067,135.43 4,759.99 4,914.99 10,988,270.68 27,775.61 3,232.85 92,205.79 510,406.29 1,472,889.16 124,267.93 .00 4~720~197.55 GRANT TOTAL $34,756,197.49 Agenda Item No. 5. Agenda Item No. 6. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-83-7. SP-83-38. SP-83'39. John L. & Elizabeth W. Wildermuth. John L. & Elizabeth W. Wildermuth. John L. Wildermuth. Mr. Fisher referred to the letter from John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth, dated January 11, 1984, requesting deferral to the February Board of Supervisors meeting. This written request was subsequently followed by a telephone conversation with the clerk and an agreement to defer the above petitions to the March 7, 1984 meeting was reached. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to defer the above petitions to the March 7, 1984 Board meeting. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-83-85. Samuel C. Delaura. Request to locate a mobile home on 20.437 acres, zoned Rural Areas, Tax Map 72, Parcel 46C. Property is located on private road north of Route 637,' 2400 feet west of intersection with Route 682, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22, 1983.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on January 17, 1984, voted unanimously to defer the special use permit request to February 21, 1984, subject to Mr. DeLaura's response to the letter from the Planning Department dated January 18, 1984. The Planning Commission has requested additional information regarding this mobile home request. Mr. Tucker recommends that this application be deferred until the March 7, 1984 Board meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to that affect. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. -542 January 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-83-21. Drew Boles. Request to rezone .52 acre zoned RA to R-$ with proffer to construct duplex, County Tax Map 60A, Parcel 09-7, Jack Jouett District. Located west side of Georgetown Road, 300 feet south of Inglewood Drive. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 4 and January 10, 1984.) Agenda Item No. 12. Request from Drew Boles to extend water and sewer service areas to include parcel 09-7, Tax Map 60A. Mr. Tucker introduced a representative of Mr. Bowles, Ms. Eleanor Dawson. Ms. Dawson requested on behalf of the applicant, withdrawal of both petitions without prejudice. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to allow withdrawal by Mr. Bowles of both requests, without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 13. SP-83-87. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Request in accordance with Sections 30.3.5.2.1.2 and 30.3.5.2.1.4 to construct the Crozet Interceptor Part III within floodway of Lickinghole Creek, Mechum River, Powells Creek and an unnamed tributary to Lickinghole Creek in the community of Crozet and to locate a sewer lift station adjacent to Route 250 at Lickinghole Creek. The interceptor is proposed to run southeastward along Powells Creek to Lickinghole Creek; northeast from Brownsville Wastewater Treatment Plant to Lickinghol Creek, then generally to follow Lickinghole Creek in an eastwardly direction to the proposed Lickinghole Creek Pump Station near the C & 0 underpass of Route 250 at Lickinghole Creek. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 4 and January 10, 1984). As requested by the applicant, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to defer SP-83-87 to the February 1, 1984 meeting. By letter dated January 5, 1984, the applicant requests deferral due to certain unresolved matters in the construction of the Crozet interceptor. Roll ~as 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. 8. SP-83-78. (Deferred from December 21, 1983.) Bradford Z. White Estate (Minnie White, applicant.) Mr. Tucker read the following staff report- "Request: Acreage: Zoning: Location: Mobile Home 23.0 acres RA Rural Areas Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcel 54, is located on the north side of Route 6?4, about one half mile west of Route 673. Character of the Area: The front portion of this property is open pasture. The wooded portion slopes down to a stream. Staff Comment: At the proposed location near Route 674, the mobile home would be clearly visible from the road and would likely be visible from at least one dwelling in the area. The mobile home could be located about four hundred feet from the road in a wooded area, however, this would increase driveway and foundation costs (due to slope). It should be noted that the proposed double section unit is almost identical in appearance to a modular home, which could be located. by right as a single-family dwelling. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, Staff recommends the following conditions: or: Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Location as recommended by Staff in sketch dated "December 20, 1983, RSK"; w This special use permit is limited to a double-section HUD-approved mobile home." Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, on December 20,. 1983, unanimously recommendec approval of the special use permit subject to the first two conditions as stated above. Mr. Tucker referred to the two letters of opposition from adjacent landowners: letter dated December 1, 1983 from Eugene M. and Regina P. Sullenberger, and letter dated December 6, 1983 from Paul Matthews. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bradford White addressed the Board saying he had no objection to the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mrs. Minnie White, the applicant, would be living in the mobile home. Mr. White answered yes. With no one else present to address the issue, the public hearing was closed. 543 January 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approved SP-83-78, subject to the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, these being; 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Location as recommended by Staff in sketch dated "December 20, 1983, RSK." Mr. Henley asked Mr. Tucker to explain about the location of the mobile home. Mr. Tucker answered that the mobile home is to be placed within the tree line which presently exists on the property. The applicant had originally proposed locating in an open pasture. Rather than requiring screening, the staff recommended that the mobile home be located in the trees. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. 'Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-83-20. Murray Manufacturing Corporation/Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company. Request to rezone 6.8 acres, Parcel 10 and .400 acre, parcel IOH, both Tax Map 31, from Rural Areas to Light Industrial, White Hall District. Located northern side of Route 660, west of Eartysville Fire Company, adjacent to Crouse-Hinds. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 4 and January 10, 1984.) Mr. Tucker read the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: Acreage: Existing Zoning: Location: LI Light Industrial. 7.2 acres RA Rural Areas Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcels 10 and 10H, is located on the north side of Route 660, across from the Crouse-Hinds manufacturing plant. Character of the Area: Earlysville Volunteer Fire.Company and a parking area for employees at Crouse-Hinds' are located on these properties. A single-family dwelling, two mobile homes, and a modular dwelling are located to the north. Property to the west was requested for rezoning from Rural Areas to Light Industrial in 1981. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial and the petition was withdrawn prior to Board action. Applicant's Proposal: The fire company, located on the smaller tract (0.4 acre), has outgrown its quarters. Under current negotiations between the fire company and Crouse-Hinds, Crouse-Hinds would purchase the building and make a relocation site available to the fire company. Comprehensive Plan: The Earlysville Village in the Comprehensive Plan is about one mile northeast of this property. Earlysville was one growth area where zoning changes were made'as a reservoir Protective measure. Crouse- Hinds, located in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed, is not recognized on the land use plan of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan states that industrial sites need not be restricted to designated growth areas and also states that existing industries be allowed to expand. Inview of the existing use of these two properties, industrial zoning appears appropriate. (A letter from Crouse-Hinds indicates that the fire company building would continue to be used in a fashion similar to itscurrent use. See letter from W. D. Brewer to J.B. Morris dated October 17, 1983.) However, three areas of concern should be addressed: 1.