Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1982-06-09
June ~, 19~2 ~Regu~lar DaY. Meeti~ng) , June , ~19~2 ~egn±ar might Mee~ing~ 231 Mr. Henley said that he had read the minutes of September 9, 1982. He noted two corrections on page ~80~ Sixth paragraph, add the word "said" after "Mr. Agnor" at beginning of sentence. Seventh paragraph, change to read: "Mr. Agnor then noted that County staff has begun the process of analyzing the diminishing federal funds of a nUmber of agenciesw. ~e~ As these agencies turn to Albemarle County for assistancez a~ the rate of return on the investment ae ~a~ ae of public funds~ must be known." Motion was then Offered by Mr. Henley to approve the minutes of September 9, 1981, with the corrections noted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, ~indstrom~and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of copies several letters: Letter signed by Charles R. Price, Supervisor, State Bureau of Radiological Health, addressed to Harold W. Berk, University of Virginia Hospital, in which he stated that the State did environmental sampling around the University incinerator site on Route 20~for over a year, and quarterly samples of air, soil, vegetation and water analyzed forgross beta activity show no activity above background levels. Therefore, Mr. Price feels that the sampling is unnecessary. Next was'a letter from Harold Berk to Linda Peacock, Office of Emergency Services, in which he states that the State Department of Health will no longer be making environmental surveys at the incineration facility. Third was a memo from Linda Peacock to the Board and Council members in which she stated: "I do not believe that discontinuation of sampling by the State should be cause for concern, as the Radiation Safety Officer will still be monitoring and sampling before and after every burn as per the established protocol which is part of the University's NRC license." Mr. Lindstrom said that in a memo from Ray Jones dated May 19, 1982, he mentions that the Virginia Code permits localities to impose a special tax on consumers of telephone service for the purpose of installing a 911 emergency telephone system. He asked if there would be further comments on this subject. Mr. Agnor said there will be, but not until after receipt of the Central Police Dispatching report which is due to be received at any time. Miss Nash asked Mr. Agnor if he knew anything about the complaints about the chimney at the Old Woolen Mills. Mr. Agnor said the owner has done some pointing of the brick and made improvements to preserve the chimney as an historical point of interest. The chimney has not been condemned as reported earlier. The chimney has been examined by several engineers and none have found it to be an unsafe structure. Agenda Item No. 12. With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. June 9, 1982 (Regular DaY Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 9, 1982, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, ~01 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 9:16 A.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers Present: .County Executive,_Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. St. John. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. ~Coo~e, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the consent agenda consisting of two items~ Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 2.1. Statement of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth'~s Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of May, 1982, were presented; said statements were approved as presented. 232 June Agenda Item No. 2.2. Statement of Expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of May, 1982, was presented along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail physician and salaries of paramedics and classification offiCer; said statements being approved as presented. Agenda Item No. 2.~.. Report of the Department of Social Services~for:the mon~hs~o~ March and ApriI,~ 1982, were presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63~1,.52, Agenda Item No. 2.4. On May 13,.1981, the Board of Supervisors had authorized the Director of Finance, the Chairman of the Board and the Clerk to the Board, to destroy all bonds and coupons which were on file and which had been paid prior to June 30, 1975. This committee h~d performed this task on March 31, 1982 and the following certificate for destruction of paid bonds and coupons was received as information: CERTIFICATE FOR DESTRUCTION OF PAID BONDS AND COUPONS The undersigned, having been appointed to a committee of three persons to supervise and witness the destruction of bonds and coupons in accord with resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, adopted May 13, 1981, pursuant to the provisions of Virginia Code Section 58-919.3, do hereby certify that we did on March 31, 1982, sup'ervise 'and witness the destruction of the ~bonds and coupons lis~ted on the attached Exhibit, which has been duly initi~alled by each of us. Said bonds and coupons were destroyed by shredding. The total amount of bonds destroyed was $435,000'.00 and the total of the coupons $200,014.00, making a total of destroyed bonds and conpons of $635,01~.00. The issue, series, number and maturity data of the paid bonds and coupons is set forth in the att~ached Exhibit. Witness the following signatures and seals this~ day of ~~ , 1982. (Sig'ne~ ' June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) ?.33 BONDS: Due Date 12-1-70 12-1-71 12-1-72 12-1-73 12-1-74 ISSUE: CROZET 'SANITARY DISTRICT - $'10~0,00'0 - 12'-1-54 COUPONS: Fiscal Yr. Pd. Due Fiscal Numbers Amount Date Yr. Pd. Numbers Arno un t 70-71 71-72 72-73 73-74 74-75 6-1-70 70-71 76-100 76-80 5,000 12-1-70 70-71 76-100 6-1-71 71-72 81-100 81-85 5,000 12-1-71 71-72 81-100 6-1-72 72-73 86-100 86-90 5,000 12-1-72 72-73 86-100 6-1-73 72-73 91-100 91-95 5,000 12-1-73 73-74 91-100 6-1-74 73-74 96-100 96-100 5,000 12-1-74 74-75 96-100 362.50 362.50 290.00 290.00 217.50 217.50 145.00 145.00 72.50 72.50 $ 25,000 $ 2,175.00 ISSUE: ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOLS - $700,000 - 5-6-60 5-1-71 70-71 351-385 35,000 5-1-72 71-72 386-420 35,000 11-1-69 70-71 516 518-525 5-1-70 70-71 351-360 421-445 491-495 516-525 11-1-70 70-71 351-700 5-1-71 70-71 351-490 496-515 526-700 5-1-71 71-72 491-495 11-1-71 71-72 386-490 496-515 526-700 5-1-72 71-72 386-490 496-515 526-700 11-1-72 71-72 491-495 $ 70,000 17.00 136.00 170.00 425.0O 85.00 170.00 5,950.00 2,380.00 340.00 2,975.00 85.OO 1,785.00 340.00 2,975.00 1,785.00 340.00 2,975.00 85.00 $ 23,018.00 ISSUE: ALBEMARLE 'COUNTY SCHOOLS - $300,000 - 6-1-61 6-1-71 71-72 181-20 20,000 6-1-72 72-73 201-220 20,000 6-1-70 70-71 161-300 12-1-70 70-71 181-300 6-1-71 71-72 181-300 12-1-71 71-72 201-300 6-1-72 72-73 201-270 281-300 2,275.00 1,950.00 1,950.00 1,625.00 1,137.50 325.00 $ 9,262.5O 234 ISSUE: ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOLS - $1,000,000 - 7-1-65 BONDS: COUPONS: Due Date Fiscal Due Fiscal Yr. Pd. Numbers Amount Date Yr. Pd. Numbers Amount 71-1-70 70-71 201-250 50,000 71~1-71 71-72 251-300 50,000 7-1-70 70-71 201-445 3,920.00 446 16.00 448-950 8,048.00 956-1000 720.00 1-1-71 70-71 251-950 11,200.00 956-1000 720.00 7-1-70 71-72 447 16.00 7-1-71 71-72 251-395 2,320.00 401-950 8,800.00 956-100 720.00 1-1-72 71-72 301-395 1,520.00 401-950 8,800.00 956-995 640~00 $100.00 $47,44O.OO ISSUE: ALBEMARLE'COUNTY SCHOOLS - $1',000,'000 - 5-1-66 51-1-71 70-71 201-250 50,000 5-1-72 71-72 251-300 50,000 11-1-69 70-71 770-771 36.00 5-1-70 70-71 226-250 250.00 751-755 90.00 769-780 216.00 11-1-70 70-71 201-1000 14,400.00 5-1-71 70-71 201-755 9,990.00 761-920 2,880.00 931-1000 1,260.00 5-1-71 71-72 756-760 90.00 921-980 180.00 11-1-71 71-72 251-1000 13,500.00 5-1-72 71-72 251-755 9,090.00 761-76'8 144.00 781-920 2,520.00 931-1000 1,260.00 $100,000 $56,106.00 ISSUE: ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOLS $90'0,000 - 11-1-66 ll-l-70 ll-l-71 5-1-70 70-71 161-165 512.50 70-71 21-30 50,000 ll-l-?0 70,71 21-180 16,400.00 5-1-71 70-71 31-160 13,325.00 166-180 1,537.50 5-1-71 71-72 161-165 512.50 71-72 31-40 50,000 11-1-71 71-72 31-180 15,375.00 5-1-72 71-72 41'180 14~350.00 $100,000 Total Total Grand Bonds ~.~.~./~'$~, 000.00 Coupons~.... ~.~ 200,014.00 Total ?~ .~..~'~, 014.00 $62,012.50 Z35 Agenda Item No. 2.5. A Report on Audit for Shelby J. Marshall, County Clerk and Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle for the calendar year 1981 was received as information from the Auditor of Public Accounts, Commonwealth of Virginia. Agenda Item No. 2.6. Notice dated April 5, 1982 from the State Corporation Commission regarding application from Michael T. Frye, T/A Frye's Transport Service for a certificate of public convenience and necessity as a common carrier of passengers by motor vehicle, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 2.7. Report of the County Executive for the month of May, 1982, was presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the.Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of May, 1982, were also presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Fund Cafeteria Fund Capital Improvements Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Grant Projects Fund Mental Health Fund $ i15,058.01 630,474.97 2,004,470.73 42,241.39 165,333.53 727.04 71,608.50 303.56 150,616.04 30,402.73 '246~679.34 $3,457,915184 Agenda Item No. 3.r ApproMal of Minutes: October 7, October 14, November ll, December 10, December 16 (Afternoon), December 16 (Night), December 17, December 21, December 22, 1981; January 13, January 14, January 20 (Afternoon), January 20 (Night), January 21, January 25, January 27, January 28, February 3 (Afternoon), February 3 (Night), February 10, March 3, 1982 (Night). Mr. Fisher said the minutes of October 14, 1981 had been deferred from a previous meeting because he had questioned a particular statement. He then requested that the following wording be added to the end of the third paragraph under agenda item number l0 on page 416 of Minute Book #20 "With all parties in agreement that the license tax should not be imposed on farm wineries, no action was taken by the Board of Supervisors." Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of December l0 and December 16 (Afternoon), 1981, and found no errors. Mr. Fisher had also read the minutes of December 16 (Night), 1981. and noted that on page ll, second paragraph, the name "Ganeau" should be "Fred E. Gignoux" Mr. Fisher then noted that he had read the minutes of December 17, December 21 and December 22, 1981, and-did not find any errors. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of January 13 and January 14, 1982, and did not find any errors. Miss Nash~had read the minutes of March 3, 1982 and found no errors. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve the minutes of October 14, December 10, December 16 (Afternoon), December 16 (Night), December 17, December 21 and December 224 1981, and January 13, January 14 and March 3, 1982 as corrected. Roll was-called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. The remaining minutes had not been read and were deferred to a later date. Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters: Report on Flooding conditiQns of May 27, 1982. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, was present and said the storm on May 27, 1982 was very unusual and intense and the areas not severely affected were those along Route 29 North and west of the City around the Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Elrod then mentioned the individual properties affected~by~the storm. One particular property affected was that of Mr. G. L. Starks on Commonwealth Drive. The water overtopped Commonwealth and Four Seasons Drive and the lake in Four Seasons. The roadway was overtopped as was the culvert below the lake which has a double line of sixty- six inch pipe. Therefore, all of the water was directed at Mr. Starks house. The water saturated the soil around the foundation and the house became buoyant and the force of water rushing against the house_caused it to slide backwards approximately four feet. Mr~ Elrod also noted that the house was on a wood foundation which was probably fortunate because~if it had been on regular block footing it would have slipped off the foundation and fallen. Mr. ~Elrod said the house may be salvageable but the cost for replacing it in its original location would be between $8,000 and $12,000. Mr. Elrod said the cost to correQt the drainage problem will be approximately $200,000. Therefore, Mr.~Elrod said from either an economic or safety. Standpoint, he did not feel it prudent to reestablish the house~ (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:16 A.M.) 236 June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) The next location examined by the Engineering department was the Pizza Inn on Dominion Drive. The water backed up from the culvert on Route 29 and oYertopped both~lanes of Route 29 and several inches of water got into the building. Mr. Elrod said corr~sp°ndence'in the County and HighHaY Department files indicate that the owner of this building has been'~ warned that the building is below the 100-year flood plain. Another location examined was Bennington Terrace. Mr. Elrod said his department did not receive any calls about the area but he was concerned about the stormwater detention basin in'the area and there had been some erosion problems ba~hd'~d several of the houses on Bennington Terrace. The water had gone over the road in several places and debris was in the street. Several driveways were also washed out. The natural channel at the rear of the homes had eroded substantially. Mr. Elrod said the Highway Department plans to rework the ditches along Bennington Terrace which will help the situation along the front of the yards but will not affect the erosion~that is cccuring in the channel at the rear. Mr. Elrod said the channel along the rear is eroding and undercutting the tree roots along the bank. The erosion could be halted with a rip-rap channel to stabilize the alignment and prevent further erosion but would cost between $5,000 and $7,000. Mr. Elrod noted that it would ba very' difficult to put the stream in a'.pipe because there is sewer service across the creek which wo~ld interfer with the allgnmant of the'p~pe and that would have to be adjusted which would cost a lot of money. Also, if a pipe were put in the tree's would be killed and that is a concern of the property~owners. Mr. Elrod said a rip-rapped channel would cover a length of about 350 feet. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the detention basin was effective as to the development that it was designed to control. He felt that the basin may be receiving a lot of runoff from development that was in existence before the Stormwater Detention Ordinance went into effect. Mr. Elrod said th'e basin was built for the Georgetown Court project and was designed to take runoff from six acres, but the runoff from four and one-half acres is all that is actually coming to the basin. Mr. Elrod said if the entire six acres actually drained to the basin, the basin would have fi!led up and overtopped the emergency spillway. In answer to the question about the 'effectiveness of the basin, Mr. Elrod said the basin is doing what it was designed~to do. It is not effective enough to affect the drainage downstream. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the basin was not in place, if the problem would have been more significant. Mr. Elrod did not feel it would have. He said where the outfall pipe from the basin drains into the creek below Bennington Terrace, there may~have been more erosion because it is directed at right angles to the flow of the stream. The bank is lo~w at the side and the water just goes over the banks. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would hava made a difference if the~ot~her~developments in the area had be~n designed with detention basins at the time they were established. Mr. Elrod said that a total of about thirty acres drains into this creek and mostly' from developed land. If basins had been scattered around the area, it possibly Would have been easier ~to control the erosion in these streams but the basins would need to be larger than the .ordinance requires. Mr. Elrod said the creek is on a five and one-half percent slope which creates quite a velocity even during smaller rains. Mrs. Cooke asked if it were possible to ad~ basins in the areas which do not have them now. Mr. Elrod said it is possible if there is land ava±labia. Mr. Elrod then continued with his presentation Of drainage problem areas. The next area presented was Solomon Drive which is downstream from Bennington Terrace. A complaint was not received but Mr. Elrod sa~d water had been over the road by approximately six inches and some debris was in the road'. He noted that considerable erosion had occured around the downstream end of the existing twenty-four inch culvert which threatened the adjacent asphalt driveway. He also noted that water backe~ up approximately 200 feet above Solomon Drive. The pipe under Solomon Drive should probably be replaced since it does flood often. The culvert has been studied in the past and the cost to replace such would cost between $8,000 and $12,000. The estimated cost to repair the erosion and cleanup is $1,500. Mr. Elrod said a call was received from Mr. Sherwin Terry of 2514 Smithfield Road about problems that have been of concern for ten years. There is a pipe which drops in the si~e yard and conducts water from above the Terry's across the yard and into the Highway Department'~ storm sewer system. Mr. Elrod said the house isa'tOwer than the road. Therefore any water that does not go through the pipe, builds up just as if the yard were a detention basin and if the water builds up more than a foot, the water goes into the home. The Terry's got between six and e~ght inches of water in the basement as a result of the last storm. Mr. Elrod said a neighbor has a similar situation but the water does not build up quite as high. Mr. Elrod said in both cases, the yard would either have to be regraded, a bigger pipe installed or a combination of both which would cost about $5,000 to $6,000 to correct the problems. Mr. Elrod said several calls were received from residents on Easy Lane in Hollymead Subdivision. The residents did not suffer any damage but were concerned about the lake which is a~jacent to their property which rose eight to ten feet. The lake is created by a d~m built by the developer and the dam is also used as a road. .It is served by an overflow type spillway which is a vertical pipe connected to a horizontal pipe which goes through the dam. The residents are concerned that if the pipe, which is the only way for the water to get out of the lake, had become clogged, the water would have been even higher. Mr. Elrod did not feel that it is a good situation for the water to fluctuate up and ~own so much but he did not feel that-the ex~isting homes would have been flooded. He sai~ the~e might be some affect on lots which are still undeveloped. The right-of-way to the ~am has been dedicated to the County but the Highway Department has not accepted the road across the dam. Another problem was at 102 Oak Forest Circle, at the home of Dr. S. A. Newman. Mr. Elrod said-this is a new home which si~ts six to eight feet below the elevation of the road which has curb and gutter. The problem is with water flowing o~er the curb and washing out the gravel driveway, the yard and along the edge of the house. Mr. Elrod said about four to six inches of soil washed away from two sides of the home which exposed some underground wires and pipes. Mr. Elrod said it will cost about $1,000 to put it all back an~ this is about the third time in eleven months that Dr. Newman has had this expense. Mr. Elrod said the problem could be corrected by putting in additional drop inlets along the curb to prevent the water from overtopping the curb. This would cost from $2,000 to $3,000. June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Z37 The next problem area at 323 Dover Road, the home of Mr. L. B. Elsbernd. Mr. Elrod said he went to see Mr. Elsbernd because there are two lakes behind his home; one was washed out. Some water got into the basement of the house. Mr. Elrod said one way to correct the problem is to regrade or to put in a larger pipe across the road. Mr. Elrod said all the detention basins which are known to flood were investigated. The one on Georgetown Court was previously presented. The second one is at Townwood Apartments on Hydraulic Road. The basin is small, and the water went over the top and dropped a lot of silt. The grass is high and there is a lot of rip rap over which grass has been planted. Mr. Elrod said it is a very difficult thing to maintain and he would describe the situation as an eyesore. Mr. Elrod said the detention basin behind Fashion Square Shopping Center is thirty-four feet deep and the water rose up to the top of that structure. Another basin is the detention basin at Minor Townhouses. The project is still under construction so there was a lot of silt. This is intended to be a permanent basin so the debris will have to be removed. Mr. Elrod said the next area investigated was the two lakes on Dover Road in Carrsbrook Subdivision. The upstream dam failed and the lake drained. The spillway for the lower lake experienced severe erosion and is in danger of failure should another overflow occur. If the dam did fail, he did not feel it likely to cause any damage downstream since it does empty into the large flood plain of the South Rivanna River. In conclusion, Mr. Elrod said the problem he found in the subdivisions fell into one group, the drainage and roads were designed for a ten-year storm. If the storm is larger, the question is where does the water go and even if the storm is Hot larger than a ten- year storm, it is possible that the pipes, culverts or other apparatus will become plugged. In all these situations, there was no place for the water to go until after the fact. The only way to correct a lot of the problems in the future is by giving more attention to individual house plans. Mr. Lindstrom asked the storm level of this storm. Mr. Elrod said the storm was certainly in excess of a 100-year storm, but was confined to a relatively small area. Mr. Elrod then summarized reports from state meterologists and noted that most reports indicated about eight to ten inches of water fell in the area. Mr. Lindstrom said the real question is if current County ordinances are adequate. He realizes that the Stormwater Detention Ordinance has not been in effect long so there is not that much development to which it has been applied. Mr. Lindstrom said he has had people complain to him about Georgetown Court, in particular about the new development behind Georgetown Court. Another pond was required under the ordinance and one owner complained that the one pond was an eyesore and asked if the second pond could be deleted. Mr. Lindstrom said he had explained that these facilities are designed to prevent serious problems. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the Stormwater Detention Ordinance should be expanded. .Mr. Fisher said there are different things that can be done to prevent property damage and risk to lives as the community continues to develop. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt if there were any comments from the Highway Department relating to the Starks' home. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not really have anything to add but would like to emphasize that more attention has to be given to what happens when the capacity of a drainage structure or its system is exceeded. The problem noted by Mr. Elrod about the water running down the curb line and then running into an entrance could have been reduced if some thought had been given to grading the lot and grading the entrance so that the entrance was not at the low point in the curb line. Mr. Roosevelt said as he understands that there is no requirement for individual grading plans on individual lots. Also, there is no requirement in the County that people must build above the one hundred year flood plain. Mr. Roosevelt said it all comes back to the question of what happens when the capacity of drainage structures or systems are exceeded. Miss Nash asked who maintains the basins referred to in the report from Mr. Elrod. Mr. Elrod said the homeowners association in that particular development. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John his opinion. Mr. St. John said he was not sure about these particular basins and each individual case has to he reviewed to determine if there is an association in that area and if there is, such basins would be part of that homeowners agreement. Mr. Fisher said the appropriate persons should be notified about the basins identified by the County Engineer as having problems. Mr. St. John said that is being done. Miss Nash then noted a problem with runoff at the entrance to the Ivy Creek Natural area. Mr. Agnor said the County Engineer's office has determined what needs to be done to remedy the problem and the contractor has been instructed to proceed with the correction in order that this does not occur again. Mr. Fisher said there are several citizens present to speak about various problems and he invited their comments. Speaking first was Mr. Nathaniel Goddard, resident of Commonwealth Drive, and property owner adjacent to the Starks' property. His property was somewhat gutted as a result of the drainage down Four Seasons Drive. He then summarized a petition distributed to the Board dated June 7, 1982; said petition containing about 170 signatures and pertaining basically to the problem of the Starks'. -In the summer of 1.981, the culvert under Commonweal~ Drive at Four Seasons Drive was enlarged by the Highway De~rtment in response to the recommendations of land planner Mark Osborne after the flood of 1979. Following that action, the Starks' dropped their flood insurance in good faith that flooding would be prevented by the larger culvert. However, the upstream end of this culvert partially collapsed during the recent flood. Mr. Goddard said the starks' house is neither liveable nor easily saleable at this time. Therefore, Mr. Goddard felt the County has the responsibil: to protect the life, health and welfare of its citizens and requests that the Board exercise its authority by compensating the Starks for reconstruction of the house or purchase the house and property from the Starks at fair market value. (Copy of the petition is on file in the Clerk's office.) 2 3-8 June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Next to speak was Mr. Mark Osborne, Consulting Engineering, representing the Starks'. Mr. Osborne said he was retained by Mr. Starks in 1979 and again now. He has worked with Mr. Goodard in determining the causes of the problem and possible solutions to the problem. He has also discussed the situation with Mr, Elrod, who has adequately described the situation. Mr. Osborne said the amount of water that fell in the watershed upstream of the Starks is an uncertainty. There was a report of nine plus inches during a twenty-four hour period. Eight and one-half inches would have classified it as a one hundred year storm. In the nearby ObserVatory, four plus inches were recorded and that would have been just & little over a ten-year storm. Stormwater detention basins within the watershed, two of which he designed, were sufficently sized to capture the volume of a one hundred year storm; both overtopped but did not wash out. There were at least'twO piping failures. One was the closing of a newlY' installed ninety~x inch diameter pipe under Commonwealth Drive. A nonstandard end section was used on the pipe. The failure of that pipe may or may not have caused the failure of two other pipes on Four Seasons Drive. This diverted the mainstream of water along the southern side of Four Seasons Drive directly at the Starks house which sits exactly in front of the low spot in front of Four Seasons Drive. If there is any sort of pipe failure, debris clogging the'pipes, or storms in excess of their normal design, the stream of water will impact the Starks house. This watershed consists of about 250 acres and it is zoned for considerable development which is taking place now and will continue. Mr. Osborne felt it is reasonable to expect that the stormwater problem will become more aggravated. -Mr. Osborne said the Starks' house is impacted by storms earlier than other in the general region. The Starks' have a disaster area in their front yard because the house sits in this emergency spillway. Mr. Osborne concluded by stating that he felt the Board has broad ~authority and responsibility to protect its people. Therefore, he felt the only realistic solution to this situation is for the County to acquire the land and then vacate same so that no one else will-be caught in this situation. To design stormwater detention ponds for a one hundred year flood and to redesign the pipe would cost a lot more. Mr. Fisher said statements have been made that the Starks dropped their flood insurance when the culvert was enlarged because they were assured that there would not be any more flooding problems. He asked who made such a statement. Mr. Osborne did not know. Mr. Fisher said he questioned this because there are not any records showing that someone from the County government made that statement. Mrs. Cooke asked when the house was built. Someone in the audience said in 1976. Mrs. Cooke then asked what restrictions were enforceable at that particular time and which zoning ordinance was in effect at the time concerning the flood plain. She also questioned how this area was developed and if