The URL can be used to link to this page

1984-02-08 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 8, 1984, at 9:00 A.M., in 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, (arrived at 10:41 A.M.), J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman, Mrs. Cooke, at 9:02 A.M. Mrs. Cooke announced that Mr. Fisher would be arriving late because of a dental appointment. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve item 4.1 and to accept the remaining informational items ~with the exception of Item 4.6 which Mr. Lindstrom requested be discussed as a separate action. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Item No. 4.1. Statement of Expenses to the Compensation Board for the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Regional Jail, for the month of January, 1984 was approved as presented. Item No. 4.2. Letter from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, of the Department of Highways and Transportation, dated January 23, 1984, noting receipt of the Board's resolution dated November 9, 1983 which requested the Highway Department to waive Section 5C of its street requirements. Item No. 4.3. Copy of letter to Mrs. Irene Fisk, from Commissioner Harold King, Departmen of Highways and Transportation, dated January 19, 1984, in response to her request to Governor Robb's office for the improvement and hardsurfacing of Route 777 in Albemarle County. Item No. 4.4. Letters from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell of the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, dated January 11, 1984, regarding the entering of Spring Hill and D. S. Tavern in the National Register of Historic Places. Item No. 4.5. Letters from utilities: 1) VEPCO, dated January 16, 1984, regarding investigation to determine appropriate tariffs pursuant to Code Section 56-249,6; 2) VEPCO, dated January 16, 1984, concerning VEPC0's application to revise Rate Schedule 19-Power Purchases from Cogeneration and Small Power Production Qualifying Facilities; 3) Potomac Edison Company, dated January 17, 1984, regarding 1984 Fuel Factor and Cogeneration Tariff Proceeding; 4) Appalachian Power Company, dated January 16, 1984, regarding 1984 Fuel Factor and Cogeneration Tariff Proceedings. Item No. 4.7. Letter from Karen Hayden, President of the Library Board, dated January 9, 1984 expressing appreciation to the Board for its help in gaining the building for the Crozet Library. Ms. Hayden's letter stated that the people who use the Crozet Library would like to show their appreciation of the Perry Foundation's gift by mounting a plaque in the new building to read as follows: "This Building Is A Gift From The Perry Foundation 1984." Mr. Agnor asked the Board members if the proposed wording is acceptable. He suggested the wording be clarified to read: "This Building Is A Gift To The Citizens Of Albemarle County From The Perry Founda- tion 1984." This suggestion was accepted by all Board members. Item No. 4.8. Letter from Charlene Easter, dated Janaury 24, 1984, regarding the Victim- Witness Assistance Program. This letter is a response to Mr. Lindstrom's concerns, expressed at the January 11, 1984 meeting, regarding possible duplication of services offered by the Rape Crisis Center and the Victim-Witness Assistance program. Item No. 4.9. Copy of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 1983, from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Februar8~984 (Regular Da_~Meetin~ Item No. 4.6. from the Consent Agenda. Letter from Rellen Perry, dated February 1, 1984, concerning a group formed to focus on the housing needs of rural poor in Albemarle County. (Mr. Lindstrom had suggested that this item be discussed separately.) Mr. Agnor said that Mrs. Perry is seeking endorsement of this effort and the Board's agreement to include four County staff persons as members of this group. Mr. Agnor said he has reservations about having four County staff members as part of the group and does not feel it appropriate for a county staff person to be a voting member of a self-appointed group. Mr. Bowie also did not feel it neces- sary to tie up four county staff members. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that Mr. Keith Mabe be selected as the County contact person and that he supply this group with whatever information he has available. Mr. Lindstrom said if other staff information is necessary, Mr. Mabe can serve as coordinator. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that Keith Mabe be the County's representative to cooperate with this group, not as a member, but as a resource person, and should Mr. Mabe require additional assistance, he can call upon the services of other staff members to provide whatever information is available. This motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 5. December 7, 1983. Approval of Minutes: October 5 (Night), October 19, November 9, and Mr. Henley said he had read the minutes of October 5, 1983 (night), and found no errors. Mrs. Cooke said she had read the minutes of December 7, 1983 and found no errors. Mr. Lindstro~ said he had read the minutes of October 19, 1983 and noted the following errors: on page 415, the first line in the third paragraph referring to Mr. Vincent Yeaton should be changed to read: He "stated that he" has had... Mr. Fisher was not present to comment on the minutes of November 9, 1983. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the minutes of October 5, October 19 and December 7, 1983 with the corrections noted. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No'. 6(a). Routes 6 and 627. Highway Matters: Request for traffic light at intersection of Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Fisher intended to make this request. Since Mr. Fisher was not present, Mr. Agnor suggested this agenda item be postponed until later in the meeting. Agenda Item No. 6(b). Subdivision Road. Highway Matters: Guarantee performance bond for Brinnington Mr. Agnor said the staff failed to request the Board to guarantee the performance bond for this road at the January meeting when the resolution to take Brinnington Road into the Secondar System was requested. Mr. Agnor explained that a performance bond is generally posted by the developer, but in this case, the County was forced to foreclose on the bond and have the road completed. The Board must now assure the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Highways and Transportation, that Albemarle County will pay for any repairs to this road for a period of one year from the dat'e of its acceptance into the Secondary System of Highways. Mr. Agnor said the Board is being requested to guarantee, by letter, a performance bond in the amount of $7,500 for Brinnington Road for one year. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to this effect. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 6(c). Yanuary 11, 1984). Highway Matters: Relocation of State Route 697 (Deferred from Mr. Agnor said this request was deferred from the January 11 meeting in order to allow Mr. ~oosevelt the opportunity to review the proposed relocation of the road in greater detail. Mr. ~oosevelt said the Board had asked him to determine if the proposal to relocate a portion of 3tare Route 697 would be an improvement over the existing road location. Initially the proposal was only to relocate the existing road away from Mr. Hale's house. Mr. Roosevelt said that a question was then raised as to the effect this relocation might have on other property owners and whether this proposed relocation would be an improvement over the existing road. Since: the January 11 Board meeting Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Hale and his representatives, discussed the plans, including building the road to standards capable of carrying between 50 and 250 vehicles; a road grade suitable for paving at some future time; and grades and curvatures that meet Highway 0epartment standards for roads in this classification. Mr. Roosevelt said it is his belief the proposed location for the road would be a definite improvement over the existing road location. ~hough there are some drawbacks to the new alignment, Mr. Roosevelt feels this must be weighed against the other improvements, which are substantial. He mentioned that the relocation will rovide a wider roadway, better drainage, and an improvement in curvature. The only detriment r. Roosevelt noted is a short section of nine percent grade which is slightly longer than the line percent grade existing on the present road. February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Bowie referred to the map showing the proposed location extending to the upper tree line, adding that this is the map originally provided to the Board. Mr. Bowie said he had gone to Mr. Hale's property and noticed flags marking the proposed road as being well below the tree line. Mr. Roosevelt acknowledged that the proposed road to which he has been referring, is not the one indicated on the map being used by the Board today, but is in fact the one seen by Mr. Bowie on the property, marked by flags. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Murray if it is the applicant's intent to build the road'to the standards outlined by Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Murray said yes. Mr. M. Y. Sutherland, adjacent property owner, asked Mr. Roosevelt about the~drainage situation which will be created by relocating a portion of State Route 697. Mr.~ Roosevelt said there will be no change in the water draining toward the proposed road location. Mr. Sutherland disagreed suggesting instead that relocating the road will cause more water to drain onto his property. Mr. Roosevelt stated this was not so. Mr. Bud Treakl.e, attorney for several adjacent property owners, asked Mr. Roosevelt if the existing road is flat. Mr. Roosevelt said no, adding that there are some areas which are fairly level, but the existing road contains a nine percent grade. Mr. Treakle asked if the drainage from an adjacent field presently travels across the road, or down the road. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not remember. Mr. Treakle asked if the grade relative to the proposed road will channel more water running off the hill down into the ditches alongside the road. Mr.'Roosevelt said he does not believe so and feels the water will continue to drain as it currently does. Mr. Treakle asked Mr. Roosevelt if the plans submitted by Mr. Hale provide for the drainage to continue to flow in the same direction as at present. Mr. Roosevelt said the plans furnished him are not complete plans at this point, so have not been reviewed for drain- .age. Mrs. Cooke then halted the discussion and placed the matter before the Board. Dr. Robert Brown requested permission to speak stating his belief that the mat~er being discussed was a public hearing. Mrs. Cooke said she understood at the December meeting that public discussions regarding Mr. Hale's proposal would no longer be invited. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not recall if this was a public hearing which had in fact been closed, but he remembered hearing extensively from members of the public during the December meeting. Mr. Lindstrom added tha~ he personally had no objection to hearing brief comments from parties both for and against this request. Mrs. Cooke then invited technical questions from the public to be directed to Mr. Roosevelt concerning his presentation. Dr. Brown asked if the proposed road will be longer or shorter than the existing road. Mr. Roosevelt answered that it will be longer. Dr. Brown asked the approximate increase in cost to the state for maintenance of a longer road. Mr. Roosevelt said there would be no additional cost and suggested the possibility of a reduction in maintenance costs. The road proposed will be constructed to standards necessary for the amount of traffic the road will be carrying; any costs one way or the other will be insignificant. Dr. Brown asked Mr. Roosevelt if he is aware that he has three rights-of-way to his property, one coming right through the section being discussed, from adjacent landowners. There is al~so a right-of-way belonging to Mr. John Henderson. Dr. Brown feels this issue has not been thoroughly researched. Mr. Roosevelt said he was not aware of these rights-of-way. Mr. Bud Treakle addressed the Board once again, introducing himself as the attorney representing several of the landowners living beyond the section of road in question. He said that there are, in fact, rights-of-way affected by this proposal which access to the existing roadway adjacent to Mr. Hale's house. Once this portion of the road is closed, his clients will be landlocked, having no further access to their property. Mr. Treakle said he feels it appropriate, since the two new Board members were not at the December meeting, that public comments from those opposing relocation of State Route 697, be heard. Mrs. Cooke agreed to hear brief comments. Mr. Treakle referred to the nine percent grade which Mr. Roosevelt stated would exist on the proposed road. He said that upon review of the site it appears there will indeed be a significant increase in grade. Anyone familiar with the area knows that the original location of Route 697 ran through the tree line and had a similar grade. The old road was relocated to its present position in order to alleviate problems caused by the grade. Regarding the issue of drainage, Mr. Treakle feels relocating the road will result in water running off the road and emptying into the stream which flows across Mr. Sutherland's property. ~his is of concern to Mr. Sutherland. Mr. Treakle believes this relocated roadway will cause ~ncreased maintenance costs in the way of mowing, planting, etc. Mr. Treakle said the majority ~f landowners using the existing road every day are vehemently opposed to Mr. Hale's proposal. He pointed out that the Board is faced with one landowner who wishes to relocate a road while a majority of landowners in the area prefer to leave the road in its present location. In closing, Mr. Treakle said there are several people owning rights-of-way which would be affected by this proposal and those property owners were not notified of this hearing. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Treakle how many of the people presently living in the area actually us~ed the old road which was vacated due to the grade problem. Mr. Treakle said he did not know. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Treakle where the people who use the road on a daily basis live. Mr. Treakle answered that the existing road serves several properties, including Mr. Sutherland' property. Mr. Bowie said he drove along the road to its end and he saw only one house, there- fore, he wonders where the people live who daily use this road. Mr. Treakle said it is his understanding that there are two or three houses past the portion of road to be relocated, and also ten or twelve parcels which are serviced by the existing road. Mrs. Cooke then invited ~ublic comments. ~ Mrs. Maxine Beahms, a property owner, said she was not notified about this hearing and ~ished to express her opposition to relocating this portion of State Route 697. Mrs. Beahms said it is her understanding that the road was moved to its present location because of the ~eak foundation of the original road. The existing road has a solid rock foundation. Mrs. 3eahms' uncle once lived in the house now owned by the Hales, and he never complained about the 2lose proximity of the road to his house because it was considered to be a necessity. She ~xpressed her disappointment at not having been notified of this hearing and restated her )pposition to this proposal. Febru r 8 1 · ' Mr. Mort Sutherland presented the Board with several letters expressing opposition to the relocation of this road. He read a letter addressed to the Board of Supervisors from Mr. John Williams, dat~ed January 9, 1984: "Some of the people who live beyond the Crossroads and M. Y. Sutherland's home place are concerned about the relocation of the road near the place that Mr. Hale bought. Frankly, I was somewhat surprised that the highway depart- ment had funds to waste on such relocations. I was of the impressi~on that they still had financial difficulties. It is not the relocation as much as it is the upkeep. My g.reat-l~reat-great grandfather built-the home an'd my great-great grandfather gave some of the ~land to thee people who 'lived on the place. You will find in the deeds at least three right-of-ways out and one of them is very 'close to the Manor house. In the past it was never the policy of the Board of Supervisors to relocate a road when others on the road had objections, or when there was a very low traffic count." Mr. Sutherland said the relocation of this portion of road will landlock Mr. Henderson who has a deeded right-of-way on the property. Mr. Sutherland said that Dr. Brown also has a right-of-way on the property. He then read a letter from LaCy W. Mawyer, addressed to the Board of Supervisors: "I have lived all my life at North Garden and worked in the Maintenance Department for the Department of Highways for twenty years and was foreman for twelve years. Route 697 was in the area of my responsibility. The portion of Route 697 that it appears that you are thinking about abandoning is a portion of road that gave us little trouble and the grade is not bad. The relocated road is far steeper and longer and the cost of maintaining would~be greater. Drifting snow would undoubtedly be worse due to the deep cuts and the direction it is