~ The location of this property in a reservoir watershed raises concern ' ~' regarding future development. Staff would be reluctant to recommend an uncontrolled industrial zoning which would permit substantial building or parking expansion. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has also expressed concern over additional industrial development in regard to roads in the area. Methods are available to the applicant to address these concerns. In Mr. Brewer's letter of October 17, 1983, he states that 'we anticipate an increase in traffic flow across Route 660 were we to acquire the property.' If this rezoning petition were approved, the building could be used without site plan approval. Staff would recommend that measures be developed to minimize traffic conflicts. These measures should be reviewed by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. This rezoning envisions relocation of the fire company to another site in the reservoir watershed. No review of this new location has been made by s~aff for adequacy under ordinance requirements. Section 5.1.9 of the Zoning Ordinance may require special Commission review. Staff feels that this should be treated as one transaction and that preliminary site plan review (Section 32.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance) and review under Section 5.1.9 (if required) should be simultaneous with consideration of this rezoning petition." 544 Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 6, 1983, voted unanimously to recommend the rezoning of the entire Parcel 10H, Tax Map 31, consisting of .400 acre, (that parcel on which the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company is presently located), and that portion of Parcel 10, Tax Map 31, consisting of the full frontage width of 600 feet, to a depth of 175 feet. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission is not recommending the rezoning of the entire Parcel 10. This will permit an additional row of parking on Parcel 10. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any limitation to this action regarding the use of the land. Mr. Tucker said no, there is no proffer attached to the request. Mr. Fisher asked exactl where the fire company will relocate. Mr. Tucker said the fire company will relocate in a corner of the Crouse-Hinds parking lot. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this proposed site lies within the watershed and Mr. Tucker replied in the affirmative. Mr. Tucker added that the limited amount of land recommended for rezoning resolves concerns the Highway Department had expressed (see letter dated November 21, 1983 signed by D. S. Roosevelt). At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Thomas P. McLean, Plant Engineering Manager of Crouse-Hinds, said the land the fire company now sets on originally belonged to Crouse-Hinds but was deeded to the fire company for its use, with a stipulation that should use the land change, the land would revert back to Crouse-Hinds. He continued that the 175 feet recommended for approval by the Planning Commission for rezoning, is adequate for his needs. Regarding the use of the building itself, Mr. McLean said that it will be used for meetings and like matters but could not be used for that purpose without approval of this rezoning. Mr. J. B. Morris, President of the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company, noted his support of this request. Mr. Morris said if the fire company cannot finalize this land transfer with Crouse-Hinds the fire company will have a difficult time financing the enlargement of its quarters. Mr. Lindstrom said county staff has indicated that the rezoning should be tied together with a preliminary site plan review. Mr. Morris said when it was found that a rezonin was required, it seemed prudent to determine if there was valid cause to continue. Therefore, the rezoning request was the primary step. Mr. Morris said preliminary site plans are in the final stages of preparation at this time and site plan approval will be sought when it is determined whether the rezoning will be approved. Mr. Fisher pointed out that the arrangement between Crouse-Hinds and the fire company has not yet been finalized. Mr. Morris acknowledged this but stated he feels confident the agreement will take place. Mr. McLean said the the agreement will be honored when it is clear, by virtue of the Board's action, that the land can be rezoned. Mr. Bowie wondered what will happen to the present site if the plans to develop the new station do not take place. Mr. McLean said the fire company will remain where it is until such time as it is able to move. There being no one else desiring to speak on this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker if zoning of the entire 7.2 acres were approved and Murray Manufacturing expanded their structure, would there be sufficient parking to accommodate the expansion. Mr. Tucker said if Murray Manufacturing were to use the building for manufacturing purposes, parking would not be adequate. If the building were expanded as additional office use for its employees, there would be adequate parking. Mrs. Cooke commented on the vital function performed by the fire company adding her supporl of the request. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker if the location of the fire station will require any action other than site plan review and wondered if this is a permitted use by right under the zoning which presently exists. Mr. Tucker answered in the affirmative. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve ZMA-83-20 for the rezoning of the entire parcel 10H consisting of .400 acre, and that portion of Parcel 10 consisting of the full frontage width of 600 feet, to a depth of 175 feet from Rural Areas to Light Industrial, as recommended by the Planning Commission at its meeting of December 6, 1983. Mr. Lindstrom said that given the limited circumstances of this rezoning and the small amount of land involved, he supports the request. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 14. SP-83-88. Potomac Edison Company. Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2.(6) of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a transmission line ll5-KV crossing County Tax Map 37, Parcel 11, Rivanna District, consisting of 250.901 acres zoned Rural Areas. Locate¢ near border/intersection of Orange and Louisa Counties, northwest of Route 231 and east of Route 646, at their intersection. (Advertised in the Daily Progress, January 4 and January 10, 1984). Mr. Tucker read the following staff report: "Request: ll5kv electrical transmission line to be located within new one hundred foot right-of-way. NOTE: At time of application, the proposed line was to cross properties of Frederick Bush (Tax Map 37, Parcels 10 and 10B), Davis Land Trust (Tax Map 37, Parcels 8A and 8C) and Albert J. Lawson (Tax Map 37, Parcel 11). Subsequently the routing was changed and according to the applicant would cross only the Lawson property. However, when the routing was transferred to tax maps from the submitted plan, it appeared that the line would cross three properties. To avoid delay or infirmity due to lack of notice, Staff notified all three owners. Verification of the routing should be required prior to Board of Supervisors action. of 545 January 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Applicant's Proposal: ~See PROPOSED PRATTS-GORDONSVILLE l!5kv TRANSMISSION LINE Booklet and please refer to file copy of ~PP~IC~TZ©N FOR APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATION OF THE PRATTS-GORDONSVILLE ll5kv LINE BOOK which will be available at public hearings (material from APPLICATION is summarized in following Staff Report)). The applicant proposes to construct a ll5kv transmission line from Potomac Edison's