there was an ordinance in effect at the time the house was built. Mr. Osborne said the house could be built in this spot now because there is no Army Corp of Engineers study stating that the propertY is in a flood plain. Speaking next was Mr. John Lloyd, resident across the creek from the Starks. He noted that his basement also received water with the~recent storm. Mr. Lloyd said he hoped the Board would consider the very humane problem which exists with the Starks. Next to speak was Mr. Bill Cohn, residence of Bennington Woods. He said the problem with flooding in Bennington Woods did not exist until Georgetown Court was developed. The water flows from Georgetown Court down into Bennington Woods and a great amount of sheet erosion, occurs aven when there is a moderate rain. The force of this water has been strong enomgh in the past to flood the streets, wash out driveways, and damage a number of yards. A second concern is the creek which flows through the back yards of three or four houses. Ail the drainage from Bennington Woods, Gerogetown Court and some vacant undeveloped land, flows down into this creek. The net effect is that the creek which normally flows at a six inch depth becomes a major torrent after a rain. The banks of this creek have been severely eroded. There are a number of large trees on the edge of the creek that have been totally undercut and a couple of them will have to come down immediately. This is something that the neighborhood has been trying to get solved with the developer and the County, but with very little success. Mr. Cohn said the basin at Georgetown Court is ineffective but. the basin does trap some of the water that normally comes down through Benn~ngton Woods. The basin has helped some of the sheet erosion but the basin channels all of the water out so that it flows into the creek at one point and then the amount of water in the creek is probably five or six times what it would be if the basin were not there. As a result, there is a tremendous amount of erosion along the creek from the point of entry of drainage from this basin and while it may have cut down somewhat the amount of sheet erosion it has increased dramatically the amount of erosion in the creek. Next to speak was Mr. Phillip Xoren resident of Bennington Road. He presented some pictures of the damages resulting from the recent flooding in the Bennington Road area. He felt the basin in Georgetown Court allows too much water to bypass the impoundment and therefore adds erosion in the stream. As for the culverts along Bennington Road, he felt such are the responsibility of the Highway Department but are almost nonexistence and this adds to the sheet erosion which goes into the yards and the streams. Mr. Koren recapped the situation of the basin water rushing into the yards and noted that the stream is no more than a foot deep normally. He noted concern about further development in the area and felt something has to be done about the culverts and the impoundment needs to be more efficient. Mr. Fisher said there is no instant solution to these problems. He said statements have been made to indicate that the County is liable for some damages and he asked Mr. St. John for his comments. Mr. St. John said the word "liability" has to be define'd first and his understanding of the term is that it is a legal obligation to pay for past damages. By using that definition, there is no liability on the County for these situations. The County is immune from such. However, the Board is free, if it so desires, to be liable for the damages but he could not find any way around the constitutional prohibition against the County compensating private owners for damages. Mr. St. John said if the Board looks at the situation from the viewpoint of governmental responsibility, then the Board may want to examine ways to prevent this from happening in the future both through expenditure of funds or by recommending to the Highway Department the priorization of expenditures for the correction of certain road problems. Another approach is to amend the County ordinances in order that there are tighter controls over where buildings, houses, etc., are built. June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) In conclusion, Mr. St. John said the county does not incur the liability for damages and he felt the county is immune from liability in this case. He then referred to a "Burns" case which did require the County in question to pay for flood damages but he did not feel this case applied to this situation. Mr. Lindstrom felt that the questions he raised earlier needed to be addressed. He said that the County is sponsoring an intensification of development in the Urban Area. He suggested that the Engineering and Planning staffs work on a more intensive evaluation of the recent events and provide some opinions on how the County can improve its role in dealing with these types of problems. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that the detention basins required by the ~Stormwater Detention Ordinance are for restricting the rate of runoff and not the amount of runoff. He felt a great deal of evaluation needs to be done on the detention basins because such will be depended on greatly in developments. There is also a question about the pipe placed under Commonwealth Drive where the damage occured and he asked who designed the pipe and if there was a structural failure, why did it occur. Mr. St. John said a lot of the corrective actions which have been presented would have to take place on Highway Department property. The Highway Department is like the County, immune~from any kind of damage claim for areas like the Bennington Road area because the flooding was off of Highway Department property. Mrs. Cooke also requested, in addition to the suggestions of Mr. Lindstrom, an in depth history on the area as far as the Starks house is concerned. In particular, how the house was allowed in this location in the first place and if there were any studies done prior to the building of the house. Also, she requested information on what prompted the Starks to drop their flood insurance. Miss Nash felt the Engineering Department should have the responsibility of determining if a house could be built in a particular location and not depend on the Army Corp of Engineers studies. Mr. Fisher felt that should be included in what is examined, in particular whether or not mapping the smaller drainage basins for one hundred year flood levels or other flood levels is important. Another question that needs to be studied is how many other situations exist similar to the Starks. He then suggested that the staff make a report on what changes should be made in procedures or ordinances. After a short discussion, the date for receipt of the report was set for July 21, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. At 10:35 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:45 A.M. Agenda Item No. 4b. Public Hearing: Abandon portion of 01d Brook Road. in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2, 1982.) (Advertised Mr. St. John summarized the request to abandon a portion of 01d Brook Road in Fieldbrook Subdivision, in particular the extension of State Route 652 in a northerly direction. (The details of this request are set out in the minutes of April 14, 1982, and May 12, ~1982.) Mr. John Greene from the firm of W. S. Roudabush, Incorporated, was present and presented a new plat, dated December 8, 1981, drawn by W. S. Roudabush, Inc., Subdivision Plat of Phase One, Fieldbrook, a portion of Parcel 20, Tax Map 46, and a portionof Parcel 126, Tax Map 61, Charlottesville, District. (Copy of plat is on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board.) Mr. Greene said the request is to abandon that portion of 01d Brook R~d ~hieh~ha~ never been constructed. Mr. Fisher said the portion to be abandoned goes through Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 16. Mr. St. John suggested that the plat be used as an exhibit to the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Fisher then requested that Mr. St. John initial and date said plat. Mr. St. John did so. Mr. Fisher asked what method was used to notify the property owners on the road of this request. Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, said a notice describing the proposal was posted in three places on the right of way and also on the Albemarle County Courthouse door which is required by Virginia Code Section 33.1-157. The public hearing was then opened. With no one present to speak for or against the proposed abandonment, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-157, a portion of a dedicated public right-of-way which was to have been an extension of State Route 652 (Old Brook Road) shown on the attached plat of Fieldbrook in red and initialled by George R. St. John, County Attorney, is hereby abandoned effective June 9, 1982. June~9~ 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) \© &or i /6, 79<~s f' z o. 116.87' LOT I "' 9~996 s. f.. LOT ~3 11,6 LOT t7 ;6 PARCEL A I. 18 Ac. i / iD ATA ., Phoenix Investment Ltd. / ~ C/O Claude W. Cotten, Pres. PO. Box ?030 Charlottesville~ Va. 22906 REF. D.B. 700 p Portion Parcel 20 T:M.46 ~ Portion Parce112_6 T.M.61 10.49AC. RESIDUE: 76.4~-Ac. R-2 DENSITY: 2.0 D.U./AC. 21 ;PACE: ~.62 Ac. = 25.0 °/o SIZE: 9700 s.f. LOT SIZE: 14~000 s.f. Lots to be served by Public Wa~er.& Sewer f~-~er Subdivision without Planning Commission Approval. Denotes Iron Pin~ -~-~."_-_--_~- Den otes 15' Droinog e E s mt. 30°/oaf Open Space sholt bein 25% or 9rearer d roinoge structures. uthorized for Cluster Development rice of wooded areas 15% 3n system 50/0 hool 5 °/o increase used. 0 °/o ! LOT,t LANE /-Or $ 7e/s.,t** /.O/..6,' /NE 0 ~PEN -SPACE 2.62'AC; / / LOCA3"i. ON.~ MAP ' A CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE DEC. 8, 1981 SUBDIVISION PLAT OF PHASE ONE FIELDBROOK PORTION OF PARCEL 20 T,M. 46 A PORTION OF PARCEL 126T, bl.61 MAGISTERIAL BISTRICT C OU NTY~ VIRGINIA SCALE :1"= I00' "~LO T 9 ~ 10~9 77s. 1 -~' /..LOT !0 O0 June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 241 Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: Bennington Terrace Final Plat. (Plat drawn by W. S Roudabush, Inc., dated May 14, 1982, Subdivision Plat, Bennington Terrace, located off Georgetown Road, Charlottesville Magisterial District, showing 10 lots). Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present. He said a letter of appeal dated June 1, 1982, was received from J. Tom Gale on behalf of Harold Davis, appealing the decision of the Planning Commission on May 25, 1982, denying the Bennington Terrace Final Plat. Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Location: Parcel 32 on Tax Map 60A(1), Charlottesville District; located on the east side of Georgetown Road, north of Hessian Hills Subdivision. Acreage: 1.91 acres Zoning: R-4 Residential History: August 16, 1979-The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors denied ZMA-79-28, a request to rezone 41,065 square feet from R-1 to R-3. August 16, 1979-The Board of Supervisors denied S?-79-41, a request to locate a nursery school on a portion of the property. April 20, 1982-The Albemarle County Planning Commission deferred, at the request of the applicant, the Bennington Terrace Final Plat, until further review of the plat. Proposal: To divide 1.91 acres-into 10 lots with an average size of 6,31'9 square feet. Reason for Planning Commission Review: This property is located in the urban area. Topography of Area: Relatively flat. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Rt. 656 currently carries 7,-003 vehicle trips per day and is considered by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to be nontolerable. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: High density residential with a recommended density of 1t to 34 units per acre. School Impact: Total projected enrollment of 4.6 students with a slig.ht impact. Type Utilities: Public water is available from a 12" line on the opposite side of Georgetown Road. Public sewer is available through a line in Bennington Road. Staff Comment: The Virginia Department of Highwa.ys and Transportation has commented that the entrance design shown on the revised plan appears to have adequate sight distance for a commercial entrance. Road plans, however, need to be developed for the road and should be developed according to the urban design standard. The Highway Department recommends that the Planning Commission require the widening of Georgetown Road along the front of the property to tie in with the previously made improvements to the northeast. An urban design should be required placing the curb line twenty-five feet from the centerline~of Georgetown Road. The County, however, has not required this improvement on previous developments and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has noted that this could create a problem for the developer. The County Engineer has reviewed the parking design and has noted that the 'Y' shaped parking spaces could cause turn-in problems on the cul-de-sac and maintenance problems. The County Engineer has granted preliminary approval for the road plans and pavement specifications. The Fire Official has reviewed the hydrant location for this proposal and has found it satisfactory. The Fire Official has recommended that the Planning Commission require 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch (residual) fire flow. Bonus Factors: This property totals 1.91 acres and is zoned R-4 for a gross density of four dwelling units per acre. The applicant is applying for several bonmm~ factors under Article 15.4 of the Zoning Ordinance to obtain a total of 10 dwelling units or a gross density of 5.2 dwellings per acre. The bonus factors requested by the applicant are noted on the final plat for the Planning Commission's consideration. They are as follows: l) 2) Five percent density increase - the property is located within 1/2 mile of a school (15.4.1). Twenty-five percent density increase for significant landscaping - the applicant has submitted a landscape plan. The Staff has determined that the plan does provide for significant landscaping (15.4.2). Dedication of land for public use - the applicant has proposed dedicating approximately 635 square feet along Georgetown Road for future improvements. This dedication would allow, if granted, .117 dwelling units an acre increase in density (15.4.3)." Mr. Fisher asked if the reduction mentioned above is the standard twenty-five foot dedication or something greater. Mr. Tucker said the dedication is in addition to the twenty-five feet required from the centerline. Mr. Fisher asked if that was requested by the Highway Department. Mr. Tucker said yes. June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Tucker then continued with the staff report: "The intent of bonus factors is to encourage development which reflects the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission must take action to grant or not grant the requested bonus factors. Stormwater and Drainage Plan: At the site review meeting in March, the County Engineer commented that drainage problems have occurred in the Bennington area. As part of the revision process, the applicant was requested to submit drainage and stormwater detention plans and calculations to the County Engineering Department for review prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant did submit the requested drainage layout and storm- water detention plans and received preliminary approval of these plans on April 6. The County Engineer has determined that the rate of discharge from the Bennington Terrace site should not, according to the plans submitted by the applicant, be greater than the rate of discharge before development. According to Article 32.5.