Loading...
1979-03-07!83 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 7, 1979, beginning at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 28, 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (Arrived at 1:44 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Officer present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:41 P.M. by the Chairman who announced that there will be a meeting in Richmond with the Highway Department on%March 29 concerning subdivision street standards. Mr. Roudabush has agreed to attend. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session on 1979-80 County Budget. The following categories were discussed: Planning Department - Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, was present. Mr. Dorrier said he knows the Planning Commission members serve on a volunteer basis, but he feels they are working extremely hard this year during revision of the zoning ordinance and their compensation should be raised to the same level as that of the School Board. Mr. Fisher suggested that this be discussed at the next day meeting of the Board. Parks and Recreation - Mr. Earl Sudduth, Director of Parks, was present along with his staff members, Matt Smith, Bob Crickenberger and Tom Eaton. Mr. Dorrier asked about the Five- Year Capital Improvements Plan for County Parks. Mr. Sudduth said the Parks Commission members did not feel they had the expertise to draft such a plan, therefore it was turned over to the staff of the Planning Commission some time ago. No timetable for completion of the plan has been set. Animal Control - Mr. Herman Dottier, Dog Warden, was present. Offender Aid and Restoration - Miss Ann Singleton, Director, was present. Mr. Agnor said the request from O.A.R. was for $24,280. He has recommended a 7% increase or a total of $10,560. Mr. Fisher said he has been interested in the wor~k of O.A.R. and feels it is a good program, but doubling the budget in one year is a different question and also would set-~.~ precedent. Miss Singleton said O.A.R., during the past two months has been faced with the loss of CETA funds. (She presented to the Board an appeal asking for restoration of some funds]) Mr. Lindstrom asked what the additional funds would be used for. Miss Singleton said for the coordination of volunteers, the speakers bureau and the p~e-release program. Mr. Dorrier asked if there were any statistics on recidivism available from O.A.R. Miss Singleton said no, but national statistics show that a person in the one-on-one relationship program is four times less likely to return to jail. Mr. Henley said he is a member of the Jail Board but has not had much contact with the O.A.R. program. The Jail Administrator has occasionally mentioned the work that is done, but he is still inclined to vote for the recommendation of the County Executive. Mr. Carl Pritchett, President of O.A.R., was present. He said O.A.R. is a fairly recent program which was developed out of the community's needs. Both CETA funds and VISTA volunteers had helped organize the programs and the Board of O.A.R. knew these funds would fade out. Now, the programs are at a point where they are functioning well and~O.A.R, is faced with cutting back. (Also present was Miss Liz Benzinger, Coordinator of the Pre-release Program.) Miss Singleton said the Board of O.A.R. realizes that they must raise money from other sources, but they do not feel they can raise $14,000 between now and June, 1980. She asked that the County share in funding these programs for 10 months. Mr. Henley said he feels O.A.R. is handling a lot of programs the State sh~d be handling, and programs the State will eventually have to take over (pre-release and employment programs.) Mr. Agnor noted that the Board had received letters favoring O.A.R.'s original request from Mr. Eaton Brooks and Mrs. Iris Shaw. Mr. Lindstrom said before he could ¥ote to restore the total request to the O.A.R. budget, he would need to know more about their programs, the amount of recidivism and, how by restoration of some funds to this budget, money could be saved by the community. Mr. Lindstromasaid he has~a general feeling that O.A.R. does a significant service to the community, but there is no way of knowing for sure without some statistics. Mr. Dorrier said he has represented people who were helped by this program. Because he has a basic belief in the program he could support a budget amount of $12,000. Dr. Iachetta said he could not support doubling the County's share without receiving additional information about O.A.R. Mr. Dorrier then~offered motion to change the recommended amount for O.A.R. to $12,000. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstroma~and Roudabush. None. Madison House - Mr. Rick Noble was present and presented a copy of their annual report to the Board. March 7, 197~ (Adjourned Meeting) (Ad~ourned from February 28~ l~79) Community Action Agency - Mr. ~en Ackerman, Director, was present. Mr. Agnor noted that Community Action had requeste~ one additional staff member in t~eir budget request, that of a deputy director. He does not recommend approvaZ of same. Also, Louisa and Fluvanna counties are inclined not to approve th~s request. Mr. Dorrier said he may have to resign as the Board's representative to this Board and Dr. Vivian Gordon is also resigning. He feels that with a budget as large as that of the Community Action Agency, a deputy director is needed, bUt he is not sure thi, s is the way to fund such a position. Messrs. Henley, Roudabush and Iachetta favored the County Executive's recommendation. Jefferson Area Board on Aging - Mr. Jim Elmore, Director, was present. Youth Employment Service. Present were Mr. Kevin Smith, Miss Jo Perry and Mr. Steve O'Neill who appealed to the Board to restore their requested amount of $3,000. Mr. Agnor said he has recommended a 7% increase for this category as with all other agencies, or $2~0. Mr. Roudabush did not feel the percentage adjustment was correct when working with such a small figure. Mr. Dorrier felt this program works to keep kids off of the street and is worth $3,000. Dr. Iachetta agreed and then offered motion to raise the recommended amount for the Y.E.S. Program to $3,000. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad. Western Albemarle Rescue Squad. Scottsville Rescue Squad. Mr. Larry Claytor was present. Magistrate's Office. Mr. Doug Hudson was present. Mr. Agnor said the magistrates had requested funding for carpet and side chairs, but the City did not agree to this funding. Mr. Hudson said the City will furnish some surplus chairs. The carpet is needed because the floor is slippery when wet and walls are solid concrete thus making the room very noisy. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to raise the recommended budget amount by $400. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Chamber of Commerce - Dues. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the Chamber is a lobbying organization and although there are a number of such organizations in the County, he does not feel they should be supported by public~money. Mr. Dorrier said he feels the Chamber supports one of the most important industries in the County; that of tourism. It also provides a forum for discussion of growth and economic development. There was an a~ticle in last night's Daily Progress saying the Chamber had invited the Chairman of this Board to be an ex-officio member of the Chamber's Board. This might help strengthen communicat~ions. Dr. Iachetta said he feels there is a difference between paying dues and supporting programs. The program for publication of tourist brochures is of interest to the general public. He also can understand business people paying dues and being able to comment on the various programs of the Chamber, but this Board has nothing to say about their activities. Mr. Roudabush said because the Chamber had no one present to represent them at this meeting, he did not feel the Board Should take any action on this matter today. He agreed with Mr. Dorrier that the Chamber provides services to the County that the County would otherwise have to provide. He feels the budgeted amount is a ~alI amount of money to pay for the research and information which is disseminated through the Chamber. Mr. Fisher agreed that some of the informational aspects of the Chamber are good, but he has been concerned by the Chamber's position recently that certain programs should be supported by public funds. Mr. Fisher said he was particularly discouraged that~what was labeled as a discussion of the proposed zoning ordinance turned out to be nothing but haranguing against this Board. Mr. Fisher said he resents being asked by any organization .to fund programs, if that organization is not willing to work with the Board. Dr. Iachetta agreed that there should be some way to discuss differences. He said there should be some way to fund the things mentioned by Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Roudabush, but he did not like the idea of paying dues, but would rather see the funds paid another way. Mr. Lindstrom said there is an historical relationship between the County and Chamber _~ which may at one time have been appropriate, but the Chamber has t'aken a point of view which is widely divergent from that of other citizens in the County. There are a number of people in the Jack Jouett District who do not feel it is appropriate to fund a private industry'with their tax money. He agreed that there are some activities of the Chamber to which money might be allocated, but not through the paying of dues. Mr. Dorrier did not agree that the Chamber is strictly a private interest group. He said the County's level of funding in the form of membership dues is substantially lower than other communities in the State pay to their respective Chamber's of Commerce. Dr. Iachetta said he did not see any problem with accepting the County Executive's recommendation. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to delete this category from the 1979-80 budget. Mr. Henley felt this category should be left in the proposed budget and discussed at a later time. Dr. Iachetta agreed that it should be left in the budget and discussed with the Chamber before voting. Mr. Lindstrom then withdrew his motion. Economic Development Commission. At the end of the discussion of the published agenda, Mr. Agnor recommended that $12,000 be added to the Board of Supervisors' budget for a fee on tax exempt properties. He said this fee will be charged by the City next year. Mr. Fisher then brought the Board's attention to a memorandum from Mr. Agnor furnished to the Board on February 28, giving possibilities for balancing the School's budget request: "To: Board of Supervisors From: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive Date: February 28, 1979 Subject: FY-80 School Budget The Director of Finance and the County Executive, in consultation with the Superintendent of Schools, have completed a review of the following matters concerning the FY-80 School budget: Areas in which further adjustments could be considered. Eight buildings and grounds repair or replacement projects that were not included in the requested budget for FY-80. The use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds for School operations, and their effects on entitlement formulas for future revenue from these revenue sharing funds. The inclusion of Federal programs and the total of self-sustaining funded operations in the School division's operating budget. The following are recommendations in these four matters: There are no significant adjustments that can be made to the budget requests. The work of the School Board and administration in examining levels of expenditures has covered all such adjustments. The eight buildings and grounds projects listed for your information are: (1) Burley roof replacement $ 81,000 (2) Library Security Systems at high schools 20,000 (3) Fences at Henley, Jouett, and Stony Point 7,~00 (4) Burley fireproofing - ceiling replacement 15,600 (5) Hollymead walks and surfaced play area 4,000 (6) Tennis ~ourt lights - Albemarle High School 6,000 (7) McIntire steps and walk repairs 14,500 (8) Jouett and Woodbrook parking lot resurfacing 14,O00 Total $162,200 The first four projects are considered capital projects, total $123,700 (A). Projects (5) and (6) are capital projects that are recreation related and could be funded as such, total $10,000 (B). Projects (7) and (8) are maintenance type, total $28,500 (C). It is recommended the three groupings be funded as follows: $123,700 be added in the FY-80 budget to 17K, Capital Outlay, funded by $100,000 being added to revenues from the General Fund carry over balance, and $23,700 by adjustments in the line item requests, to be determined by the School Board. $10,000 be assigned to the Parks and Recreation funds allocated in the Five- Year Capital Improvement budget. $28,500 be expended in 17F2-290a, Contracted Services - Buildings and Grounds Maintenance, in the current (FY-79) budget, with the funds derived by transfer from 17K-603, Alterations to BUildings, which shows a $31,217 unexpended balance. As of now, total expenditures in the School budget are estimated to be $85,436 less than appropriations. Revenues in the School Fund, however are reflecting a shortfall of $122,570 from On, side sources. The sum tota~ of'these could-mean that the School budget will end the year $37,134 in "the red" without considering an additional expenditure of $28,500. This potential shortfall is already receiving Dr. McClure's close scrutiny on expenditures, and by the time the weather allows projects (7) and (8) to proceed, a later monthly financial report will be available to determine the condition of this year's budget totalS. At that time, the School Board may make the decision to request supplemental funding from the General Fund, or defer one or both projects to FY-81, or proceed with one or both projects by deferral of some other expenditure. 3. The use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds in the School operating budget will increase subsequent entitlements due to the formula used to determine the local government allocations. If used for operations, it must be allocated by the Board of Supervisors for a specific purpose, to make its use traceable in later audits and to comply with allocation requirements. It must also not be relied upon as a continuing revenue source, which operational revenues normally require. It is, therefore, recommended that Federal Revenue~Sharing funds be allocated in an amount of $500,000 for electric current (17F1-207) and fuel (17F1-311) in the FY-80 School budget. It is also recommended that an equal amount of General Fund revenues be allocated to the Capital Improvement Program budget to replace these Federal funds. In doing so, the County budget will not be dependent upon these Federal funds for operations, in'the event of their demise. 186 March 7, 1979 (Adjourned Me'ting) (Adjourned from Februar y 28 1979) 4. The inclusion of Federal programs and the gross total of all self-sustaining funded operations, rather than net totals as now shown, will not be possible this year. Their. inclusion in the advertised budget results in their inclusion also in the appropriation ordinance when the budget is adopted, and their entry into the Finance Department records on our present bookkeeping machine. The machine is already overloaded, operating beyond its capacity, requiring multiple entry procedures and sub-accounts to maintain current fund records. Until the equipment is expanded or replaced, the accounting system cannot handle the proposed changes. This equipment limitation is being considered, as you know, in the Data Processing Study currently underway. It is, therefore, recommended that the budget format be retained for another fiscal year with footnotes for the information of the public which describe the totals of all programs that are not included in the advertised budget. The source of funds needed to add $3,783 to 17D1-136, Compensation-Bus Drivers, has not been determined. If the remaining two budget work sessions produce funds from cuts in other departments, the source will be found. If, on the other ha~d, the work sessions do not produce such funds, the School budget may be required to absorb this increas~ along with the $23,700 in item A, giving a total of $27,483 from adjustments to be determined by the School Board. It is my opinion that the School Board should --~ be alerted to this possibility. It is believed that such an amount can be found in a budget that exceeds $15.5 million, possibly in salary savings from personnel turnover." Mr. Fisher said if the Board followed the County Executive's recommendations for balancing the School Budget, how would the $44,983 which had been added during work sessions to non-schoo items be covered. Mr. Agnor said that in his budget message (more particularly Page 157, Minute Book 14) he had stated that "current revenues will provide $65,965 to the Capital Program .... " The $44,983 needed to balance this budget can be taken from that amount, thus leaving only $20,982. If the recommendation to put $500,000 of Revenue Sharing Funds into the School budget is accepted, the budget will be advertised with a change in the total figure~by $52O,982. Mr. Henley said the Board had earlier in these sessions discussed the possibility of furnishing health insurance to school bus drivers who are not now covered by this insurance. He asked about the $25,000 needed for this item. Mr. Agnor said if the $20,982 were used for this purpose, it would wipe out the amount expected to be put in the Capital Budget. The additional amount ($4,018) could be covered by adjusting Code 90-911 in the Revenue section entitled "Miscellaneous Refunds". Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to add $20,982 to the School budget and request the School Board to use some for health insurance for bus drivers. He noted that Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the School Board, would be present at this night's meeting and the Board could discuss this request with her at that time. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. AYES: NAYS: Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to set the 1979 tax rates as follows: $0.67 on real estate $5.00 on personal property $5.00 on machinery and tools $0.67 on mobile homes $4.80 on public service corporations on unequalized assessments $0.67 on public service corporations on equalized assessments. The foregoing moti®n was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Agnor noted that the current year's tax revenue is always shown in the budget as the net figure (after subtracting land use tax and real estate exemptioh for the elderly and handicapped). He proposed that when the budget is printed that the gross amount of tax be included with the amount of $1,182,229 being shown as a refund to the county under Code 0 "Refunds". This amount will then be refunded ~y the County to the County. It has been found that formulas used by the Office of Revenue Sharing are affected by not using the gross tax collectable by the County and also the new State standardized accounting procedures will requir~ this change. Mr. Fisher then thanked the staff for the outstanding job performed in presenting the 1979-80 budget to the Board. Dr. Iachetta said he would personally like to thank the School Board for presenting a more understandable budget this year. He expressed the hope that the School Board would continue to define their budgeting process so this Board will have a better idea of their needs. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Peter Bacque, reporte~ for the Dail Progress, will soon be leaving the County and going to work for the Times-Dispatch in Richmond. At.5:00 P.M. the meeting was adjourned. Agenda Item No. 3. March 7, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting) A ~egular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 7, !979 at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. ~Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who requested a moment of silence. ~genda Item No. la. Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the School Board, expressed the School Board's appreciation for the cooperation given to them by the Board and the work done by Mr. Agnor and Mr. McClure to resolve some problems that allowed the School Board to meet their commitments and goals for the 1979-80 budget. Mr. Fisher said the School Budget was approved this afternoon for public hearing purposes based on Mr. Agnor's memorandum dated February 28, 1979. He also noted that the Board had added $20,982 to the budget, hopefully, to fund health insurance for permanent part-time bus drivers. Mrs. Haden thanked the Board for this funding. Agenda Item No. 2~ Blue Ridge Estates Site Plan Appeal. (Deferred from February 14., At the February 14, 1979 meeting, various mechanisms were considered for dealing with costs to improve County secondary roads feeding into this property which are inadequate for public use at this time. The staff was requested to make an analysis of such mechanisms and present a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Roudabush abstained because his firm prepared the plat that was under consideration. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, presented the following memorandum dated March 1, 1979: "The Planning Staff, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Staff, and Deputy County Attorney, have met on the above referenced matter and offer the following comments: Cost Estimate for Road Improvements to 18 feet in width with Shoulder and Ditching Improvement (These estimates exclude right-of-way acquisition, bridge improvements and damages.) Route From To Cost ~ Route.250 West Intersection with 692 9~,300 692 Route~250 West Intersection with 691 92,900 692 Blue Ridge Estate Entrance Intersection with 691 19,600 Cost Estimate of Improvements for Intersection of 691 and 692 (Improvements would require additional right-of-way or easements.) -Improving Horizontal Sight Distance to 350 feet: $1,000 -Improving Vertical and Horizontal Sight Distance to 550 feet: $36~000 The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation estimates that the applicant's share of mmprovements, based on the proposed subdivision's traffic count, amount to $11,000. Required frontage improvements amount to $2,300 (exclusive of the decel lane which ranges between $5,000-$7,000). Methods of financing improvements such as these proposed and in other areas appear to be best accomplished by requiring construction of those reasonable improvements as development occurs. Escrow accounts for such purposes are illegal plus having the disadvantage of not accounting for inflation. In summary, it is our basic agreement that the improvements required by the Planning Commission are reasonable and should be maintained in any Board of Supervisors' action." Mr. Bryon Coburn, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, explained that the applicant's share for improvements are based upon an eighteen foot pavement as requested by the Board on February 14, 1979. In assessing the applicant's share, the traffic to be generated by the proposed twelve-lot subdivision was compared to existing traffic. Mr. Coburn said it was difficult to make an estimate because it depends entirely upon existing traffic and also the supposition that Blue Ridge Farm will develop in its entirety If the entire fa~mv~es~..~elo~he~:;.~el~.~ahm~er~sta~a~d~!,~ad would be necessary. Mr. Fisher felt the Board shoUld require on-site improvements along the frontage of the subdivision and possibly off-site improvements if such can be reasonably related to the subdivision. However, he expressed his frustration about there being no reasonable way to share expenses for off-site improvements. Mr. Dorrier was opposed to requiring off-site improvements without the recommendation or support of the Planning Commission, Planning staff and Virginia Department of Highways. He,agreed that the roads need improvements, but felt there are other ways to do it such as through the Secondary Road fund by making improvements a high priority in the Six-Year Highway Plan. Mr. Dorrier did not feel there were any grounds to require off-site improvement an existing public-need. Mr. Henley asked if the Board can legally require these improvements Mr. St. John said the Board must have witnesses from the Highway Department or from the staff stating that such improvements are directly generabed by the development. Mr. Lindstrom asked if acquisition of additional right-of-way would be necessary if the section of Route 692 from the entrance of the subdivision to the intersection of Route 691 were widened to 18 feet. Mr. Coburn said probably. Mr. Lindstrom said there is a provision in the Subdivision Ordinance requiring off-site road improvements and he felt it should be applied in this case. He suggested that a proportionate improvement for the applicant to share in would be the upgrading of Route 692 from the intersection of Route 691 to the entrance of this subdivision. He felt the estimated costs from the Highway Department were reasonable, and a fair share for the developer to pay. Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Fisher agreed that improvements of this type need to be m~de by the developer now. Mr. Lindstrom asked the basis for the Planning Staff's recommendation that no off-site improvements be required. Mr. Tucker said the primary reason was that right-of-way would have to be obtained. In the staff's opinion, right-of-way was required where the improvements would be most advantageous. Mr. Lindstrom felt the road counts and cost estimates Justify the improvements and that the improvements from the entrance of the subdivision to the intersection are worthwhile. Mr. Dottier said it is unreasonable to require the improvements since the subdivision is small and only one-fourth mile from the intersection of Route 691. However, he would support on-site improvements. Mr. Fisher said if the argument is that a subdivision is too small, there will never be one the right size and roads will continue to be impacted. The Board recessed at 8:27 P.M. and reconvened at 8:36 P.M. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Paul ?eatross, who appealed the site plan, had asked for an opportunity to speak. Mr. Peatross said when the Blue Ridge RPN was considered last year, highway department classifications for the roads were presented. The twelve two-acre lots would add an additional 84 vehicle trips per day on Route 692 to the current 390 vehicle trips per day and the Highway Department has stated that is a nontolerable situation for a sixteen foot road. He did not feel acquisition of right-of-way is a problem since Blue Ridge Farm owns right-of-way from the entrance of the subdivision on Route 692 to Route 691. Mr. Peatross felt there is evidence to support the fact that the roads are unsafe and off-site improvements should be required according to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. James Wooten, attorney for the applicant, spoke next. He felt there have been only assumptions that the roads cannot handle increased traffic. He noted that Waver Tree (Christian Retreats) has more lots and was not required to make suchroad improvements. Mr. Wooten did not feel any findings had been made which warrant off-site improvements being made by Blue Ridge Farm. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to approve the plat with the recommendations of the Planning Commission ~nd including frontage improvements estimated to be $2,3~00 and a decel lane. No second was made to the motion. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the preliminary plat for Blue Ridge Estates with the seven conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and adding an eighth condition requiring the applicant to improve Route 692 on the south side from the entrance of the subdivision to its intersection with Route 691 and that portion be equivalent to an 18-foot wide pavement with shoulder and ditching improvements. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion. Mr. Henley asked if there were any bad alignment problems along the road. Mr. Coburn said 600 to 800 feet west of the entrance, o~ the right near Route 250, there is a problem which is mainly due to vegetation and large trees. Mr. Tucker said the Board may wish to include the necessary right-of-way or easements which are necessary to make the improvements. Mr. Coburn s~id the improvements can be made on existing right-of-way, but additional slope easement will most likely be needed in order that the slopes beyond the ditch can be maintained. Mr. Lindstrom accepted that as an amendment to his motion. Dr. Iachetta suggested adding the words "subject to highway department approval". Mr. Lindstrom accepted that amendment to his motion. Mr. Dorrier suggested a meeting Re set with the highway department and the planning staff to develop a policy for off-site improvements on secondary roads. He was opposed to off-site improvements on a piecemeal basis since it has never been done before. Mr. Fisher felt approval of this motion committed the Board to look at every subdivision and determine if the roads can handle the traffic without improvements. Therefore, he felt the policy was being made at this time. Since the applicant owns the right-of-way from the subdivision to the intersection of Route 691, Mr. Henley said he could support the motion. However, he did question whether that much improvement was necessary for Just 12 lots, but would support the motion since he feels Blue Ridge Farm will eventually be developed and this is an opportunity to get that part of the road improved~ Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom~ NAYS: Mr. Dorrier. ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush. The conditions as approved are set out below: Written Health Department approval; County Engineer approval of private road plans; Compliance with the Run-off Control Ordinance, if necessary; Grading permit required; County Attorney's office approval of a maintenance agreement; (include residue) ' ProVide a name for the private road; Road improvements to 18 feet in width with shoulder and ditching improvements from Blue Ridge Estates entrance on Route 692 to the intersection of Route 691 subject to Highway Department approval. Mr. Tucker said this approval is for the preliminary plat. The final plat has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and that also has been appealed. Mr-. Fisher felt the Board will be expecting the Planning staff and Commission to look at all subdivisions in light of expected road conditions. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion for the Highway Department and Planning Staff to meet with the Board to develop a policy for off-site highway improvements and requirements for same. Mr. Fisher suggested this item be discussed on March 14, 1979. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Roudabush. The Board recessed at 9:10 P.M. and reconvened at 9:18 P.M. Agenda Item No. 3. lO, 1978.) Energy Report. (This study was authorized by the Board on May Dr. Leroy Fletcher, Professor and Chairman, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, who was responsible for the overall coordination of the study and its results, was present. He introduced Mr. Bob Somers, who presented the report. Mr. Somers said the study is entitled "An Evaluation of Energy Use in Albemarle County Public Buildings and Facilities (1972-1977)" Mr. Somers said these years were included-because the 19.72-73 year preceded the Arab Oil Embargo and they wanted to look at the usage before real pressures were made to conserve energy. Although Albemarle County contributes to the cost of a numbers of facilities, the only data to be discussed will be for buildings and facilities entirely owned by the County. In 1972-73, energy use, in terms of total BTU's, was approxi- mately 86 billion. The following year there was a sharp decline. The reason for this was pressure to conserve energy because of the oil embargo and the fact that it was the mildest winter of the six years included in the study. Since that time, energy use has been climbing rapidly. Last year, energy consumption reached 113 billion BTU's. This was due partly to severe winters and the fact that Albemarle County has increased the number of buildings they are responsible for by 40%. In 1972-73, the County spent approximately $175,000 per year on heating buildings alone; this did not include energy for transportation. In 1977-78, energy expenditures reached $685,000, an increase of approximately $510,000 in this six year time period. Mr. Somers said Albemarle County is spending a larger amount of money each year for energy. If these expenditures continue to rise at the same rate, Albemarle County will be spending approximately one million dollars per year for energy within the three years. The percentage of energy use in terms of total county ~expenditures has increased from about 1.5% in 1972-73 to 3J. 1% in 1977-78. In 19~72-73, public schools were responsible for consuming 84.3% of the total energy use in the County and spent 86% of the energy money. In 1977-78, energy use increased to 90.3% and 90.4% in money. If buildings, such as the bus repair garage and McIntire School, are added in with public school buildings, the schools would be responsible for 95% of the energy consumption in County owned facilities. If there is to be any energy use savings in the County, it will have to be mad.e in the schools. The five fuels used in County facilities are:a--electricity, fuel oil, natural gas, liquid propane and kerosene. On the average, in 1977-78, the average cost per million BTU was $6.09 which was up from $2.02 over the five fiscal years studies.. This shows that energy costs have tripled in five years. Mr. Somers said the first part of the Study is a documentation of energy use in County buildings over the past six years. The second part developed some conservation measures to help the County avoid severe effects due to increasing energy costs· He then distributed to the Board Chapters 1 and 6 of the report. (Entire report to be submitted at a later date.) Chapter 1 documents energy use trends and includes some data on the most energy intensive buildings owned by the County. It also includes conservation measures. Chapter 6 is a complete documentation on the energy measures which are the most applicable to the County. Mr. Somers then reviewed the ten energy conservation recommendations contained in the report. He said their contract required them to look at the two worst school buildings in terms of energy uses. They studied seven including elementary, middle and high schools, some old, some new and a few all electric buildings. The two worst energy consuming facilities in terms of BTU's per square foot were Greenwood and Scottsville Elementary Buildings. The other schools studied were Greer, Meriwether Lewis, Scottsville POD, Henley Middle School and Albemarle High School. The study contains a series of recommendations to accompany its analysis. Mr. Somers said the recommendations can be used by the School Board to see what measures are the most applicable to their buildings. Mr. Agnor noted that a request for additional funding for this work would be presented at next week's meeting. Mr. Fisher then extended appreciation for the work on this study. Agenda Item No. 4. Lease--Western Albemarle Rescue Squad Ambulance. Mr. Agnor said the following lease was prepared by the County Attorney's Office and approved by the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad. He noted that the vehicle was purchased with Highway Safety funds and the County is required to retain title. This lease requires the County to lease the ambulance to the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad for $10.00 and +~ o~ ~~n~s in the lease to take care of it should it be demolished. Dr. Iachetta Mar h 7, 1979 (Regular--Nm ht Meetmn ) "THIS LEASE made this 12th day of March, 1979, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (~he County).~and the WESTERN ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD, INC. (the Rescue Squad), WITNESSETH : For and in consideration of TEN ($10.00) DOLLARS, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the County does hereby LEASE unto the Rescue Squad one Rescue Squad vehicle described as follows: 1'978 FORD AMBULANCE, ID #37AHC7~7 (the Vehicle), subject to the following conditions: 1. The Rescue Squad has applied for and received a grant of Federal Highway Safety Funds to be used for the purchase of the Vehicle. The grant requires that as long as the Vehicle is used by the Rescue Squad, title to the Vehicle must remain in the County's name. If the Vehicle is demolished, a replacement vehicle can be titled in the name of the Rescue Squad. 2. The length of this lease shall be for the life of the Vehicle, as long as it is used by the Rescue Squad. ~ 3. If at some time in the future, because of the age or condition of the Vehicle, the Rescue Squad wishes to dispose of the Vehicle and to purchase new emergency medical service equipment, the Rescue Squad, after giving written notice of its intent to the County, may sell the Vehicle and use the proceeds for the purchase of emergency medical service equipment. Upon this purchase, the lease agreement shall cease. 4. If the Vehicle is damaged to the extent that repairs are not feasible, the Rescue Squad, after giving written notice of its intent to the County, may proceed to use any ±nsurance proceeds and proceeds from the sale of the Vehicle toward the purchase of emergency medical service equipment. Upon this purchase, the lease agreement shall cease. 5. At all times during the term of this lease, the Rescue Squad shall have automobile liability coverage on the Vehicle. Such coverage shall be at least the amount required by law and in no event shall be less than the then current coverage on County vehicles. The Rescue Squad shall carry full collision coverage on the Vehicle for a minimum period of five years from the date of this lease agreement. 6. The Rescue Squad shall be solely responsible for the proper operation, maintenance and repair of the Vehicle during the term of this lease. The Rescue Squad agrees to hold the County harmless from any damage or claims which may arise from improper operation, maintenance and repair of the Vehicle during the term of this lease." Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: November 15, 1978. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve the minutes of November 15, 1978, as presented. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Not Docketed. Mr. Dorrier noted letter received from the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department asking if the County or the Albemarle County Service Authority were planning to extend the water lines to the Scottsville Shopping Center, Since the fire company will be moving the fire station to the Scottsville Shopping Center, ~hey do not want to spend money for drilling wells if the lines are going to be extended. Mr. Agnor said the work for the utilities program is anticipated to be completed within the next three weeks and until that time he does not have any specific recommendation from the Planning Commission about this extension. However, if recommended, the actual extension would not be made until some future time. Dr. Iachetta noted a resolution adopted by the City Council urging Congressional action to overrule the decision of the Secretary of Transportation to terminate AMTRAK rail passenger service on both lines presently serving Charlottesville. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution with same being sent to elected representatives and the Secretary of Transportation: WHEREAS, Albemarle County has historically benefited from the availability of passenger rail transportation along the routes of the Southern and Chesapeake and Ohio Railways; and WHEREAS, continued passenger rail service along such routes has major economic and social benefits to the Albemarle community; and WHEREAS, the maintenance of a strong nationwide passenger rail network is an essential component of a balanced national transportation system, providing a safe, energy-efficient weather-proof alternative to other transportation modes; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of Transportation has announced that he proposes to order the discontinuance of AMTRAK rail passenger service on both routes March 7, 1979 (~egular--Night Meeting) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board oF Supervisors of~ Albemarle County, Virginia, that t~e Congress of the United States is respectfully requested~ to ~ct to overrule the aforesaid proposal of the Secretary of Transportation, within the time period provided by law; and 'BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of Transportation, the members of Congress representing'Albemarle County, and the Virginia Department of Highways and'Transportation are urged to take all appropriate actions to preserve all -existing rail passenger service to Charlottesville and ~he Albemarle County area. · 'Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: :~.Messrs. Dorrier., Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: Nohe. Mr..-Agnor noted the groundbreaking ceremony of the Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant wit~ be held at 1:00 P.M. on March 16, 1979 at City Hall. ~ ................... A'ge~da Item No. 6. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. March 14, 1979 (ReEular--Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 14, 1979, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesvill Virginia. Present: MessrS. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (Arrived at 9:18 A.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S;~Roudabush. Ab~S ent: None. - Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County~Executive and..~ir.- George R. St. John, County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 9:10 A.M.~by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Abandonmentl ~of road off of Route 602 in Howardsvill Mr. Brian Donato, representing Mr. Paul Stacy, the applicant, was present. He requested deferral1 until May 9, 1979. Motion was offered by Dr. I~chetta to defer this matter until May ~, 1979. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT:~ Mr. Dorrier. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: January 3, 1979 and January 17, 1979. Dr. Iachetta noted the following corrections to the minutes of January 3, 1979: Page 107, agenda item no. I1, change Mr. Lindstrom's vote from "ABSTAIN" to "AYE" -(CLERK'S ERROR) and page 113, sixth paragraph, eighth line, change the word "uninterpreted" to "uninterrupted." Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the minutes of January 3, 1979 with the above corrections. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier. Mr. Roudabush had not completed reading the minutes for January 17, 1979; therefore, they were deferred. Mr. Fisher said he was present at the December 20, 19~8 meeting and requested the minutes be amended to reflect same. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to amend the December 20, 1978 minutes to reflect Mr. Fisher's attendance to show the following "Gerald E. Fisher (Arrived After Executive Session Began)". Mr. Roudabush seconded the' motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3b. Highway Matters: Ray L. Marshall: Keene Landfill. A resolution was adopted by the Board on April 1-4, 1976, granting Mr. Ray L. Marshall, his heirs and assigns, a right of way and easement across the Keene Landfill subject to his first'constructing at his own expense, a fence on one side of the roadway. This fence was to be constructed in a manner and location designated by the County Engineer. The fence has been built and approved by the County Engineer. Therefore, the discussion today concerns an easement which has been drafted by the County Attorney's Office and agreed to by the County Engineer and Mr. Ray Marshall. Mr. St. John said the only matter which has not been resolved is whether the County will be responsible for maintenance of the road if Mr. Marshall subdivid, his land in the future or if only Mr. Marshall can use the road. Mr. St. John said he would recommend that the easement be approved with the understanding that the agreement runs only to Mr. Marshall. Mr. Fisher noted the easement states "non-exclusive right of wa~". Mr. St. John said this means that other persons can use the road, but this wording has nothing to do~ with maintenance of the road. Mr. Fisher expressed his concern that the wording in the easement does not protect the County and no mention is made of any future subdivision of Mr. Marshall's land or what happens if Mr. Marshall sells land. Mr. Roudabush suggested the language of the easement be amended to include the words "a single tract of land owned by" in. the first sentence. He felt that with this language included, there would be no question about the road if subdivision approval is needed. Mr. St. John preferred to consult with the County Engineer and Mr. Marshall about any changes. Mr. Fisher favored the easement being for a single tract of land. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to defer action so the staff and Mr. Marshall would have an Opportunity to consider the concerns expressed. Dr Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3d. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roudabush said there is one remaining road in Terrybrook Subdivision which is not in the State system and he would like a report made on the status of this road. Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, was present and noted that there is a maintenance bond on the road for $2,331. He has pointed out to the developer the areas needing correction. Mr. Lester Terry was present to speak on behalf of his parents. He Said this was brought to their attention for the first time in October, 1978, when Mr. Williams came and pointed out the items in need of repairs. At that time, they were uncertain as to who was responsible for the repairs since all lots had been sold, but after investigation, have determined that they are responsible. Some defects have been found in the original constructio of the road. Mr. Terry said the repairs will be made immediately and he also noted that all of the lots on the section of road in question have been sold and built upon. Mr. Rouda~ush then offered motion to place this back on the agenda for April llth and request the County Engineering Department and Highway Department to make an updated report at that time. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board, several weeks ago, asked him to check on the drainage easement needed so Vincennes Co~urt in Key West Subdivision can be taken into the State System. After investigation, he has been advised by the State Highway Department that the drainage easement can be omitted in this case. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to adopt ~the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident HighWay Department, the following road in Section 4A in Key West ~ubdivision: Vincennes Court - Beginning at station 0+15 on Vincennes Court, a point common to the centerline intersection of Vincennes Court and the edge of pavement of Vincennes Road; thence with ¥incennes Court in a southwesterly direction 340 feet to station 3+55, the end of Vincennes Court. BE IT FURTHER EES0'LVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way along this requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 505, page 607; Deed Book 530, page 351; and Deed Book 543, page 114. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: LYES: lAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Roosevelt said the speed studies requested by the Board on November 8, 1978, have een conducted on Route 22 and some questions have arisen about the areas in which ~a~*o ~ave occurred. Therefore- ~*~ ~*'~ .... ~ '