Pratts substation (Madison County) to VEPCO'S proposed Gordonsville substation (Albemarle County). This project would entail acquisition of about 17.5 miles of one hundred foot right-of-way. In regard to purpose and necessity, Potomac Edison states that: The Pratts-Gordonsville ll5kv Line and the associated 1t5-34.5kv facilities at Pratts Substation are necessary to provide transmission supply to Potomac Edison's southernmost operating territory which is comprised of portions of Greene, Orange, Albemarle Counties and all of Madison County, Virginia. Presently, electric service is provided to the area by 34.5kv sub- transmission lines. During normal operations, supply is via a 17- mile 34.5kv line from VEPCO's ll5kv supplied Somerset Substation with backup supply provided by two 34.5kv lines, one a 33-mile circuit from North Shenandoah Substation and the other a 27-mite circuit from Sperryville Substation. When the main supply to the area is lost for any reason, backup supply to the area via Sperryville and North Shenandoah Substations is barely adequate to supply substations in the area. By 1983, operating conditions will have deteriorated to marginally adequate service during times of normal supply and will be totally inadequate if attempted to be served via the backup supplies. Therefore, a transmission supply is critically needed to continue to provide acceptable electric service to the area. The Gordonsville station of VEPC0 with a 230kv source, together with the proposed Pratts-Gordonsville ll5kv Line and 115-34.5kv transformation at Pratts Substation provides effective reinforcement. Staff has not requested any additional information regarding the purpose and necessity of this proposal. Nor has Staff requested analyses of alternative sources (i.e, upgrading of North Shenandoah, Sperryville or Somerset substations and lines). Should the Commission and Board desire additional information, more review time and rescheduling would likely be required. History: Potomac Edison developed a dozen or more 'link' routes from Pratts to Gordonsville (routes were generated, by combinations of various links or line segments). These routes were developed by employing constraint mapping and each route evaluated by constraint factors (i.e., dwellings, historic sites, churches, stream crossings, etc.) The proposed routing was selected based on such evaluation tempered by economic considerations. Consultants for Potomac Edison met with the Planning Staff about a year ago to -d±.s6uss County requirements and concerns related to transmission line routing. As can be seen from the attachment and Application Book, substantial effort has been made by Potomac Edison to minimize adverse aspects of the proposed transmission line. Concerns of individual property owners have been considered in this effort. Project Within Albemarle County: About 6,300 feet of the transmission line would be located in Albemarle County with right-of-way acquisition totalling about 1.3 acres. The VEPC0 Gordonsville Substation, to be located east of Route 646, about one quarter mile north of Route 231, received site plan approval earlier this year from the Planning Commission. From the Substation, the line would travel in a northeasterly fashion four hundred feet, paralleling an existing transmission line. Next, the line would extend northerly about 2,500 feet then northwesterly 3,000 feet and northeasterly 400 feet to the County line. This alignment would involve one road crossing. No listed historic buildings are located in this area. The closest dwelling to the line would be about 250 feet away. Staff Comment: Staff has reviewed this special use permit for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and criteria for issuance of a special use permit (Section 31.2.4.1). Staff offers the following comments: a) The transmission line would not be of substantial detriment to properties; the character of the district would not be changed: Potomac Edison, as stated earlier in the report, has made effort to reduce adversities occasioned by the proposed transmission line. b) The use would be in harmony with the intent of the zoning ordinance; with other uses located in the area and with the public health~ safety and welfare: Once established, maintenance of the right-of-way becomes a concern. Potomac Edison proposes vegetation control by herbicides. However, the company would negotiate other means of maintenance with individual property owners objecting to herbicide usage. 546 Recommended Conditions: Staff opinion is that Potomac Edison has made effort, working with property owners, to address major conderns related to this project. Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: The granting of this permit does no~ guarantee the availability of electric power to the applicant and shall not be construed as approving the modification, construction nor reconstruction of any facility not specifically approved herein. The granting of this permit shall not be deemed to impair or otherwise affect the rights of the applicant or any other person concerning the acquisition of any right-of-way or other interest in property for such line or the compensation to be paid therefor. Except where guying right- of-way is required for angle structures as described in sheets 2 and 3 of Exhibit C of Application Book, right-of-way width shall not exceed one hundred feet. Suspension structures shall be in general accordance with sheets 1, 2 and 3 of Exhibit C of Application Book, provided that structures shall not exceed height or width dimensions described in Exhibit C. Outside of the right-of-way the applicant shall have the right to cut danger trees only. A danger tree is defined as any tree which, if felled, would fall within ten feet of a conductor. Within the right-of-way, the applicant shall preserve vegetation and trees within fifteen feet of stream crossings (if any) and public roads to the maximum extent practicable allowing for the safe operat±on and maintenance of the line. The applicant shall take all reasonable measures to minimize the adverse impact of such line on adjacent properties, on the neighborhood and on the County, consistent with good engineering practice." Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January i0, 1984, unani- mously recommended approval with the five conditions suggested by staff and a sixth condition as follows: "6. The applicant shall make reasonable effort to negotiate other means of maintenance with individual property owners objecting to herbicide usage." The Planning Commission also recommended amending condition number three in the staff report to read: "3 · Suspension structures shall be in general accordance with sheets 1, 2 and 3 of Exhibit C of Application Book, provided that structures shall not exceed seventy-five feet in heighth or width dimensions described in Exhibit C." Mr. Tucker said that in a separate action, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a resolution finding proposal SP-83-88 in compliance with Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the proposed transmission line will replace the existing line or i~ it will run parallel to the existing line. Mr. Tucker said he believed Potomac Edison planned to replace the existing transmission line. Mr. Bowie said the existing line runs through Mr. Lawson's property. At this time the public hearing was opened. Mr. Breckenridge Ingles, an attorney repre- senting Potomac Edison provided a brief history of the proposal. He said the project has been under consideration for several years. During the last six months representatives of Potomac Edison have been attempting to acquire rights-of-way for this line by agreement with property owners. In Orange County they have obtained options on fourteen of the eighteen properties involved; in Madison County they have obtained options on sixteen out of twenty-two properties and in Albemarle County there is one of one. Mr. Zngles said that both Orange and Madison Counties have approved Potomac Edison's application for a special use permit and have granted approval under Section 15.1-456 of the Code which states that the request must be in compliance with their Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Ingles stated that Potomac Edison has no problems with the conditions recommended by the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Mr. Russell Davis, the supervisor of Area Planning for Potomac Edison, was the next person !I to speak. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Davis if there is an existing transmission line. Mr. Davis answered yes but said this line is just a 34.5kv distribution line. The line proposed by Potomac Edison will parallel this line for some distance but in other areas it was found- necessary to deviate from that route due to constraints and obstructions in the right-of-way. Mr. Fisher asked if it would be possible to remove or relocate the 34.5kv line along the new right-of-way to avoid there being two one-hundred foot rights-of-way going through the property Mr. Davis said the right-of-way on the existing line as it emanates from VEPCO north of Gord~nsville, has a centerline width right-of-way only. This extends for the first five miles of ~he line. When the line gets into Potomac Edison's operating territory Potomac Edison has historically purchased thirty to forty feet of right-of-way for the line. Mr. Davis said it would be possible to relocate certain parts of the 34.5k¥ line, though in other places this will not be possible. Presently, the existing line is the main power source. Mr. Davis said Potomac Edison wishes to construct the ll5kv line to become the primary source of power. However, Potomac Edison wishes to retain the 34.5kv line as a back-up source of power in the event the primary source is lost. Mr. Davis said if the 34.5kv line is moved to the same set of structures as the ll5kv line, both the primary and back-up sources will be located on the same set of structures. This, said Mr. Davis, is not a viable policy to pursue. It is necessary to keep the primary source and back-up source on different pole facilities. _Januar~l~8 ~9~Ni~ht Meetin~ Mr. Alan Fleshner, project engineer, said some clarification is needed concerning which lines are being addressed. Mr. Fleshner said of the approximately eighteen miles of line being proposed for construction, almost seventeen and one-quarter miles are in Orange and Madison County. The length of line in Albemarle County is approximately 6,300 feet. Mr. Fleshner pointed to the property owned by Mr. Lawson and the area purchased by VEPCO for its Gordonsvill~ substation. Mr. Fleshner said the only section of the line Potomac Edison is paralleling in Albemarle County is within the station facility itself. He added that for practical purposes, Potomac Edison is not paralleling any lines on the Lawson property. Mr. Fteshner said that the 34.5kv line Mr. Davis refers to is outside the Albemarle County limits. There being no one else to speak on this petition, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve SP-83-88 for Potomac Edison Company, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and set out below. 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. 1. The granting of this permit does not guarantee the availability of electric power to the applicant and shall not be construed as approving the modification, construction or reconstruction of any facility not specifically approved herein. 2. The granting of this permit shall not be deemed to impair or other- wise affect the rights of the applicant or any other person concerning the acquisition of any right-of-way or other interest in property for such line or the compensation to be paid therefor. Except where guying right- of-way is required for angle structures as described in sheets 2 and 3 of Exhibit C of Application Book, right-of-way width shall not exceed one hundred feet. 3. Suspension structures shall be in general accordance with sheets 1, 2 and 3 of Exhibit C of Application Book, provided that structures shall not exceed seventy-five feet in heighth or width dimensions described in Exhibit C. 4. Outside of the right-of-way the applicant shall have the right to cut danger trees only. A danger tree is defined as any tree which, if felled, would fall within ten feet of a conductor. Within the right-of-way, the applicant shall preserve vegetation and trees within fifteen feet of stream crossings (if any) and public roads to the maximum extent practicable allowing for the safe operation and maintenance of the line. 5. The applicant shall take all reasonable measures to minimize the adverse impact of such line on adjacent properties, on the neighborhood and on the County, consistent with good engineering practice. 6. The applicant shall make reasonable effort to negotiate other means of maintenance with individual property owners objecting to herbicide usage. Agenda Item No. 15. January 11, 1984). Agreement re: 911 and Central Dispatch System (Deferred from Mr. Agnor said he met with Mr. Richard Martin, President of Jefferson Country Firefighter' Association, and provided him with a copy of the Agreement. He discussed with him the Board's concerns regarding representation of the Firefighters on the Management Committee. Mr. Martin subsequently discussed this with the chiefs of all fire departments and indicated to Mr. Agnor that all are satisfied with the Agreement as it is written. Mr. Agnor then recommended the Agreement not be amended to change the representation on the Management Committee. ~Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept the Agreement as recommended by the County Executive and to authorize the Chairman to execute same, along with the memorandum of understanding (set out in the Minutes of January 11, 1984.) Mr. Bowie said that he is with the Agreement, and will support it as long as the fire fighters are represented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. (The Agreement as signed is set out in full below.) THIS AGREEMENT made this (20th) day of (January), 1984, by and among the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA (City), the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (County) and the RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA (University), sometimes collectively referred to as "Participants" WITNESSETH: I. BACKGROUND The Participants have studied at length the problems, costs and benefits associated with the establishment of a centralized dispatching facility for their respective law enforcement agencies, and other emergency services operating in the Albemarle and Charlottesville community, and the provision of a "911" emergency telephone system to provide immediate citizen access to those services. The Participants appointed a task force to make recommendations for implementing the joint dispatch center and 911 system, and that task force, in a final report dated November 5, 1982, made such recommendations to the University and the governing bodies of the county and the city. In this agree- ment the Participants wish to set forth the terms upon which those recommendations will be implemented. In consideration of the mutual benefits and obligations contained herein, the Participants therefore agree to' the following terms: '5'4 8 January_ 1_8~__1984 II. JOINT DISPATCH CENTER a. The participants will establish a Joint Dispatch Center in the basement of the City police department headquarters. The Center will be placed in operation on or after January 1, 1984, to perform direct dispatching functions for County, City and University law enforcement personnel. The Center will also maintain "patching,, or transfer capabilities to direct incoming calls immediately to the City fire department, participating volunteer fire companies, rescue squads, and other emergency service providers, as appropriate. b. The Joint Dispatch Center shall be controlled by a board, known as the Joint Dispatch Center Management Board (Management Board), consisting of eight (8) members. The Management Board shall include the Albemarle County Executive, the Charlottesville City Manager, the University Police, the Chief of the Charlottesville Fire Department and one repre- sentative from the Advisory Board of the area rescue squads, any one of whom may designate a subordinate to attend meetings of the Management Board and vote in his/her behalf. Members of the Management Board and their designees shall serve ex officio as representatives of their respective jurisdictions or agencies, and shall inure no individual or personal liability for actions taken in good faith by them as members