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, provisions shall be made for the disposition of surface runoff from the site, including such on-site and off-site drainage facilities as the Commission, upon the recommendation of the County Engineer, may deem adequate. There are other methods besides detention ponds to control stormwater runoff. For example, underground storage facilities may be located on the site and will trap rainfall and release it at a slow rate into a stream. These boxes function in the same manner as ponds but are usually more expensive. There are also other alternatives to control flooding in the area. For example, the concrete channelization or rip-rapping a section of the stream." Mr. Tucker said he has recently learned that the County Engineer and the engineer for the applicant have reviewed the question of a stormwater detention basin on this site. To his understanding, the County Engineer has basically determined that the money could be better used to rip-rap the stream in Bennington than for this basin. The County Engineer feels that more good could be obtained from rip-rapping than from a detention pond. Mr. Fisher asked if this plat is the one reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Tucker then continued with the staff report: "The Planning Staff would recommend that no matter what control method is used that the Planning Commission require individual grading plans for each lot within the proposed subdivision. With approved grading plans for each lot, the correct grading of the site for drainage and stormwater management can be more closely monitored during development of the site. The approved stormwater detention plans must also be strictly implemented to protect adjacent property owners. Mr. Tucker said the plat will meet the requirements of Section 18 of the Code (Subdivisior Ordinance). However, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 25, 1982, denied the Bennington Terrace Final Plat stating that the landscaping provided on the landscape plan was not sufficiently significant~ to justify the granting of bonus factors. Mr. Tucker said that without granting the twenty-five percent density increase for significant landscapin~ the plat could not be considered as the density shown on the plat did not meet the density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker noted that most of the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting was about the stormwater drainage facilities rather than the landscaping. Mr. Lindstrom asked the purpose of the additional land dedication along the front of the property. Mr. Tucker said the Highway Department has attempted to gain some additional right-of-w~ay as development occurs for full frontage deceleration lanes along this portion of Georgetown Road. Although final road plans for the widening of Georgetown Road have not actually been adopted. Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and said the curb line that the Highway Department has recommended, and the one he understands the builder has agreed to build along Georgetown Road, is twenty-six feet from the centerline of the road and basically that provides two lanes. The additional right-of-way will place all the roadway maintenance problems within the right-of-way for the Highway Department to maintain in the future. Mr. Bryon Coburn, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, was present and said the right-of-way will allow placement of the curb and gutter within the twenty- six feet. The necessary drop inlets and drainage structures will also allow sidewalk space if it is to be constructed in the normal one foot behind that space. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there are any other locations along Georgetown Road which have this space. Mr. Coburn said the Highway Department has recommended this in other locations for other developments to the north. Mr. Coburn said some approved developments have fixed some of the improvements, which have been constructed, and some improvements are in the permit process for construction. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department has always required that whatever the Department will maintain, whether it is the ditchline, or curb and gutter as in this case, that the right-of-way be dedicated. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this statement meant that the developer is not really dedicating anything more than the normal requirement for curb and gutter. Mr. Roosevelt said the developer is dedicating a little more for the sidewalk area. However, if the developer did not dedicate that land, he would still have to dedicate enough for the Highway Department to maintain the curb and gutter and drainage facilities. Mr. Lindstrom said the gist of his question is if the curb and gutter was volunteered on the part of the developer or if the County has the ability to require that improvement. Mr. Tucker said the Highway Department has the authority in the urban area to require curb and gutter on all streets. Twenty-five feet from the centerline is all that the County can require under to the County Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department cannot require the dedication of the right-of-way but the Highway Department will not maintain anything that is not within the Department's right-of-way. He restated that the Highway Department has recommended and the developer has agreed to build the curb and gutter. By building the curb and gutter, the right-of-way necessary to maintain that curb and gutter and the potential sidewalk requires thirty-two feet. Neither the Highway Department or the County can require the developer to dedicate any more than thirty-two feet. June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) ~!j~ Mrs. Cooke said the developer is requesting 5.2 dwelling units per acre and it is zoned for four dwelling units per acre. She questioned what effect that would have on runoff and water control such as the flooding problems just discussed. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Elrod needs to answer that question but even if additional density is granted all the other provisions in the Zoning Ordinance have to be met. Mr. Elrod said what is being talked about is the impervious area and the road will be sixty percent of what is an increase in impervious area. Going from eight to ten units is a ten percent increase from the roof areas. The sidewalks probably add another forty percent. In terms of runoff, the total discharge from the natural or existing area is about eight cubic feet per second and the increased density will be about one cubic foot per second. Therefore, the increase in runoff is not that substantial. Speaking next was Mr. John Dezio, attorney for the applicant, Mr. Harold Davis of the HDA Corporation. Mr. Dezio said based on the recommendation in the County's Comprehensive Plan for this area, the zoning and bonus factors allowed, this is an ideal property for this kind of development. The two areas of concern about the proposal appear to be the landscaping and the drainage. As far as landscaping is concerned, the applicant will do whatever is reasonably necessary to satisfy the staff. As for the drainage problems, one plan was proposed and as he understands another plan has been developed with the assistance of the County Engineer in order that the runoff after construction will not be significantly increased. Mr. Dezio said Mr. Tom Gale, surveyor with the firm of W. S. Roudabush, Inc., has developed a plan that is acceptable to the County Engineering staff and basically Mr. Davis has made every effort to meet every requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr.. Tom Gale was present and discussed the parking and landscaping plan for Bennington Terrace; said landscaping plan dated May 20, 1982. Mr. Gale said he has worked with the planning staff to develop an acceptable plan and is willing to make any necessary revisions to get it to be a "significant" plan. Mr. Mike Davis from the firm of W. S. Roudabush, Inc. spoke next and explained the plan showing the overall drainage of this basin to the stream in question which is eroding. The area above Mr. Davis' property drains to the subject property and also drains across the people to the southwest. Part of the drainage plan is to pick up and channel everything coming to this site to the detention pond area. Mr. Davis said that when this is done it will improve the surface runoff problems to the adjacent property owners. He did not know if those property ow~r~ have a great deal of erosion problems at this time, but did know that there is a great deal of sheet erosion across their properties. By providing the detention pond and drainage system, the problems should be eliminated and all the surface runoff currently flowing across the site could be collected and detained in the pond. The detention pond for Bennington Terrace has been designed to collect and detain water in accordance with the current County Runoff Control Ordinance for a ten-year storm and the Soil Erosion Manual requirements for detaining runoff for the two year storm. The runoff will go out of the pipe system from the pond and discharge into the stream in the Bennington area. Ail of the runoff currently goes into the pipe but is in a sheet flow rather than a concentrated form. The rate of runoff has been limited to the existing rate of runoff after development. Therefore, the runoff from the additional two units in the bonus factor has also been detained so there is no increase in terms of runoff rate. However, this does not address the problem of erosion in the channel. The portion of this site to the overall watershed is quite small. From discussions with Mr. Elrod, it appears that the erosion would still exist even without this plan. Mr. Davis did not feel that this site contributes a significant amount to the problem. Mr. Davis said in his opinion providing detention on this site really has no impact. Even if the entire site were made into a 6etention pond, it would not be significant enough to correct the erosion problem in the stream due to the small amount of the watershed that drains through the property. Therefore, he and the County Engineer are discussing the elimination of the detention pond. Piping the water would be a cost savings, construction wise, of approximately $1,000. The applicant said he is willing to contribute a total of $4,000 to the improvement of the downstream channel and hopefully have the runoff piped to that point. In discussing this with Mr. Elrod, Mr. Davis felt it would take from $5,000 to $7,000 to do an adequate job of improving the channel at this point. Mr. Fisher said what is being proposed now is a modification of the plan reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Davis said yes. Mr. Fisher said the question that comes to his mind immediately is the procedure to be followed if there is going to be a change. He felt the Planning Commission should review any amended site plan rather than the Board taking action on something the Planning Commission has not seen. Mr. Phillip Koren, a downstream property owner, was present and agreed with the concerns of Mr. Fisher. He said the property owners in the Bennington Road area request that the Board uphold the Planning Commission's denial based on lack of significant landscapin Mr. Koren stated his feeling that the definition of "significant" landscaping means something better than that presently existing. He felt that the true problem of drainage is being disguised in this situation, and that the landscaping is a trade-off rather than an improvemen He said there are thirty or more pines between existing development and this proposed development. Mr. Koren said cutting down mature trees and replacing them with one-inch seedlings does not seem to be a significant improvement to the property and would only add to the erosion problems. As for statements'that the plats meet the County Comprehensive Plan, he felt the Plan must have some flaws in it since drainage from existing development has already increased the erosion problems in the area. Mr. Koren also disagreed that just because ordinance requirements have been met, that bonus factors should be allowed. Mr. Xoren noted that the rate of runoff is not the same thing as the manner in which the runoff reaches the stream. Currently the runoff reaches the stream at a number of different locations. With a settling pond and a twenty-five inch pipe, the rate of runoff would probably be the same, but it would travel there more efficiently and would not create a more serious problem with erosion on the downstream neighbors. Mr. Koren concluded by stating that he did not feel the landscaping proposed is significant and requested that the plat be returned to the Planning Commission for consideration of the serious problems with erosion and drainage. 