running." Mr. Sutherland presented the Board with a picture he had taken on Route 754 showing two houses located twelve and twenty feet from'the edge of the-road~ Mr. Sutherland said he has never before heard of a road being moved when everyone living along the road is opposed to its relocation. He said that Route 697 is considered t'o be one of the worst roads in Albemarle County relative to winter weather and this will be just one more obstacle for the property owners. Mr. Richard Yancey, a property owner of timberland along Route 697, was the next person to speak. Mr. Yancey does heavy hauling along this road and said that Route 697 has been tested under many weather conditions and presents no problem, especially pertaining to ruts. Mr. Yancey feels that relocating the road to the area proposed by Mr. Hale will create ruts during inclement weather. Mr. Larned Randolph said he lived on the property now owned by Mr. Hale for forty years, until November of 1983. Mr. Randolph referred to the rights-of-way across the land in question saying there is only one recorded right-of-way which runs between the property he still owns and that of Dr. Brown, into the property of Mr. Henderson. Mr. Randolph states there are not three rights-of-way, but only one. Dr. Brown then presented a copy of a tax map which shows three distinct roads, one of which converges into the proposed relocation. Dr. Brown said he spent an entire day tracing his property back to an 1842 will. He has by transmission of deeds through those years three rights-of-way to his property, one of which goes through the area proposed for relocation of State Route 697. Mr. James Murray, attorney fOr the applicant, said that upon examination of the title to Mr. Hale's property, no recorded rights-of-way were found. Mr. Murray said that if there is an old right-of-way by prescription, it will not be affected by this relocation adding that there ms no intent on the part of Mr. Hale to cut off any access; every individual wiil have access his own property Mr. Murray commented on the grade which will be on the relocated road stating that the exmsting road has a grade of 9.87 percent; the steep~est grade on the proposed is 9.0 percent Mr. Murray said the run-off issue can only be addressed when there are plans available. These must be drawn and approved by the Highway Department before road is constructed. Mr. Murray said Mr. Hale is more than willing to accept the Highway t's recommendations relative to the issue of run-off. Mr. Murray said there are ~nly homeowners living on property beyond Mr. Hale's house who use the existing road every day these owners do nov oppose relocating the road. In fact, both landowners refused to sign petition objecting to Mr. Hale's proposal. Mr. Murray said that except for Dr. Brown who obtained a building permit, all those objecting to Mr. Hale's proposal are absentee owners. Murray concluded by saying the issue here is a dusty, troublesome road problem for a man would like to have a clean house for his family. Mr. Hale is willing to move the road at s own expense and provide a better road than the one presently in existence. ,57.2 February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Roosevelt to clarify the grade on both the present road and the proposed road. Mr. Roosevelt said the proposed road will have a nine percent grade which is slightly longer than the grade on the existing road, but the grade will not be increased. Mr. Bowie said from reading materials furnished the cost of this proposed relocation will be at no expense to the taxpayers, but in fact, the cost will be borne entirely by Mr. Hale. He then asked if th~ drainage issue will be taken care of in conjuction with the Department of Highways and Transportation and Mr. Roosevelt replied in the affirmative. Mr. Bowie said he had spoken with the two property owners living beyond Mr. Hale's house who use the existing road daily, and found that they have no objection to Mr. Hale's proposal. Mr. Way said it appears that the proposed road location will actually be an improvement over the existing road and the beauty of the area will not be endangered. He mentioned that Mr. Hale is bearing the entire cost of his proposal, the drainage issue will be addressed and there will be no additional cost for upkeep. Given this, Mr. Way will support Mr. Hale's proposal. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that this relocation is conditioned upon the road being built to Hi.ghway Department specifications, which include improvements necessary to accommodate the drainage. Mr. Roosevelt acknowledged this to be so. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the relocation of a portion of State Route 697 in the vicinity of the home of Mr. Hale according to plans presented at this meeting and in accordance with the specifications of the Highway Department. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher. Mr. Henley said that while he can understand the objections expressed by the various landowners, it is his belief the relocated road will be a definite improvement over the existin road. Mr. St. John clarified the intent of the motion to be that the abandonment of the existing portion of State Route 697 will take effect upon acceptance of the new road into the Secondary System of Highways. Abandonment will occur automatically with the aforementioned motion thus obviating the need for an additional request for abandonment. Mr. Roosevelt said that normally when the road construction~is complete, further action would be required by the Board for abandonment of the old portion of road. Mr. St. John said that the motion offered and carried is a commitment by the Board to abandon the old road once the proposed road is accepted into the Secondary System of Highways. Mrs. Cooke asked if the motion needed to be restated. Mr. St. John said no, he simply wanted the Board members to understand the full intent of the motion. Agenda Item No. 6(d). Highway Matters: (Deferred from January 11, 1984). Vacation of portion of Ashmere subdivision Mr. Agnor said that at its January 18 meeting, the Board had reappropriated the funds remaining from the road bond for completion of the road in Ashmere Subdivision. This item appears on the agenda today because an ordinance was advertised many mOnths ago for vacation of a portion of the Ashmere plat. Mr. Agnor and Mr. Elrod, the County Engineer, have discussed thais item and noting that construction of the road is almost complete, suggest discontinuing the public hearing process and removing this issue from the agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Henley, to remove this item from the Board's agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 6(e). Highway Matters: (Deferred from January 11, 1984.) Appeal - McDonald's Restaurant Site Plan (Mr. Lindstrom abstained for reasons set out in minutes of January 11, 1984.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker referred to the January Board meeting at which time the Board recog- nized a self-appointed group to review the question of entrance from the corner property on Riverbend Drive and Route 250 East. Mr. Tucker said a member of his staff and a representative of the Highway Department attended the first meeting held by the committee. Earlier this week, Mr.~ Tucker said a copy of the plan proposed by the committee was received. Mr. Tucker said this appeal should be deferred because neither County staff nor the Highway Department have had time to thoroughly examine the proposal submitted. Also, there are legal issues involved which the Board may wish to consider in executive sssion. Mr. Tucker said he was not prepared to make a recommendation today. 73 February 8, 1984.(Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Herb Beskin, representing Jefferson Savings and Loan, presented a brief summary of the proposal submitted by the committee. Mr. Beskin said the lot at the corner of Riverbend Drive and Route 250, owned by Jefferson Savings and Loan, has no access onto Route 250; also, the proposed unbroken median on Riverbend Drive will extend the full length of Riverbend Drive. The committee asks the Board to allow both ingress and egress directly to this lot from Route 250 utilizing the deceleration lane currently in existence on Route 250; this would allow entrance and exit only for eastbound traffic, westbound traffic would not be able to make a left-hand turn into the property. In addition, the committee requests another entrance from Route 250 between First Virginia Bank and Hardees, also making use of the existing deceleration lane. This would decrease the amount of traffic needing to use Riverbend Drive. The committee requests a crossover in the median on Riverbend Drive located 330 feet from its intersection with Route 250. Mr. Beskin said this is a compromise on the January proposal, and the committe~ feels this would alleviate concerns about traffic backing out onto Route 250 and would eliminat~ the need to construct a storage bay for left-turning vehicles. Finally, this committee request: that the Board consider reducing the speed limit on Riverbend Drive from 35 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. This would produce a safety factor and possibly eliminate the need for the median. Mr. Beskin said his traffic consultant did an additional study since the last Board meeting in view of th~ Highway Department's proposed 105 second cycle for the traffic signal on Route 250. The study concludes that these proposed changes are technically feasible and will aid in the smooth flow of traffic around the lot. Mr. Beskin then handed out copies of this report, Mr. Beskin said time is of the essence. He realized that the matter of a crossover on Riverbend Drive would need to be deferred, but had hoped the matter of the entrance from Route 250 might be discussed today. Mr. Way said he feels there is little choice but to defer the appeal and he made motion to that effect. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Mr. Roosevelt said that before the Highway Department reviews the applicant's traffic study, two decisions need to be made by this Board. Mr. Roosevelt said the Planning Commission has already ruled on access from Route 250 to the Jefferson Savings and Loan lot, and the entrance to the Riverbend Shopping Center property from Route 250. He feels the Jefferson Savings and Loan property was zoned with the understanding that there would be no access from Route 250. Mr. Roosevelt said this.was considered by the Board in the past and the plan submitted by the committee is in opposition to what the Board previously ruled concerning the zoning of this property. Mr. Roosevelt said a site plan has already been approved by the Planning Commission for the property which will be served directly by a crossover on Riverbend Drive. At that time, cuts in the median were considered, but none were allowed. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board needs to make some decisions prior to the Highway Department undertaking a review of the proposed traffic plan. Mr. Tucker said it was his hope that the staff and Mr. Roosevelt could review this plan and propose recommendations to the Board. Mr. Tucker said he did not feel the Board could make a decision today but he would like to learn from Mr. Roosevelt just what the Highway Department reaction is to this proposal. Mrs. Cooke said a date for hearing this issue should be set so the Board can receive staff comments on the proposal. Mr. Tucker agreed saying this review could be accomplished by the Staff before the February 15, 1984 meeting. Mr. St. John said he would not request an executive session to discuss this matter, but he does have some legal concerns. He questions how this matter got on the Board's agenda since this is not an appeal of a site plan. The site plan is actually still pending before the Planning Commission. In this case, the Board is being asked to review just one element of a site plan and either overrule the decision of the Planning Commission, or together with this committee, devise a new proposal; a proposal which has not been before the Planning Commission at all. Mr. St. John said the Board is ploughing new ground procedurally by considering this one element of the site plan. Mr. Tucker explained that the applicant had requested the Planning Commission to approve access points for the property. The request was turned down. This is the reason this is before the Board; there is no formal procedure for making such an appeal. The applicants are really seeking guidance from the Board before proceeding to develop a detailed site plan. Mr. St. John said this Board has always been reluctant to have people appear simply to seek guidance without having a concrete plan which has either been denied or approved by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke asked if it is inappropriate for the Board members to make comments of any kind until there is a ~f_in~a~si~e~p~an~ which has been reviewed by._t_ ?~. ~q_.~_i~ion. Mr. St. John answered that if oneida, this is ~cfinit'clv ~. . ....... y ~. Mr Tucker said the applicants have requested an entrance onto Route 250 East, which request was denied by the Planning Commission. He asked Mr. St. John if the applicants are prohibited from returning to the Planning Commission within a short period of time and requesting the Commission to reconsider that decision. Mr. St. John said that would be in order. Mr. Tucker said the applicants were concerned because the Planning Commission had denied~their request and it was their intent to seek relief of that denial from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. St. John said the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning Commission either approve or deny a site plan as presented to them. In site plan approval, the Commission has the authority to place any conditions it deems necessary. Should the Commission desire to deny the site plan, the Commission is required to inform the applicant what must be done in order to obtain approval. Should approval by the Commission be subject to conditions which the applicant feels are unreasonable, the applicant may appeal that decision to the Board of Supervisors. Should the site plan be ~denied, the applicant has-the option of either complying with the instructions for obtaining approval, returning to the Planning Commission for approval or appealing the denial to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. St. John said this is not the posture of the request before the Board at the present time. Rather, the applicant is asking the Board how it is inclined on a question which is not clearly before the Board. Mr. Agnor asked Mr. St. John if he is recommending that the proposal made by the committee se taken back to the Planning Commission as part of the site plan process rather than having this Board take any action. Mr. St. John said that is what the Code and the County Zoning Ordinance require. Mr. Tucker said Mr. St. John is also saying that the applicants must prepare a site plan in accordance with site plan regulations rather than addressing just the ]uestion of the envrances. February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Bowie said'he thought the Planning Commission had already denied the site plan and t~at denial waS being~ appealed. The comments made by Mr. St. JOhn serve to confirm his ~ seconding Mr. Way's motion to defer the matter untit next-week. Mr. Tucker said the site ptan was deferred indefinitely 'by the Planning Commission and the applicant is attempting to obtain some indication-regarding the entrances to the~property. This was the primary issue. Mr. St. John said the Board is not prohibited by law from telling the applicant how it feels about a particular issue, but in the past· it has been reluctant to do that. Mr. St. John then recom- mended deferring this to the February 15, 1984 meeting to see if County staff and the Highway Department can come to some agreement on the committee proposal. Mrs. Cooke stated that a motion had been made by 'Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. BoWie, to'defer any decision on the appeal until the February 15, 1984 meeting. Roll was called and the motior carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. ABSTAINS: Mr. Lindstrom. (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 10:25 A,M.) Agenda Item No. 6(a). Routes 6 and 627. Highway Matters: Request for traffic light at intersection of Mr. Way stated that in Mr. F~sher's absence he would, discuss this request Which had been made by several r~sidents living in the area. ~The actual request is for a traffic light and probably is not possible because Route 6 is a major highway. Mr. Way said he would be inter--. ested in Mr. Roosevelt's reaction to installing a caution light or something at that intersect~ This is a unique situation in that Route 6 is the dividing line of a residential neighborhood and there isa significant amount of Pedestrian traffic back and forth across the highway. Mr. Way. said that in the past several years there have beenthree deaths at this intersection; one, a pedestrian., He further explained that there are two general stores and a baseball field on one side of the road, .and further down on the other side of the road is Yancey School. The ~ people in this community do a great deal of walking back and forth across Route 6. Mr. Roosevelt said this intersection has been the subject of controversy for a long time. The area was studied in 1979, and it was found that only one or two accidents per year occurred at this intersection, a very low figure for any intersection. Mr.~ Roosevelt said that in 1982 he received the statewide accident data and upon review, determined that the entire length of Route 6, (from Route 20 to the Nelson County line, a distance of 12+ miles), showed a significant number of accidents. Mr. Roosevelt requested an accident diagram to determine why there were so many accidents. A study by the traffic engineer, determined that spread over the entire stretch of road, there was no concentration of accidents at any specific location. He said the State Police have a computer program which highlights intersections where there are accident problems. In the eight years Mr. Roosevelt has been in Albemarle County, he has never received any notification from the State Police that the intersection of Routes 6 and 627 is ar accident prone location. Mr. Roosevel~ said a traffic count done in September of 1983, a little further down the road at the intersection of Route 6 and Route 715 indicated less than two cars per minute at any given hour. Mr. Roosevelt said that traffic volumes of this nature do not warrant any special warning devices. Mr. Roosevelt said warning signs were placed at the Route 627 inter- section and some grading performed on the slope in order to improve the sight distance. In addition, "No Parking" signs have been posted along the shoulders of the road in the vicinity of this intersection, and the County has recently had overhead street lights installed. Mr. Roosevelt feels there is nothing further to be done at this time. Mr. Way expressed concern over the number of pedestrians crossing the road at this inter- section. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt if there are signs at the intersection of Routes 627-~and 6 indicating that there are children walking across the intersection. Mr. Roosevelt explained the different types of pedestrian signs and while stating his confidence that the volume of pedestrian crossings are marginal, he offered to have traffic counters determine the number of pedestrians crossing at this intersection sometime late in the spring and report back to the Board at that time. Agenda Item No. 6(f). Other Highway Matters. mentioned by any Board members. There were no other highway matters Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: CPA-84-1. Amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan with regard to Map 25: Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas 1982-2002, as it affects property located on west side of Route 678 in Ivy. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 24 and January 31, 1984). (Mr. Fisher arrived at 10:41 A.M. but did not assume the Chair as he was not feeling well.) Before he began the Staff's Report on this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Tucker explained that there are actually two separate amendments to be considered. One is an amendmen to Map 25 in the Comprehensive Plan which generally outlines the areas in which the Albemarle County Service Authority is authorized to furnish water and sewer service. Second, is an amendment to the actual boundaries on the ~project areas map of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Tucker explained that the Clerk had noted to the Board that she had inadvertent not advertised a public hearing on an amendment to the actual service project areas. Mr. Tucker said the County Attorney advised staff earlier this week that it is not legally necessar to adYertise such an amendment. Therefore, the Staff went ahead and drafted a report for that amendment. Mr. Tucker said he would first proceed to give the Staff's Report on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which was advertised, and the Board can then decide if it will hear the other amendment today, which is actually the amendment requested by Mr. Ray Loving for his clients, the Pulleys. Y February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) "At its meeting on January 11, 1984, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend 'Map 25: Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas 1982-2002', as it affects property located on the west side of Route 678 in the Village of Ivy. The Board requested that~the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and return its recommendation to the Board prior to February 8, 1984. Staff has reviewed said Map 25 in the Comprehensive Plan and finds that it does not require any amendment at this time. As stated in the Plan, Map 25 provides a general outline of areas recommended for public water and/or sewer service in the County. It further states that 'to determine whether an individual parcel of property is recommended for service, please consult the Albemarle County Service Authority.' The provision of the general or approximate location of areas recommended for service in the Plan is consistent with legislation in the Code of Virginia and is at present complementary to the land use plans also recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. This report is not a review of any amendment to the actual Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas." Mr. Tucker drew the attention of the Board members to an 8 1/'2" x 11" copy of Map 25 as it appears in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said it would be very difficult, if not impos- sible, to show this small twenty-acre parcel of land on such a generalized map. For that reason, the Staff recommended that no amendment was necessary to Map 25 at this time. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Board's resolution of intent at its meeting of February 7, 1984, and voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that "Map 25, Albemarle County Service Areas, 1982-2002" not be'amended as it affects property located on the west side of Route 678 in Ivy. Mr. Tucker said that what is required in reference to this advertised amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is for the Board t'o either concur or not concur with the Planning Commission relative to amending Map 25. The issue of the project service area boundaries of the Service Authority can be dealt with next. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Way, to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation-that "Map 25: Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas, 1982-2002", not be amended as it affects property located on the west side of Route 678 in Ivy. 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. Request by Ray F. Loving, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. A. M. Pulley, to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority's Project Areas to allow provision of public water to Parcel 84 on County Tax Map 58, property located on the west side of Route 678, across from Meriwether Hills Subdivision. In reference to the actual boundary-map of the service project areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority, Mr. Tucker said it has been the policy of this Board to hold an advertised public hearing on any amendment to this map, although no advertised public hearing is required by the Code of Virginia. Staff prepared a report in the .event the Board wished to hear this matter today. Mr. Lindstrom commented that the Board has, in the past, been very particular about such matters and has made amendments not only to the actual boundaries which the Service Authority can serve, but also to the County's Comprehensive Plan as well. Mr. Tucker said this is correct, but only when the area in question was of a significant size. Mr. Tucker said that at the time this issue was reviewed by the staff, it was noted that the Board had not taken action to amend Map 25 when the Albemarle County Service Authority service projects areas were amended in 1983 to comply with the 1983 amendments to the land use plans in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting last night, adopted a resolution of intent to amend Map 25 to reflect the amendments made to the land use plans in 1983. Mr. Tucker said these amendments, which are substantive, will come to the Board later in the year. Mr. Tucker said that considering the size of the parcel before the Board today (only twenty acres), the staff felt it unnecessary to amend the map in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker then read the following staff report: "Zoning and Current Utility Service: This property (Parcel 84, Tax Map 58) consists of 19.42 acres presently zoned Rural Areas (RA). The property is located outside of, but contiguous to, the 'Water Only' service area of the Albemarle County Service Authority. A waterline is located within the road right-of-way in front of this property with a 'T'~ joint for potential future connection. RA zoning of the property permits five development rights for single-family detached units. Comprehensive Plan: This property is located contiguously to the Ivy Village growth area. The village growth area encompasses primarily existing, one-acre, single-family detached development, most of which is already being served by public water. 76 Staff Comment: It has been the Board of Supervisors' policy in the past to limit utility service to those areas located outside of the County's designated growth areas and/or those areas located within the watershed of a drinking water impoundment. This policy is a tool used for discouraging intensive development in those areas not designated for future growth and development, as well as those areas of drinking~water impoundments which are most sensitive to development impact. This property falls within the Board's criteria for limited utility service. Since adjacent properties have experienced recent well failures or dry wells (LocuSt Hill Subdivision recently experienced three dry wells before public water was extended), the Board may wish to consider amendment of the Albemarle County Service Authority project area map for 'Water Only' on this property, subject to only five water connections, which is the number of development rights available to the property." Mr. Fisher asked the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said such items do not have to be heard by the Planning Commission; it is not required by law. Mr. Fisher said his concern is that this is only one of thousands of parcels in the Ivy area, about which the same comments can be made; a well may fail. He is concerned that with no structures presently on the land, extending water to a vacant parcel may require changing the Board's entire policy, and invite extending water to every parcel when requested for new development. Mr. Fisher said that doing this would no longer permit the Board to use the service area boundaries and utilities as one of the tools for implementing the Comprehensive Plan. If such a change in policy is to be made, Mr. Fisher continued, it should be made as a conscious decision. Mr. Fisher recommended against beginning to extend water service for new development all over the county. Mr. Henley said he can see a noted difference between the Pulley property and other such parcels in the County. The Pulley property is adjacent to the growth area in Ivy and adjacent to parcels which have experienced water problems. Mr. Henley said approving this request will not increase the density on the property~ but will permit only the number of connections the property is permitted to have by right. He pointed out that there are five divisions permitted by right and five houses could be built whether the Pulley's obtained public water or not. Mr. Henley stated his intent to support the request. Mr. Bowie said that when the Board voted to adopt the resolution of intent to amend the project areas map on January 11, he feels that in effect the Board commited itself to extending water to the Pulley's property. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board will frequently adopt a resolution of intent as a means of getting an issue formally before the Board. This allows the staff to proceed with studying an issue, and does not necessarily express a commitment of the Board to actually implement the requested change. Mr. Lindstrom said that Mr. Henley's comments, in one sense, are reasonable. Mr. Lindstrom said he can see a distinction in this case. However, he believes this extension of the areas in which the Service Authority can serve water will probably permit development to occur in the rural areas that could not possibly occur otherwise. Ail over the County, there are areas contiguous to communites and villages that are so small as to not require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map if placed within the Service Authority boundaries, but which would open other adjacent properties to development which were not intended for such development. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not have a problem extending the service areas to existing developments which are contiguous to the current boundaries, but there is no development at present on the Pulleys property, so he thinks approval of this request will open up much greater areas for development than the Board had intended to be opened. Just because land in the rural areas has five development rights, does not mean that the Board has to make it possible to develop land that otherwise is not developable physically. Mr. Henley asked if this is a public hearing. Mr. St. John who had been out of the room, returned at this time. He said that the Board needs to hold a public hearing, but does not have to advertise that public hearing in the legal section of the newspaper, the matter having been scheduled on the Board's agenda for discussion. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ray Loving, representing the owners Mr. and Mrs. Pulley, said there is an existing six-inch line with a gate valve on the property, so it appears that water service was intended at one time. Mr. Loving said he would be glad to answer any questions the Board members may have. Mr. Bill Brent said the Service Authority Board of Directors takes no position on this issue. With no one else present to address this request, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Henley said if this request were for a one hundred acre tract to have public water he would not support the request. He pointed out that the acreage in question is adjacent to the Ivy growth area and is too small to be used agriculturally. Mr. Henley stated he has no with this request and does not feel extending water service to this parcel is encourag- mng growth. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Way, to include this property (Parcel 84 on Tax Map 58) in the Albemarle County Service Authority's project areas for water service only, with a limit of five connections. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Nays: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Way. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom. February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) At 11:04 A.M., a short recess was called by the Vice-Chairman, Mrs. Cooke, at the request of Mr. Way. The meeting re¢onvened at 11:14 A.M. Agenda Item No. '8. Discussion: City bus service to Piedmont Virginia Community College. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. St. John was asked to examine whether the City Transit Service can operate in the County without the approval of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. St. John, in a letter to Mr. Fisher dated January 16, 1984, stated that the City must have the concurrence, in contract form of the County Board of Supervisors before it can lawfully operate a system of public transportation outside of its boundaries. Mr. Agnor said that Mrs. Helen Poore, Direc- tor of City Transit Service, said the idea of extending service to Piedmont Community College must first be approved by City Council. Staff has recently received a request for extension from the City Transit Service for extension of the Route 29 North contract. This will be brought to the Board during discussion of the next fiscal year's budget. That request also includes the contract and a request for participation in the costs of a line to go to Piedmont Community College. Mr. Agnor said this will come to the Board during budget review, so no action is required today. Agenda Item No. 9. Request for time extension: SP-82-60, Crestwood Retirement Village. Mr. Tucker said the request was received from Mr. Peter Crouch, Project Developer for the Crestwood Retirement Village, in the form of a letter dated January 26, 1984. Mr. Tucker said this development of a retirement village was formerly under the name of Elite Construction and Harkins Associates, Inc. and is located on property on Old Ivy Road, behind Huntington Village. Mr. Tucker then referred to the letter from Mr. Crouch as follows: "Per our conversation today, I would like to request a twelve month extension of Special Use Permit number SP-82-60 for development of retirement housing on the Crestwood site. This permit is due to expire on April 20, 1984. We have been conducting soils analyses, engineering, site planning and related studies normally associated with development of such a parcel. The development of a retirement community, however, requires a great deal of marketstudy, financial planning and liaison with potential residents. We have met several times with groups of potential residents to obtain their feeling on the community and have consequently had several revisions to the studies to reflect their desires. This process of repeated feedback and highly specialized study means that in order to properly plan the community, we must request an extension of the permit. I would appreciate your forwarding our request to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your help in this matter." Mr. Tucker said that staff indicated in a memorandum to Miss Neher, dated February 2, 1984, that there have been no changes in laws or regulations since the time this special permit was approved and Section 31~.2.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Board to impose reasonable time limits on special permits. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to extend SP-82-60 to April 20, 1985. 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. 10. Request for additional Personnel - Inspections. Mr. Agnor presented a brief history of this request to benefit Mr. Bowie and Mr. Way. Mr. Agnor said that annually, as budgets are examined by the Board, and fluctuations in the activit of construction in the county occur, the staff is reduced and increased accordingly. The Board has granted staff the opportunity during the year, to request a change in the staffing of the Department of Inspections as necessary. Mr. Agnor then referred to the memorandum from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., dated February 2, 1984, as follows: "At your direction, I have reviewed Mr. Robert E. Vaughn's request for an additional inspector and offer the following comments: Building activity in the area has increased significantly over the past year, which has caused a similar increase in the workload for County staff, particularly in the development review process and inspections process. The number of applications for inspections through the months of December, 1982 and 1983 are as follows: Percent 1982 1983 Increase Total number of applications for inspections Building inspection applications only 4,498 6,004 33.5 1,349 1,804 33.7' :578 February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) As you know, in the past we have attempted to reduce staff personnel as building activity shows reduction. Likewise, as building activity increases, we have attempted to meet that increased demand for inspections with additional personnel. For example, the Inspections Department in FY 80-81 had three building inspectors. That number was reduced to one in FY 81-82, which is where it remains today. Due to this current workload for one building inspector, and the prospect that building activity is not' expected to decrease significantly in the near future, I am recommending that the Board of Supervisors authorize the additional Facilities Inspector' I' as requested by the Department of Inspections. The estimated cost for this additional .inspector through June 30, 1984, is $6,481,32. The Inspections DePartment may be able to absorb this cost within its current budget. If not, however, we Will request the necessary appropriation at next month's Board meeting'." Mr. Agnor elaborated on the statistics saying that in January of 1984, there were 55 percent more permits issued than in January of 1983. In terms of the revenue generated, there was a 127 percent increase over last year. Mr. Agnor said the $6,481.32 figure mentioned by Mr. Tucker represents a four month cost from March through June of 1984. No vehicles will nee¢ to be added, since through attrition, there are vehicles available. However, there will be some operational expenses for these vehicles. Mr. Agnor said this cost can be absorbed in the c~drrent year's budget in the existing appropriation and he does not forsee having to request ~dditional funding. The reason for this is that a Senior Electrical Inspector resigned last summer and the vacancy was held open for a while, and then filled at a lower salary. Mr. Agnor then recommended that the Inspections Department be authorized to increase'its staff by one building inspector effective as soon as the position can be filled. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to this effect. 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. Mr. Fisher pointed out that approximately 80 percent of the total cost of the Department of Inspections is paid for by the people requesting the inspections. Mr. Agnor commented that revenues are exceeding the expenses of the InspectionS Department during this current year, whereas in the past this was not the case. Agenda Item No. 11, Request for Funds. Community Attention Home. Mr. Agnor said that when the request was received and sent to the Board, the staff had no1 completed its review. Consequent'ly the information received by the Board did not contain a summary of the staff's perspective as well as its recommendations. Mr. Agnor then summarized the origin and function of the Community Attention Homes for the benefit of Mr. Bowie and Mr. Way. He expained that approximately two-thirds of the Community Attention operating budget is currently funded by the State Department of'Corrections. Approximately one-fourth of the budget comes from Title XX funding, two percent is paid by the County and six percent is paid by the City. Mr. Agnor said the County became involved with this program in 1979 and the problems the staff has had concerns the cycles of high and low points, the need for funds, and referrals of young people to the program. Mr. Agnor explained that the County is billed the cost of a person in the program only when there are no other funds available, such as from the Social Services Department or the parents of the child. Not every County person in the program is funded by the county. Mr. Agnor said the first year this program was funded by the County, $1700 was spent. In the second year, $6,000 was spent. This current year the County appropri- ated $10,000 for this category, and is being requested to appropriate additional funds. Mr. Agnor then referred to the letter from Mr. Paul D. McWhinney, Administrator of the Community Attention Homes program, dated January 18, 1984, as follows: "I am writing this letter to request an additional appropriation of $12,801.23 for the remainder of FY 83-84 in order to continue to serve three Albemarle County youths who are currently being served in Community Attention programs. In FY 83-84 thus far, we have served eleven Albemarle County youth, five of whom are/were in the custody of the County Department of Social Services. The youth for whom I request an additional appropriation are not supported by the County Department of Social Services. i am attaching a schedule of fees charged to the County and Paid from the County appropriation since July, 1983 and the costs for the remainder of the year. The additional appropriation requested will Serve only the three youths who are currently in our care. No additional county youths will be able to be served unless (1) they are supported by the County Department of Social Services; (2) a current youth is discharged who is supported by the requested additional County appropriation (creating a vacant slot); or, (3) the County chooses to increase the requested additional appropriation. If the Board of Supervisors chooses not to approve the requested additional appropriation, Community Attention will either have to prematurely discharge youths or ask the City of Charlottesville to support these County youthS." February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) 579 ALBEMARLE COUNTY YOUTH SERVED BY COMMUNITY ATTENTION - 83-84 Albemarle Allocation for 1983-84 Fees for Albemarle Youth Served July 1 - December 31~ 1983 Progra~ Girl's Home Boys' Home Family Group Homes Resident (dates) Alice A. (10/18-12/31/83) Nathan C. (10/6-12/31/83) Elvis S. (11/30-12/31/83) Donald D. (12/20-12/31/83) Randy H. (7/1-12/31/83) Charles G. 7/1-9/22/83) Fee Amount $ 1,850.00 2,358,16 853.16 325.92 1,422.00 562.27 Total fees through December 31, 1983 Anticipated Fees for Albemarle Youth (based on current population) January 1 - June 30~ 1984 Girls' Home Boys' Home Family group Homes Alice A. (1/1-1/12/84) Nathan C. (1.1-6/30/84) Elvis S. (1/1-6/30/84) Donald D. (1/1-6/30/84) Randy H. (1/1-1/30/84) $ 296.64 4,956.00 4,956.OO 4,956.OO 265'.00 Total fees January 1-June 30, 1984 +$10,000.00 -$ 7,371.59 -$15,429.64 Additional Appropriation Request $12,801.23 Mr. Agnor said that several years ago the Community Attention Home had to request a supplementary appropriation, in the middle of a budget year because the county appropriation would not fund the program at its level of need. There was much discussion about the problem of meeting such a request during the fiscal year when other social agencies may be having the same financial problems. At that time, Mr. Agnor said, he spoke with the Court. Services Units to advise them of the County funding level for this program. Mr. McWhinney was also made aware that the program was given a maximum dollar figure. It was understood that should the need arise, an additional request for funds could be made to the Board, although Mr. McWhinney was not encouraged to do so. Mr. Agnor said that Ms. Karen Morris, Mr. Ray B. Jones and Mr. Robert Tucker form the nucleus of the budget review committee for requests from social service and human development agencies. This group reviewed this request and recommends that the Board grant additional funds for the remainder of this year in the amount of $5,275. This amount will fund the youths currently in the program through the end of March, thus giving the staff of the Community Attention Homes the opportunity to relocate these youngsters. This recommendation is felt to be preferable to appropriating the full amount requested and carrying the program through till the end of June, 1984. Mr. Lindstrom asked why there has been a seeming inability demonstrated by the officers of this program to anticipate the needs and resources for these programs. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board is being placed in the awkward position of either granting additional funds or bearing the responsibility of having a youth removed from the program. Mr. Agnor responded that. Mr. McWhinney has had more referrals this year than in prior years. While Mr. McWhinney recognizes that funds are limited, he has the option to decline a referral which is difficult to do when the Court orders that a youth be placed for rehabilitation. Mr. Agnor added that nearly all of the referrals come from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court; very few are referred by the school system. Mr. Paul McWhinney, Adminstrator of the Community Attention Program, addressed the Board. Ae referred to his letter dated January 18, 1984 and the attached schedule of fees charged to the County. Mr. McWhinney said the request for an additional $12,801.23 is so the three youths currently in the Boys' Home can continue in the program through the end of June. Mr. McWhinney said he understands the dilemma the request presents to the Board, not only from a budgetary standpoint, but also from a public policy standpoint. Mr. McWhinney said the original ation of $10,000 has not met the needs this fiscal year due to the difficult nature of the business in which the program is engaged; working with the human factor. Mr. McWhinney said it is very difficult to project how many youths will require the services of the Community Attent program in any given year. The three youths presently in the program are meeting program objectives and progressing well toward remediating behaviors. Mr. McWhinney said that in determining admittance to the program, it is necessary to assess where the existing youths are in the program at that particular time, as well as attempting to meet the needs of the referrin agent. Two youths were discharged from the program in January, or the requested appropriation would be larger. MrY McWhinney said there are judgments which must be made in order to effec- tively serve the County youths requiring the program and this presents a budgetary dilemma for Community Attention staff. Last year, only $4,000 of the $10,000 appropriation was spent because recognizing that the program would run out of money, the Court Services unit was told that no more County youths could be taken into the program and then because the youths in the program did not meet their goals, they were terminated from the program prematurely and were not replaced. Mr. McWhinney said that this year the admissions committee had to make a determination as to whether or not the the youths accepted into the program would make it through the entire program. The three boys in the program have done exceptionally well althou initially it was determined by the admissions committee that at least one of the youths would not make it through the program. This is the reason for the budget dilemma. The program is working and now there is not enough money to pay for the services. February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom said he resents being placed in the position of either supporting the Community Attention program with additional funding (this is perhaps unfair to other agencies that also need funding), or having to act in a way that is unfair to the youths in the program. Mrs. Cooke referred to the fact that the program did not spend its entire appropriation last year, and asked Mr. McWhinney what happened to the unused portion of that appropri~ation. Mr. McWhinney said the County is only billed for the youths in the program; the money is not given to the program in advance. Mr. Agnor said that unused money was returned to the General Fund balance at the end of June. Mr, Agnor added that the amount of money being recommended by the staff for the Community Attention program this year, is almost the same amount as that not spent last year. Although the amount of money being recommended will not fund the program through the end of June, it will carry the program through the end of March. Mr. McWhinney said that the money from the Department of Corrections supports all of the youths in the program whether they are from the City or'the County. The fee paid by the County is based on the uncovered cost of operating the program. Mr. Fisher asked the amount of this uncovered cost. Mr. McWhinney said the allocation from the Department of Corrections is approximately $416,000; the Community Attention total budget is in excess of $650,000. The City gives $41,000 at the beginning of the year bringing the total revenues to $460,000. The difference between $460,000 and $650,000 must be recovered in the form of fees. Mr. McWhinney said the uncovered portion of the fee at the boy's home is $826.00 per month. The total cost for these programs is in the range of $2100 to $2200 per month for residential care. Mr. Bowie asked about the number of professional staff involved in the Community' Attention program. Mr. McWhinney said there are thirty-five people including administration involved; approximately seventeen are part-time. Mr. Bowie said~he shares the same feelings expressed by Mr. Lindstrom in that he feels the Board is being placed in an awkward position. Since some of these young people have been in the program for three or four months, it must have been known that the program would run out of money if more children were accepted. Mr. Bowie feels that for Community Attention to suggest that three young people are going to be destroyed if the Board does not grant additional funds is inexcusable and he has a difficult time handling that ifrom a management point of view. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. McWhinney to address the wide variances in fee amounts as indicated in his memorandum dated January 18, 1984. Mr. McWhinney answered that per diem rates for the three programs, (the Boys' Home, the Girls' Home and Family Group Homes) are different because of the varied costs of the program. Mr. McWhinney said that the variables in determining the amount of money which will be needed necessarily makes this determination very difficult. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the problem is not so much with the variable nature of this program, b~t that budget requests seemed, to be based on a priori reasoning which presupposes that a youth might not last through the entire program. For the Community Attention staff to base its request for funding on this kind of determination and either hope to obtain a supplemental allocation or terminate a youth from the program, is a mistake. Mr. Lindstrom said he is willing to go along with the staff's recommendation to fund the program through the end of March, but feels uncomfortable going beyond that time period. Mr. Way asked if Mr. McWhinney feels the youths in question will require the services of the program beyond the end of this fiscal year. Mr. McWhinney replied that this is difficult to answer, although it is conceivable that one of the youths will be released from the program in the near future. Mr. Way said he agreed with Mr. LindstrOm and Mr. Bowie that this is a matter which should be dealt with during adoption of the annual budget. Mr. Way suggested the possibility that the Board may decide to no longer utilize the services of Community Attention Homes but rather may wi~h to consider placing youths in other facilities. He pointed out that he does not wish to see these youths removed from the program prematurely. He said he has a lot of questions about the whole program and would like to talk with Mr. McWhinney about the amount of money designated for.each youth prior to the budget work sessions for the 1984-85 budget. Mr. Fisher asked if a supplemental appropriation is granted and one or more of the youths drop out of the program,~if another youth will be admitted to the program. Mr. McWhinney answered that he would abide by the wishes of the Board. Mr. Fisher pointed out that Mr. McWhinney had made a case 'based on three specific individuals, and there is a possibility that the money, if appropriated, would not be spent for those specific individuals. Mr. McWhinney admitted that this possibility does exist. He added that he had instructed his program coordi- nators to notify Court Services that no additional Albemarle County youths would be accepted into the program during the remainder of this fiscal year. Mr. Lindstrom said that if he votes for an appropriation, it is for the three youths who are currently in the program. Mr. ~ McWhinney said this is the intent of the request. Mr. Bowie said since the Board will have the [opportunity to further review this program during budget work sessions, he will support this request for three months, but only for the three youths specifically referred to in the memo- randum. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor if the Board can appropriate money through the end of the program in which these youths are participating, and if the youths do not require Community Attention services for that long, would the money still be transferred. Mr. Agnor replied that the billing which comes from the City could specify the names of the participants and the County could simply not approve paying bills for anyone else. If the funds are not spent, same would be transferred back to the General Fund balance at the end of the year. Mrs. Cooke referred to the recommendation by the staff for $5,275 through the end of March which will satisfy the program's needs until reviewing of the 1984-85 budget. Mr. Way said he does not want to create a situation where a youth may require additional service~ beyond the end of March and have to be terminated from the program. He does not want to imply that by March everyone has to finish the program or be put out. Mr. Way said he would like to appropriate the full amount necessary to keep the youths through June. Should the money not be needed for these three youths, (should one leave prior to that time), that money would be saved. .5i8.1. February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the request for additional funding for the FY 83-84 year, on the condition that the money is to be used for the three specific individuals (unknown to the Board), but for whom the case has been made today; to be billed on a monthly basis; should any of these youths terminate the program early and money is left for the program this money will revert to the General Fund at the end of the year; no additional youths will be funded by the County for the remainder of the 1983-84 fiscal year. This motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Mr. Fisher expressed his resentment at the Board being placed in this position. He said that while he sympathizes with the problems faced by the Community Attention staff, for Mr. McWhinney to say to the Board that if the money is not appropriated, something terrible will happen, is not fair. Mr. Fisher suggested that should a similar situation arise in the future, Mr. McWhinney should request additional funds before deciding to admit additional youths to the program. Roll was called at this time and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Agnor said a request for either a transfer of funds or a budget amendment will be presented to the Board at a later date. Agenda Item No. 12. Request staff to study alternatives to a southern regional park. Mr. Way referred to his memorandum dated January 27, 1984 as follows: "As you are all aware, a Regional Southern Park is proposed in our Five Year Capital Improvement Program at a cost of $600,000. This figure is probably on the low side if it is supposed to include land acquisition as well as constructing a lake and all the other things that are required for a park facility. The purpose of this memo is to offer a viable alternative to the proposed park and to request the Board to instruct the appropriate staff to study the feasibility of this proposal. The primary reason behind a Southern Regional Park is to allow the citizens in the southern portions of the county to have equal recreational facilities that other county residents now enjoy at both Chris Greene and Mint Springs. Both of these parks provide swimming as well as other forms of outdoor recreation. The real need in the south, however, is to provide the opportunity for swimming. The James River, Totier Creek Park and other locations provide ample opportunities for fishing, picnicking, etc. I would suggest that the county consider two swimming pool locations rather than a single large park. My reasons for suggesting this are as follows: 0 Two pools would provide easy accessability for swimming facilities. The pools could be built on land already owned by the county. (For example, Totier Creek Park and Red Hill School). My preliminary checking indicates that both pools could be administered and maintained at a cost equal to or less than a Regional Park. The cost of construction would be considerably less than that of a Regional Park." Mr. Fisher said he is willing to support a staff review from the standpoint of recreation and cost but has some concerns about this proposal. Mr. Fisher said the comments he has received from citizens in his district are that they have not been given equitable facilities with the rest of the county. He is concerned that placing a swimming pool at one school will create disharmony and that citizens will demand a similar facility at other school locations. Mr. Fisher said he will, however, support the request for a study to be done relative to alternatives to the regional southern park. Mr. Bowie stated his support of such a review. Mrs. Cooke said she is also supportive of this review as she recognizes the values of swimming for the entire population. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Fisher, to request the staff to investigate alternatives to the proposed Regional Southern park as outlined in his memorandum of January 27, 1984. Mr. Tucker said staff will attempt to coincide this report with the Capital Improvements Program and make recommendation to the Board in the spring. 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. Discussion: Solid Waste Recovery Commission. Mr. Bowie said he is a member of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and one of the subjects raised by the Commission is appointment of a Solid Waste Recovery Committee. Mr. Bowie said he understands that after a seven year study to find ways to burn trash to make steam for the University, the plans fell through when the University placed the hospital on the only site suitable for such a plant. Solid waste recovery has been mentioned again and the fact that in another six or seven years another site may be available for consideration as an alternative site. Mr. Bowie said before the Board appoints individuals to serve on this committee to study ways to make steam from solid waste, there must be some consideration given to alternatives. Mr. Bowie would like to see some effor~ placed on waste disposal and alterna- tives to burying waste in the ground. He feels this is a genuine problem that the County will be faced with sometime in the future. February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Bowie that there is a definite need for some direction regarding this issue. Mrs. Cooke suggested that whoever the Board appoints to serve on the Solid Waste Recovery Commission be an individual with sufficient technical background to address this problem. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the problem is not simply disposal of solid waste but also one of waste collection. Mr. Bowie said his point is that when the committee was original proposed the only issue mentioned was the matter of a solid waste disposal site. He wonders now that the committee is to be reformed if it should continue reviewing the same problem or would it be more prudent to do something else. No action was taken to appoint a person to this committee this date. Agenda Item No. 14. System. Crozet Library -Agreement for underground sewer' crossing with Chessie Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, referred to his memorandum dated February 2, 1984 as follows: "...As you know, the Perry Foundation purchased the old Crozet Railroad Station which is being remodeled at their expense for the County. Upon testing of the old sewer connection by the Albemarle County Service Authority, it was found that the old line is clay pipe with cement joints. The joints have become disjointed over the years and the pipe under the Railroad is cracked. The Service Authority has provided the engineering for the County and made application for a permit to bore under the Railroad for installation of the sewer line. The Service Authority received the permit attached to a letter dated January 11, 1984, and passed the permit to me. I was amazed when I read the 29 stipulations and their complexity. I have gotten the tenth and sixteenth stipulations deleted through the efforts of Mr. George Palmer. .... The permit as revised is being reviewed by Mr. Jim Bowling of the County Attorney's Office. Any further comments from that office- will be attached. Respectfully, I request official action of the Board by resolution to authorize the County Executive to sign the permit on behalf of the County. The sewer installation will be made in the next several weeks (weather permitting) so as to allow for testing of the plumbing in the building by the end of this month. The entire building renovations will probably be complete by mid-March." Mr. Jones then referred to the memorandum from Mr. Bowling, dated February 2, 1984 as follows: "...As I understand the matter, the railroad company is not willing to change the terms of the agreement, except as set forth in Paragraphs 10 and 16. If the license is acceptable to the Board, those changes should be initialed by the signatories. The license contains two "hold harmless" clauses in Paragraphs 17 and 18. The Attorney General has held that counties lack authority to enter into such agreements. However, the process of getting these clauses deleted, assuming this is possible, would greatly delay the construction of the sewer line. Therefore, assuming the other terms are acceptable to the Board, I recommend the County accept the agreement as is, but inform the railroad company of the Attorney General's ruling. It is unlikely that these clauses will ever come into effect, since the County also must obtain railroad protective insurance in the amount of two million dollars. The instructions attached to the license indicate that this insurance is to be obtained during construction. However, Paragraph 19 of the license can be' read to require that insurance remain in effect for the life of the license (for as long.as the sewer line is in the ground). You may want to check with the railrOad company on this. It appears unreasonable to continue with insurance once the pipe has been installed properly, other than obtaining insurance at the time when any maintenance or repairs are required. Finally, please note that the license can be terminated by the railroad company at any time upon one month's notice. However, given the County's purpose for the license, termination is unlikely." Mr. Jones said that yesterday he spoke with Mr. Robert White, the gentleman in charge of surety for the Chessie System. Mr. White agreed to allow deletion of stipulations 17, 18 and 19. Mr. Jones recommended that the Board authorize Mr. Agnor to sign the "Pipeline Crossing Agreement" between the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company and the County of Albemarle which will permit the County to: construct, maintain, repair, renew, operate, use, alter, change, or remove one 6-inch ductile iron sanitary sewer line enclosed in 76 feet of 14-inch steel casing for the handling of sewage..., at Valuation Station 657+46, Mountain Subdivision, Virginia, at Crozet, County of Albemarle, State of Virginia, described on Drawing Exhibit "B" (3 sheets), dated January 9, 1984, which is attached to...this Agreement." Ly .58.3 February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Way asked Mr. Jones to explain the insurance situation. Mr. Jones said that originall~ a certain amount of insurance was required during the time of construction, which is estimated at sixty days. This insurance was to have been left in force during the life of the Agreement. Mr. Jones said that this type of insurance is very difficult to obtain. He added that stipu- lation 19 is actually a supplement .to stipulations 17 and 18 and since the County can not commit to a hold harmless clause, it was agreed that 19 could also be deleted from the Agreemen' Mr. Jones said that should the County have to do any construction, it will be necessary to obtain this type of insurance. Mr. Lindstrom wanted to clarify that all the stipulations, with the exception of 10, 16, 17, 18 and 19, are agreeable to all concerned. Mr. Jones replied in the affirmative. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to authorize Mr. Agnor to sign the Agreement between the County of Albemarle and the C & 0 Railroad Company, amended to delete stipulations 10, 16, 17, 18 and 19. This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. 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. 15. Transfer of funds: Police Department. Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, referred to his memorandum dated February 2, 1984 as follows: "The December monthly financial statements have been revised to show the appropriation and expenditures of salaries, fringes, car expenses, and some maintenance and operating expenses for the five police officers being split out from the Sheriff's Department for the current fiscal year (FY 83-84) to be shown as a separate department. This was done working with the Sheriff. Now that Frank Johnstone, the new Deputy Police Chief is working, he and I have looked at the needs of the department from now until June 30, 1984 anticipating what could be purchased in the way of equipment, uniforms and records from the $68,557 appropriation used in the current operating budget to create a Police Department. The salary of F~ank Johnstone and a secretary must also be funded from the $68,557 for five months (February- June)." Mr. Jones requested approval of the transfer of $68,557 from the Police Department Reserve to the Police Department budget. Mr. Jones and Mr. Agnor clarified that the money designated for repair and maintenance of vehicles includes police car markings which will differentiate the County Police Department from other law enforcement vehicles. Mr. Jones said that the request is not for additional monies but for specific distributions of the monies available. Mr. Fisher pointed out that the figure of $68,557 is money that the Board had set aside for this purpose in the current budget. Mr. Bowie asked about the process involved in selecting uniforms. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Johnstone is going to have the police department personnel participate in the selection of uniforms; Mr. Johnstone will have the final approval. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following resolution approving the transfer of funds: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $68,557 be, and the same hereby is, transferred from 1-1000-91033-565100, the Reserve account for a police department, to the following codes: Police Department 1 1000 31010 100100 1 1000 31010 200100 1 1000 31010 200200 1 1000 31010 200500 1 1000 31010 200600 1 1000 31010 700100 1 1000 31010 540100 1 1000 31010 540800 1 1000 31010 541000 1 1000 31010 580100 1 1000 31010 700200 Compensation-Regular FICA Retirement Hospital and Medical Group Life Insurance Machinery & Equipment Office Supplies Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles Uniforms Dues and Associations Furniture & Fixtures $ 18,400 1,288 2,107 49O 22 18,600 2,300 5,250 13,000 100 7~000 TOTAL $ 68,557 Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: &YES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 17. Request for central water systems: Tull and Tiffany. Mr. Agnor suggested the. Board take each.matter separately and referred to the letter from Mr. Herbert G. Tull, III, dated February 1, 1984 as follows: 584 February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) "We request a permit for a central water system to be constructed on Tax Map 58, Parcel 37C, Tract 2, to serve five proposed dwelling units, one small industrial plant, and such other buildings as may be built upon the parcel. To allow for further development of the industrial portion of this parcel we request authorization for up to 14 connections. The well for the proposed system was dug in 1973 and was tested under the supervision of the County Engineer in September 1983 and found to produce ten gallonS per minute. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Signed Herbert G. Tull, III" Mr. Agnor noted that the County Engineer had furnished a report that the well had been tested on August 30, 1983. At 0.5 GPM/E.R.U., the well will be satisfactory for twenty units. The well currently serves an industrial building which is equivalent to one unit. Site plan has been approved for five additional residential units. Mr. Tull stated that he had prints of the approved site plan should the Board wish to review them. Mr. Tull indicated through use of a drawing, the existing small structure which serves as a factory for the building of custom machinery and currently employs four people. On the front of the property is approximately 350 feet originally zoned R-I; subsequently the zoning was changed. Mr. Tull said site plan approval was given under the R-1 zoning, subject to approval of a special permit for a central water system. Mr. Tull said he planS to construc five small rental units adjacent to Murray School in Ivy and may someday wish to expand the system to provide for additional buildings on the industrial portion of the property. There- fore, he is requesting approval for up to fourteen connections, although at the present time, there are plans for only six connections. Mr. Fisher asked the size of the lots in question. Mr. Tull said these are not individual lots; they have not been legally separated. Mr. Fisher asked if there is room for a second drain field for his house. Mr. Tull said yes. Mr. Fisher commented that current water use on the property is only for sanitary use and pointed out that should another industrial use locate on this site, more water may be needed. Mr. Tull said that the well tested ten~lZons, per minute over a twenty-four hour period, is suitable for twenty housing units, but he agreed that this does not address potential water consumption for a different industrial use. Mr. Fisher noted that there are many uses under Light Industrial zoning which would consume a great deal more water than is used by the present industry. Mr. Fisher wanted it noted that the Board at least anticipates the fact that some other industrial use in the present building could~cQnsume more water Mr. Fisher said however that the request is primari± ior ....... · . y ~lve ~r ....... am unm~s and one plant Mr. Tull acknowledged this to be so, although he would like to be able to expand the system. At this time motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the construction of a central well system to serve five proposed dwelling units and one small industrial plant on Tax Map 58, Parcel 37C, Tract 2, in Ivy, Virginia. 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. Agnor then referred to the memorandum from Mr. Maynard L. Elrod, County Engineer, dated December 20, 1983 to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., concerning a central well system located on Tax Map 70, Parcel 1, in Mountain Hollow Subdivision, property owned by Mrs. Patsy O. Tiffany: "At the owner's request we have inspected and witnessed the testing of an existing well that is located on Tax Map 70, Parcel 1, to the west of Mountain Hollow Subdivision. The well has been in existence for a number of years. We were unable to obtain data on the well depth, pump capacity, etc., from the owner, our records, the Health Department, or the well driller. The well flow test was conducted using methods that do not give highly accurate results, however, our opinion is that the flow rate is sufficient to serve the five homes that the owner says are currently using the well. DATA: l) The 48 hour flow test indicated a flow rate of approximately six gallons per minute, however, because of the manner in which the test was conducted, the rate could be one-half or less of that rate. We recommend that the well be rated at two and one-half gallons per minute. 2) There are six existing residential connections to this system. One of those connections was made during or shortly after the test and the owner has agreed to disconnect that service. The well is approved to serve only the following five lots: Tax Map Parcels: 69B-1, 69B-8, 69B-11, 69B-16 and 69B-25. 3) We do not have any plans or specifications for this well or the water system. We have been told that the water lines run along the rear of Lots 1-57, but we do not know the size or type of materials in this system." 585 ' Februar 8 1 84 R ' Mr. Agnor noted for the Board's information, that Mr. Elrod told him Mrs. Tiffany has agreed to disconnect one of the residential connections to the central well system. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Fisher, to approve the central well system for service to the five lots noted in the above memorandum. 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. Executive Session: Legal Matters. Mr. St. John requested an executive session to discuss: Central Virginia EleCtric Coopera- tive against Albemarle County, pending litigation; the McDonald's Site Plan, litigation; The Sheriff's Association against Albemarle County, status report; United Virginia Bank.~2di:_~ Stowe, pending litigation; pending proceedings concerning George Cason; Johnson against the School Board, pending litigation; and Starks against Albemarle County, pending litigation. At 12:40 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn into executi~ session for discussion of legal matters as outlined by Mr. St. John. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:55 P.M. Agenda Item No. 16. Agreements: Stony Point and East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Companies. Mr. Agnor mentioned the memorandum from the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, dated February 2, 1984 providing background information concerning service agreements in general and making reference to the following letter from Mr. J. B. Morris, Chairman of the Jefferson Country Fire Fighter's Association Finance Committee, dated January 16, 1984: "The Jefferson Country Firefighter's Association Finance Committee met on January 15, 1984 and approved the following requests for advance funding: Twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) to the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company to complete the acquisition of a fifteen hundred (1500) gallon fire service tanker. Payment is to be made to Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company on May 1, 1984. Repayment is to be accomplished by deducting four thousand dollars ($4,000) annually from their scheduled annual grant for a period of five (5) years beginning July 1, 1984. This deduction is in addition to their previously scheduled deductions. 2) Thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) to the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company for the acquisition of a four wheel drive unit equipped for off-the-road brush fire fighting. Payment is to be made to East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company on April 1, 1984. Repayment is to be accomplished by deducting five thousand dollars ($5,000)i annually from their scheduled annual grant for a period of six (6) years beginning July 1, 1984. This deduction is in addition to their previously scheduled deductions. As I understand it, this money has already been allocated by the Board o.f Supervisors and upon payment of these two advances, the 1983-19.84 fund status is as follows: APPROPRIATED $ 200,000 Less advance t6 Earlysville Less advance to Stony Point Less advance to East Rivanna Balance in Fund $ 43,500 $ 20,000 $ 30~000 $ 106,500" Mr. Agnor recommended that the Board authorize its Chairman, Mr. Fisher, to execute the two Service Agreements. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to authorize Mr. Fisher to execute the following two Service Agreements: THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 8th day of February, 1984, by ;.. :i ":..', , and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "CountY") and the STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY ("Stony Point"); WI TNE S SETH: That for and in consideration of the operation by Stony Point of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during the period of this agreement, the County shall pay to Stony Point the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) during fiscal year 1983-1984 from the County's capital fund. Thenceforth, the sum of Four Thousand Dollars (,$4,000) per year shall be withheld each year by the County from the County!s annual grant to Stony Point, for a period of five (5) consecutive years, beginning fiscal year 1984-1985, so that at the end of the fifth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of $20,000 shall have been withheld. This withholding is in addition to any other withholding as a result of prior service agreements with Stony Point. February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 8th day of FebrUary, 1984, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County") and the EAST RIVANNA VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY ("East Rivanna"); WITNE S SETH: That for and in consideration of the operation by East Rivanna of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during the period of this agreement, the County shall pay to East Rivanna the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) during fiscal year 1983-1984 from the County's capital fund. Thenceforth, the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) per year shall be withheld each year by the County from the County's annual grant to East Rivanna for a period of six (6) years, beginning fiscal year 1984-1985, so that at the end of the sixth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of $30,000 shall have been withheld. This withholding is in addition to any other withholding as a result of prior service agreements with East Rivanna. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 18. Report from County Engineer: Urban Drainage Projects. ~ Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, gave a slide presentation of an "Urban Drainage Report dated February 1, 1984, prepared by the Office of the County Engineer. The report identifies sixteen priority projects at an estimated cost between $575,000 and $600,000 and includes recommendations for an improvement plan. Mr. Elrod referred to the purpose, study procedure, priority system, funding and recommendations contained in the report as follows: "PURPOSE: This report was prepared to determine the extent of the drainage problems that have occurred due to growth in the urban areas. Drainage problems that affect only the roads ±n~the county were excluded, however, problems associated with roads that affect county residences or businesses wSre included. The report concentrates on flooding and erosion problems where the runoff from many developed or developing properties adversely affects a few properties. The intent was to determine which drainage problems the county government should take an active role in solving and what the costs would be to reach those solutions. Many problems were found that either were not very serious, or were due to runoff from natural watersheds or from the affected property owners own lands. Those problems are not included here, ~however, the County Engineer's Office has provided advice and in some cases design plans to those landowners. STUDY PROBLEMS: Many of the problems reported here were discovered from complaints filed by County residents. This was particularly true during the spring, summer, and fall of 1982. However, 1983 was a dry year and relatively few complaints were received. We examined topographic maps and contacted the adjacent residents in areas where we suspected problems. There are some areas where we feel that flooding and/or erosion will occur due to future development even though no problems are apparent now. For some problem areas we contracted with local surveyors to p~ovide us with actual cross sections and profiles of drainage systems. We utilized that data and computer programs to analyze the hydraulic capacities of various watercourses. Where pipes or channels were found to be inadequate we studied two alternate solutions: A) B) Enlarge or replace the inadequate structures; Provide upstream stormwater detention facilities that will reduce the runoff to the point where the existing facilities will, in effect, be adequate. Where applicable, we made cost estimates for both alternates. Our tendency was tm select the detention basin concept wherever feasible because of the beneficial environmental effects on receiving streams; i.e., the trapping of sediment and pollutants from urban areas and the lessening.of erosion in natural streams and rivers. PRIORITY SYSTEM: The priority system is based on an evaluation of the severity of the problem, and the amount of funding that is likely to be obtained from sources other than the County government. No projects were moved to a lower priority because of a lack of outside funds, however, some were moved up because outside funds seemed likely. The projects were labeled priority I, II, or III, with I being the highest and III the lowest. The reasoning for each project priority is discussed in the project descriptions. 587 FebruarSl~lar Da_xMeeti__~ FUNDING: Ail of the projects proposed involve runoff from drainage areas that are now partially or completely developed. In some cases we feel that eventually we will collect one hundred percent of the project funds from contributions made by developers in lieu of their providing on-site detention as required by the Stormwater Detention Ordinance (Section 18-22 of the County Code). Existing and expected developer contributions are shown on the Summary Sheets included in this report. Where the watershed is completely or almost completely developed, funding can be obtained from the following methods and sources: Create a "Watershed Improvement District", or "Sanitary Distr~ct". Both of these methods require a referendum of landowners and voters, most of whom will not receive any benefit from the projects. We therefore feel that these are not likely sources. 2) 3) Assess a tax on property owners who abut and who will derive "peculiar benefits" from the project. Section 15.1-239 of the State Code allows such assessments for storm sewers. There may be projects where the owners who are to receive the benefit of the project will not wish to pay their share of the costs. The Board could assess those owners if the need arises. General Fund appropriations to the Capital Improvement Budget seem to be the most logical source for approximately seventy- five percent of the drainage program proposed herein. The timing of the other twenty-five percent, developer contribu- tions, is uncertain, however, those contributions may be used to reimburse the County for any expenditures. RECOMMENDATIONS: l) 2) Adopt this report as the County's Drainage Improvement Plan. This will provide the Planning Commission and the Planning and Engineering Departments with direction. Amendments, additions, or deletions may be made by the Board from time to time. Plan to fund the priority I projects ($291,261) in the FY 84/85 Capital Improvement Budget and the priority II projects ($116,000) in FY 85/86. The priority III projects could be considered for FY 85/86 or FY 86/87." Mr. Elrod discussed at length the proposed projects plus other stormwater control project which reflected the present situation. The following projects taken from the report were presented: Project No.: Title: Description: Benefits: Priority I: 4.20 Berkmar Detention Basin Construct a detention basis twelve feet deep that will flood about one acre during heavy rains. This project will relieve flooding of the Wayside Press and Jefferson Supply businesses on Berkmar Drive, plus reduce flooding at the intersection of Dominion Drive. This project will serve an immediate need. More than $98,000 has already been pledged in developer contributions. Project No.: Title: Description: Benefits: Priority I: 4.21 Four-Seasons Detention Basin Drain the existing Four-Seasons .lake and convert it to a detention basin and play area. Will help relieve flooding of the Pizza Inn, at least two residences, and Four Seasons and Commonwealth Drives. This project will serve an immediate need. Mr. Elrod said the developer of Four Seasons has plans to develop more units and will be filing for a change in zoning, plus filing for site plan approval. The developer has offered to deed the existing lake to the County. Mr. Elrod said he feels this would be a real boon to the County because the lake could be drained, and the lake bottom made into an area with broad sweeping slopes with a channel down through the center to carry the normal flow, but the lake would retain water during a storm. This project, along with some other projects in this drainage area, would go a long ~ay toward solving problems with flooding in the Commonwealth Drive/Four Seasons area. Mr. Elrod said when his staff first began working on the urban drainage study, the idea of approaching the person in control of the lake to see if that person would allow the County to make modifications in the spillway to obtain capacity for stormwater that overtops the lake, was discussed. Mr. Elrod said being able to drain the lake and having all of that additional capacity would be a real boon. Project No.: Title: Description: Benefits: Priority !: 4.22 Birnam Wood Detention Basin Construct a detention basin 12 feet deep that will flood approximately 1.3 acres during heavy rains. Will help to relieve flooding of the same areas that project 4.21 will serve and future potential flooding of certain apartment buildings in Four Seasons. This project will serve an immediate need. Over $10,000 has been pledged by developers and another $15,000 is likely. Febrmary 8, 198'4 ~Re~u.lar Day Meeting) Project No.: Title: Description: Benefits: Priority I: 4.23 Wynridge Detention Basin Alter two existing small basins and combine them with additional land to create a basin 10 feet deep covering approximately 1.5 acres. Same as projects 4.21 and 4.22. Will eliminate two smaller basins for which homeowner associations now have maintenance responsibility. Developers have offered to donate the land and approximately $20,000 in developer contributions is likely. Project No.: Title: DeScription: Benefits: Priority I: 4.24 Berkeley Storm Sewer - Phase I ~ Construct approximately 350 feet of storm sewer in an existing channel. Eliminate potential foundation settlement for existing residence and existing erosion and debris problems in channel. This 15 foot deep channel is 15 feet from an existing home. One storm in 1982 deepened the channel by 4 feet. Project No.: Title: Description: Benefits: Priority II: 4,25 Berkeley Storm Sewer - Phase II Construct approximately 1,000 feet of storm sewer in an existing channel. Eliminate erosion, debris, and rodent problems, Existing channel does not affect existing homes directly. Large trees are being undermined. Mr. Elrod said this channel runs behind the Charlottesville Shopper's World on Route 29 This channel has become a collection point for all kinds of debris. The residents in Berkeley fenced their yards right to the edge of the stream, and the people at Shopper's World have not provided any upkeep. Some. of the homeowners in Berkely have thrown clippings and leaves over the fence, thus killing the undergrowth, which in turn has allowed the soils to be washed away and the tree roots to become exposed. Eventually the trees will die, and everythint slides into the channel. This channel behind the first house on Dominion Drive as you enter Berkely from Route 29 North, is a vertical fifteen feet deep embankment. At this point, the loop of the channel is only about fifteen feet from the foundation of this particular house. The houses further upstream have much deeper back yards. Although the house is in no danger at this time~ the big storm in 1982 made the channel five feet deeper. Another storm of that magnitude could endanger the home. Therefore, Mr. Elrod said he divided this project in parts 4.24 and 4.25. Project No.: Title: Description: Benefits: Priority I: 4.26 Bennington Woods Subdivision Channel Relocate existing channel and line with rip-rap and grass to stabilize erosion. Yard areas and large trees will be saved. Residents feel that high velocity of flow is a safety problem. Approximately $6,000 in developer contributions. Mr. Elrod explained that the trees overhang the bank of this channel and erosion is occurring steadily. There are ten or fifteen trees further upstream that will die soon because of this erosion. Also, for some reason, the homes are on one side of the stream, while the sanitary sewer system for that home is acros~ on the other side of the stream. The sewer pipes, which are plastic, are exposed at this time. Mr. Elrod said it is almost impossible to correct such a problem in a developed area. In this case, they are proposing to slide the creek horizontally in order to backfill around the trees. Project No.: Title: Description: Benefits: Priority I: 4.27 Old Forge Storm Sewer Drop inlet, curb, and 300 feet of small storm sewer. Will relieve erosion and basement flooding. This project will serve an immediate need. Cost is low, the owner will contribute some labor and work can be accomplished in conjunction with another project. Project No: Title: Description: Benefits: Priority I: 4.28 Smithfield Road Storm Sewer Drop inlets and approximately 250 feet of small storm sewer. Will relieve flooding of two existing homes. Project will serve an immediate need. Project No.: Title: Description: Benefits: Priority III: 4.29 Berkshire Road Channel Improve alignment of existing channel and line with concrete or rip-rap. Will eliminate future erosion and preserve yards and trees. Problem will occur with future upstream development. Small developer Contribution has been made but future contributions are unlikely. §89 February 8, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Project No.: Title: Description: Benefits: Priority II: 4.30 Camellia Gardens Detention Basin - located off of Whitewood Raad Replace existing open detention basin with an underground pipe to act as a basin. Eliminate high maintenance, unsightly basin, and provide yard area to existing homes. No damage is presently occuring. Mr. Elrod said these people currently have no side or back yards at all. The area is entirely taken up with the deep ditch that is being used as a detention basin. Project No: Title: Description: Benefits: Priority I: 4.31 Windham/Jarmay Gap Road Channel Construct approximately 1200 feet of storm sewer and channel improvements. Eliminate existing and future erosion problems. There are existing problems which will get worse. $12,000 in developer funds have been contributed and more are likely. Mr. Elrod said at this time, the drainage comes from around the Post Office and the Windham project and drains into a pipe system on Jarman Gap Road. This drainage channel has eroded in recent years and when his office began its investigation, it was found that the only change that has occurred in recent years is the Windham project. There was a design error mad~ on the stormwater detention facility, and then the facility was not built as designed. When the developer applied to do the second phase of the project, he was given the option of either redoing the entire detention facility, or contributing to a project which would improve the channel above Jarman Gap Road. Rebuilding the facility would cost a great deal of money, and the developer really did not have the land area necessary. Project No: Title: DescriPtion: Benefits: Priority II: Project No.: 4.32 Lynchburg Road Storm Sewer Repair existing storm sewer system. Eliminate settling of rear yard at existing residence. Existing damage is relatively minor. Title: Description: Benefits: Priority II: 4.33 Four-Seasons Drive Channel Improve entrance and outlet conditions at existing culverts. Will increase culvert capacity and reduce flooding potential. Expected benefits are not as great as for projects 4.21, 4.22 and 4.23. Project No.: Title: Description: Benefits: Priority III: 4.34 Woodbrook Channel Widen channel in vicinity of old Woodbrook Sewage Lagoons. Relieve flooding of residence. Elimination of the lagoons by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and future detention basins may eliminate the problem. Project No.: Title: Description: Benefits: Priority II: 4.35 Solomon Road Improvements Enlarge and extend existing culvert. Eliminate flooding of yards and road. Eliminate erosion and steep slope problems adjacent to existing homes. Immediate problems are serious but do not result in major damages. Mr. Elrod continued by showing slides of some detention basins in this area which have either not been that successful, or if successful, are definitely eyesores. Mr. Elrod said that in many cases developers have already contributed to drainage projects. With the sudden upsurge in development in the County, later this summer, the Board will need to decide whether or not any of these projects will be approved. If the Board decides not to go forward with this concept, money will need to be refunded, so that these developers can comply with pro- visions of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance. Mr. Elrod said the purpose of preparing this report was to determine where there are problems which citizens cannot solve on their own. The problems are due mostly to developments upstream from the affected properties. The County contributed to these problems by allowing developers to change the drainage characteristics in an area. One of these affected homeowners when he originally bought his home may have had no problem, but now finds himself with a problem he cannot solve. There are plenty of places around the county where people have create their own problems, where people are affected by runoff from their own lands as where naturally forested areas drain into a creek that has been built too close to it. In those cases, his office has given advice on how to control erosion, and even design standards. None of those projects are included in this report. Staff catalogued all drainage reports so that all types of problems people were experiencing could be seen. Mr. Elrod said he took topographic maps, rode around, and talked to people. The sixteen projects in this report were found, and for all of these projects two solutions were studied. Some projects were studied in light of provmdmngi upstream storage basins to make existing facilities adequate, and if that failed, the cost of. making the facilty adequate was studied. The staff leaned toward detention basins because these basins provide the flow attentuation at the point where there are problems, but would also provide a decreased flow all the way to the Chesapeake Bay which is of environmental benefit also. February 8,1984 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Elrod said the question of funding these projects has been discussed at length. Mr. St. John helped by researching the State Code. One code section allows the Board to establish a watershed improvement district or a sanitary district. TheBoard can assess a landowner in that district for his fair share of the:improvement costs, but in order to do so must have a referendum. Usually these problems affect only five to ten landowners, whereas there might be !five-hundred landowners in the district,~so it is unlikely that a referendum would pass. A second method allowed under existing legislation is to allow the County. to assess any landowner whose property abuts a project and who will receive some peculiar benefit to his land.. The Board could take such action without any change to existing ordinances~ The major source of outside funds, other than from taxes or bonding, is from voluntary contributions from developers. Developers have shown an overwhelming desire to pay funds to the County so that they do not have to meet the ordinance requirements. The developer realizes that if a project is built so it is less of a problem, it uses so much land that it makes the project less tenable for them. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like time to study the Urban Drainage Report and discuss it at another time. Mrs. Cooke agreed with Mr. Lindstrom saying she too would like some time to review the report. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this plan is to be adopted at a public hearing. Mr. St. John said there is no legal requirement~for a public hearing, Mr. Fisher said if the Board wishes to adopt this plan as a way of dealing with urban drainage Problems, he felt it would be best to advertise a public hearing on same. Mr. Tucker said the staff feels this plan should be part of the Comprehensive Plan so that as development occurs in certain identified basins, contributions can be taken for construction of the detention ponds. Mr. Tucker said the Priority I projects should be included in the Capital Improvements Program and for the 1984-85 fiscal year. Mr. St. John said the Board must adopt the plan before contributions can be accepted. To comply with-State statutes, this plan must be officially adopted either as part of the Comprehensive Plan, or as part of the Capital Improvements Program. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt~the following resolution of intent to amend the comprehensive plan to include the Urban Drainage Report: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to include a County Drainage ImprOvement Plan and Priority Projects as recommended in the Urban Drainage Report~prepared by the Office of the County Engineer. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission is hereby requested to hold a public hearing on this resolution and to make a recommendation to this Board as soon as possible. Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher asked that the record show that his vote does not necessarily imply concurrence with any assessment process. He needs time to think about that part of the presentation. Mr. Tucker said this plan will be made a part of the Comprehensive Plan, and there is no need to state how it is contemplated to fund these projects. Mr. Tucker said the .report simply indi- cates the long range benefits and physical aspects of such a plan and does not speak to the financial aspects. Agenda Item No. 22. Discussion: Letter requesting a Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County Schools. · Mr. Washington, Chairman of the Greenwood Citizens Council, made referenca to his letter addressed to Mr. Fisher and Mr. HenleY, as follows: "Both of you recall that at this time last year, at the request of local citizens, I began a defense of the Greenwood Elementary School. Both of you were circumspect in not becoming openly involved in School Board matters. One aspect of the problem that had the interest of both of you was the capital improvements for the school system in the years to come. To date, the way the matter has been handled, the Board of Supervisors have not really had an opportunity to get into that matter. I am still concerned in the broad sense that there really is not an approved, and meaningful comprehensive plan for the schools of the county. Without going into the myriad reasons for it (many of which are obvious), I urge ~he Board of Supervisors to take a policy position, simply stated,, that would place a moratorium on closure of elementary schools until such time as a fairly detailed long range plan is developed and put through the review and approval process. I urge the Board of Supervisors to do this at any early date before the school budget for the next year is developed. Wishing you both .the best for '84. Respectfully, (Signed) William R. Washington Chairman, Greenwood Citizens Council" February 8, 1984 (R~gular Da~ Meeting! Mr. Washington said he realizes that the current Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan does contain maps and some language referring to the Albemarle County Schools, but he feels the references are rather superficial. Mr. Washington said he attended many meetings last year of the School Board but until the formation of Dr. Tolbert's special redistricting committee, noticed the lack of knowledge and agreement concerning the holding capacity of the schools in the county. ~(Mr. Washington said he watched as the figures being discussed changed almost weekly. At one point, it was suggested that a consultant be hired to determine just what the capacities are. This idea was rejected. This, said Mr. Washington, is only one aspect of the problem. Mr. Washington said that the Greenwood Elementary School is scheduled to be closed at the end of the 1984 school year as a result of the school redistricting effort. He stated his belief that a structural capacity of 200 or 300 does not necessarily mean that number of students can be placed in a structure. He personally does not feel a school can be operated effectively at greater than 80 percent of the rated capacity and maintain any fexibility on class sizes and for the special requirements placed on the school system. Mr. Washington notec that generally last year elementary schools were utilized at 74 percent capacity; a few were used at less than that, and several were well over 100 percent capacity. Mr. Washington said in the case of the three elementary schools in the western part of the County, none were over utilized, nor seriously under utilized. By transferring 50 students out of this district, however, one of these schools could undoubtedly be closed. But, from a managerial standpoint, should this be done? He feels the School Board approached this redistricting plan from an educational perspective and needs to review the situation from a managerial perspective. Mr. Washington suggested drafting a comprehensive plan for Albemarle County Schools which would project the future needs of the schools and obviate the need for the Board of Supervisor~ to be confronted year after year with the same questions. He feels that such a comprehensive plan would benefit all the citizens of Albemarle County. Mr. Washington described himself as proponent of neighborhood schools and minimal travel time for elementary-aged children. In most parts of the County, Mr. Washington feels that it is possible to have a school system which does not require extensive hours on a school bus, particularly for very young children. Dr. Charles Tolbert, a member of the School Board, said he appreciates Mr. Washington's efforts and stated that it is largely due to Mr. Washington's efforts that the School Board attempted to fill its buildings to eighty percent capacity. Dr. Tolbert said he agrees with Mr. Washington regarding the need for a comprehensive plan for Albemarle County schools, but noted the difficulty in attempting to project enrollments five years into the future. Dr. Tolbert noted that the Planning Commission is also having problems getting attendance projec- tions which are dependable. Dr. Tolbert said that with regard to Greenwood School, the School Board has not yet decided what to do with the building, although the school will be closed at the end of this school year and the children will be transferred to Red Hill and Brownsville Schools. Dr. Tolbert pointed out the possibility that conditions may change in the Crozet are in the not too distant future which may make it necessary to reopen Greenwood School some time He said the decision to close the school next year is definite, and the 1984-85 School Budget was calculated without any operating costs for that school being included. Dr. Carlos Gutierrez said that both the actual capacity and the ideal capacity of each county school building is well known to the school administration. He feels a need to defend his staff members who provided this data. Dr. Gutierrez asked the Board of Supervisors not to relate the matter of a comprehensive plan for schools, which he feels is a fine idea, to the matter of redistricting which was completed last year. He said the redistricting plan was accomplished with a great deal of effort by a School Board committee working with a citizens committee and the plan contains many compromises. Dr. Gutierrez said this redistricting plan will utilize school buildings more efficiently than at the present time. He hopes the Board Supervisors will not overturn something that has been done as a mandate from the School Board by the citizens of Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher said he shares many of Mr. Washington's concerns, particularly as the issue of furnishing gymnasiums arises. Mr. Fisher sees the need to plan for the many questions raised by the issues being mentioned and feels these should be addressed in the c~pital improvements program. He feels the School Board may be considering items about which the Board of Superviso is not yet aware. Dr. Gutierrez responded that the fift~ citizen committee which met last year did, at one point, intend to recommend to the School Board, some very specific facilities for each of the approximately twenty school sites. In an effort to effect both social and educational equality in the schools, the committee~ felt it necessary to address the question of gymnasiums since some schools have these facilities while other schools d© not. Dr. Gutierrez said that as the committee neared the termination of its work, it decided to retreat from any questions regarding capital improvements; the committee focused its efforts on the question of distributing children among existing facilties. Dr. Gutierrez stated his preference to work towards producing equitable school facilities in Albemarle County. Mr. Henley said he favors the idea of having a comprehensive master plan for Albemarle County Schools and would like to see work on such a plan begin soon. Mr. Agnor said the Board of Supervisors could take action today to officially pass the request to the School Board, or could consider the matter more thoroughly at a later time. Mr. Agnor said the Board can also request the County Planning staff to work on this comprehensive plan.. Mr. Henley suggested that the Board of Supervisors reflect on this idea and stay in touch with the individual School Board members after assessing their thoughts. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Washington's letter be forwarded to ali School Board members. Mr. Henley suggested placing this on an agenda in March and discuss ways of implementing such a plan. Mrs. Cooke also suggested that members of the School Board be notified of the contents of Mr. Washington's letter and then communicate directly with the individual Board members regarding suggestions or comments, prior to the March 21 work session on the Education budget. · 592 February 8~ 1984 (Regular Day. Meeting) Not Docketed. Mrs. Cooke referred to a letter from Mayor Frank Buck to Mr. Fisher, which indicated that City Council has asked Delegate Mitchell VanYahres to withdraw the Bill he had sponsored in the Genral Assembly concerning payment of school funds to the City of Charlottes- ville which went to Albemarle County through an error used in determining population~for&s~hoOl aid, formulas by using zip code designations. Dr. Gutierrez noted it is his understanding that this bill has been withdrawn. Agenda Item No. 24. Executive Session: Personnel. At 3:17 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters.. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 5:25 P.M., with Messrs. Fisher, Henley and St. John absent at this time. Agenda Item No. 20(a). Report: Executive Summary. Mr. Bowie reminded the Board that at the January meeting he had suggested that the County Executive's monthly financial report to the Board might be condensed into a more succinct and readily comprehensible form. Mr. Bowie said he worked with the staff to arrive at three possible formats for this report. Whichever format the Board selects will include a memorandum from the County Executive indicating any problems uncovered, a definition of those problems and possible solutions. Mr. Bowie referred to the first format of a single page as the shortest possible form in summarizing the former lenghtly report. This format summarizes sources of revenues and each major expenditure. The second format, consisting of five pages, is a slightl~ expanded version of the former and provides a breakdown of the four major sources of income; local, Commonwealth, Federal and transfers. The third format is a further expansion of the second and consists of fifteen pages detailing each of the four major sources of income. Mr. Bowie said all the details shown in the original report are contained in this fifteen page format, but he feels the information is excessive and unnecessary for the Board's purposes. He recommended the five-page format to be used on a trial basis beginning with the January, 1984 report. A format of this type will inform the Board of the County's status relative to local, state and federal funds, and if the Board members wish to know the individual items in the local government collections column, further information can be requested. Mrs. Cooke said she would be pleased not to have to grope through a long report and is willing to accept the recommendation of Mr. Bowie on a trial basis. Mr. Bowie suggested that each BOard member take the three formats, review them, keeping in mind that each is a more concise version of the original report. Mr. Bowie suggested allowing staff to prepare the January report using the five-page format. Mr. Agnor said that no action is necessary; Mr. Bowie is merely attempting to gain a consensus of opinion from the Board. Mr. Bowie stated he understands the consensus is that the Board wishes to condense the longer report. Agenda Item No. 20. Report: Financial Report for year ended June 30, 1983. Mr. Bowie then referred to the annual audit (deferred from the January 11, 1984 meeting), saying he had discussed the report with Mr. Fisher. The Price/Waterhouse auditors, in the formal report, gave ten recommendations for improvements. An Audit Committee was formed and met with the auditors and discussed the recommendations in detail. The first four recommenda- tions, namely: that the segregation of duties within the collections department should be improved; all bank reconciliations should be reviewed and formally approved by the accounting supervisor or another official who is independent of their preparation; as a part of the bank reconciliation process, cancelled checks should be reviewed for alterations, propriety of the signature or for unusual endorsements; disbursement checks from the Welfare imprest account should be compared to the approved warrant register and signed by someone independent of check preparation and bank reconciliation; have already been corrected by staff. The remainder of the recommendations apply primarily to the data processing division and are suggestions which must be dealt with in conjunction with other programs. Mr. Bowie said more Board interplay with the financial system is necessary on a regular basis rather than waiting for this report once a year. Mr. Bowie then ~ffa~ed~ mot. i~ ~.: 1) accept the report for FY 82-83 as prepared by ?rice/Waterhouse; 2) that the audit committee, comprised of Mr. Bowie and Mr. Fisher continu~ to oversee the problems pointed out in the Management letter of Price/Waterhouse; this com- mittee not to terminate with final approval of said report; and, 3) that the Director of Finance, prior to the start of the next audit, present a report to the Board concerning the progress being made relative to the problems outlined by the auditors in the Management Letter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 21. Legislative Mat~ers. Mrs. Cooke noted that since Mr. Fisher is not present, this matter will be postponed until another time. :5,93 Februar~lar Da~ Meet~ Agenda Item No. 23. Albemarle County. Discussion: Extend invitation to twin communities in Italy to visit Mrs. Cooke speculated that this discussion was requested by Mr. Fisher and recommended postponing this until another time. Agenda Item No. 25. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to reappoint Mr. Charles M. to the Joint Airport Commission, said term to expire on December 1, 1986. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to reappoint Mrs. Sharon Hamner as a member of the Equalization Board for the calendar year 1984, said term to expire on December 31, 1984. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to appoint Mr. Keith Mabe, Director of Community Development, to serve on the area-wide Housing Opportunity Plan Commiti of the Planning District Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: N6ne. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to reappoint Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., as the Scottsville District representative on the Industrial Development Authority, said term to expire on January 19, 1988. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to reappoint Mr. Joseph T. Henley, Jr., and Sheriff George Bailey to the Jail Board, said terms to expire on December 31, 1987. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to reappoint Dr. Michael J. Demetsky and Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke to the Transportation Safety Committee, said terms to expire on December 31, 1987. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to reappoint Miss Ellen V. Nash to the Board of DireCtors of the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau, said term to expire on February 28, 1986. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to reappoint Mr. L. Glyndon Morris to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Youth Service Center's governing Youth Commission, term to expire on February 1, 1987. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr, BoWie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley. 5,94 Agenda Item No. 25(a). Resolution: Bicentennial Center. Mr. Agnor said that the members of the General Assembly are asking City Council and the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution indicating their concurrence in the purchase of the Western Virginia Bicentennial Center; this is needed to verify his filing of House Bill 636 on January 24, 1984. Mr. Agnor said this exact same resolution was adopted by City Council on Monday, February 6, 1984. Mr. Agnor then read the following resolution: WHEREAS, House Bill 636, presently under consideration by the General Assembly of Virignia would authorize the State Board for Community Colleges to sell to the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville the. land and improvements formerly used as the Western Virginia Bicentennial Center; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly wishes to be assured that the County and the City will in fact purchase such property for the stated consideration of $562,500; now, therefore be it concurrently RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the Council of the City of Charlottesville, that the CoUnty Executive and the City Manager are respectively authorized to execute a contract with the State Board for Community Colleges for the purchase of the parcel of land formerly used as the Western Virginia Bicentennial Center containing 6.24 acres, more or less, and improvements thereon, located in the southwest quadrant of the Interstate 64 and State Route 20 interchange in Albemarle County south of Charlottesville; for a purchase price of $562,500 and to provide such further assurances as may be required of the intention of the County and City to complete this transaction. ~ Mr. Agnor explained that completion of this transaction will involve signing a lease with the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. The lease has already been drafted and reviewed by Mr. St. John who sees no problem with the lease. Mr. Agnor said the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation is aware of the price and agreeable to the lease which will pay the debt service on the building. The second part of the transaction involves'having bond counsel to advise both the City and the County before the building is purchased, as to how financing of this purchase should be handled, more specifically, whether there should be two separate bond issues; one for the County and one for the City, or whether there should be a single bond issue by one entity, with an agreement that the other locality is a participant. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Harry Frazier, an attorney with Hunton and Williams in Richmond, has examined the legal requirements and sees no impediment to having revenue bonds issued so the property can be purchased and paid for by the revenue generated through the lease. Mr. Agnor said he feels this was the Board's intent when this discussion started last fall, but all the details will be worked out when and if the General Assembly passes House Bill 636. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County will be locked into purchasing the property if a problem arises, if the Board adopts the resolution read by Mr. Agnor. Mr. Agnor then referred to the wording in the resolution and reread "...and to provide such further assurances as may be required of the intention of the County and City to complete this transaction." Mr. Agnor said that while it is the intent of the County to complete the transaction, should something occur to disallow this completion, the transaction will not take place. Mr. Lindstrom said it is his understanding that the property will be leased for an amount equal to the purchase price; the lease will pay off the bond issue. He stated his confidence that the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation will honor the lease, but has some misgivings about adopting a resolution which will bind the County to pay its share of the $562,500 out of local funds, if this arrangement does not reach fruition. Mr. Agnor said if the Community Colleges Board does not sell the property, then Piedmont Virginia Community College will have to use this property and occupy the building. If the Community College Board is given authoritl by the'General Assembly to sell the property, then Piedmont Virginia Community College will apply this money to a project at the present community college. Mr. Agnor said that should the Board authorize him to proceed, it is his very clear understanding that there is not to be any capital money obligated toward this project. Mr. Agnor said the resolution he read was drafted between the City and County Attorney's offices and Mr. Frazier, the bond counsel. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the foregoing resolution with the understanding that Mr. St. John be contacted to verify that the County is not obligated to buy the building should the lease or bond issue not become fact. Mr. Agnor said the resolution was drafted with the very clear understanding that the County is not obligating any county funds for the purchase of this building, should the lease or bond issues not work out. Mr, Agnor said this resolution must be in Richmond tomorrow morning so will be taken by courier this afternoon. Mr. Jones said the lease has already been reviewed by both the City and the County attorneys and submitted to Mr. Frazier as a basis for financing. At this time, roll was Galled and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 26. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mrs. Cooke read the following letter from the President of the Sons of the American Revolution: '§9:5 'Febrm~ry 8, 1984 ~Regular Day Meeting) "The following resolution was passed unanimously by the Board of Managers of the Sons of the American Revolution at its January meeting. WHEREAS: The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America is an act of patriotism and an expression of appreciation for the benefits derived from living in a Republic under a Constitution, AND WHEREAS: The Sons of the American Revolution try to foster an understanding of the positive and wonderful aspects .of our Repub.~c~, AND WHEREAS: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is an important part of our governmental process and can be instrumental in expanding such understanding, NOW THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Managers of the Sons of the American Revolution (Thomas Jefferson Chapter) that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors be congratulated for once again using the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of their meetings. Signed, Ralph A. Hall, M.D. President, SAR Chapter January 20, 1984" Mr. Agnor said that should any Board member hear of a public hearing by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority on the Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir, set for February 27, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. in the County Office Building, the meeting is scheduled in order to hear the final engi- neering report regarding the design aspects of the Buck Mountain dam. Mr. Agnor wanted the Board to be aware of the reason for this meeting. Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn. Board, the meeving was adjourned. At 5:54 P.M., with no further business to come before the