of the Management Board. c. The Management Board shall establish a set of by laws and shall elect from among its members a chairman and a secretary, whose terms shall be for one year with eligibility for re-election. d. ©perating procedures and policies for the Center will be established by the Management Board. The Management Board shall submit annually to the Participants a budget and cost allocation schedule (as delineated below) and other data which any of the Participants may desire. e. The City, County and University hereby delegate to the Management Board the power to sue and be sued in its own name and enter into contracts, including but not limited to contracts for the purchase of goods and services necessary to carry out its functions, provided that no such contract obligates the Board or the Participants to any expenditure in excess of the total amount appropriated to the Board by the Participants for the fiscal year to which the contract applies. f. The Management Board shall select a Center Manager and authorize the number of other employees to operate the Center. Ail persons employed to operate the Center shall be employees of the County of Albemarle; how-ever, the County hereby delegates to the Board the power to hire, discipline and remove such employees, within the limits of the County's established personnel policies and regulations, and to establish their duties and compensation within the County's classification and pay plan. The employees shall be eligible to receive all rights and benefits of the County employees. g. The Management Board may delegate to the Center Manager or other employees any of the powers delegated to it in subparagraphs (e) and (f) above, within such limits as the Management Board may prescribe. Ill. 911 SERVICE The participants will authorize the telephone company(s) to make the necessary changes in the local telephone system to make 911 emergency telephone service available to the Joint Dispatch Center from all possible telephone prefixes in Charlottesville and Albemarle County, including the University's 924 prefix. Any additional exchanges in Albemarle County not served by this 911 facility will have available a toll free number to be paid for by Albemarle County. The changes to be requested will include the installation of the 'thor lines" necessary to provide for immediate transfer of incoming calls from the Joint Dispatch Center to the City fire department and the participating fire companies, rescue squads and other emergency service providers recommended by the Management Board. IV. ALLOCATION OF COSTS a. Expenditures for operation of the Center through June 30, 1985 shall be apportioned among Participants according to the formula set out in the task force report dated November 5, 1982 and attached to this agreement (Attachment A). b. Charges made to each Participant for provision of service in the first year of operation shall include necessary expenditures for the purchase and installation of equipment, building modification, modification of the telephone system and operating costs for the Center through June 30, 1985. These expenditures shall be based on estimates set forth in the task force report as revised by the Management Board and agreed to by the Participants. Among the costs to the Participants shall be the provision of certain dispatch equipment for use within the Center, as outlined in the task force report, which shall become the property of and the responsibility of the Management Board upon delivery to the Center. The first year's operating costs shall include the cost of a buy-in to VSRS of credits for all past service for City employees hired by the Center; the cost to the Center shall be the amount charged by VSRS less any funds withdrawn from the City retirement system for the affected employees and contributed by the City to VSRS separately. :549 January 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) c. With the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1985 operating costs will be apportioned among the Participants in the manner set forth in the task force report but on the basis of their respective populations, numbers of calls for service and crime index figures for calendar year 1984. The Management Board shall obtain such revised figures annually (including such estimates of population changes as determined by the Tayloe-Murphy Institute that the Management Board may agree to) and shall recompute the allocation formula for each next ensuing fiscal year. The recomputation shall be made as soon after January 1 as possible to make accurate figures available to the participants for their annual budget. V. FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT a. The County of Albemarle is designated as fiscal manager for the Joint Dispatch Center and the 911 system. The County shall be responsible for furnishing fiscal management, purchasing, personnel, payroll administration and legal counsel for the Center. By executing this agreement the Participants ,authorize the County to contract with the telephone company and others as necessary for the initial expenditures necessary to implement the Center and the system. The Management Board may contract for other services as necessary subject to the limits in paragraph II. b. To cover administrative expenses and overhead for acting as fiscal Manager, the County will be paid a sum equal to 2% of the annual operating budget of the Center until such time as an accurate acounting of the cost as determined in a standard indirect cost study shall be computed. At that time, the County shall contract with Center based on that amount, and either reimburse or be paid the difference for prior years. c. The Participants will pay their respective shares of the cost of building modification, equipment purchase and installation and telephone system modification within thirty days after executing this agreement. The fiscal agent will invoice each participant in advance of each operating quarter for its quarterly share of operating costs. These invoices will be paid within thirty days. Dispatch equipment shall be delivered to the Center according to a schedule recommended by the Management Board. VI LIABILITY The Participants acknowledge that the Management Board will act as agents for each of them in carrying out the dispatching functions of their respective law enforcment and public safety responsibilities. The Management Board shall obtain liability insurance adequate to protect the interests of the City, County, University and/or itself for claims arising out of its performance of these functions. The purchase of such insurance shall in no way constitute a waiver of any defenses, including but not limited to the defense of sovereign immunity, that may be available to the Management Board, City, County, State or University with respect to any claim against any or all of them. VII. EXECUTION: DURATION; JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS The City and County intend this agreement as a joint exercise of their respective powers on political subdivisions, as authorized by Section 15.1-21 of the Code of Virginia, and the University joins by the authority vested in it by Title 23 of said code. The governing body of each Participant has therefore caused the agreement to be executed in its behalf by the authorized officer indicated below, as of the respective dates indicated. The agreement will take effect on the date of the last signature and will continue in effect until modified or dissolved by mutual agreement of the Participants; provided that any Participant may discontinue its participation at the end of any fiscal year on one year's written notice to the others, and provided also that the Participants' respective obligations for payment of operating costs are subject to their respective annual authorization of funds for that purpose. Upon withdrawal of any Participant(s) from this agreement, the withdrawing Participant(s) shall be entitled to receive payment from the Board for a percentage of the value of the depreciated assets of the Center in a proportion equal to the percentage of total costs of operating the Center assigned to said Participant(s) as of the date of notice of intent to discontinue. ATTEST: Lettie E. Neher COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BY Gerald E. Fisher DATE: January 18, 1984 ATTEST: Jeanne Cox CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BY Cole Hendrix DATE: January 16, 1984 ATTEST: Norma G. Lane RECTORS'AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA BY Ray C. Haas~ Jr. DATE: January 20, 1984 ..:550 APPORTIONMENT FORMULA Per- POPULATION cent FACTOR FOR RATE/lOOM POPULATION Albemarle Charlottesville University of Virginia 55,783 46 1.79 39,916 33 2.5 25,000 21 3.9 121,199 100 II. INDEX CRIME Per- (Annual) cent RATE PER 100M POPULATION Albemarle Charlottesville University of Virginia 1,550 24 3,856 60 1,058 16 6,473 100 1,550 x 1.79 = 2,775 ? 16,564 = 16.8% 3,865 x 2.5 = 9,663 , 16,564 = 58.3% 1,058 x 3.9 = 4~126 ? 16,564 = 24.9% 16,564 100.0% III. CALLS FOR SERVICE Per- (Annual) cent Albemarle Charlottesville University of Virginia 10,351 21.1 33,207 67.7 5~486 11.2 49,044 100.0 IV. COST OF APPORTIONMENT (PERCENT OF TOXAL) (% Population = % of Crime Index Rate/100M = % Calls for Service) , 3 Albemarle Charlottesville University of Virginia (46% = 16.8% + 21.1% . 3 = 28.0%) (33% = 58.3% + 67.7% · 3 = 53.0%) (21% = 24.9% + 11.2% · 3 = 19.0%) 100.0% Agenda Item No. 16. Appropriation: Re-appropriation - Ashmere Drive. Mr. Agnor referred to the memorandum from Ray B. Jones, dated January 12, 1984: "Attached is a memo from the County Engineer which shows an unexpended balance in the amount of $522.54 that was returned to the General Fund Balance as of June 30, 1983. Therefore, in order to bring the above amount back into an appropriation status to allow Mr. Elrod to complete construction on Ashmere Drive, it is necessary to make the following appropriation: From: Unallocated Fund Balance (General Fund) To: Code 1-1000-410000-309904 Ashmere Drive $ 522.54 $ 522.54" Mr. Fisher asked if Ashmere is the same subdivision of property which was brought before the Board for vacation of the plat. Mr. Agnor answered yes adding that this re-appropriation relates to the portion of road in Ashmere which was not properly constructed by the developer. These funds should complete construction of the road. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $522.54 be, and the same hereby is, reappropriated from the Unallocated Fund Balance of the General Fund and coded to: 1 1000 410000 309904 - Ashmere Drive. AND FURTHER RESOLVE that this appropriation is effective this date. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes: August 10 and September 14, 1983. Mrs. Cooke had not read the minutes of August 10, 1983. Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of September 14, 1983 and noted the following corrections: Page 356, under Agenda Item No. 3, add the words "for him" after the word "educational" in the last sentence of the first para- graph; Page 356, under Agenda Item No. 3(a); referring to a three percent motel and lodging tax, should be corrected to read "three percent meals tax and a four percent motel and lodging tax." Also, Page 364, paragraph two should be amended to add the words, "The motion was not seconded." Page 365, add the word "Force" at the end of the fifth line. Motion was then offered by Mr. Linds~rom, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the minutes of September 14, 1983 with the corrections as indicated. 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. -551 January 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 18. Discussion: School Board Request for Capital Funds. Mr. Agnor referred to the memorandum from Jessie C. Haden, dated November 28, 1983: "Funding for two major capital improvements projects are of concern to the School Board, and the Board asked that I inform you of its discussion on these projects. Albemarle High School, Phase ZV This is the final phase of the renovation to Albemarle High School which began in 1981. The project is to replace heating, ventilating, and electrical equipment, and to add. air conditioning to parts of the building. In order to be completed during the summer, work must begin as soon as school is out in June. Equipment must be ordered well in advance as it will be specially manufactured; this will require the bidding process to begin in mid- January of the year the project is done. The construction documents are virtually complete and thus it would be possible to bid the project in January 1984 if funds are available. The project cost is $972,000. It is the opinion of staff members and the architect, Mr. Drinkard of the Vickery Partnership, that a Literary Fund loan would not be approved for such a project. This project has been placed in the "Necessary" category of the Capital Improvements Budget and is slated for 1984-85. The School Board would like to know if this means funds will be available July 1, 1984 and whether commitment to the project may be made by letting the bids in January 1984. Broadus Wood Construction and Renovation A Literary Fund loan has been approved for this major construction project for the upper limit of funds for a single project, $2,000,000. As you know, the Literary Fund was frozen and this freeze is expected to be lifted July 1, 1984. It is not known how soon after that date funds would become available for the project. This project is 26th on a waiting list of projects, many of which have been undertaken using local funds. The most desirable schedule for this project would be to let the bids in April with the major construction beginning when school is out. The construction fencing could be put up and heavy equipment used when the children are not in school. Work would continue during the school year with finish work and renovation of the older portion of the school coming the following summer. Literary Fund regulations require that County funds committed to the project be expended first. Based on current estimates, the County is to expend $340,000 which could be used to pay the first two draws for the construction due in mid- August. Ideally, then, Literary Fund monies would become available at that point. One alternative is to wait until the Literary Fund monies are available before going to bid, but this would delay the project at least two months and disrupt the construction schedule. If the project is delayed significantly, inflation could increase the cost of the project. Any increase in cost could not be borrowed from the Literary Fund since the project is now at the $2,000,000 loan limit. It would be preferable if a temporary source of funds were available so that construction could begin in the summer of 1984. These items, as you know, have been approved by the School Board and still remain numbers one and two on our priority list. At this time our intent is to apprise you of this situation and seek from you any advice about the county's financial picture as it relates to these projects." Mr. Agnor then referred to the lengthly memorandum from Ray B. Jones, dated January 10, 1984, which is entitled "Staff Report on Capital Improvement Program." Mr. Agnor summarized the Staff Report calling close attention to the following recommendations made by Mr. Jones as per the above memorandum: RECOMMENDATION First, consideration should be given to making appropriations for those remaining projects that were scheduled for funding in FY 83/84... Second, you should consider making appropriations at your January 11, 1984 meeting for requests as set out in Melvin Breeden's memo dated January 5, 1984. Third, you should consider the funding of Albemarle High School Phase IV in the amount of $107,000 in the current fiscal year as planned, and the balance early in FY 84/85, also as planned. As I understand from John Massie, the most recent estimate on this project is $979,000 - down from the $1,000,000 requested in last year's CIP Program. Fourth, since the Federal Revenue Sharing law was extended for three years, consideration should be given to utilizing the proceeds of Federal Revenue Sharing as received to pay off the advance to the School Fund from the Capital Improvement Fund first ($466,609) and then the General Fund ($1,039,141). 552 January~18 1 S~~ular N_ig~ht__Mee~ ~ifth, if you consider funding the Broadus Wood project in the current year and ahead of schedule, you must Consider some form of borrowing other than Literary Fund Loans such as borrowing in anticipation of revenue (state law requires repayment in December in the year in which the funds are borrowed) or issuing bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority. Either of these methods would incur additional long-range costs as Future Debt Service as compared to a Literary Fund Loan because of the comparative interest rates. The status of Literary Fund Loans should be known by mid- 1984. When you consider the fact that interest costs of a Literary Fund Loan are slightly over one-third of the' interest costs on other forms of funding, the six month's delay is not that costly. Also, the most recent estimate from Mr. Massie, the cost of this project has escalated in the past year from $2,240,000 to $2,357,600. This increased cost adds $157,600 to local fund needs. The School Board should request the State to submit in writing what the priority of the Broadus Wood Project is and when the County could expect reimbursement once the contract has been let." Mr. Fisher said he attended a meeting two weeks ago about the Albemarle High School Phase IV project at which there were teachers, citizens and some members of the School Board present and he feels that the decision as to the type of heating and cooling system has been finalized to a point of putting plans out for bid. Dr. Charles Tolbert said the School Board has not yet made a decision about both a heating and cooling system. He said the architect had been requested to prepare the bid documents two ways. Before the School Board can make a final decision, it will be necessary to review the bids first. Mrs. Cooke wondered what type of system the School Board is considering. Dr. Tolbert said a combined heating and air conditioning system is being considered. This Will utilize the current steam pipes already in the building; the old radiators will be replaced by the new system. Because outside air is necessary, there will be an attempt to bring air in through the current holes in the walls. Dr. Tolbert said the ai~ conditioning will be provided room by room, with individual units on the roof and piping coming down to the unit. The option is to do heating alone or a combined system which provides heating and air conditioning in the same units. The difference in cost between the two is approximately $400,000. Dr. Tolbert said the people working in the school have indicated a strong desire for a combined system. The other portions of the school are already air conditioned and this is the only portion of the school which is not air conditioned. Mrs. Cooke asked the area of the school to which Dr. Tolbert referred. Dr. Tolbert answered that the science labs above the offices and the English Depart- ment are the sections presently without air conditioning. In addition there are some periphera on the side closest to the cafeteria and one or two other spaces in the building. Mr. Agnor noted that the last phase of the Albemarle High School project is to be funded entirely from local funds. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr.. Lindstrom to appropriate $107,000 from the Capital Improvements fund for the Albemarle High School project, and accept Mr. Jones recommendation, #3, regarding this project. Mr. Agnor said the $107,000 set out in the 1983-84 capital budget for this project has already been approved, appropriated and spent. The School Board is asking for permission to proceed with bids on the project w±th the understanding that the balance of the funds for the project will be forthcoming this summer. Mr. Lindstrom noted that the motion should be restate, to say that the Boated of Supervisors intends for the School Board to proceed with the bidding process recognizing that the Board of Supervisors is committed to going forward with the project for the amount set out in the Capital Improvements program for the 1984-85 fiscal year. Mr. Way restated the motion to accept the recommendation of Mr. Jones as stated in his memorand~ dated January 10, 1984, concerning the Albemarle High School Phase IV project. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that this is a necessary project and should proceed as planned Mr. Henley said the heating system must be replaced and he feels this is the time to also add an air conditioning system. Mrs. Cooke feels that the longer a project is postponed the more expensive it becomes and that eventually air conditioning will be placed in the school. Mrs. Cooke says she sees no need to add to the cost by delaying the project any further. Mr. Fisher referred to the meeting with the School Board's architects saying he felt their responses to questions concerning various means to accomplish the proposed project, were totally unsatis- factory. Mr. Fisher said he had some strong reservations about whether the architects were even willing to consider other alternatives for the project. Mr. Lindstrom noted that the School Board has been using the same architectural firm for many years and he wonders why this relationship continues. Dr. Totbert said what while he shares the same concerns as Mr. Fisher, he recognizes that in general, dealing with one firm has some distinct advantages in that the firm becomes familiar with the people and the system itself. Dr. Tolbert said, in defense of the architects, that often they do not like to comment on the engineering aspects of a project. Most of the questions to which Mr. Fisher referred were engineering questions and he added that the project is basically an engineering project. Mr. Fisher suggested that the School Board ask the architects whether or not any alternative plans have been considered. Mr. Agnor mentioned that the new state Procurement Law prohibits continuing this relationship between the architectural firm and the School Board, without bidding for these services. With no further discussion, roll was called .on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. m Januar.. 18~ 1984 (Re.. ~lar Ni~h_~ Meeting]_____ Mr. Agnor then referred to the fifth recommendation posed by Mr. Jones in the afore- mentioned memorandum concerning the Broadus Wood project. Mr. Jones had recommended that the County not proceed with temporary borrowing of funds and the project not proceed until the Literary Funds are available. Mr. Jones suggested that the School Board request, in writing, from the State, an approximate time the COunty can expect reimbursement once the project has been let, and the priority of the Broadus Wood project on the state list. Mr. Agnor said he understands that the project is twenty sixth on the list, but Mr. Jones recommends having this set out in writing. Mr. Lindstrom said it is also necessary to learn what priority this is in terms of dollars. Mr. Agnor responded that this is why Mr. Jones recommends determining when reimbursement can be expected. Mr. Fisher stated that Dr. Casteen is recommending that the Literary Fund loans be unfrozen July 1, 1984, but only thirty-five to forty million dollars will be available in each year. Mr. Fisher pointed out that if Albemarle County is twenty sixth, and most of the projects are over one million dollars, it will be difficult for the Broadus Wood project to be included in this. Dr. Tolbert said it is his understanding from Mr. Papenfuse that some of the projects on the list of twenty six have already been completed without Literary Fund money. He said that proceeding with the Broadus Wood project will be a bit of a gamble though he is sure the County will receive the money eventually. Dr. Tolbert said that to accomplish this project ideally, the heavy equipment would go in this summer, the inside work would be undertaken during the winter and the renovation portion of the project done the following summer. Mr. Fisher said the recommendation by Mr. Jones is to wait until it is known when the money will be available from the Literary Fund. Mr. Way said he supports the recommendation. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommendation of Mr. Jones to request the School Board to ascertain from the State, in writing, the priority of the Broadus Wood project for Literary Funds, and when the County might expect reimbursement once the construction contract has been let. 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. 19. Discussion: Airport Authority Legislation. Mr. Lindstrom said he asked to have this put back on the agenda because he has reconsidere the position he took at the January 11 meeting. Mr. Lindstrom said he is now willing to second Mr. Henley's motion if Mr. Henley is still willing to make same. He feels strongly inclined to his former position but does not feel it would be responsible of him to permit the cramped circumstances and inadequate facilities at the Airport to continue because of his fear that this will be added impetus for expansion and development of the area. Mr. Lindstrom said it is his understanding that the financial function under an independent authority, will be a fairer allocation of the cost of expanding facilities which are used by a handful Of people; the costs will actually be borne by those using the facilities. Mr. Lindstrom recognizes there is a chance that if bonds are issued and the airport could not meet its financial obligations', there will be a clammer for local governments to "bail the Airport out." He said he will rely on the County Attorney's assurance that the Board is not legally responsible. He feels that with a unanimous vote required by the Managing Board to issue any bonds, this is about as much pro- tection as can be expected. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that the legislation contains a stipulation that the power of eminent domain is retained by the County; therefore, approval of any expansion of a significant nature would still lie with the County. Also, a project would need to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom feels the Airport Authorit legislation is a valid approach. Mr. Fisher asked if it is clear that if this proposed legislation is enacted, the three quarters of a million dollars shown as Albemarle County's share of funds in the Capital Budget will no longer be needed. Mr. Agnor said yes, with one qualification. There are a number of small projects which would not lend themselves to a bond issue. This could mean the County will be asked to fund these projects because of the insignificant size of some, however, the County can always turn down the request and suggest that the Authority fund these projects out of its own revenues. Mr. Agnor said these small projects should be funded out of the Airport's operating budget revenues. Mr. Lindstrom suggested t.hat the Board take action 'to amend the Capital Improvements Program to reflect the fact that the Board no longer feels it appropriate to fund these projects. Mr. Agnor suggested the Ai'rport Authority be handled in the same way as the Albemarle Service Authority and the Rivanna Authority, that is, they be carried as items of information in the County's Capital Improvement Program, but show~no local funding being reserved or allocated for the projects. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommendation of the County Executive and adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, in 1974, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville jointly exercised powers granted to them by Virginia Code Section 5.1-35 and Section 5.1-36, and created the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board to own and operate the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport; and WHEREAS, in recent years, airport, growth and tightening local budgets have strained the capacity of the Airport Board to provide capital.improvements necessary to meet the reasonable demands of the traveling public., the need for some of those improvements, such as parking, have reached near-crisis proportions; and WHEREAS, creation by the Virginia General Assembly of an airport authority with the power to issue revenue bonds, which authority would own and operate the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, would facilitate the provision of needed capital improvements at said airport and would be in the best interest of the County and its residents; January 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of~ Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that: 1. Delegate Mitchell VanYahres be requested to sponsor the attached bill creating the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, introduce it in the 1984 session of the General Assembly, and seek its passage therein; and~ Copies of this resolution and the attached draft bill be sent to Delegate VanYahres for the above purpose. Mr. Fisher suggested that a meeting be scheduled with the Airport Board at the Airport so the Board members can tour the facilities~and see~what projects are planned. Mr. Fisher said his principal criticism is that the legislation was sprung on the Board with no case having been made for the necessity of same. Mrs. Cooke expressed her pleasure at this item being brought back before the Board since she was not in attendance at the January 11, 1984 meeting. She wishes to go on record as supporting this legislation. Mr. Bowie mentioned reprogramming the Capital Improvement Program which will be a plus for thetaxpayers of Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor said $750,000 in projects is scheduled for the Airport over a five year period of time. The Board has funded approximately $100,000 of this amount in the last two years. The large projects Mr. Agnor referred to last week are the terminal building and additional parking lot totalling about $630~000. These funds will now be freed for other capital needs. At this time, the roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke~ Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. Mr. Fisher Mr. Agnor then introduced to the Board, Mr. Robert Kennedy, the newly employed Airport Manager. Mr. Agnor referred to Mr. Fisher's suggestion concerning the Board members schedu!in~ a meeting at the Airport for a briefing by Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fisher suggested the meeting be scheduled prior to the Budget work sessions. Mr. Agnor suggested March 7, 1984 at 3:00 P.M. It was unanimously agreed for all Board members to meet at the Airport Manager's office in the terminal building on the aforementioned date. Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Agnor said that last night City Council had acted to indicate their support of the effort to acquire the Bicentennial Center on Route 20 South for permanenv use as a Visitor's Bureau. Mr. Agnor said this Board took similar action in August of 1983. Mrs. Cooke explained her absence of January 11, 1984, saying she had gone to represent Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville in New York, at the presentation of the collected writings of Filippo Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's friend at the University of Virginia. Mrs. Cooke said while there, she had an opportunity to talk with Mayor Landini and Mayor Pezzat from Poggio a Caiano and Prato, the sister cities in Italy. She said both gentlemen were very pleased with the student exchange program of last year and wish to begin negOtiating for anothe exchange in the near future. Mrs. Cooke said a set of the volumes of Mazzei's writings will be sent to each representative present at the New York meeting. She hopes the Board will turn these volumes over to the Jefferson Madison Library when they are received here in Albemarle County. Mrs. Cooke expressed-her appreciation for the opportunity to represent the County and the City at this function. Mr. Lindstrom said there is a position available which was formerly held by Mr. Butler on the Piedmont Job Training Partnership Policy Board. He offered motion to have Mr. Bowie ~epresent the County on that Board and particularly as a representative of the County from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. 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. Payne called attention to the hearing on Friday, January 27, 1984 concerning the Central Virginia Electric Cooperative suit in the Circuit Court. Last fall there was a hearin on a motion by certain landowners that the Circuit Court take action in absence of action by the Supreme Court. The landowners were advised that the motion was premature because the-matt was still before the Board of Supervisors and the court would take no action subject to that hearing which is now scheduled for January 27. Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. meeting was adjourned at 9:27 P.M. With no further business to come before the Board, the i