244 June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Speaking next was Mr. Dave O'Brien, resident of Bennington Road and adjacent property owner. He expressed concern that the subject property was changed to R~4~Hg~h~n~the Zoning Ordinance was revised and he thought it was still R-2. He said Mr. Davis can put seven houses on his property, but he understands that with the bonus factors there can be ten units. He also questioned what "significant landscaping" means. Mr. O'Brien said Mr. Davis has proposed an impoundment right beside his property line and there is no landscaping on that part of the property. Mr. 0'Brien said another problem is the drainage because when the rains are heavy, a natural culvert flows between the two properties around the back of the house next to him and into the stream which goes into Bennington Road. He was concerned about what will happen if the property is developed. As he understands the proposal, a ditch is to be built on the property and he was not sure Which side of the landscaping the ditch will be on. He also questioned if the ditch would be big enough to take the heavy flow of water which flows over the road. Mr. 0'Brien also suggested that m~ney be placed in escrow to take care of any drainage problems once the builder has finished the deveip~m~t. He questioned who would take care of the impoundment when the building is complete. In conclusion, Mr. O'Brien asked for consideration of the density, landscaping and the drainage. M~. Sammy Economos, resident of Georgetown Road, spoke next. He said when he bought his property thirteen years ago, it was zoned R-1 and he and his neighbors built the sewer line which was later donated to the County. He was concerned that the developer will now get the benefit of the line. Mr. Economos did not feel any bonus factors should be given to the developer and if the Board so approves, he would like the same bonuses in the future. Mr. James Kennon, resident of Bennington Road, spoke next. Mr. Kennon said his property is approximately fifty to seventy-five feet south of the pond and there is a visual degree of contact daily. He noted that there is some depth to the pool (basin) area and he is concerned about children because there has been no proposal to fence the area. Mr. Kennon said a similar impoundment area has been built north of this proposal and it is a health hazard. He also felt the words significant landscaping are open to wide and personal interpretations. He was also concerned about the zoning being changed to R-4 for this property. Mr. Kennon felt there is reason for concern about placing a buffer zone around this property visually as well as from the erosion standpoint. He then asked that the Board recall several years ago when there was significant flooding in this area and Mr. Economos had some contractors put in a storm drain. However, several of the houses in the area were condemned anyway. In conclusion, Mr. Kennon said the Board needs to consider a great deal more than what is shown on the plat. With no one else present to speak for or against the appeal, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke felt the Planning Commission had denied the plat rightfully. She felt the Boar~ needed to examine the flooding problems in this area and until such time as there is more history and background as well as a study of the drainage problems and runoff, she would support the recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission. Mi~s Nash agreed with the comments of Mrs. Cooke. Mrs. Fisher questioned the comment about some significant tree cover being removed. Mr. Tucker said the area is heavily wooded and much of the area is in field pines. Not many of the field pines can be saved, but the hardwood trees should be saved, however the plan does not indicate that they will be saved. Mr. Fisher felt the main question now is procedure since the appeal noted was based on th~ recommendation of denial by the Planning Commission. He also felt there should be a preliminary design for a structure to solve some of the drainage problems. Mr. Fisher said he will support the recommendation of the Planning Commission. He did not feel putting smaller trees on the property would be that much of a significant landscaping improvement. Howe~er, he did feel the Planning Commission should consider the drainage problem without the applicant being required to submit an entire new plan. He felt that if the County Attorney concurs, the Board should concur in the Planning Commission recommendation for denial and request that the Planning Commission reconsider the question of a drainage structure with a different design on the assumption that this can be done with a lesser density. Mr. St. John said the subdivision is denied at this time but there are certain things the developer can do by right. Mr. Fisher asked if it would confuse the matter more if the applicant went back to the Planning Commission as suggested. Mr. Tucker said that was the option of the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom said the only problem he has with the suggestion of Mr. Fisher is that the additional density is insignificant in terms of what can occur on the property by right. Even though he agrees that the proposed landscaping does not seem to be effective, he fe~ls it could provide a meaningful buffer between this property zoned R-4 and the adjacent properties zoned R~2. Mr. Lindstrom also noted that he did not feel one unit more or less on this property made that much difference. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny Bennington Terrace Final Plat because the landscaping provided on the landscape plan is not sufficiently signficiant to justify the granting of bonus factors and to send the plat back to the Planning Commission for considerati~ of an amended drainage plan as. presented by the applicant this date. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded ~ote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. June 9, 1982 (Regular ~a~Z~Meeting) 24:5 Agenda Item No. 4c. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roosevelt said in looking at the Highway Department's adopted Six-Year Plan for. the interstate, primary and urban system, he found that in the next six years there are no funds for the City section of the McIntire Road Extension project. The six-year plan developed for Albemarle County allocates about thirty-eight percent of the funds available for the Secondary System to the McIntire Road (Meadow Creek Parkway) project. Mr. Roosevelt said he just wanted to alert the Board that if 2.2 million dollars is allocated in the next six years to the McIntire Extension, the County section can be constructed but the construction will only get ~to Melbourne Road and there would not be a City road to take the traffic from that point. Mr. Roosevelt said he needs Some guidance from the Board. Mr. Fisher said he understood that the McIntire Extension was the highest priority in the City's urban plan. Mr. Roosevelt said that was his understanding also. The other two projects, Hydraulic Road and the seventeen intersection improvements have moved through the ~reliminary process much more rapidly than the McIntire project. Mr. ~isher said he personally does not want to change the County's plan because the McIntire Extension is definitely needed. Mr. Butler said Rio Road is a big problem and he agreed with Mr. Fisher. He noted that many people complain about Rio Road and the McIntire Road project is the only solution. Mr. Fisher then noted a public hearing to be held in Richmond on June 17, 1982, on the allocation of interstate, primary and urban highway and mass transit funds for the 1982-83 fiscal year and on revisions of the Six-Year Plan for the Richmond, Fredericksburg, Culpeper and Suffolk Districts. He felt a statement should be made, either in writing or in person, that the County feels strongly that the McIntire Road Extension is one of the major projects for the entire community and the desire that funding be included for the City's portion. Mrs. Cooke concurred with the recommendation. Agenda Item No. 7. Report from Clean Community Commission. Mr. Roger Flint, Vice President of the Clean Community Commission, was present and summarized the creation of the Litter Control Act in 1977 by the General Assembly. Mr. Flint said according to the last survey done by the State there was a sixty-six percent reduction in litter in the locations surveyed. Mr. Flint said the original feelings of the Commission were that executive help was not necessary. However, it has now been determined that such is necessary and the Commission has contracted with the Chamber of Commerce for doing this work. He also noted that there is no deficit in financing. Ail the funds are used. Mr. Flint then noted some visible features of the Commission such as the recycling center on McIntire Road and anti-litter education in schools. The recycling center is open twenty~hours a day and there are two attendants who spend fourteen hours each week to make sure the center is clean. Speaking next was. Mr. David Rothwel!, Vice President of the Clean Community Commission who noted that the Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean Community Commission is noted across the state for its accomplishments. Mr. Fisher asked if any of the products collected are marketable. Mr. Flint said paper is and that depends on the economy. Mr. Fisher asked where the money goes when the products are sold. Mr. Flint said the funds are used to pay the employees and their wages were $7400 last year. He also noted that there is a lot of vandalism in this area. Mr. Fisher said the expenses are shown in the report, but he did not see any income listed. Mr. Flint said it is included and may be shown as surplus which is needed to carry the Commission to the end of the ~iscal year. Mr. Fisher felt the financial statement should show all the sources of i~ncome and all expenditures. Mr. Flint said another financial statement will be submitted. Mr. Fisher asked that Mr. Agnor review the financial statement to be sure that the County has the state funds it is responsible for in order that the entire expense and revenue package can be audited to assure that everything is in order. Agenda Item No. 8. Request from Alcohol Safety Action Program. Mr. Donald R. Henck, Director of the Alcohol Safety Action Program, was present. He said a resolution is being presented to the Board for approval of a Joint exercise of powers agreement relative to Albemarle County becoming a member of the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program. Mr. Henck then presented a history of the Albemarle ASAP Program. During the past four and one-half years, the Region X ASAP Program which covers Albemarle, Charlottesville, Greene, Louisa, Fluvanna and Nelson counties has been under the Region X Community Services Board. The program has also had an advisory committee comprised of a number of individuals. The program has evolved since its inception in 1974 clearly into a criminal justice program aligned with the courts and is no longer a social service or mental retardation program. Mr. Henck said a policy board will be responsible for administerin this program and he will be the executive director. He then noted the representatives on the Board of Director and requested that the Board appoint a person from a list he presented as an a6ditional representative on the James River Program. Mr. Fisher asked why Region X Community Services Board was dropping ASAP. Mr. Henck said ASAP is not being dropped but rather going out on its own. Mr. Fisher wanted to know who asked for. this change. Mr. Henck said the program directors asked for same and the reason was to simply increase the proper identity of ASAP and to follow along the lines of the other ASAP programs in the state. Mr. Agnor said another reason is that the Region X Community Services Agency can be a contract agency providing services to the program. Mr. Agnor said a distinction is needed to clarify the ASAP Program and get it away from the Region X Community Services Board. 246 June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher said he will not support another regional board or commission because there are too many currently in operation. Mr. Agnor said he has discussed this proposal with Chief Deke Bowen and he feels that this is not a creation of another agency but rather changing the responsibilities from advisory to policy making. He also noted that other localities in the State have established agencies such as this. Mr. Agnor also noted that the target date for this change is July 1, 1982. Mr. Henck noted that an audit is being done by the Virginia Department of Transportation and Safety auditors as well as the firm of Robinson, Farmer and Cox in order to clarify and assure all parties involved gets its fair share. Miss Nash said the Region X Board handles a variety of functions and asked if the Region X Board was more qualified to be the policy making group or the proposed group. Mr. Agnor said Sheriff Bailey feels that due to the group being comprised of judges and law enforcement officers this program could be more appropriately managed with persons involved with criminal justice. Mr. Butler asked if it were possible for the Criminal Justice Advisory Council to handle this program. Mr. Agnor said that is only an advisory group and the Alcoholic Safety Action Program Board desires to be more involved on the management and operation of the program. Mr. Deke Bowen was present and said the judges do not want the full responsibili of running the program. Mr. Fisher asked if the State requires the locality to make the decision as to who is to operate the program. Mr. Henck said the Alcohol Safety Action Program is a local program and the management of such is local. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to adopt the following resolution relative to Albemarle County becoming a mem~ of the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program with same being effective July 1, 1982. Mr. Butler seconded the motion. Miss Nash felt with all the emphasis being placed on alcohol safety, that there should be a separate program. Mr. Fisher said he would support the motion but that this is absolutely the last time that he will support setting up a new board or commission. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby agree to become, on July 1, 1982, a participating locality in the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program which is being established for the purpose of providing public information, probation, education, prevention and rehabilitation services for persons charged under laws pertaining to operating motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Fisher said the next question is the appointment of someone to the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to appoint Mr. Steve Helvin as the County's representative on the James River Alcohol Safety Action Board for three years beginning July 1, 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 9. At 12:55 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Mr. Fisher requested that the executive session also include matters relating to the sale or acquisition of property. Mr. Lindstrom amended his motion to that effect. Mr. Butler accepted the amendment. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:21 P.M. and continued with the agenda. Agenda Item No. 10. Preliminary, design of former County Office Building and Courthouse Mr. Floyd Johnson from the firm of Johnson, Craven and Gibson was present to explain the preliminary design of the former County Office Building and Courthouse. Mr. Johnson said his firm has touched base with the court-oriented functions scheduled to occupy the~ two structures and has met with the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review and approval has been received. The Historical Landmarks Commission has also been contacted ang given approval. The former County Office Building is not up to Code standards because it has only one stairway. Meetings were held with the area fire prevention authorities and City and County building authorities. The feeling is that with the additional exits proposed and since the building would continue to be an office building, the plans were accepted. HoweVer, a sprinkler system is recommended due to the problem of getting down from the top floor of the former County Office Building. Also, the present elevator has to be brought up to handicap standards. Mr. Fisher asked if the approval of the architectural review boar~ is on preliminary design drawings only. Mr. Johnson said yes. Miss Nash asked if there would be any changes in the Courthouse. Mr. Johnson said the only thing being done in the Courthouse is to take out a toilet in the jury room. Mr. Fisher asked if a sprinkler system will be put in or if there will be anything for fire suppression. Mr. Johnson said there will be a dry chemical system in the record room-of the Clerk's office. The main courtroom will remain the same. An elevator is not needed in the Courthouse because there are three courtrooms which allows flexibility ~f there is a handicap problem. Mr. Fisher asked if any other County staff persons had reviewed the plans. Mr. Agnor said he and Mr William Sullivan have reviewed the plans. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Agnor for his recommendation. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that the'Board authorize the preliminary design work and that he be authorized to negotiate for an architectural agreement and present same in a written format with same being returned to the Board for approval. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to authorize the County Executive to negotiate an architectural agreement with the firm of Johnson, Craven and Gibson for the former County Office Building and Courthouse. MiSs'Nash seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following reco~vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 10A. Request to connect to water line on Old Ballard Road. Mr. Fisher said this was on the April 14, 1982 agenda and a motion was approved to not advertise a public hearing to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include this property. However, a request has been made for the persons involved to present their case to the Board again. Mr. Jeffrey Frank, representing William D. Rieley, Associates, the landscape architectural firm involved in the project known as Solar Z was present. As he understands, a concern of the Board was the six-inch waterline requested to service the duplexes and the Board was afraid the developer desired to plan future development on this one hundred and fifty acre site. The waterline desired to tap into is out of the jurisdictional area but does cross· the owners property. The only reason the waterline was requested was because the County Fire Official, Mr. Ira Cortez recommended a fire hydrant be installed. Such was not mandatory but the owner of the property felt it beneficial to the adjoining properties to have a fire hydrant to tap onto in case of an emergency. The owner would be happy to reduce the size- of the waterline because the owner does not have any desire to develop any more units on the parcel. One hundred and twenty or so acres of the parcel is in agricultural use and that will be kept. By right, the owner cannot by Zoning Ordinance requirements, build more than one unit on the entire property unless the Planning Commission approves a special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom said he requested that this be placed on the agenda because he felt the owner should be allowed to present his case. He supported the motion on April 14, 1982 because he felt a policy had been established that property which is crossed by a waterline or fronted by a waterline may tap on for an existing dwelling but a dwelling does not exist in this situation. Therefore, if the policy is violated for this request, the Board could not deny other similar requests. Mr. Lindstrom said that was his concern before and still is. Mr. Fisher said another problem is that development in the watershed area is being discouraged. This property is in a very serious part of the watershed and if connections are permitted for this development other persons could not then be denied access to water anywhere near that line. Therefore, it is not just this request or whether the applicant intends further development but rather equal treatment for all property owners in a similar situation. Mr. Frank said the only exception he saw is that the waterline crosses the property to serve a subdivision across the road from this property and the fact that is already on the property and there are forty units to be served. Miss Nash then asked if the owner of the subject property had been given any promise that water would be available if the waterline ever went along her property. Mr. Fisher said he was not aware of any statement made to that effect. Mr. Frank said the owner did not reserve the right to tap onto the line. However, she is willing to give a written statement that she will not develop any further units on this particular property. No motion was offered to rescind the motion of April 14, 1982, which was not to schedule a public hearing to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area for this property to connect to the waterline. Therefore, the ~ stands. Agenda Item No. 10B. Phase II of County Office Building. Mr. Bryan Sample, architect with the firm of Stainback and Scribner, was present. He presented the drawings for the Phase II renovations to the County Office Building on McIntire Road. He said that the lower, existing gym floor will be subdivided into space for the Social Services Department, the Media Center, VPI-SU Extension Service and the Sheriff's Department. The new second floor will be for the Planning Department and Parks and Recreation along with various spaces for the Federal agencies such as the USDA-Soil Conservation Service and the Farmer's Home Administration. Mr. Sample also showed a new parking layout. Problems with parking already exist with the upper level lot so there will be lower level parking areas for the public. When McIntire Road is widened, there will be a new road aligD~ent which will cause an eight or nine foot retaining wall to be built, in order to contain parking on the upper level. The main entrance on McIntire Road will be lost. The difference in elevations at this point will be about two normal floor heights. Mr. Sample said it will be possible in the future to add a two level parking structure. This would provide an additional 125 parking spaces. The only entrance to the building will now be from Preston Avenue. Although a lot of different designs were drawn, this was selected as being the most efficient. Mr. Sample said he has been asked to arrange for removal of the existing grandstand. This will be bid as a separate project and then a decision will be made as to whether or not to actually remove it. He noted that the grandstand has badly deteriorated but under modern rubbish methods of removal, he did not feel it is a big job. He noted that the idea is to keep the football field as it is. Mr. Sample said new toliets and elevators will be built in the remodeled portion of the building and new elevators will be installed. Each of the departments in the building will have its own entrance. Miss Nash asked if there will be any special parking for the Sheriff. Mr. Sample said no, the 296 spaces that will be located on the lower level will meet the existing count of departmenta vehicles and employees driving their own cars. Mr. Agnor noted that on the back side of the property near the railroad, which is currently being used for parking county vehicles, will be for the public and the County vehicles will be moved to the lower lot. ' 48 June ~,~ 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked what action is necessary today. Mr. Agnor said the Board needs to authorize Stainback and Scribner to advertise and receive bids and bring same back to the Board for recommendation of an award. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Sample has completed the final design and made a cost estimate of the project. The price is within the amount shown in the Capital Improvement Program. Motion to authorize the advertisement of bids for the Phase II renovations of the County Office Building on McIntire Road with the bids being returned to the Board for award, was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Capital Improvements Program for 1982-87. Mr. Agnor summarized the process for putting together a Capital Improw~m~n~s~r~gram. He said the estimated total financial resources for the 1982-1987 program are 17.747 million dollars. For the first time this year, there is a balance in the Capital Improvements Fund and the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund. Mr. Agnor .said the Director of Finance will soon recommend erradicating a number of completed projects from the Capital Improvements Program ~i~h~a~pp~apriated funds which were not spent, being transferred to the unallocated balance of the Capital Improvements Fund. In addition to funds remaining from completed projects, interest has been earned on invested funds in the Capital Improvements Fund and that interest has been accumulated in the fund balance. Those funds can be allocated to projects. Mr. Agnor then summarized the projects in the Capital Improvement Program and noted that the County's share of the total of $34,141,000 is $21,136,000. Previous funding for these projects is only $1,453,000, with the requested funding for the five year period being $18,749,000. During the next five year period of the Capital Improvements Program there is a shortfall of one million dollars Between resources and requests. He noted that this shortfall will depend on whether the appropriation from the General Fund is kept at one million dollars per year. Mr. Agnor then noted a memorandum dated May 10, 1982, from Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, in which he indicated the desire of the Planning Commission to start the Capital Improvements Program process earlier next year in order to study further the Capital Improvements Program in relation to the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Agnor said some thirty projects have been listed in priority order and are recommended for 1982-83 funding. Mr. Agnor said the projects are listed in this order because if financing is not available, some projects may need to be deferred or even deleted. Mr. Agnor said that one item which needs to be considered by the Board is the fire hydrant and waterline program. This Board, in earlier years, considered allocation of general fund monies for fire hydrants, but deferred allocation of funds for waterlines. Discussions have been held with the Albemarle County Service Authority Board about their responsibility as a utility agency to fund the needed waterlines. Mr. Agnor said that to this point general fund monies have only been allocated for fire hydrants. Mr. Agnor also noted a request to the Board several months ago from the Jefferson Country Firemen's Associati¢ to examine how capital needs of the various volunteer fire departments are handled. The Association has come up with a program entitled "Volunteer Fire Department Advance Allocation". The Association has developed a program which calls for creation of a revolving fund on an annual basis of $200,000 for either building or equipment needs. The Association would review and approve the projects and make their recommendation to the Board. Their payment under this program from the volunteer fire departments would be on a seven year cycle. The Association prefers this type of funding because in the private ~market they are paying tremendous amounts in interest and this revolving fund would be set up to just pay back the principal amount. The Association feels that in five years the fund can become self- sustaining and in seven years the fund would require slightly less than one-half million dollars to sustain itself. Mr. Agnor felt the Association had done what was requested by the Board earlier and he then distributed a letter from the Association's financial committee. Mr. Fisher asked if funding for the Crozet Interceptor is included in this Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Agnor said it is being shown as being funded from sources other than County sources. Mr. Fisher then suggested that instead of having another work session, that a public hearing be scheduled for early in July with further work sessions being scheduled for after that time. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to advertise for a public hearing at 7:30 P.M. on July 7, 1982, the Five Year Capital Improvements Program for 1982-87. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 16. County Fair. Adopt resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance re: Mr. Fisher said the organizers for the County Fair have informed him that they would like to open the fair on September 1. A problem has been encountered in locating ~ piece of property adequate to have the fair, however, a lease has now been signed, but the property is in the Light Industrial District. According to the Zoning Administrator, the LI district does not permit activities of this type even by special use permit. Therefore, he has asked the County Attorney and County Planner to draft an amendment which would cover June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 249' temporary events sponsored by nonprofit organizations such events being allowed only by special use permit in the LI district. Mr. Fisher said this can be adopted as a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance and this will set in motion the process for amendment and then the organization can apply for a special use permit to be heard at the same hearing. Mr. Tucker said since the fair is to open on September 1, he would suggest that if this resolution is adopted that the staff be directed to start the process immedidately. Mr. Fisher said a large number of people have been trying to get this fair organized and he di'd not feel the County should hold up the matter. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution of intent. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, intends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for certain temporary events and to regulate the same; and FURTHER REQUESTS the Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said proposals to amend the County Zoning Ordinance and report back to this Board at the earliest possible date. Agenda Item No. 6. Property Exchange with City. Mr. St. John said this is a request from the City to purchase a parcel of land adjacent to Burley Middle School and Washington Park. The property is owned by the County School Board and a deed has not been drawn yet because the School Board has to pass a resolution of abandonment and the property would at that time revert to the County. No action is required at this time. Agenda Item No. 11. Set Tax Levy for 1982. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution. the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Mrs. Cooke seconded AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby lay the County levy for the taxable year 1982 for General County Purposes at Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of real estate; at Five Dollars ($5.00) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at Five Dollars ($5.00) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools; at Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value on mobile homes; at Four Dollars and Eighty Cents ($4.80) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service on unequalized assessments; and at Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public Service on equalized assessments; and FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission an~ certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and all vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except merchant's capital, farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as set forth in the Code of ¥irginia, Section 58-829 and Section 58-829.1. June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 12. Annual Appropriation Ordinance. Mr. Agnor said the Annual Appropriation Ordinance sets out the responsibilities and regulations regarding the use of County funds. It is adopted in lieu of adopting the budget; required by State Code Section 15.1-162. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following Appropriation Ordinance for Fiscal Year 1982-83. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. June 9, 1982 (Regular Daz Meeting~ ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1983 An ordinance making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1983; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: SECTION I That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro- priated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1983: Paragraph One For the current expenses of COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT OF TAXES AND OTHER REFUNDS the sum of one million eight hundred sixty-one thousand three hundred ten dollars and no cents ($1,861,310) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Refunds $ 1,861,310 Paragraph Two For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT the sum of two million nine hundred ninety-four thousand three hundred eighty dollars and no cents ($2,994,380) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Board of Supervisors $ 181,774 2. County Executive 97,409 3. Personnel 82,697 4. Legal Services 118,867 5. Data Processing 279,324 6. Finance 910,449 7. Engineering 174,704 8. Planning 257,917 9. Ivy Landfill 276,542 10. Keene Landfill 65,675 11. Elections 59,275 12. Staff Services 411,385 13. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 17,822 14. Bicentennial Center 12,450 15. Soil and Water Conservation 8,399 16. Watershed Management 24,046 17. Tourism Bureau 15,645 Paragraph Three For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN DEVELOPMENT the sum of three million seventy-seven thousand eight hundred ninety dollars and no cents ($3,077,890) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Parks & Recreation $ 416,563 2. Redevelopment and Housing 54,601 3. Virginia Public Assistance 923,239 4. Public Assistance: Payments 565,854 5. Health Department 309,326 6. Mental Health 87,175 7. Regional Library 416,000 8. Piedmont Virginia Community College 4,830 9. Extension Service 66,729 10. District Home 9,500 11. Offender Aid & Restoration 15,972 12. Madison House 4,000 13. Community Action Agency 15,683 14. Jefferson Area Board on Aging 4,726 15. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program 125,014 16. Jefferson Area United Transportation 12~,938 17. Youth Service Center 6,242 18. Shelter for Help in Emergency 18,055 19. Charlottesville/Albemarle Legal Aid Society 3,200 20. Route 29 North Bus Service 18,243 252 June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Paragraph Four For the current expenses of the function of PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE the sum of two million eight hundred thirteen thousand three hundred eighty- eight dollars and no cents ($2,813,388) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Clerk, Circuit Court $ '185,706 2. Circuit Court 15,648 3. General District Court 9,370 4. Commonwealth's Attorney 153,291 5. Juvenile Court 23,946 6. Sheriff 1,232,052 7. Fire Department 292,885 8. Forest Fire Extinction Service-State 3,019 9. Volunteer Fire Departments 191,890 10. Code Enforcement 352,967 11. Animal Control 44,638 12. Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad 6,875 13. Zoning 150,987 14. Emergency Services 5,918 15. Regional Jail 70,405 16. Juvenile Detention Home 24,055 17. Magistrate's Office 2,010 18. Scottsville Rescue Squad 13,750 19. Emergency Medical Services Council 6,626 20. Western Albemarle Rescue Squad 13,750 21. Community Attention Home 10,000 22. SPCA Shelter Contract 3,600 Paragraph Five For the current expenses of the function of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum of one million one hundred eighty-seven thousand seven hundred sixty-nine dollars and no cents ($1,187,769) is appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to: 1. Capital Outlay Fund $ 1,187,769 Paragraph Six For the current expense of the Annual Payment to the City of Charlottesville pursuant to the Revenue Sharing Agreement between the City and the County dated February 17, 1982, payable in January, 1983 in the amount of one million two hundred ninety-three thousand five hundred fifty- two dollars and no cents ($1,293,552) is appropriated from the General Fund as follows: 1. Revenue Sharing Payment to City of Charlottesville $ 1,293,552 SUMMARY TOTAL GENERAL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30,' 1983 $13,228,289 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Miscellaneous Revenue Total GENERAL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983 $10,255,049 2,715,585 10,905 246,750 $,13,228,289 SECTION II That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1983: Paragraph One For the cUrrent expenses of the SCHOOL FUND the sum of twenty-three million one hundred seventy-six thousand nine hundred twenty dollars and no cents ($23,176,920) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Administration $ 352,739 2. Instruction-Regular Day School 10,999,002 3. Other Instructional Costs 1,605,313 4. Attendance & Health Services 137,837 5. Attendance & Health Services Activities- Albemarle High School Attendance & Health Services (Activities- Western Albemarle High School) 147,960 7. Pupil Transportation 1,946,164 8. School Food Services 20,266 9. Operation-School Plant 1,718,654' 10. Maintenance-School Plant 505,028 11. Fixed Charges 4,643,975 12. Adult Education 52,950 13. Other Education Programs 757,164 14. Capital Outlay 129,150 160,718 June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 253 Paragraph Two For the current expenses of FEDERAL SCHOOL PROGRAMS the sum of nine hundred eighty-two thousand one hundred eighty-two dollars and no cents ($982,182) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Chapter I $ 439,442 2. ECIA - Chapter I - Migrant 53,012 3. ESEA Title IV-B (Libraries) 8,000 4. ESEA Title IV-C (ELII) 52,355 5. ESEA Title VII (SEECC) 8,300 6. Crime Awareness (TIPS) 29,689 7. Title IV-C (Adapter/Adopter) 11,500 8. Flow Through Special Education 311,002 9. Learning Disabled and Handicapped- University of Virginia 38,961 10. Special Education - In-service Grant 29,921 SUMMARY Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983 $24,159,102 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Trans. from Gen. Fd.) Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government *Federal Revenue Sharing (Transferred from Federal Revenue Sharing Fund) Miscellaneous Revenue Total SCHOOL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983 $12,499,414 9,739,237 982,182 760,669 177,600 $24~159,102 *Federal Revenue Sharing monies are earmarked for payment of energy usages of electricity and fuel in Education as set forth in Item 9, Paragraph One of this Section (Operation-School Plants). SECTION III That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1983: Paragraph One For the function of CAFETERIA OPERATIONS the sum of five hundred thousand dollars and no cents ($500,000) is appropriated from the Cafeteria Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias SUMMARY Total CAFETERIA FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983 To be provided as follows: Receipts from Cafeterias: Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983 Paragraph Two $ 500,000 $ 5'00,000 500,000 $ 500,000 For the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS the sum of one hundred thirty-five thousand dollars and no cents ($135,000) is appropriated from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Textbooks $ 135,000 SUMMARY $ 135,000 Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983 To be provided as follows: Receipts from Rental Fees Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983 Paragraph Three 135,000 135,000 For the function of the M¢INTIRE TRUST FUND the sum of five thousand dollars and no cents ($5,000) is appropriated from the McIntire Trust Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Payment to County Schools $ 5,000 June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) SUMMARY Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983 $ 5,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from investments per trust Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983 5,000 5'OOlOii Paragraph Four For the function of REGIONAL JAIL OPERATIONS the sum of one million sixty-five thousand five hundred thirty-seven dollars and no cents ($1,065,537) is appropriated from the Regional Jail Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Operation of Regional Jail $ 1,065,537 SUMMARY Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983 $ 1,065,537 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from Other Sources Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983 242,069 811,358 12,110 $ 1,065,537 SECTION IV That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1983: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the function of DEBT SERVICE the sum of two million sixty thousand sixty-seven dollars and no cents ($2,060,067) is appropriated from the Debt Service Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Debt-Security Complex $ 52,625 2. Debt-Schools 2,007,442 SUMMARY Total DEBT SERVICE FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983 :$i:i2:,:0:6:0:,:067 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Trans. from Gen. Fd.) Total DEBT SERVICE FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983 2,060,067 $ 2,060,067 Section I Section II' Section III Section IV Total appropriations mentioned in Sections I through V in-this Ordinance for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983: RECAPITULATION General Fund School Fund Self-Sustaining Funds Debt Service Fund GRAND TOTAL $13,228,289 24,159,102 1,705,537 2,060,067 $:4~1~,1~52,~995 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the director of finance is hereby authorized to transfer to other funds from the General Fund, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds from the General Fund for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance. June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 255 SECTION V All of the monies appropriated as shoWn by the contained items in Sections I through III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. Paragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro- priations made out of the General Fund, the School Operating Fund, the Cafeteria Fund, the McIntire Trust Fund, the Regional Jail Fund, the Textbook Rental Fund, and the Grant Project Fund are declared to be maximum, condi- tional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appro- priations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. Otherwise, the sai.d appropriations shall be deemed.to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amound of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors. Paragraph Two All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or make transfers between specific items of appropriation without the consent of the director of finance being first obtained. Paragraph Three Ail balances of appropriations payable out of the General Fund of the county treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June, 1983 except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the county treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal year, beinning July 1, 1983. However, nothing in this para- graph shall be construed to be applicable to the School Fund, School Construction Fund, Cafeteria Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust Fund Contributions to Volunteer Fire Departments, or Grant Project Fund, but any balance available in these funds shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of these funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1983. Paragraph Four No obligations for goods,' materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and membership fees and subscriptions shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual and the purchasing agent, who shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual. In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the 'county, and the director of finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations. Paragraph Five Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by any or all county departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates. 256 June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Paragraph Six Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the director of finance. Paragraph Seven Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Paragraph Eight This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and eighty-two. Agenda Item No. 14. Appropriations. The following memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Deputy Director of Finance, dated May 24, 1982 was then presented by Mr. Agnor: "SUBJECT: Grant Fund-Watershed Management I have been advised that the Watershed Management Project is near completion and in order to zero out this project on our accounting records several actions are required. Initially Phase I, which was for $20,000, was carried in the County's General Fund. As of June 30, 1979, it had an unexpended balance of $2,216.15 which reverted to the General Fund balance and was not reappropriated. As of July 1, 1979, the County established a Grants Project Fund and all transactions since that time have been handled through the Grant Project Fund. In order to close out Phase I, two actions are necessary. The first is an appropriation of $6,604.97 from the Grant Projects Fund balance to Code 9302-5841. This is for revenue received on Phase I but never appropriated for the Project. The second is a cash transfer of $1,495.74 from the General Fund to the Grant Projects Fund and an appropriation of that amount to Code 9302-5841. This is to cover expenditures on Phase I that were anticipated in the original appropriation. However, as previously stated, the funds to cover these expenditures reverted to the General Fund balance on June 30, 1979, and were not reappropriated. In order to bring Phase II up-to-date, an appropriation of $37,200 is necessary to cover the entire contract for this project of $140,000. This should be appropriated from the Grant Projects Fund to Code 9302-5841. This will be funded from revenues already received in the amount of $19,914, plus $13,636 to be received on this project from the State Water Control Board (being held pending receipt of the final draft on the plan), and $3,650 still to be received from the Rivanna Authority. Ail payments on this project have been made except final payment to F. X. Browne and Associates which is also being held pending receipt of the final draft of the Watershed Management Plan." Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolutions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $6,604.97 be and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Project Fund and Coded to 9302-5841 for the Watershed Management Project Grant, Phase I. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,495.74 be, and the same hereby is, transferred from the General Fund to the Grant Project Fund and appropriated to Code 9302-5841 for the Watershed Management Project Grant. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $37,200.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Project Fund to Code 9302-5841 for the Watershed Management Project Grant, Phase II. Mr. Agnor said the second appropriation needed is from the Grant Fund for the C~ Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission in the amount of $2,000. This amount has been received from the Division of Litter Control. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $2,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Project Fund to Code 9302-5840 for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission. Mr. Agnor said the next request is for appropriations to four departments of the General government for this fiscal year in order for those departments to end the year without a deficit balance. The following requests from Mr. Jones were then presented: "Board qf Sup.ervisors - The overexpenditure for this function will occur primarily from underfunding of overtime for the Clerks, costs of printing the County Code and travel costs. The overtime request was reduced too much in the budget last year when the third clerk was placed on a full-time basis. A combined need of $3,000 is needed to prevent an overexpenditure. (NOTE: Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of the Board, had provided further information on this overexpenditure stating that such was caused by full-time retirement and life insurance not being included in the budget for the third clerk.) Animal Control - The contract costs for animals kept at the SPCA shelter will cause the overrun in this function. An overrun of $2,400 will occur. Watershed Management - This budget was underestimated for telephone, office supplies, repairs and maintenance, and medical insurance, as well as travel costs. Excess costs were incurred in the printing of the Water Quality Study that were not anticipated in the budget. About $2,600 is needed to keep the total from being overexpended on June 30th. Staff Services - This function will have the most significant overruns. Excess costs of custodial services, heating, fire insurance, maintenance supplies, repairs and maintenance, janitorial supplies, machinery and equipment, plus the costs of the move from Court Square to the Lane Building have resulted in an overrun of $8,500 as of May 30. An additional amount of $40,000 is needed in this function. Some of the costs are not repetitive or reoccurring." Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following resolutions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $3,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to ll01--Board of Supervisors for over- expenditures incurred during Fiscal Year 1981-82. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $2,400.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to 3501--Animal Control for overexpenditures incurred during the Fiscal Year 1981-82. BE ZT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $40,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to'4300--Staff Services for overexpenditures incurred during Fiscal Year 1981-82. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $2,600.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to 8204--Watershed Management for overexpenditures incurred during Fiscal Year 1981-82. Mr. Agnor said the next request relate~ to Capital Projects which have been completed and on which funds are remaining. He then noted the following memorandum dated June 8, 1982, from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden and Mr. Ray B. Jones: "A recent review of capital projects revealed that a large number of projects have been completed and need to be closed out. The projects listed below have been completed or revised and have unexpended balances. A resolution is requested directing that the amounts listed be transferred from the project to the unallocated balance of the Capital Improvements Fund. This will allow these funds to be used on other projects requested in the capital budget. CAp~I~L IMPROVEMENT FUND 9700-7060.12 9700-7060.28 9700-7060.31 9700-7060.32 9700-7060.33 CharlOttesville-Albemarle Airport Resource Recovery Mint Springs Road Paving Chris Greene Lake Chris Greene Road Paving 7,501.20 17,000.00 8,081.86 15,150.00 37,948.40 258 June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 9700-7060.34 9700-7060.36 9700-7060.40 9700-7060.44 9700-7060.50 9700-7060.52 9700-7060.56 9700-7060.60 9700-7060.68 9700-7060.69 9700-7060.76 9700-7060.80 9700-7060.98 19.19A 19.26 19.31 ~ 19.32 Beaver Creek Road Paving Chris Greene Parking Lot Chris Greene Tot Lot Walton Tennis Courts Jarman Gap Road Bond Hollymead Recreation Area Yancey School Recreation Area Other School Recreation Facilities Ivy Landfill Keene Landfill Flood Plain Markers Culvert-Commonwealth Drive Joint Security Complex - Smoke Detection System Albemarle High School - Track Western Albemarle High School - Engineering Woodbrook School Masonry Testing Total 10,905.53 101.16 5,500.00 4,197.~00 79.00 5.62 1,379.98 7,224.25 5,700.00 1,392.00 2,250.00 11,116.97 103.50 5,343.19 550.67 9,174.14 967.62 $151,672.09 REVENUE SHARING FUND 9800-7080.20 9800-7080.30 9800-7080.35 9800-7080.45 9800-7080.50 Purchase - Post Office Building MACCA-Summer Youth Program Low Income Housing Albemarle High School-Physical Educ. Facilities Juvenile Court Facility Total $ 469.31 1,352.05 2,086.99 63,565.84 332.27 $67,806.46 Several projects have exceeded the project estimates and will need additional appropriations to cover the overexpenditures. The following appropriations are requested from the unallocated fund balance of the Capital Improvements Fund: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 97o0-7060.16 9700-706o.48 9700-7060.55 9700-7060.72 19.12 Microfilm Equipment - Clerk's (of Circuit Court) Office Albemarle High School - Tennis Courts Broadus Wood School Renovations - Lane Building Scottsville POD Total $ 4,612.98 1,926.90 513.50 78,336.18 5,525.27 $90,914.83" Mr. Lindstrom asked the purpose of the $513.50 for Broadus Wood School. Mr. Agnor said that amount is for the architect's fee for the preliminary plans for the project; said project is to be funded several years from now. Miss Nash asked the reason for the bombardment of postcards, etc., from persons affiliated with the Broadus Wood School. Mr. Fisher said those persons are worming with the architect and the School Board and are looking at plans for possible improvements to the school. Mr. Agnor said the request for an appropriation in the amount of $78,336.18 from the Capital Improvements Fund for the County Office Building is for thirteen change orders which have occurred since November, 1981, plus the additional architect's fees on these changes. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the transfer of balances of projects listed above in the amount of $151,672.09 back to the unallocated fund balance of the Capital Improvements Fund; to approve the transfer of balances of projects listed above in the amount of $67,806.46 back to the unallocated balance of the Revenue Sharing Fund; and to adopt the following resolution relative to special appropriations. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $90,914.83 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund and Coded to the following codes for projects which have exceeded project estimates and need additional appropriations: CODE ITEM AMOUNT 9700-7060.16 9700-7060.48 9700-7060.55 9700-7060.72 19.12 Microfilm Equipment (Clerk's of Circuit Court Office) Albemarle High School (Tennis Courts) Broadus Wood School Renovations-Lane Bldg. Scottsville POD $ 4,612.98 1,926.90 513.50 78,336.18 5,525.27 $90,914.83 June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 15. Plan for Employees. Grant Authority to Employ a Consultant re: Deferred Compensation Mr. Agnor said the ~deferred compensation plan for public employees was authorized by the Federal Government about two years ago. He noted that this is a plan similar to the tax-exempt annuity program which teachers have had available for years. The plan will allow local government employees to defer part of their income within Internal Revenue Service guidelines. The State of Virginia enacted legislation in the 1980 session of the General Assembly to authorize deferred compensation plans in localities and created a Deferred Compensation Commission which was a group of people appointed by the Governor to examine plans for approval or disapproval. Two plans were then developed; one was by the National Association of Counties and is available to all members of NACo. The second plan was developed by the State of Virginia for state employees and has been offered to localities. Mr. Agnor said he and Mr. ~Ray Jones have attended several meetings the past years and both of the plans have been examined. However, in talking to other localities who have proceeded with the program, he has decided that Albemarle County should have its own plan. Basically, the reason is the flexibility which a local plan can offer and such a plan can also be modified. Secondly, selling of the plan to the employees is a function of whatever agency administers the plan. In that regard, if the National Association of Counties plan was accepted, persons would come in from Oklahoma and discuss the plan wi~h employees. If the state plan were approved, the state has only two persons to take care of the entire State; therefore, there is a time factor to consider. If an employee decides to enter into such a plan, the employee cannot withdraw his money until retirement or in case of an extreme emergency. Therefore, some plan is desired which will allow for flexibility. Mr. Agnor said he is requesting authority to seek proposals from.specialists, the proposals to be reviewed by himself and Mr. Jones. After doing so, the proposals can be brought back to the Board for awarding and perhaps with a contract for a firm to design a deferred compensatio~ plan for the County. The costs involved will be borne entirely by the Plan so that no public funds are required for administration of the plan. Mr. Fisher felt the Board should move forward on this matter. Mr. Agnor said he was not sure if formal action was needed but wanted to have the authority to seek proposals to bring back to the Board. Motion to that effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. Mr. Lindstrom nominated and offered motion to reappoint Dirk Van Der Voet to the Soil Erosion Advisory Board with said term to expire on June 30, 1983. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: ~ .... ~ AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to appoint Messrs. John O. Higginson, Alonzo Jones, Bernard C. Ward, William A. Gray and Charles Brown as Road V~s ~or ,~9~ · ? !i~E~l~s~:?¢aI~d ~ ~th~t,~t~an ca~d ~h~ the ~o~lo~ing~'~r~edr~di~i~t~~ AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mrs. Cooke nominated and offered motion to appoint Mr. Gerald E. Fisher and Mr. James R. Butler as the Board's representatives on the Consolidation Study Committee. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. ABSTAIN: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Miss Nash asked about appointments to the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Mr. Agnor said he intended to ask for the appointments by the end of this month because there will be a meeting scheduled with the State Highway Department and the Committee. He noted that two persons are needed to represent the County. Mr. Lindstrom said that since Mrs. Cooke and Miss Nash have been involved in transportation items' recently, he would offer motion to appoint them to the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Mr.'Butler seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. 260 June 9, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom then asked if a meeting could be set to receive and discuss the staff report requested some time ago on violations of the Soil Erosion Ordinance. He felt that such a meeting, or release of such information, should be in public. Mr. Agnor said he would schedule that as soon as possible. Mr. Agnor said a meeting has been held with the administrators of the jurisdictions that are members of the Regional Library, and the Library Director, to discuss an inquiry from the Library Trustees about the present contract for operation of the Library and the distribution formula of cost. The meeting was held last Friday and four of the five administr~ present stated that there is a concern. The administrators would like an opportunity to study the contract and go back to their jurisdictions to see what should be done. It is recommended that one member of the Board of each locality and the administrator of that county be appointed as a committee to attend a meeting later this month with a report back to all localities within ninety days. The appointment was not made at this time. Agenda Item No. 19. At 5;02 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to June 14, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the folloWing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley.