Loading...
2000-02-02February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 2, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Senior Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. John Riddick, Executive Director of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation, was present to make a statement on behalf of the governing board of the Community Foundation, he announced that a grant of $500,000 is being given to the County to establish a new park in southern Albemarle County at Esmont. The park will be located on a 13.6 acre County-owned site near Esmont across from Yancey Elementary School. It will include basketball, tennis courts, baseball, soccer fields, bleachers, picnic playgrounds and restroom facilities. He said the provision of recreational facilities in that part of the County has been identified as an unmet need for a long-term. This gift will allow this park to begin now rather than years into the future. The gift was made possible by the Dave Matthews Band and another Foundation donor who wishes to remain anonymous. He identified the band members as Dave Matthews, Carter Buford, Stephan Lesard, Leroy Moore and Boyd Tinsley. He said the Band has given significant gifts to the community in the past, so their portion of this gift to the County comes from a fund they created within the Foundation to support local and regional charities. Mr. Riddick said he understands construction of the park will begin soon following a public meeting on the tenth in Esmont and completion of site plans, and after the bidding process is completed. He said the Foundation will work closely with Mr. Tucker and Mr. Mulaney and the Parks and Recreation staff. Speaking on behalf of his Board and the two very generous donors, Mr. Riddick said the Community Foundation is delighted to be a part of this process and is happy to be a part of this gift for what will be an exceptional new facility for all people in Albemarle County. Mr. Martin said it has been quite a time since someone made such a generous donation to the County. He said it appears that the Community Foundation has done quite a lot of preliminary work with County staff and is right on target with something that will benefit the County. He said the Board should moved do something to let the Foundation know the Board appreciates this gift. Mr. Dorrier that the Board adopt a resolution of appreciation to the donors and to the Foundation for their hard work and the contribution they made to the County. Mr. Bowerman suggested that a plaque would be appropriate for both the Dave Matthews Band and the anonymous donor. Mr. Dorrier said part of the park might be named after the band. seconded The motion was by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. __________ Mr. Tucker recognized the former County Executive of Prince William County, Mr. Berne Ewert, who is visiting Albemarle today and is in the audience. _______________ Motionseconded Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. was offered by Ms. Thomas, by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.10a and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman, NAYS: None. __________ Item 5.1. Appropriation: Education, $189,834.15 (Form #99043). It was noted in the staffs report that the following moneys have been received by the School = Division: February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $1000.00 which will be used to fund the Cultural Enrichment Program at the school. Albemarle County's Department of Special Education received a grant award in the amount of $2555.00. This grant award will provide two staff development workshops related to interpreter training; an Interactive Skills Workshop on September 18, 1999; and, a Receptive and Expressive Skills Workshop on October 23, 1999. The Virginia Board for People with Disabilities and the Virginia Department of Education has awarded Albemarle County Public Schools a grant in the amount of $7476.00 for the 1999-00 fiscal year. This grant will fund the Program for Seamless Transition (PoST). The PoST program is to secure the competitive employment of nine Mildly Mentally Disabled (MIMD) high school students using three part-time Job Coaches to work on specific areas of need. Albemarle County's Department of Instruction has received a donation from the Rotary Club of Charlottesville Foundation in the amount of $1000.00. This donation will help to implement the Character Counts Projects. Eleven Albemarle County Schools are utilizing this program within their instructional programs. The program is based on the premise that the development of young people is a process shared by schools, parents and the community. The Textbook Fund collected $3955.19 from the schools for textbooks that were lost, damaged or sold. It is requested that this money be appropriated for the 1999-00 fiscal year to purchase replacement textbooks. The Albemarle County Summer School Programs are offered to students in grades K-8 who are having trouble meeting academic standards in the areas of Language Arts, Mathematics and/or skills necessary to successfully complete the Literacy Passport Test. These programs, which operate in a number of selected elementary and middle schools, provide focused instruction to identified students in the areas of their greatest need. Programs are four weeks in duration and are staffed with certified and qualified teachers. There is a fund balance from the 1998-99 fiscal year in the amount of $140,080.46. It is requested that this fund balance be appropriated in the 1999-00 fiscal year to help pay for expenses incurred in the 1999 summer programs. At its November 23, 1999, meeting, the School Board accepted funds for the Technology Literacy Challenge Grant in the amount of $50,000.00. This grant was not fully expended in the 1998-99 fiscal year and has a grant balance of $33,767.50. These funds will help to provide teachers an opportunity for professional learning and development with respect to integrating technology across the curriculum. Staff recommended that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $189,834.15 as detailed on Appropriation Form #99043. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted approving the request: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00 NUMBER: 99043 FUND: SCHOOLS/PROGRAMS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 1220661101601300 Meriwether Lewis, Inst/Rec Materials$1,000.00 1314061312312500 Spec Education, Prof Svc Consultant1,600.00 1314061312550100 Travel, Mileage392.00 1314061312550400 Travel, Education 380.00 1314061312601300 Inst/Rec Materials 183.00 1313661102138100 PoST Program, PT Wages-Teacher 6,904.00 1313661102210000 FICA 572.00 1211161311601300 Character Counts, Inst/Rec Materials 1,000.00 1211461101602000 Textbooks, Textbooks 3,955.19 1331061120132100 Summer School, Elem Teacher Wages 64,682.15 1331061124132100 Middle Sch, Teacher Wages 64,682.15 1331061120210000 Elementary, FICA 5,358.08 1331061124210000 Middle Sch, FICA 5,358.08 1313161311312500 Literacy Challenge Grant, Prof Svc Inst 18,000.00 1313161311601300 Inst/Rec Materials 15,767.50 TOTAL$189,834.15 REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 2200018100181109 Meriwether Lewis, Donation$1,000.00 2314024000240358 Spec Education, Interpreter Training Gr 2,555.00 2313624000240325 PoST Grant 7,476.00 2200018100181109 Rotary Club, Donation 1,000.00 2200019000190214 Textbook Fund 3,955.19 2331051000510100 Summer School, Fund Balance 140,080.46 2313124000240312 Tech Challenge Grant 33,767.50 February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) TOTAL$189,834.15 __________ Item 5.2. Appropriation: Education, $284,023.90 (Form #99044). It was noted in the staffs report that the following moneys have been received by the School = Division for various school activities and programs: Albemarle County Public Schools anticipates an award of $183,880.00 via the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) Training Initiative Fund for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. The funds have been allocated to school divisions for the implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive teacher training program in core content areas and leadership training for administrative staff in order to implement the SOL. SOL Training Initiative funds will be used to support the following activities: graduate level courses for staff to support the division literacy recommendations; stipends for teacher training to support professional development efforts in the SOL's; consultant services in support of SOL training efforts; and, educational materials and printing costs in support of the SOL training. The Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education has made grant awards to several teachers in the Albemarle County Public Schools in the in the amount of $4668.90. These funds will help support projects in Social Studies, Science, Math, English, American History, Reading and Special Education classes. Albemarle County Public Schools has received a grant award from the Virginia Department of Education Office of the Virginia Business-Education Partnerships in the amount of $86,900.00. The program is entitled Business Education Partnership for Success (BEPS) and will provide academic and career planning skills for a maximum of 300 students. The partnership will provide academic tutoring and mentoring to provide targeted students with adequate academic skills and career planning knowledge to graduate from high school and become productive citizens. Stony Point Elementary School has received a grant award from the Virginia Power Partnership in the amount of $1800.00. These funds will be used to assist third graders at Stony Point to create a child-friendly field guide for their school's nature trail, to be used by all students, staff and parents. The guides would help to identify plants and animals found in the various habitats along the nature trail. Albemarle County Public Schools has received a Learn and Service Virginia Grant, from the Virginia Department of Education in the amount of $6775.00. This grant will provide funding for the project Reading Together to Reach the Stars. This project will develop and implement a model program of reading buddies, which pairs second and third graders with preschool children to ease the transition of preschoolers into elementary school. It also provides the second and third graders with an opportunity to be leaders and practice reading and writing skills. Staff recommended that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $284,023.90 as detailed on Appropriation Form #99044. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted approving the request: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00 NUMBER: 99044 FUND: SCHOOLS/PROGRAMS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 1313960607152100 SOL Substitutes$10,000.00 1313960607160300 Stipends 60,000.00 1313960607210000 FICA 5,355.00 1313960607312500 Consultants 25,000.00 1313960607350000 Printing 6,000.00 1313960607580100 Dues 6,000.00 1313960607580500 Staff Dev 62,672.00 1313960607550100 Travel 5,000.00 1313960607601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 3,853.00 1350260606601300 Shannon Grant Ed/Rec Supplies 4,668.90 1320961101112100 Partnership Grant Salaries 40,000.00 1320961101210000 FICA 3,060.00 1320961101221000 VRS 5,620.00 1320961101231000 Health Ins 2,268.00 1320961101232000 Dental Ins 252.00 1320961101312500 Prof Svc Inst 250.00 1320961101420100 Field Trip 3,600.00 1320961101520100 Postage 700.00 1320961101550400 Travel-Ed 4,150.00 1320961101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 10,000.00 1320961101601700 Copy Supplies 2,000.00 February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) 1320961101800100 Mach/Equip-Addl 15,000.00 = 1310460211312000 Va Power Grant, Other Prof Svcs 500.00 1310460211420110 Sch Transp, Field Trip 150.00 1310460211601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 850.00 1310460211601700 Copy Supplies 300.00 1312663328550100 Learn/Serve Grant Travel 500.00 1312663328601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 6,275.00 TOTAL$284,023.90 REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 2313924000240354 SOL$183,880.00 2350218000181223 Shannon Grant 4,668.90 2320924000240299 Partnership Grant 86,900.00 2310418000181233 Va Power Grant 1,800.00 2312624000240306 Learn/Serve Grant 6,775.00 TOTAL$284,023.90 __________ Item 5.3. Appropriation: Education, $1360.00 (Form #99052). It was noted in the staffs report that the following moneys have been received by the School = Division through various donations. Meriwether Lewis Elementary School has received an anonymous donation in the amount of $1000.00. This donation will be used for cultural enrichment events at the school. Hollymead Elementary School has received a donation from Mr.& Mrs. Jae Lee in the amount of $50.00. This donation will be used by the kindergarten class to purchase beginner-reading books. Murray Elementary School has received anonymous donations in the amount of $310.00. These donations will be used to purchase miscellaneous supplies for the school. Staff recommended that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $1360.00, as detailed on Appropriation Form #99052. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted approving the request: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00 NUMBER: 99052 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND CONTRIBUTIONS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORYDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 1 2206 61101 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES$1,000.00 1 2205 61101 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES50.00 1 2215 61411 580000 MISC SUPPLIES310.00 TOTAL$1,360.00 REVENUEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION$1,000.00 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION$50.00 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION$310.00 TOTAL$1,360.00 __________ Item 5.4. Appropriation: Education, $1,212,960.29 (Form #99053). It was noted in the staffs report that the following moneys have been received by the School = Division for various school projects and programs. The Virginia Department of Education awarded Albemarle County Public Schools a Technology Literacy Grant in the amount of $53,300.00. The essential goal for this grant project is to provide teachers additional support and training as an extension of the Albemarle/Curry Technology Infusion Project and other Albemarle/UVA technology-training partnerships. At the end of FY 1998-99, substantial one-time funds were committed to textbooks. These State lottery funds were to substantively complete adoption of several levels of Math and Science. All textbooks were ordered prior to June 1, but many were not received or invoiced until after the June 30 Fiscal Year deadline. The invoices dated after June 30 cannot be paid from FY 1998-99 funds. All textbooks received after June 30, have been paid from FY 1999-00 funds. It is requested that $396,826.05 be reappropriated from FY 1998-99 to FY 1999-00. At the end of FY 1998-99, substantial one-time funds were committed to bus replacement. These State lottery funds were to replace needed buses on a 13-year replacement cycle. All buses were February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) ordered prior to June 1, but they were not received or invoiced until after the June 30 fiscal year deadline. The invoices dated after June 30 cannot be paid from FY 1998-99 funds. All buses received after June 30 have been paid from FY 1999-00 funds. The funds allocated for these purchases need to be moved from FY 1998-99 to the current fiscal year. Additionally, the bus replacement fund had a small fund balance associated with the delivery of services to outside agencies; this fund balance of $27,907.23 is included in the reappropriation request. It is requested that $279,976.23 be reappropriated to the FY 1999-00 fiscal year. Western Albemarle High School received donations from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation in the amount of $1000.00 and from Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Dupont in the amount of $1000.00. The funds will be used to support the Fine Arts Program at the school. Crozet Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from the State Farm Good Neighbor Grant Program. This program encourages State Farm associates to become more involved with non-profit organizations in the community. Associates who volunteer a minimum of 40 hours in a calendar year may apply for this grant from that nonprofit organization. Deane Begiebing, a parent, volunteered many hours and served on the Crozet Elementary School PTO Board of Directors. This donation is to be used for the Book Buddies Program at Crozet Elementary School. Virginia Migrant Education received additional Incentive Grant Funds in the amount of $18,832.00 from the Office of Migrant Education. The Albemarle County Regional Migrant Education Program received extra funds from this grant to increase direct tutorial instruction for eligible Migrant Students. The Virginia Department of Migrant Education has requested that the Albemarle Regional Migrant Education Program be the fiscal agent for a new statewide recruitment project. Additional funds of $50,000.00 are being allocated in order to design and develop a special recruitment program targeting at- risk migrant youth within the State of Virginia. This program will involve special training and procedures specifically designed to recruit drop-out migrant students and connect them to available education services. The Virginia Department of Education awarded Stone-Robinson Elementary School a grant in the amount of $11,500.00. This award will be used to develop a resource package for teaching the third Mathematics Standards of Learning (SOL's). The resource package will include lessons, activities, and assessments for Mathematics SOL objectives. The resource package will also provide activities correlated to other subject areas. Jeff Coleman, teacher and team leader of Stone Robinson Elementary School will coordinate this project. The Albemarle County Regional Migrant Program, Part C of Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, has received a grant in the amount of $27,000.00. This program is a federally- funded program designed to locate all eligible migrant students residing in its district and evaluate their individual educational needs, and offer services to meet those needs. The program provides extra in-school instruction, guidance, home-school coordination and coordination with and utilization of all available community resources. It also provides after-school and evening tutoring sessions in migrant camps and learning activities in the summer. Albemarle County Schools received a grant from the State Department of Education in the amount of $4225.01. This grant is to be used to pay for postage for schools to mail School Performance Report Cards. Driver Safety Funds consist of driver education behind-the-wheel and the motorcycle safety programs. These programs, which total $155,997.00, have been part of the Community Education Fund for many years. In an effort to clarify the financial situation of the After-School Education Program, the Driver Safety Programs are being separated into their own fund. Approximately 700 students are trained each year in Driver Safety. Operating before school, after school, and in the summer, students receive twenty hours of training. The Open Doors Program provides continuing education for the general public by offering a diverse range of courses throughout the year. The Open Doors range of classes are published and scheduled twice a year and more than 3000 people in our community participate in these programs. The Open Doors schedule is published in coordination with Charlottesville City Schools, CATEC, and the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department. This program has been a part of the Community Education Fund for many years. In an effort to clarify the financial situation of the After-School Program, the Open Doors program, which totals $80,000.00, is being separated into its own fund. Following substantial completion of the FY 1998-99 audit, reappropriation of school carryover funds takes place and portions of building rental funds are returned to schools. Reappropriate $105,133.00 of School Carry-over and $27,671.00 of Building Rental Funds for a total of $132,804.00 Staff recommended that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $1,212,960.29, as detailed on Appropriation Form #99053. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted approving the request: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00 NUMBER: 99053 FUND: SCHOOL/PROGRAMS February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SCHOOL BOARD REQUEST OF DECEMBER 13, 1999 EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 1313161311152100 Tech Literacy Grant, Sub Wages-Teacher$8,644.00 1313161311210000 FICA 661.00 1313161311312500 Prof Serv Inst 26,435.00 1313161311550400 Travel-Ed 7,255.00 1313161311601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 10,305.00 1211461101602000 School Fund, Textbooks 396,826.05 1390562320800501 School Bus Fund, Sch Bus Replacement 279,976.23 1230261101601300 Upton Foundation, Ed/Rec Supplies 2,000.00 1220361101160300 State Farm, Stipend-Curr/Dev 500.00 1310361101132100 Migrant Education, Salaries 17,491.00 1310361101210000 FICA 1,341.00 1310361101132100 Migrant Education, Salaries 36,600.00 1310361101210000 FICA 2,800.00 1310361101550100 Travel-Mileage 756.00 1310361101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 9,844.00 1314161311132100 SOL Grant, Salaries 10,682.77 1314161311210000 FICA 817.23 1310361101112100 Migrant Education, Salaries Teacher 5,451.00 1310361101132100 P/T Wages, Teacher 11,728.84 1310361101210000 FICA 1,305.36 1310361101221000 VRS 917.70 1310361101231000 Health Ins 391.20 1310361101232000 Dental Ins 12.60 1310361101312000 Tuition, Fees 604.00 1310361101520100 Postal Svc 120.57 1310361101520302 Telephone, Long Distance 259.10 1310361101550100 Travel, Mileage 818.64 1310361101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 2,841.75 1310361311115000 Salaries, Ofc Clerical 1,836.29 1310361311210000 FICA 133.70 1310361311221000 VRS 218.58 1310361311231000 Health Ins 52.16 1310361311232000 Dental Ins 1.68 1310361311601700 Copy Supplies 306.83 1220161411520100 SOL Postage, Postal Services 157.98 1220261411520100 Postal Services 93.10 1220361411520100 Postal Services 119.19 1220461411520100 Postal Services 167.86 1220561411520100 Postal Services 218.64 1220661411520100 Postal Services 166.80 1220761411520100 Postal Services 62.06 1220961411520100 Postal Services 79.34 1221061411520100 Postal Services 180.55 1221161411520100 Postal Services 90.28 1221261411520100 Postal Services 127.30 1221361411520100 Postal Services 57.13 1221461411520100 Postal Services 189.02 1221561411520100 Postal Services 94.51 1221661411520100 Postal Services 198.18 1225161411520100 Postal Services 164.68 1225261411520100 Postal Services 209.47 1225361411520100 Postal Services 177.38 1225461411520100 Postal Services 207.00 1225561411520100 Postal Services 221.81 1230161411520100 Postal Services 541.30 1230261411520100 Postal Services 339.24 1230361411520100 Postal Services 26.45 1230461411520100 Postal Services 335.74 1330561235132100 Driver Safety, P/T Wages-Teacher 39,000.00 1330561235210000 FICA 2,983.50 1330561235301210 Contract Services 780.00 1330561235331500 R&M Equip-Veh 3,500.00 1330561235440010 Printing 100.00 1330561235520301 Telephone 1,401.00 1330561235580500 Staff Dev 175.00 1330561235600100 Ofc Supplies 100.00 1330561235600200 Food Supplies 50.00 1330561235600800 Veh/Equip, Fuel 2,770.50 1330561235601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 200.00 1330561235800100 Mach/Equip, New 300.00 1330561235800501 Motor Veh, Replacement 11,640.00 1330561236132100 P/T Wages, Teacher 24,000.00 February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) 1330561236210000 FICA 1,836.00 1330561236331500 R&M Equip-Veh 2,400.00 1330561236580500 Staff Dev 100.00 1330561236600800 Veh/Equip, Fuel 1,300.00 1330561236601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 324.86 1330561236800100 Mach/Equip, New 250.00 1330561237132100 P/T Wages, Teacher 21,530.94 1330561237135000 Office Clerical 5,735.85 1330561237210000 FICA 2,085.91 1330561237221000 VRS 732.10 1330561237231000 Health Ins 1,043.20 1330561237301210 Contract Services 585.00 1330561237331500 R&M Equip-Veh 2,100.00 1330561237440010 Printing 200.00 1330561237580000 Misc Expense 100.00 1330561237600800 Veh/Equip-Fuel 375.00 1330561238132100 P/T Wages -Teacher 23,080.00 1330561238210000 FICA 1,765.62 1330561238331500 R&M Equip-Veh 1,500.00 1330561238580500 Staff Dev 100.00 1330561238600800 Veh/Equip-Fuel 1,500.00 1330561238601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 100.00 1330561238800100 Mach/Equip, New 252.52 1330660301132100 Open Doors, P/T Wages-Teacher 15,000.00 1330660301135000 Clerical 8,603.75 1330660301210000 FICA 1,347.01 1330660301221000 VRS 1,317.84 1330660301231000 Health Ins 1,851.40 1330660301312700 Prof Svc, Consultants 22,300.00 1330660301350000 Printing/Binding 6,450.00 1330660301360000 Advertising 300.00 1330660301440010 Printing 300.00 1330660301520100 Postage 5,500.00 1330660301520301 Telephone 1,300.00 1330660301520302 Telephone, Long Distance 450.00 1330660301550100 Travel, Mileage 400.00 1330660301580100 Dues/Memb 300.00 1330660301580305 Excess Fees 1,800.00 1330660301600100 Ofc Supplies 480.00 1330660301601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 11,400.00 1330660301601700 Copy Supplies 300.00 1330660301800710 Data Proc Supplies 600.00 1221661101601300 Carryover Allocation, Ed/Rec Supplies 4,556.00 1230161101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 9,364.00 1220161101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 10,107.00 1220261101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 2,999.00 1225161101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 2,405.00 1221461101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 6,260.00 1220361101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 3,574.00 1220461101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 1,843.00 1225261101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 7,882.00 1220561101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 1,592.00 1225361101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 12,573.00 1220661101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 10,140.00 1230461101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 1,362.00 1221561101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 6,265.00 1230361101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 5,255.00 1220761101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 4,911.00 1220961101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 2,197.00 1221061101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 2,903.00 1221161101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 2,121.00 1225561101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 14,331.00 1225461101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 7,132.00 1230261101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 214.00 1221261101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 7,678.00 1221361101601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 5,140.00 TOTAL$1,212,960.29 REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 2313124000240312 Tech Literacy Challenge Grant$53,300.00 2200051000510100 Appropriation-Fund Balance 396,826.05 2390551000510100 Appropriation-Fund Balance 279,976.23 2200018100181109 Donation 2,000.00 2200018100181109 Donation 500.00 2310333000330102 Migrant Ed Grant 18,832.00 2310333000330102 Migrant Ed Grant 50,000.00 2314133000330212 Teaching SOL Grant 11,500.00 February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 2310324000240257 Migrant Ed Grant 27,000.00 2200024000240351 SOL Postage 4,225.01 2330516000161209 AHS Motorcycle 18,480.00 2330516000161210 AHS Driver Ed 53,100.00 2330516000161211 WAHS Driver Ed 23,600.00 2330516000161254 MHS Driver Ed 23,800.00 2330524000240770 Motorcycle State Rev 16,008.00 2330524000240771 Driver Ed State Rev 21,009.00 2330660301161201 Open Doors 78,000.00 2330660301161202 Open Doors-Advertising 2,000.00 2200051000510100 School Fund Balance 132,804.00 TOTAL$1,212,960.29 __________ Item 5.5. Destruction of Paid Tax Tickets. It was noted in the staffs report that the Library of Virginia's Record Retention and Disposition = Schedule requires that paid tax tickets be retained by the locality for a period of five years after audit. At that time, after approval by the department head and the designated records officer for the locality, tax tickets can be destroyed, but only after authorization from the governing body. Staff approval has been received to destroy approximately 34 cubic feet of distribution records, which includes paid tax receipts for the period of July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993. Staff requests authorization from the Board to dispose of the records. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized staff to destroy approximately 34 cubic feet of distribution records which includes paid tax receipts for the period from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993. __________ Item 5.6. FY 2000-01 Revenue Projection Update. It was noted in the staffs report that Fiscal Year 2000-01 revenues projected in October, 1999 at = $114,638,256 have been revised to $116,443,762, an increase of $1,805,506. This increase is summarized in the chart below: OctoberJanuary$% Revenue Source19992000IncInc Local Tax Revenue100,233,885101,209,585975,700 0.97% Other Local Revenue 4,708,525 4,658,730(49,795)-1.06% State/Federal Revenue 9,414,417 10,088,152673,735 7.16% Transfers/Fund Balance 281,429 487,295205,86673.15% Total General Fund113,638,256116,443,7621,805,506 1.57% Local tax revenues increase overall by $975,700, the majority of which are sales tax revenues, motor vehicle license fees and cellular taxes. Sales tax revenues increased $383,500, reflecting continued strong economic conditions and sales. Motor vehicle license fees increased $202,185, reflecting the rate changes approved by the Board on November 10, 1999. Cellular taxes increased $300,000, reflecting cellular company billing adjustments to correctly identify Albemarle County residents who have not been billed, or who have been billed incorrectly to another locality. General property tax revenues were revised upwards by $43,715 overall, reflecting relatively small increases in both real estate and personal property tax revenues. Meals tax revenues increased by $10,600, while estimated transient lodging taxes were revised downwards by $69,700. (Previous estimates were incorrectly based on fourteen months of collections in the previous fiscal year.) Other local revenues were reduced by $49,795, reflecting downward revisions in permits and fees, charges for services and recovered costs. State and Federal revenues increase by $673,735, reflecting $357,036 in additional 599 funds (based on the Governor's proposed budget), $237,052 in additional revenues for Social Services (based on projected program costs), and other miscellaneous increases. Fund Balance and transfer revenues increase by $205,866 reflecting the addition of $300,000 in carry-over funds previously reserved to defray the projected additional operating expenses associated with the jail expansion. This increase was partially offset by a $98,800 reduction in school reimbursement for technology support. (The School Information Services Division will now provide technology support directly to the schools.) Based upon the normal allocation of local tax revenues, the School Division would receive an additional $610,512 in local tax revenues for FY 01 (60%), leaving $407,008 (40%) for General > Government. The additional allocation of funds and the resulting school transfer are summarized below: Additional Allocation to the Schools: February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) Additional Local Tax Revenues$ 975,700 Less: Additional Tourism Revenues (1) 41,820 Total Additional Local Tax Revenues for Operations $ 1,017,520 (1) Reflects impact of subtracting a projected reduction in tourism revenues. Schools @ 60%$ 610,512 General Govt. @ 40% 407,008 Therefore, the revised transfer to Schools is: Previous Transfer to Schools $55,258,822 Plus: Additional Transfer Revenues 610,512 Total Revised Transfer to Schools $55,869,334 Staff recommends approval of the FY 2000-01 revised revenue projections and the allocation of the additional local tax revenues between the School Division and General Government. By the above recorded vote, the Board approved of the FY 2000-01 revised revenue projections and the allocation of the additional local tax revenues between the School Division and General Government, as set out above. __________ Item 5.7. Resolution in support of Water Service Grant for the Town of Scottsville. A presentation of this request had been made at the Board meeting on January 2, 2000. = By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Support for Stony Point Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Improvement as adopted: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR STONY POINT SUBDIVISION SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS , the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, have determined there is a need for extending sanitary sewer service to the Stony Point Subdivision in the Town of Scottsville, Virginia; and WHEREAS , several public hearings have been held with the residents of the Stony Point Subdivision before the Planning Commission and the Town Council of Scottsville; and WHEREAS , there has been nearly unanimous public support for approval of the extension of the sanitary sewer service to the Stony Point Subdivision; and WHEREAS , a preliminary engineering report for sanitary sewer improvements in Stony Point Subdivision has been prepared for the Albemarle County Service Authority and for the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, by Draper Aden Associates, Blacksburg and Richmond, Virginia; and WHEREAS , three options were developed by Draper Aden Associates for expansion of the sanitary sewer collection service to the Stony Point Subdivision, Scottsville, Virginia.; and WHEREAS , the funding for this sewer line extension project may involve potential applications for grants from four sources: Community Development Block Grants, Rural Economic Community Development, Virginia Revolving Loan Fund and Contributions from the Albemarle County Service Authority; and WHEREAS , the extension of the sewer line to the Stony Point Subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Scottsville and is located in a growth area of Albemarle County; and WHEREAS , a need presently exists for the extension of this sewer line to the Stony Point Subdivision of the Town of Scottsville, Virginia; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that: (A) the Board of Supervisors supports the extension of the sanitary sewer line to Stony Point Subdivision in the Town of Scottsville, Virginia; and (B) the Board of Supervisors endorses the funding for the project adopted by the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Town of Scottsville, Virginia; and (C) the Board of Supervisors supports the application of the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, for a grant to support the funding of this project; and February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) (D) the Board of Supervisors endorses the sanitary sewer line extension as outlined in the report of Draper Aden Associates as being in compliance with and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County, Virginia; and (E) the Board of Supervisors directs the Clerk to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Albemarle County Service Authority and to the Town of Scottsville, Virginia. __________ Item 5.8. Capital Funding Requests from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS) and the Paramount Theater. It was noted in the staffs report that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS) is = requesting a $55,000 contribution from the County toward the down payment on a 10,000 square foot permanent facility for their organization. The facility, which could be purchased or built-to-lease, is expected to cost approximately $1.0 million and be located in or near downtown Charlottesville. CALAS is requesting $110,000 from the City toward this effort, has applied for a Perry Foundation matching grant in the amount of $270,000, and is seeking financial support from legal organizations, the University of Virginia Law School and private donors. According to CALAS' written information, the Legal Aid Society has not yet identified a building to purchase. Numerous buildings have been considered, but all were unsuitable, either because of expense, size or configuration. CALAS currently is exploring the possibility of a build-to-suit lease purchase plan with several local developers. A funding commitment from the City and County is requested so CALAS can make competitive offers on suitable buildings for sale, or in order to enter into a viable agreement with a developer. Full funding in the current year is preferred, although phased contributions stretching over two to three years would be acceptable. The Paramount Theater is requesting $500,000 from the County to restore the historical Paramount Theater and renovate the building to accommodate advanced theatrical and musical productions. The overall project is expected to cost approximately $6.6 million. Paramount Theater is making a similar request for $750,000 from the City. Additional funding is being sought from the Perry Foundation, the State Department of Historic Resources, through fund-raising activities, private family contributions, foundations and corporations. A brief description of the project and a proposed business plan for the renovated theater was forwarded to the Board with other agenda information. According to the Paramount's written information, it has already raised $2.4 million from private donors, downtown developers, local business owners and the Perry Foundation to purchase the theater building, complete the Master Plan and the Programming and Usage Study, replace the roof, stabilize the building, restore the marquee and staff a full-time office. Approximately $1.7 million of these funds have been pledged toward the restoration project cost of $6.6 million. County funds are being requested in July, 2000 and may be phased over a multi-year period. Since both the CALAS and Paramount Theater requests were first submitted recently, the County had not been aware of either organization's capital facility needs. Therefore, these projects have not been discussed or prioritized by the CIP Technical Committee and are not included in the FY 2001-05 recommended CIP. Staff does not recommend funding either the CALAS or Paramount capital requests at this time. Although, both projects are worthwhile and have substantial community value, these requests should be evaluated in conjunction with other unfunded capital projects to be reviewed by the Board over the next three months. Although both CALAS and Paramount should be commended for their initiative in developing financing plans that address their long-term needs, it has been outside of the County's capital planning and financing process and must compete with other unfunded County priorities. In that context, the Board may want to hold these requests until all the unfunded capital projects are thoroughly reviewed, and all operating and capital budget needs to be funded with the General Fund Balance have been identified. As with the request from Region Ten last month, staff will be working with both of these organizations to determine phase-in amounts that would both meet their funding needs and lessen the one-time impact on the County's budget. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the staffs recommendation. == __________ Item 5.9. Resolution for the addition and abandonment of Route 809 and Route 846 due to reconstruction of entrance to Bellair. At the request of Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator for the Virginia Department of the following Resolution was adopted: Transportation, re: Project 0250-002-112,C501, R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS , the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, with a sketch dated December 30, 1999, depicting the additions and abandonments required in the secondary system of state highways as a result of the construction of project #0250-002-112,C501, which sketch is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) WHEREAS , the portions of Route 846 identified on the sketch as Section 1 and Section 2 to be abandoned is deemed to no longer serve public need; and WHEREAS , the portions of Route 846 and Route 809 identified on the sketch as Sections 3, 4 and 5, to be added to the secondary system; and WHEREAS , the new roads serve the same citizens as that portion of old road identified to be abandoned; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways a portion of Route 846 identified on the sketch as Section 3, a distance of 0.08 miles, and a portion of Route 809 identified on the sketch as Section 4 and Section 5, a distance of 0.07 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, of the Code of Virginia; and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the secondary system of state highways that portion of Route 846 identified on the sketch as Section 1, a distance of 0.05 miles, and a portion of Route 809, identified on the sketch as Section 2, a distance of 0.05 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-155, of the Code of Virginia; and RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. __________ Item 5.10. Proclamation recognizing February, 2000 as School Board Appreciation Month. Mr. Martin said he intends to read this proclamation during this afternoons session with the School Board. = By the above recorded vote, the following Proclamation was approved: School Board Appreciation Month WHEREAS , as Virginians we have a responsibility to prepare our children for a successful and fulfilling future, and educating the children of our great Commonwealth by increasing knowledge and understanding and developing positive character traits is of paramount importance; and WHEREAS ,parents are responsible for the education of their children, and teachers, principals and school board members are entrusted by parents to guide, direct and impart knowledge to their children while at school; and WHEREAS , School Board members, along with the growing and dynamic team of teachers, set the standard of excellence in Virginia's education of its young people; and WHEREAS , local school boards have devoted themselves to providing a high quality of education for all students in the Commonwealth; and WHEREAS ,our great Commonwealth is proud of its educational system and is appreciative of the efforts of local school board members to make the Virginia public schools system an excellent one to educate our children; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby recognize February 2000, as School Board Appreciation Month in the County of Albemarle and call this observance to the attention of all citizens. __________ Item 5.10a. Proclamation recognizing February 6 through February 12, 2000, as Scouting Anniversary Week. By the above recorded vote, the following Proclamation was approved: SCOUTING ANNIVERSARY WEEK WHEREAS ,the success of Scouting for Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Explorers depends on our community organizations; and WHEREAS , there are 60 churches and synagogues, schools and parent-teacher associations, service and fraternal organizations, and other community February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) groups that have been chartered in our area by the Boy Scouts of America to use the scouting program; and WHEREAS ,the volunteer leaders selected by these chartered organizations are performing an outstanding service for 2286 boys and young men and young women; and WHEREAS ,the Monticello District of the Stonewall Jackson Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America and its corps of dedicated volunteer leaders are providing necessary support to the leaders in the 73 Cub Scout packs, Boy Scout troops, and Explorer posts; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the week of February 6 through February 12, 2000, as SCOUTING ANNIVERSARY WEEK and urge our citizens to join with me in expressing appreciation to the community organizations and their volunteer Scouting leaders for bringing this Scouting-based program to our young people. __________ Item 5.11. Copy of the public comment draft of the Tributary Strategy, Goals for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction in the James River from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, was received for information and is on file in the Clerk's Office. Comments on the report must be returned by February 15. (Ms. Thomas said she attended a long series of meetings on this item. She has never seen the final report. She asked if any County staff member is looking at this report to see if comments need to be made. Mr. Tucker said he asked the Watershed Management Official to look at this report. Ms. Thomas said most of the people working on this report are Soil & Water Conservation District people. She tended to be the only elected official attending the meetings. These people did not know much about zoning or other things this Board considers when dealing with water issues.) __________ Item 5.12. Notice of petition filed with the State Corporation Commission (PUC990244) by MCI WorldCom, Inc. and Sprint Corporation requesting approval to transfer control of Sprint Corporation's Virginia Operating Subsidiaries to MCI WorldCom, Inc. was received for information. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6. Transportation Matters. Ms. Angela Tucker said her updates on January issues are still outstanding. She will take new transportation issues today. Mr. Bowerman asked whether VDoT has decided to change signage for through traffic from the North and wanting to go to East approaching the City from the East . Ms. Tucker said VDoT is examining the situation and will report back to the Board at a later date. Her office is waiting for some sketches to show both the County and the City. Mr. Bowerman asked if it makes sense to do this. Ms. Tucker said reaction to the suggestion has been positive. __________ Mr. Tucker thanked Ms. Tucker and her staff for the excellent job they did this winter in regards to snow removal. __________ Mr. Perkins said he had a call about Route 806 which is a dead-end dirt road in the northern part of the County. They need maintenance on the road. There was a complaint also about potholes on Route 663 which turns off of Route 806. _________ Mr. Perkins said he would like to comment about the railroad underpass in Crozet. When the road was resurfaced, the road is at about the same level as the sidewalks so it is not a good situation for pedestrians. Monday morning, before the last snow, he saw a man in a wheelchair who had to go out into the road, because of snow on the sidewalk, in order to get through that section. He asked Ms. Tucker to check this section of road and sidewalk to see what can be done to make it safer. __________ Mr. Martin said he got an E-mail last night about the lack of guardrails near Park Hill on Stony Point Road. He has asked this citizen for more information. __________ Mr. Perkins said the lady who called him said Route 806 is maintained out of the Stanardsville office. He asked if that is true. Ms. Tucker said she thinks it is. Mr. Perkins asked how the Board should pass on complaints like this. Should they just send them directly to maintenance? Ms. Tucker said the February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) members can do that, but she likes to think that hearing from her means a little more, but the Maintenance Section should respond to calls from Board members. __________ Mr. Dorrier said the Scottsville Town Council is setting up a hearing on Secondary Roads. Ms. Tucker said she has been invited to that meeting and will attend. __________ Ms. Thomas said there is to be a meeting with the Wyant Lane residents next Monday evening in the Miller School Chapel. Anyone who is interested is welcome to attend. She said she appreciates the work Ms. Tucker has done to get this meeting scheduled. Also, Juandiego Wade, as well as the Zoning Department to determine development rights, and the Assessors to answer questions. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. Cost-of-Living Study dated November, 1999; Presentation of. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said this is an update of the 1995 report. It shows that cost-of-living projections have not changed a lot since 1995. They may be more relevant because there have been two years of experience with Welfare Reform. In relation to Welfare Reform, = which affects mostly single parents, the report continues to show that for a single parent to maintain a household for more than one child, they must make $11.50 an hour in order to meet just basic needs. One adult with two preschool children, needs to make $15.00 an hour. The report shows various configurations of family units and the cost associated with that configuration. In contrast to the single family, a two-adult family with one child only needs to make about $7.00 an hour, and with two children, only about $10.00 an hour. Only the basic necessities of life were considered. No luxuries were considered (vacation, entertainment, unusual expenses). It does include housing, child care, medical insurance, medical expenses, food, telephone and transportation. She said the largest expenses for any family are housing and child care. Ms. White said the Board needs to consider whether the report is important and whether the community has learned anything from the report. She said it is known that the income for a single parent to maintain a household is unattainable unless they have professional education and training, or they have some type of subsidy in housing or child care. Most low-income families do not have the option of having one person stay at home, if they are a two parent family. Child care for pre-school children is the second largest expenditure for families. Also, using the percentage of median income as a means test for most State and Federal programs, it shows that even with a subsidy those families would be living at way below what is calculated as a basic living level in Albemarle County. Ms. White said there is good documentation for Welfare Reform and the number of people who have been taken off of the welfare rolls. There is not good documentation as to what happens to those people. There are some policy issues which need to be looked at. One of those is insuring that the working poor have some housing and child care subsidies available, and probably also medical needs. She said the community needs to look at how families can afford good child care. Children in their active learning years should not receive inadequate child care, that which does not prepare them to be ready to learn when they enter school. The report points out the need for subsidizes for rental housing, and the need to continue efforts to help some of the working poor families be able to purchase a home at some point in time. She said the report said the business community needs to provide the type of training and education which is necessary to motivate those who are ready to move up, and to help them get the education they need in order to receive a higher wage. Ms. White said the whole report points out the fact that legislation is needed. The State needs to be pushed to take the moneys they have saved from Welfare Reform, and put those moneys back into the community to help with child care costs and education and training. Hopefully, the report gives some policy directions on things the County needs to do to help the families who are the working poor, and those newly off of welfare who are working but who are still having a hard time sustaining what is called an affordable lifestyle in Albemarle County. Ms. Humphris said she remembers that when the County knew it would be going into the Welfare Reform program people were considering what would happen after the two years of eligibility when former clients were on their own. She asked if there are any bills in the General Assembly now that deal with creating a safety net for those people at the end of the two years. Ms. White said she did not know A@ of any legislation at this time. Ms. Humphris said it is possible that the money saved will disappear into the States General Fund. Ms. White said it is unclear how the funds saved will be redirected. = Ms. Humphris said she remembers the VIEW Committee discussing the tremendous need for child care funds, and that there is a tremendous amount of money available from the Welfare Reform pocket. It seems that administration in Richmond would not release the money. Ms. White said that has not been resolved at this time. She said it is a big issue. It was said at the beginning that if there was to be Welfare Reform, money would be saved on direct payments, but the costs of child care would be increased. The report shows that without help with child care costs, a person making from $6.00 to $7.00 an hour cannot pay these costs. Mr. Dorrier said on page 90 of the report it is stated that a single parent with one child would need to earn 217 percent of poverty to meet the cost of living in Albemarle County, that is $24,036. Does that mean that person would need to earn that amount to be above the poverty level? Ms. White said that is what it would cost for them to live in Albemarle County. February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) Mr. Dorrier asked if the percentage of people in Albemarle County below the poverty level is known. Ms. White said in 1990 it was less than ten percent. Mr. Dorrier said he is convinced that while there may be a low unemployment rate in the County, there is a high underemployment rate because there are highly educated people employed in low-paying jobs. He said that figure is probably not reflected in this data. Ms. Thomas said that will not appear in this study. Ms. White said the Federal poverty level figures are very low. The Federal level is about $11,000. She said that is a hard amount to live on for the year. Mr. Dorrier said in talking with Dr. Castner yesterday about the schools and the hiring of teachers, Dr. Castner indicated that some teachers have to live in other counties in order to make A ends meet. @ Mr. Martin said that is one reason why he asked that this report not just be approved on the Consent Agenda, but that the Board actually have a discussion of the report. He said that $24,000 is a bare minimum for living in Albemarle County, and there are many people who are not capable of earning that amount. The County has a blooming service industry, but other types of jobs need to be looked at in the community. That $24,000 is probably talking about a renter and not someone having home ownership. As a probation officer, he still feels that the best crime prevention is home ownership. There are many people who cannot afford to live in Albemarle County. The County needs to be vigilant and look at all of the programs proposed and find out what the program does to the middle class, and to the lower class. If vigilance is not taken, the middle class will move out and just come into the County to serve the wealthy. That is one reason he wanted this report to be underlined. Mr. Bowerman said those minimum wage jobs will always be available, but the County needs to having training programs which allow people to obtain programs which will help them move up the chain into better paying jobs. He said that PVCC, the school systems, the University of Virginia and the Economic Partnership are aware of that need. That is part of the process being mentioned. Mr. Martin said this County has done an exceptional job trying to move people into home ownership. He thinks it behooves the Board to also consider the side effects of the programs it approves. Ms. Thomas said the third largest expense is transportation. That cost is determined more by land use patterns than by having JAUNT. Child care cost is another important item. She said the Board got a report last year on the quality of child care in the community, and that report raised some alarms. She said that report was to go to the Commission on Children and Youth. She asked if they have done anything with that report. Ms. White said it is not a separate issue. The Commission, at this time, is focusing on early childhood. They are looking at the time period from zero to when a child enters school. Research has shown that brain development is at its height in three and four-year olds. If there is bad child care with no interactions and improper nutrition, the child will lose a lot of ground in development. That is why the schools have said they already know when children come into kindergarten that some of the children will not be successful. Mr. Perkins said child care costs vary from area to area. In Albemarle County there are child care centers where they have not been able to get enough trained people to staff the center. He said it seems that there should be job training available to train people in the child care field. Mr. Bowerman said the State is vigorous in what is required. Ms. White said wages are also very low, so it is more difficult to find people to work in a child care center. There are better paying jobs available in the community. Ms. Humphris said she does not report regularly to this Board about the work of the VIEW Steering Committee (Virginia Initiative for Employment, not Welfare) for the planning district. She said this Committee is made up of representatives from all counties in the Planning District and the City, the Social Service directors, etc., who meet monthly to deal with all of the problems mentioned today which have arisen as part of welfare reform. One of the main things they deal with is cooperation between the public and the private sector, i.e., with businesses to hire people off of the welfare rolls and to participate in the training these people need so they can turn jobs into careers. A lot of headway has been made in the community. Many of the big businesses in the community have provided support and are participating in this effort. Ms. White said the County recently received a grant from the State which allows the County to work with some small employers to work with some of their employees. This provides help to the employers with issues such as transportation, child care, etc. Ms. Humphris said the County needs to make sure that the clients who are employed will share with their employer what their problems are. After that, they are trying to make sure the employer knows where to tap into resources for help. This area has a lot of help available if people know where it is and how to access it. There was no further discussion of this item at this time. _______________ Not Docketed: Mr. Martin asked about the request from CALAS and the Paramount Theatre. Mr. Tucker said that was on the Consent Agenda today. Staff recommended that these requests be considered along with the request from Region 10 by the Program Review Committee for capital funds. Ms. Humphris said she is becoming concerned about the timing of these requests. She got a telephone call yesterday from a gentlemen representing a program called Christmas in April. This A@ program is headed up by a group of students from the Darden Business School and some local people. They have been doing repairs to homes to enable people, particularly elderly people, to stay in their homes. This gentlemen was requesting funds, and she explained to him the process and how important it is that the Board stay with the process. It seems that lately there are a lot of agencies and organizations that do not understand the importance of the Program Review Committee in dealing with these requests so there can be orderly decision-making. This process needs to be broadcast to the public so they will understand that this is a structured process. _______________ February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) Agenda Item No. 8. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program, Work Session on. Mr. Tucker said at the Boards meeting on December 1, 1999, staff reviewed a number of issues = with the Board regarding implementation of the ACE program. As a result of that meeting, the Board scheduled a public hearing on the final report of the ACE committee to take input from citizens. In addition to the Board's general discussion of the ACE program, staff is now seeking input from the Board regarding issues previously discussed. This is needed in order to provide guidance to the County Attorney in drafting an ordinance for the program. Mr. Tucker said staff has identified the following ten guidelines for discussion today: 1.Applications will be taken throughout the year. 2.The purchase of conservation easements will take place at the end of a one-year application period, unless extenuating circumstances dictate otherwise. 3.Applications for the purchase of conservation easements must meet the minimum qualifying points to be considered for purchase. 4.The Board of Supervisors is not obligated to purchase conservation easements on all properties that meet the minimum qualifying points. 5.Properties not purchased in a given year are eligible to reapply for the program in a future year. 6.The Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority will be the holder of all conservation easements acquired through the ACE program. 7.The County will offer to pay for conservation easements based on a County or contracted appraisal and negotiation with landowner will not be permitted. 8.Property owners will not have the option to buy back the conservation easement. 9.The County will pay all costs, including environmental site assessment(s), survey(s), recording cost(s), grantors tax, if any, and other charges associated with closing except fees incurred for legal, financial or other advice and fees in connection with the release or subordination of liens to the easement(s) being acquired by the County. 10.Points will be assigned to properties located in sensitive groundwater recharging areas, to be defined through future groundwater studies. Mr. Tucker said the following issues were also raised at the public hearing and have yet to be resolved, so staff offers the follow: 1.Acquisition of easements on "low scoring" properties: Staff recommends that the Board consider the purchase of easements on "low scoring" properties on a case-by-case basis. A "low scoring" property would be one that receives the minimum, or just above minimum, qualifying points using the proposed point system. A point range for low scoring properties would need to be established. For properties that fall in this range, staff would undertake a more detailed analysis of the property and provide a recommendation on whether or not to acquire the easement. 2.Properties abutting Development Area boundaries: Staff recommends that property abutting a Development Area boundary also be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The evaluation would focus on determining whether the easement would protect defined significant resources and, if not, how the easement may affect other current land use policies and future land use issues/decisions. For example, it is likely that any property that is located within a water supply watershed would be recommended for acquisition. Mr. Tucker said the ACE committee was asked to provide additional comments on a number of issues, including how income level and biodiversity would be considered in evaluating properties for purchase. Due to the inclement weather, the committee was unable to meet on January 25 as scheduled and did not meet until last Monday, January 31. Mr. Tucker said the Board was sent minutes yesterday on E-mail from that meeting. Mr. Martin asked if there were any questions from Board members. There being none, he asked for an update of the ACE Committee meeting. Ms. Sherry Buttrick said the ACE Committee met on Monday. They considered the two questions which received the most comments at the public hearing. She said Mr. Greg Edwards from the Nature Conservancy is present and will report on biodiversity. Ms. Nancy McLaughlin volunteered to assist the committee and has done significant work running numbers for the program. She will be present later and will report on a significant improvement in the Financial Need Criteria. A@ Ms. Buttrick said the Committee agrees that the Public Recreational Facilities Authority is the proper holder for the easements. She said that in order to get matching funds from the State, it will be necessary for these easements to be co-held with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. The Committee has said that permanent easements should not be subject to buy-back. The groundwater recharge, as soon as it is mapped and available, seems like a good addition. The County Assessor has said that an independent appraiser should be hired, at least for the first couple of years, partly because of the time needed. He would also like to have an outside appraiser who is familiar with easements to do the first appraisals so he can use that person as a mentor in the process. Mr. Bowerman asked if this means multiple appraisals, or just to have one done with outside review. Ms. Buttrick said there would be one appraisal per property and the same person is hired so the appraisals stay steady. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is anything in the plan to have multiple appraisers, February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) to make sure the evaluations are on target. Ms. Buttrick said the Committee proposed that there be an Assessment Review Committee which would work with the appraising process. Basically, an independent appraiser does his work and renders a decision. Neither of the interested parties in the transaction should be involved in effecting a decision of the independent appraiser. If the County wants more than one appraisal, that is possible. Mr. Bowerman asked how this process works with the Outdoors Foundation. Ms. Buttrick said when someone gives a gift of an easement, that person commissions the appraisal of the property. An independent appraiser does the appraisal and submits a form that is signed by the Outdoors Foundation acknowledging the gift. That gift is an income tax benefit, which is subject to review by the IRS. The Outdoors Foundation does not pass judgment on the valuation. Mr. Davis said the complicating factor in the process would occur if there is a bargain sale situation. In that case, the landowner may want to have their own appraisal done in order to maximize their gift, whereas the County appraisal would not have that as the goal. Ms. Buttrick said one good feature about having this outside appraisal is that when there is an independent appraiser, if there is a bargain sale involved, the landowner can commission the same independent appraiser to go back and do the appraisal again for the landowner. She believes it is a requirement of the IRS that the landowner commission the appraisal to satisfy a real requirement. If one independent appraiser is used, there will be no problem with the appraiser coming up with one value and the Countys appraiser coming up with a = different value. Mr. Martin asked if the Equalization Board would be able to act as the Review Board mentioned. Ms. Buttrick said what the ACE Committee suggested for the Assessment Review Committee is the County Assessor, a real estate professional and one other person familiar with the field. That was suggested when the County Assessor was going to do the appraisal. It may not be necessary to have a committee at all if an independent appraiser is hired. Mr. Martin said he has some serious concerns that the County not pay for land that the owner would have clearly given to the County as a donation. He asked if the sliding scale takes care of that problem. Ms. Buttrick said the sliding scale is an ingenious mousetrap. She spoke with Ms. McLaughlin A@ and suggested that she study this question in depth. She did and then proposed the sliding scale which very uniformly and predictably addresses the problem mentioned by Mr. Martin. She also was concerned about this on behalf of the Outdoors Foundation. There is a need to be fiscally responsible and not pay for things that would be given free of charge. Also, a damper should not be put on the gift program. She said the sliding scale addresses that, and is something that was not seen in other programs the Committee studies. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Committee considered the biodiversity that Tom Olivier mentioned in the ranking criteria. Ms. Buttrick said the Committee has been working to put in a fifth criterion for what is being called natural habitat, something rare, threatened, special, or unique. She suggested that Mr. A@ Greg Edwards address this question. Mr. Edwards said he works for the Nature Conservancy which is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to protect biological diversity primarily through habitat protection. They work closely with the private sector. The purpose of the easement program is to fulfill the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. The County still has a great many natural resources left to protect. The Committee is comfortable with how biological diversity was placed in the framework. If an individual landowner has identified resources on his property which are rare, endangered, unique or special, as identified through either the National Heritage Inventory or the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries inventory, that person would get additional points for having that resource on the property. The issue is how far to take that within this process. Mr. Edwards said he would address specific points brought up at the public hearing. The Committee does not have substantive changes to what was initially recommended. In the criteria, they would like to alter the language in the section dealing with Natural Resources to say Biodiversity and A Natural Heritage Resources. First, it gets the phrase biodiversity in the language. Second, it dovetails @A@ with the Natural Heritage programs recommendation on wording so it meshes with the State inventory = program. At this time, there is a repository of information in this inventory at the State level. Organizations like the new Albemarle County Biological Committee, and other entities both public and private, as they do field work and surveys will feed this information into the central inventory. That will increase the amount of information on Albemarle County properties. Over time, as properties come into the process, there will be better information, but the ACE program should not be held up waiting for better information. Mr. Edwards said there has been a recommendation that a biologist serve on the ACE Committee. The Committee does not object to such an appointment, but it does not want to get too specific and did suggest broad categories of people who could serve on the committee. It is up to the Board to appoint people who best represent cross-sections of the community. Mr. Edwards said there was a recommendation to remove road frontage as a criterion. The Committee objects to that suggestion. When talking about properties with a lot of road frontage, those tend to be the properties which are at the greatest risk for development. One of the biggest issues with biological diversity, or any natural habitat, is fragmentation. If protection of large tracts of land with road frontage is taken away, biodiversity can be harmed by not protecting those properties most at risk from being further fragmented. The Committee clearly recommends that road frontage stay as a criterion. Also, there is the issue of funding. Road frontage means scenery and thus, tourism. February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Mr. Edwards said there was a recommendation to increase the use of the word biodiversity in A@ the final report. He said the Committee does not object to that because it does support biological diversity and biodiversity. At the same time, it was a final report, and the Committee is not sure the final report should be adjusted or the word be used more in future publications. He then offered to answer questions. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Edwards had mentioned a change. She asked what change is being suggested. Mr. Edwards said it is in the criterion dealing with biological diversity. They would change the title to use the word biodiversity so it is in the criterion. Also, use the word "natural heritage resources" because it dovetails with the phrasings used by the Natural Heritage Department at the State level. The effect is still the same. If a property has been identified as having rare and endangered species, or exemplary aspects of natural communities, broader landscapes, the effect is still the same. That property would get more points than a property which did not have those things. In addition to specific sites, it is important that the County realize that as open space is protected, whether through this program or voluntary donations, the County is protecting biodiversity. It is not just specific sites, it is also landscapes. Mr. Dorrier said he recently met with the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable which is a multi- jurisdictional committee. They have documented all of the fauna and flora and animal life along the Rivanna River. They also studied the biological impacts from runoff into the Rivanna River. He said it may be important for the ACE Committee to meet with that group. Mr. Edwards said there are a lot of groups doing that type of work. Mr. Dorrier said the Roundtable published a comprehensive report on their findings after studying the issues for over two years. Mr. Bowerman asked if the ACE Committee can be characterized as a group of people with a variety of interests. Mr. Edwards said ecological considerations and biodiversity had to play a role and were part of the discussion. They could not be ignored, just as farmland protection and forestry protection could not be ignored. Mr. Bowerman said even though there was not an environmental specialist in biodiversity on the Committee, could the group be characterized as having that concern among the members. Mr. Edwards said absolutely. If the Committee had a different representation, he A@ believes the Committee would still have come up with similar criterion because it is tied to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dorrier suggested the Committee contact Ms. OBrien at the TJ Planning District Commission = and look at the reports which have been compiled about preserving land and open space along the Rivanna River. Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas both said that is already a part of the criteria. Mr. Bowerman said that is what he heard, and there is no conflict. Ms. Nancy McLaughlin was invited to speak at this time. She distributed a paper entitled Conservation Easement Donation, Estimated Tax Benefits. She said the figures in the report are A@ general numbers and cannot be relied on in specific cases because there are too many variables. She said the numbers shown do give a rough idea of the kind of tax benefit that is available. She then explained the figures in the report, which is on file in the Clerks Office with the permanent records of the = Board of Supervisors. Mr. Martin said he is usually very good with charts, but he does not understand the charts presented. Mr. Bowerman agreed. Mr. Martin said he wants to make sure the County does not purchase property that would have been donated. Ms. McLaughlin referred to the first line in the chart which showed an Annual Combined Adjusted Gross Income of $25,000; a Combined Estate of $1,350,000; a A@A@ Federal Income Tax Savings of $90; a State Income Tax Savings of $3,990; an Estate Tax Savings A@A@A@ of -0-; a Total Tax Savings of $4,080; and, a Net Benefit/(Loss) from Easement Donation of $4080. A@A@ She said that in this example, this couple is unlikely to be motivated to donate a conservation easement because the existing tax benefit for them would be only $4,080, whereas they are giving up $300,000 in value. Particularly if they are relying on the value of their land as their retirement savings. Ms. McLaughlin referred to the person with an annual adjusted gross income of $500,000, with a $3.0 million estate. They give up $300,000 in value on their property, but they can expect over time to receive $426,958 in estate tax benefits based on the assumed facts. Also, this person is unlikely to be relying on this property as their retirement savings. That person will likely be motivated to donate a conservation easement. Ms. McLaughlin then referred to the Proposal Chart. She said this chart shows that instead of A@ saying a person whose income is over $200,000 a year gets nothing, the landowners income is removed = from the ranking system, so people would not fiddle with their income to fit within the rule. This chart A@ actually gives people less of an incentive to change their income. Looking at the chart, a person(s) making $75,000 per year would receive 82 percent of $300,000 in cash from the County. Mr. Martin asked if that would leave that person with development rights. Ms. McLaughlin said 18 percent of $300,000 would be considered a donation, so they would get some marginal tax benefits. Mr. Martin said the County would get the entire rights of that property, but would only pay for 82 percent and expect them to donate the 18 percent. Ms. McLaughlin said that was correct. It is called a bargain sale. Ms. McLaughlin then referred to a person(s) whose average annual adjusted gross income is from $160,000 to$170,000. On the Basic Assumptions chart, the total tax savings over a period of time A@ for a 100 percent donation would be $268,740. But, on the proposal chart, they enter the program after A@ satisfying the criteria and the County would buy 28 percent of their easement, or 28 percent of $300,000. The remaining percentage would be considered a donation and they could get tax benefits to the extent of that percentage. February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) Mr. Martin asked if any Board member had a specific question. With no question at this time, Mr. Martin said he was going to change the agenda so the Board could receive the School Board report. The ACE program can be discussed later today. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. School Board Presentation. Mr. Charles Ward, newly-elected Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, was present to make the report. Also present were new School Board members Mr. Gary Grant and Mr. Ken Boyd. Mr. Ward handed to the Board members copies of the Schools Board Briefs for January 10 and = January 24, 2000. He thanked the Board for the Bright Stars program which is a positive program. He said Ms. Roxanne White and Ms. Kathy Ralston have done a great job with this program which is expected to help improve the literacy rate. There are less than 20 percent of the children who are not at grade level by the end of Grade 2. The fact that the program is only available in four of the 15 elementary schools has prompted the School Board to get some information on the program. They want to get it into all elementary schools and have contacted Legislators to ask for support. They feel this program will help with the Standards of Learning. Mr. Ward said the School Board sent a letter to the Legislators about the composite index. The legislators have been reminded of the Countys Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City. Senator = Couric (S.B. 30) sponsored an amendment. The School Board received a report from the Equity and Diversity Program Committee. The Committee has been meeting since November, 1999 and has received team building skills and are now gathering information on issues raised on diversity with the School Division. He said there are 26 members on the Committee. Mr. Ward said there has been a change in State laws, and there can be student representation on the School Board. The School Board has discussed developing a County High Schools Student Council. = It might be something like the Parents Advisory Council. = Mr. Ward said the Charlottesville Area School Business Alliance (CASBA) has been very helpful. The Albemarle Schools use vocational funds in conjunction with instruction funds to support its membership in the Alliance in the amount of $17,187. Mr. Ward said the athletic directors from the three comprehensive high schools made a presentation to the School Board on January 10. It focused on critical issues, including the increasing costs for uniforms and equipment, increased costs of security and transportation and the need to improve coaching stipends which are still based on a starting teachers salary of 10 years ago. = Mr. Ward said the School Board held a Retreat on January 15. The Virginia School Boards = Association presented information on how other school boards conduct their meetings. One thing they are going to discuss is how to get public input before it is time to take action on an item. Mr. Ward said the School Boards Budget Committee is composed of Messrs. Grant, Koleszar = and Boyd. They are going to examine the budget process. He said the whole School Board will be present later today to meet with the Board, but they have not come to any consensus on any of the budget issues. Mr. Ward said Mr. Gerald Terrell, principal of Cale Elementary School, was given the Charlottesville Martin Luther King, Jr. Award on January 16. Because there is overcrowding at Cale, the School Board is going to look at spot redistricting. Next year, they expect the school to be 174 over capacity. Mr. Ward said the Schools have used their seven inclement weather days, and if they use more, they will have to take those days from spring break. They had planned for 11 days, and have used seven so far. He understands the Board of Supervisors will be having a public hearing on the Capital Improvement Program on February 9, and the School Board is having another budget work session on that same date. He said the School Board had added that one day to finish its budget, and then February 10 was also added. He said the Albemarle County School System is eligible to have a waiver in order to start school before Labor Day, and the School Board will decide soon. Staff has recommended that school start on August 28, as have members of the public. Even though the whole calendar has not been set, this would help people be able to plan vacations, etc. He said the School Board will also be meeting with the area Legislators on February 21 to get an update on legislative requests. Mr. Martin said he has one major complaint to be passed to the School Board. Last year the School System had a problem collecting moneys from After-School Program participants. This year they instituted a prepay plan. He has heard from a couple of parents that the way the plan is set, they have to estimate the amount of time they will need and pay a couple of months in advance. Then, if they don't use that time, they lose the money. They suggested that they pay for x number of days and use the A@ days whenever necessary. Mr. Bowerman said the resources from the program are based upon participants. Mr. Ward agreed. He said staff has to be available regardless of the number of students staying after school. Ms. Humphris said the bottom line is that the program must be self-sustaining, so they have to know how many students to expect. Mr. Ward said this is the first year the program has been operated in this fashion. There may need to be revisions made. __________ February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) With no further comments concerning this item, Mr. Martin said the Board would take a recess even though the meeting is running behind schedule. The Board will finish discussion of the ACE Program when the meeting resumes. (The Board took a recess at 10:53 a.m. and reconvened at 11:02 a.m.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program, Work Session (Continued). Mr. Martin called the meeting back to order and said he feels comfortable with the explanations he heard from the Committee this morning. He said Mr. Olivier had asked to speak, and if there are no objections from Board members, he will allow him two minutes in which to make his statement. Mr. Tom Olivier from the Scottsville District encouraged the Board to move forward on drafting an ordinance. Comments heard today and comments made at the public hearing are that the program can be made better and more in service to the common good. He asked that Water Resources staff be involved in the drafting of an ordinance, particularly in regards to biodiversity. He was pleased to hear Mr. Edwards comments about the inclusion of large stands of native forests. He said that is the first explicit = step he has seen toward ecosystem protection. In the biodiversity section of the Comprehensive Plan, there is heavy stress placed on protection of ecosystems. The Comprehensive Plan does raise a concern about fragmentation. He said this is still a long way from addressing some of the issues in the Comprehensive Plan section on the Natural Environment. It will be important that the Biodiversity Committee be created in a timely manner so it can begin collecting additional information to allow this program, and other programs, to realize their goals. Mr. Olivier said that on September 9, a few people sent a proposal to the County recommending specific changes to the program after obtaining comments from members of the biodiversity community. He asked the Board to consider three things not addressed in the ACE Committees modified proposal. = 1) Add a statement of purpose. 2) Add a riparian area protection proposal because it protects water, the riparian area and the animal communities. There is scientific literature to support this type of proposal. 3) Make a firm commitment to use the results of the Biological Advisory Committees work in periodically = updating the land selection criteria. He said the League of Women Voters statement, in slightly different = language, supported this type of thing. Mr. Olivier urged that the Committee be created in a timely fashion. He said that because the Committee is scheduled to begin in the second half of this years work plan, local residents and = environmental groups will be putting on two biodiversity forums for the public. One will be on September 27 at the Ivy Creek Natural Area. The topic is The State of Biodiversity in Albemarle County. He urged A@ the Board to move forward today with the drafting of an ordinance. (Mr. Perkins returned to the meeting at 11:05 a.m.) Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Olivier had developed specific language to address his proposal. Mr. Olivier said yes, and distributed copies of specific comments to the Board members. A@ Mr. Martin asked if there was anyone present today who was at the public hearing who would like to make further comments about this program. There was no one present who wished to speak. Mr. Martin said he feels the proposal is ready to pass to legal staff for the drafting of an ordinance. Ms. Thomas said she appreciates what the Committee has done. They have been responsive to the Board's requests for changes in the proposal. Because this is based on recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan, and because the community has never made a statement as to the value it puts on different types of property, there is bound to be some ambiguities in the program. The idea of having the Game and Inland Fisheries list tell what the Biodiversity Committee can do gives a mechanism which seems to be formal and usable without stopping now and waiting for that Committee to be developed. Also, the riparian land is given quite a few points, but there is more to be learned about water and groundwater in particular, but that can be fed into this at the appropriate time. She said the charts on the sliding scale give the County a good idea of how to deal with making sure that tax dollars do not go into property that would otherwise have been voluntarily given as an easement. She said there is no one hundred percent guarantee. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks this is an example of how a public hearing can bring issues to the forefront that vastly strengthen the ordinance and make everybody in the County profit from it. Mr. Bowerman said there are some people in the County who are very opposed to this concept. He believes they are a minority. Ms. Humphris said she would like to have a copy of what Mr. Olivier referred to earlier. She said that it is noted in the Executive Summary that the Board of Supervisors is not obligated to purchase A conservation easements on all properties that meet the minimum qualifying points. That is confusing. @ Since the Board is not obligated to purchase any conservation easements, the language needs to be revised to say the County is not obligated to purchase any thing, period. February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) Ms. Thomas said it was suggested that on No. 6 the Albemarle County Recreational Facilities Authority be the joint holder of the easements so the County can take advantage of some funds that may be available for this purpose. Mr. Martin said he believes the Board is in general agreement with the ACE Committee. He believes it is ready to send it to the County Attorney for the drafting of an ordinance. The only issue still remaining is how long to run the program before having a referendum of the taxpayers. This still needs to be discussed. Ms. Thomas said ordinarily referendums are for bond issues and a bond issue may not be the best way to fund this program. She does not think the Board should promise a referendum until it has that discussion. Mr. Bowerman said the Board promised to review the program to see whether the public would support a tax increase to continue the program into the future. Ms. Thomas said there is more to it than just saying the Board will let the public have a say. Having their say involves a different way of funding that may end up costing the community a whole lot more in the long run. Mr. Martin said that is the reason he raised the question. He does not believe the Board is united on how long it will move forward with the program without consent of the voters. Ms. Humphris said the Board did discuss it slightly and said it needed at least two years to demonstrate the value of the program for the future before adopting a funding plan. Mr. Dorrier said there is a good possibility the County can get some State funding through pending legislation before the General Assembly. Mr. Martin said hopefully that will make the discussion about funding easier. Mr. Davis said the ordinance will not address funding because that will be a year-to-year decision of the Board of Supervisors. There was no further discussion of this item this day. _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. Appeal: SDP-97-035. Calvet Virginia Preliminary Site Plan-Critical Slope Waiver. Proposal for 2576 sq ft convenience store/gas station on 1.051 acres zoned C-1 (Proffered). The property, described as Tax Map 60F, Parcel 3, is located in the Jack Jouett District at the intersection of Hydraulic Road (Route 743) and Georgetown Road (Route 656). Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant appealed the decision and conditions placed by the Planning Commission concerning a critical slopes waiver approved in December, 1999. He said staff has been reviewing the site plan for quite a long time. This is not a site plan for use, because use was established through a rezoning action in the early 1980s. It identified the convenience store and the islands for gasoline pumps. He said the executive summary sets out the staffs processing of this site plan which = was submitted in 1997. It has been through the Site Review Committee and a number of revisions with the ultimate matter before the Planning Commission of a critical slopes waiver needed in order to get approval of the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the approval of the Planning Commission included five conditions which were intended to reduce the impacts of the critical slopes disturbance on adjacent property, particularly on Georgetown Green. The first condition dealing with stormwater management was to insure that the Countys Engineering Department was aware of a contract which would insure that the stormwater facility = was property maintained. This site is within the South Fork Rivanna River Watershed. 1.As a part of the approval of the Stormwater Management BMP plan, the program A authority (County Engineering) shall require the owner to have the sand filter inspected annually by a person or firm satisfactory to the program authority and to report those findings of the inspection to the program authority as otherwise provided as part of the plans monitoring and reporting requirements. =@ Mr. Cilimberg said the second condition having to do with review by the Design Planner of the canopy as well as the building color, was included because this site is not located on an Entrance Corridor. Review by the Design Planner under the guidelines for the Entrance Corridor help to assure that there is as much reduction of impact of the canopy and building from the corridor as well as from adjacent property. 2.There shall be Design Planner review of the proposed canopy in accordance with the A adopted design standards of the County Architectural Review Board, and Design Planner review of the building in relation to its color. @ Mr. Cilimberg said the third condition is in effect a screening and buffering condition and has particular emphasis on buffering from Georgetown Green. There are a number of trees proposed to be planted. These are plantings which would exceed current ordinance requirements and provide for taller trees and plantings than would normally be placed. 3.The number of trees shown on the preliminary site plan is adequate. The trees should be A of mixed species, a mixture of native evergreen and deciduous trees, which should be planted at a minimum of three-inch caliper. There should be a shrub layer of native shrubs beneath the trees that will provide complete coverage within two years. The installation shall be done in such a way that it protects the slope from erosion in the meantime. In its consideration of approving a landscape plan, staff should ensure that plantings are arranged in a fashion that provides maximum screening. A cluster of trees on-site, including a double red oak and a white oak located about 50 feet from the corner of the property near the water line easement shall have tree protection during construction and be specifically retained. @ February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) Mr. Cilimberg said Conditions 4 and 5 are to eliminate activity and lighting overnight between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. from the operation of the use. 4.There shall be no hours of operation for the convenience store or service station after A 11:00 p.m or before 5:00 a.m. Hours of operation are defined as those hours the store is open to the public. 5.All external lights and signage lights except for security lights will be turned off during non-operating hours. @ Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant appealed the five conditions of the Planning Commission. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Martin asked if any Board member had a question. Mr. Dorrier asked if a survey was done on the impact of the ingress and egress on the safety to the roads at that intersection. Mr. Cilimberg said a member of VDOT staff is on the Site Review Committee. VDOT did review the entrance because they are the ones to grant an entrance permit. He understands they have indicated approval. Mr. Ron Keeler said one of the conditions requires safe and convenient access to the facility, and that actually caused a redesign of the building. Parking had to be pushed back on the site to accommodate turning movements. As originally designed, the left turn out of the site onto Hydraulic Road would have been received in the center lane of the road, and that was not acceptable to VDOT, so there was a redesign process to correct that problem, as well as some other issues. Mr. Davis said those issues will be addressed at site plan stage, but the issue before the Board today is simply the critical slopes waiver which has no connection to other site plan requirements. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Davis to give the Board a legal explanation of the appeal. Mr. Davis said the appeal is before the Board because the Planning Commission, under the Zoning Ordinance, can grant a waiver when development is to occur on 25 percent slopes. In this particular case, there are 25- percent slopes that were created (man-made) at the time of reconstruction on Hydraulic Road. Under the ordinance those slopes qualify for protection unless a waiver is granted by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did approve the waiver; they approved the waiver to develop on the critical slopes but it attached five conditions to that approval. The applicant has appealed those conditions because he did not feel those conditions are reasonable in connection to the critical slopes. The Board needs to focus today on whether the conditions are reasonably related to the critical slope waiver. The conditions need to have a basis in law that would be supported in a court if appealed, that would guarantee that there is a nexus to the critical slopes and that they are in fact reasonable. The difficulty in this particular case is that there are fairly unique circumstances attached to this piece of property. In 1981 and 1982, a legislative decision was made to rezone this property for one singular use. No other use of this property is allowed except for a convenience store with gas pumps. The plan that was proffered at that time showed development occurring in the critical slopes area which was already designated by the Zoning Ordinance at that time. The Board is working under some unique circumstances in that a legislative decision was made by a prior board that basically assured that the only use of this property would be development as shown in that sketch plan. Working within those parameters, it is difficult for the Board to have the same amount of discretion it might have in other critical slopes waivers where other uses of the property might exist. Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak allowing him to speak for the ten minutes set out in the Boards rules. = Mr. Fred Payne was present to represent the applicant. He said this site plan has actually been in the approval process for three years. This project has been in the preparation stages for that long. There have been many problems with the site and this development. It has actually been to the Circuit Court twice for issues not related to the County. He hopes this will be the last time everyone has to deal with the fundamental issues. He said Mr. Davis comments are particularly well-taken and that is what = everybody is here to discuss today. He said this site plan has been exhaustively considered by the staff. The critical slopes modification was the issue that came up in December, and they all thought it would be routine. The problem the applicant has is with the Planning Commissions conditions. They lost sight of = the limited nature of this review. The applicant has no problem with Condition #1. It is something they would do anyway. They object to the other five conditions because they feel the Commission exceeded the scope of its authority. The conditions are not relevant to the critical slopes modification. On Condition #3 there is discussion of maintaining a certain clutch of trees. Those trees are in an area that is not proposed to be disturbed. The applicant has no intention of cutting those trees down and as a practical matter, there is no objection to that condition, but it is illustrative of how the Commission went further than it should have. Mr. Payne said they appealed all of the conditions, but there is only one with which they cannot live and that is Condition #4. He said this is the kind of condition usually placed on special use permits. If this condition stays, the property cannot be developed. It is not economically feasible. If that happens, there is no other use to this property. If the Board sustains the Commissions action to approve the = modification subject to four of the five conditions, the applicant could live with that approval. Mr. Bowerman asked about the condition dealing with lighting. He asked if it is possible to develop the site with the hours of operation contemplated, so there is no direct visibility of a light source from the lower property. Mr. Payne said the conditions on the site plan already contemplate that. The lights are specifically designed so they are shielded from any direct exposure to a lower elevation from the light source itself. February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) Mr. Dorrier asked if it is contemplated to open the service station 24 hours a day. Mr. Payne said probably. He said this not a service station. It is a convenience store. He said an informal survey was A@ done, and virtually every convenience store in the urban part of Albemarle County is open 24 hours a day. It is basically a marketing requirement. Ms. Thomas asked if the lights, as described today, will be seen from Georgetown Green. Mr. Keeler said that condition will be enforced in the final site plan review by the Planning and Zoning Departments. The current lighting provisions do not have that as a requirement of the ordinance. The staff has a letter on file dated April 10, 1999, from the applicant agreeing that the bulbs will not be directly visible from Georgetown Green. Ms. Humphris said she believes there are a lot of people who came this morning to hear this discussion. She suggested that the public be permitted to speak at this time. She said that Ms. Laney Kaminier and Ms. Pat Hurst were present. Mr. Martin said this is not a public hearing. However, he will allow these two ladies to make comments assuming they represent the majority of the people present this morning. Ms. Laney Kaminier said she is a member of the Board of the Georgetown Green Homeowners = Association. First, she thanked the Board for allowing them to speak today, and for letting them present a petition signed by 240 residents of the area. She said that 19 years ago, Malcolm Reid owned a Hop-In franchise on a site owned by Exxon next to the one currently slated for development. He had to close the store in 1981 because the widening of Hydraulic Road had eliminated the room for his gas pumps. Later that year, he applied to purchase not only the adjacent plot, but also to rezone and build a new store with pumps at the new location. Pleading financial hardship, he asked the Board of Supervisors to rezone his one-acre lot from RA to C-1. The Board approved the request over the objections of the Planning Commission regarding the critical slopes in excess of 25 percent. He never built on the property. Mr. Bill Heischman acquired the property in March, 1999 and will allow Calvet Virginia to build a 24-hour convenience store with gas pumps because of the mistake made 19 years earlier by the Board. She said the Homeowners know Mr. Heischman is legally within his rights to build this gas station due to the Planning Commissions waiving of the 25 percent critical slope regulation, but their petition urges the = Board to send the site plan back to the Commission for further study or amend the zoning classification to permit a less toxic and invasive use of the property. Ms. Kaminier said that based on discussion with the Planning and Engineering Departments, they believe the waiver granted under Section 4.2.5.2.b will be detrimental to the public safety due to dangerous traffic conditions and to adjacent properties due to erosion, pollution and increased concentrated water runoff, and the public safety and welfare due to environmental pollution of wells on adjacent property and the Rivanna watershed area. Ms. Kaminier said the Planning Commission improvidently waived the 25 percent critical drainage slope requirement to permit a 50 percent runoff slope adjacent to the Georgetown Green subdivision. The Commission did not adequately consider the adverse drainage effects on the surrounding residential property, residential well, and the watershed in terms of pollutants, erosion and water runoff. This busy and dangerous intersection will become even more unsafe when the much larger than average population of inexperienced teenage drivers in that area start using the convenience store as a destination. The commercial gas station usage differs significantly from the professional business adjacent to the nearby homeowners. She said they feel the general safety of minors and unauthorized school absences will become problems if this convenience store is permitted to locate within walking distance of the schools nearby. They feel the store could increase the incidence of crimes and mischief in the area because it will become a popular destination and gathering place for teenagers. There will be potential problems with direct or indirect sale of alcohol to minors. The night hours will attract undesirable outsiders into the currently safe residential neighborhoods and could possibly cause an increase in crime in those areas. Even if the hours are limited, it will only be a matter of time before the convenience store/gas station ownership will seek to remain open for seven days each week for 24 hours per day. Ms. Kaminier said in closing, in addition to the petition, they want to go on record in support of the conditions attached to the critical slope waiver approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. Pat Hurst said she was representing the Board of the Georgetown Green Homeowners = Association. She wanted to address three specific issues in support of the petition. Number one is the introduction of dangerous traffic. Number two is water runoff and damage. Number three is petro- chemical pollution. She showed a drawing of the proposed store and its entrance onto Hydraulic Road. She said it will become more dangerous with the introduction of this new ingress and egress. She cited VDOT comments made during the Site Review meeting in April, 1999 where it was said that the traffic A generated, along with the turning movements, will adversely affect the operational area of the intersection. No traffic study has been performed by VDOT. We believe this is essential before going forward. @ Mr. Hurst said the second issue has to do with runoff damage. She said that from the top of the slope where there is concrete, all of the water flows down into a drainage pipe that lets out at the top of Georgetown Green. This water will flow into the creek behind Georgetown Green properties and into the watershed. It will flow into the area where the maintenance shed and the playground are located, and onto adjacent property owners. They believe there will be water collection in the lots and there will be erosion in the area because of the new concentration of water flow. It used to be distributed and now it will be concentrated. February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) Ms. Hurst said they are concerned about petro-chemical leakage. She said there will be two sources of leakages, that being from the underground gas tanks and spillage from the pumps. In terms of the underground leakage problem, the Virginia Department of Environment Quality has said that despite A all of the preventative measures now employed by tank owners and operators across the state, leaks will still undoubtedly occur. Also, the source of spills of petro-chemicals will not be reduced by the sand @A filter that is now in place on the top of the slope. One example of this is the chemical MTBE which has @ known health hazards. Mr. Martin said he does not want to cut off comments, but he knows what the Attorney said about the issue before the Board today. The Board can only legally deal with the issues it is authorized to deal with. Ms. Humphris said Ms. Kaminer has asked, on behalf of the Homeowners, that the Board send = this back to the Planning Commission. She also suggested to Ms. Humphris that the Board has the ability to downzone the property. She asked Mr. Davis to comment on each of those suggestions. Mr. Davis said the Board has the authority to initiate a rezoning of property. However, in this circumstance, the Board would be undertaking what is called a piecemeal downzoning. Under Virginia law, the County A@ has to be able to defend a piecemeal downzoning which in effect takes away property rights an owner has under existing zoning. In a comprehensive downzoning, there is a presumption that the decision of the Board is correct, but in a piecemeal downzoning, there is a presumption in favor of the landowner. Unless that can be overcome with specific evidence that at the time the rezoning was made, there was fraud or a mistake in fact, or there have been other dramatic changes in circumstances, the courts have consistently overruled piecemeal downzonings. It is hard to find where one has ever been successfully sustained. Although technically it is legally available, in reality, it is something that could not be successfully undertaken by this Board. Mr. Davis said as to referring the site plan back to the Planning Commission, this is an appeal to the Board of Supervisors, so the Board has to make a decision on the appeal at this point in time. There is no process available to send it back to the Commission. Ms. Humphris said her first knowledge of the problem that existed on this property dated from June 2, 1995. She talked with the County Attorney about this property last week. She said it is very frustrating that the Board has been put in this situation. She feels the Board in 1981 had no idea that the building would not actually be replaced based on the language of the hardship letter presented at that time. What has happened through interpretations of that language is that instead of having one building on that site, there will now be two buildings on the site. One of those buildings will be built entirely on the critical slopes in order to have the circulation patterns presented as being necessary. She is not an attorney, but she does have to rely on the County Attorney for legal advice. Ms. Humphris said she does have a different reading of the County Code. In Section 4.2.5.2, the language is the Commission may modify, waive, or vary any requirement, etc. upon certain findings. It A@ does not say must. Further on it says it should not be detrimental to the public health, safety or A@A welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties. Later it says that one of the @ findings would be that “granting this waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by the strict application which she does not think it does. Next, 4.2.5.3 says The Commission @A may impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public interest and to insure that such development will be consistent with the intent of Section 4.2. She feels that gives the Planning @ Commission the right to attach the conditions that it did to this application for the steep slopes waiver. She feels there is no question but that construction on those critical slopes at this corner of Georgetown Road and Hydraulic Road which drains right onto Georgetown Green, directly through the creek and directly into the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, an endangered water supply for 60 percent of the people in the urban area, will be detrimental in many ways. Traffic safety will be a nightmare. The possibility of MTBEs is brought home by a public affairs advisory that went out January 20, 2000, from the American Water Works Association. She said the Board is familiar with MTBE because it had to make a decision to connect the entire Key West Subdivision to the public drinking water system at a cost to the taxpayers of = about $1.0 million (from an EPA Fund) because their well system became contaminated by a MTBE source which has never been identified. In this situation, this proposal has gas pumps on the surface and underground storage tanks within close proximity to private water wells. She said that is a scary possibility. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Payne has said this use and no other use has to be on this site. She said the citizens and taxpayers of Albemarle County have spent 30 years assuring that Albemarle County is one of the best places to live in the United States. That has been proven over and over by the external commendations the County has received. She feels that is because of the efforts made by the taxpayers and the members of this Board over the years to preserve and protect the quality of life in Albemarle County, most particularly the health, safety and public welfare concerns. She said all who live in the County have an investment in that piece of property. What all have done over the years gives that piece of property the value it has. Ms. Humphris said she understands that if the owner wanted to, he could request a release from that proffer by the Board and then build a nice, handsome office building on the site. That would be an income-producer for him. It might not generate as many big bucks as will come to whoever runs that A@ convenience store/gas station, but everyone has to get to the point where everyone understands that Albemarle County is not just a land store. It is here and anyone who has the money can come in and buy property to make money on the backs of the taxpayers. She does not know if Mr. Heischman has been approached with that thought or not. She understands it was very hard for the Georgetown Green people February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) to get a return to their telephone calls to Mr. Heischman. She said the bottom line is that she feels this is a disaster waiting to happen in terms of serious traffic problems, serious health problems, the potential for problems to the drinking water supply. She thinks if the least the Board can do is stick to the five conditions arrived at through a lot of discussion by the Planning Commission, then that is what the Board should do, and it is what the Board must do. Mr. Martin said he sent Ms. Humphris an E-mail in which he said he would follow her lead on this question. He did not think at the time that it would be to the point of going against what the County Attorney has said. Ms. Humphris said no one has heard her say that. The next step would be to hear what the Attorney would respond to what she just said. She used her lay interpretation of the words and A@ now the Board needs to hear his opinion concerning Condition No. 4. Mr. Davis said he met with Ms. Humphris and discussed Zoning Ordinance requirements. He understands how a lay person might think the authority granted by this section is greater than it is in this particular circumstance. One must read the waiver in the context of how it was granted in the ordinance. The language talks about the criteria being related back to the critical slope waiver itself. In addition, one must deal with the unique circumstance of this property that there is only one use of the property allowed. One of the important criteria is that the County cannot unreasonably restrict the use of the property. In this case, based on what the applicant has said, there is a basis for his concern that this would be an unreasonable regulation on a convenience store. Whether or not there is even a nexus between the critical slopes and the hours of operation, causes him concern. It would be his best legal advice, under the circumstances, that four of the conditions, given the applicants position and the basis stated by the = Planning Commission, could be sustainable by this Board. His recommendation is that the hours of operation would put this Board in a situation where the condition would have to be litigated and the chances are that the Board would not be successful in that litigation. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Davis was referring to both Conditions No. 4 and 5. Mr. Davis said he believes Condition No. 5 is acceptable because if the facility is not in operation, they would be willing to turn the lights off. move Ms. Humphris said in light of Mr. Davis advice, she would that the Board of Supervisors = uphold the decision on SDP-97-035 made by the Planning Commission with the exception of Condition No. 4 which shall be omitted. seconded The motion was by Mr. Bowerman so the Board could discuss it. He asked Mr. Payne the value of the property. He said there is the current value, the developed value, the income stream after development, but there are costs to develop the property. He said this property lies in an important urban area. The property is close to the high school, and it is large enough to be a public amenity. He said there could be certain economic attributes that could accrue to the applicant for a donation, as well as a purchase by the government of Albemarle. In light of the fact that the property lies in the watershed and the specific use contemplated is one that could have serious consequences to the watershed if there were a major spill, has there been any consideration by the applicant to take the land off of the development rolls. Mr. Bowerman said this is not something he would suggest lightly. Mr. Martin said he understands what Mr. Bowerman is asking. But, he is in effect making an offer that the rest of the Board has not discussed. What he would like to suggest is that the Board vote on this, and then if the Board decides to meet with the applicant to discuss other possibilities, then the Board do that. He does not think the issues should be confused at this point. He does not want to put Mr. Payne in the position of having to answer that question. Mr. Payne said he believes Mr. Martins answer is the = same as he would give, they would like to have this appeal dealt with today. If the concept is that the Board would like to discuss acquiring this property, that has never been broached. They would be willing to consider it. He has no authority to say that the applicant would do it. He believes the applicant would be willing to discuss it. Mr. Dorrier said he knows the Board is in a legal box. He also knows that constraints can be A@ very narrow. He said that when he was elected to the Board he did not believe he would be voting for something he might be against for other reasons. He realizes that is the reality here. He would like to make a few comments before the Board votes. He said Ms. Humphris gave an eloquent summary of reasons why the Board should not support this on the basis of good planning and public safety. He knows Georgetown Road well and there is already a traffic problem at the intersection of Georgetown and Hydraulic. It appears the Board has to grant the applicant the ability to put a convenience store with gas pumps on that corner, and the only thing the Board can deal with are the steep slopes and runoff; the Board is in a straight jacket legally. However, he does have a difference of opinion with the County Attorney as to a piecemeal downzoning. If the Board took away the owners right to build a convenience = store with gas pumps and he has no other use of the property, then the Board would put itself in a legal situation that probably would be overturned by the court. It the owner were allowed some other options for the property, and they were justified from the public safety and health standpoint, he thinks the Board would have opened other avenues to deal with this situation. That is what he would favor, some option to grant the owner additional uses of the property that would be less onerous than the convenience store use. Mr. Martin said he thinks Mr. Dorrier is agreeing with Mr. Bowerman in terms of taking a vote today, and then discussing with the applicant other possibilities. He asked if there were further discussion. Ms. Thomas said she recognizes that when the Board cannot give a room full of people what they want, it tends to talk a lot. She said the other most frustrating meeting she ever sat through with this February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) Board was exactly on the same issue. It was a steep slope waiver, and the Board railed at the County Attorney only to be told there was nothing it could do. This is the same situation. She said she is always trying to think of practical things, and she has lots of practical thoughts about the site plan review. She wants to make sure the Police and the Schools are involved in this site plan process. She said the Board needs to do something better with stormwater management. She said the Board needs to do a better job of protecting the downstream water streams. She knows the system tends to take off 40 to 60 percent of the siltation, and in this case that is probably not enough. Ms. Humphris said she does not believe the contentious piece of property the Board spent all that time discussing has yet been built on. She said it has now been three or fours years. She understands that the stormwater controls have to deal with, at the most, for a ten-year storm. There have been many one hundred year storms in this area. Whatever controls are put in only take out 40 to 60 percent of the sediment, which means that during construction there will be a lot of sediment going into the watershed. Another thing, Officer Gary Pustoka, the School Resource Officer at Albemarle High School, was in attendance earlier and he intended to supply information on the situation this store will cause with the students in the school complex. Mr. Martin said it appears the Board has been put in the position of either doing what is legal, or what is desirable. The motion on the floor is that the Board do what is legal. That motion is to uphold the Planning Commissions action deleting Condition No. 4. He requested that the Clerk call the roll, and the = motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Dorrier. _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. Long Range Capital Needs Work Session (continued from January 5, 2000). Mr. Martin said it is now 12:15 P.M., so the Board will need to go to lunch since they have an appointment with a photographer. _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. motion At 12:15 p.m., was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to conduct interviews and to consider appointments to boards and commissions and to discuss the performance of a specific employee; under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for school sites; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to the Ivy Landfill, relating to the denial of a telecommunications tower, and relating to the constitutionality of Virginia Code Section 18.2-391 which relates to restrictions on juvenile-related material. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. _______________ At 1:32 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session in the Fourth Floor Conference Room. Motionseconded was offered by Mr. Bowerman, by Mr. Perkins, to amend the Closed Session motion to include section 2.1-344A, subsection (7), legal matters, to discuss with legal counsel and staff an interjurisdictional agreement. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 13. Reconvene in Room 235. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:03 p.m. with Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier being absent at this time. _______________ Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Closed Session. Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Humphris that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the = open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motions authorizing the closed sessions were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The motion seconded was by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Bowerman. _______________ February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments. motion Ms. Humphris offered to appoint Ms. Kathleen T. Cornett to the Public Defender Office Citizens Advisory Committee (replaces Ms. Elizabeth Isley) with said term to run from November 2, 1999, through November 3, 2001. motion Ms. Humphris offered to appoint Ms. Jan Sprinkle to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee (replaces Mr. Edwin L. Strange) for a term to run from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. motion Ms. Humphris offered to reappoint Mr. James E. Clark, Jr., as the Scottsville Magisterial District representative on the Equalization Board with said term to run from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. Mr. Martin asked that the motion be amended to delete this appointment at this time. Ms. Humphris agreed. seconded The first two motions were by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motions carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Bowerman. _______________ Agenda Item No. 16. Work Session on Long Range Capital Needs Continued from January 2, 2000. Note (: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 2:05 p.m.) Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said staff will pick up this discussion with Parks and Recreation giving an overview of long-term needs for this function. There are three things to be discussed: outdoor recreation space (athletic fields); indoor recreation space (gym/multipurpose space); and, enhanced service levels. Ms. White said staff has been looking at the Community Facilities Plan and the service standards set out in that plan. She then explained in detail those standards (see copy of staffs report on file in the = Clerks Office). = Ms. White said the Board did receive a report on Outdoor Recreation Space Needs from a study done by the Parks & Recreation Department in 1998. That report states that there will be a thirty percent increase in participants, there will be a need for 28 additional fields, that current fields will need to be upgraded and that routine maintenance be improved. The estimated capital cost of this for FY 2001-05 is $1.69 million. For FY 2006-10, the estimated cost is an additional $1.25 million. Ms. White then explained Indoor Recreation Space needs. In order to meet enhanced service levels there is a need for 8800 square feet of gym space, 5000 square feet of multipurpose/community room space at a capital cost of $2.0 million with an annual operating budget of $50,000. Note (: Mr. Dorrier returned to the meeting at 2:10 p.m.) Ms. Thomas asked how these service standards were established. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is a national standard for these facilities. Mr. Mullaney said he does not know where the standard came from. He assumes it came from the state. Mr. Bowerman said the Board is expecting to have all of the new schools built with oversized athletic facilities, starting with the next elementary school. Ms. White said staff has been looking at the standards in the Community Facilities Plan to determine if they are accurate and realistic. She said the standards do not seem to be reflecting the reality of the situation in Albemarle. Ms. Thomas asked if the DISC Committee looked at the amount of outdoor recreation space and made recommendations. Mr. Martin said that committees recommendations all say that basically less = space should be used. They think the schools should be using less acreage and that school recreational facilities should be much, much smaller. Ms. White said the next enhanced service level would be for a major indoor recreation center of 35,000 to 50,000 square feet with a gym, swimming, weight room, racquetball, dance and multipurpose rooms. The capital cost is expected to be $6.0 million with an annual operating budget of between $250,000 and $300,000. A few years ago, the Board discussed having a swimming pool at Monticello High School. That will be in the FY 2002-05 budget with an amount of $50,000 budgeted to study the question. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is possible that such a thing could be self-supporting. Ms. White said staff has not looked at the question in that light. One of the issues to look at is whether enhancing parks and recreation space is really a governmental responsibility, or whether it should be a product of a non-profit group or the private sector. A third issue to be decided is a funding mechanism if the Board decides to go ahead with enhancing recreational space. February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) Ms. Thomas said the University of Virginia should be included in any discussion of public/private service levels. She said they include their employees in their calculations when they build things like the Aquatic Fitness Center. Some of those people are Albemarle County residents. Mr. Dorrier said another possibility would be linking up with other school systems. Monticello High School is located right next to Tandem School and then there are City schools nearby. Ms. Thomas asked if staff is getting out of these work sessions the information it needs to go forward with plans. When the third work session is finished, the Board is supposed to have arrived at some decisions. She does not feel the Board is working toward those decisions. Is there something more staff wants from the Board? Ms. White said staff wants to familiarize the Board with the needs so they can think about whether it should be a governmental function. She said staff is not expecting decisions until the end of these sessions, unless there is something included that everybody wants deleted now. She said a lot of the decision-making will come at the end of these sessions. At that time, she believes it will be a matter of prioritization. Mr. Dorrier said the potential aquatic center needs to be studied as a private/public/University/ PVCC partnership and is something which goes beyond just the staff, but should also involve members of the community. He suggested setting up a group to analyze the suggestion to see if it could be feasible. Mr. Tucker said at the end of these work sessions staff will bring to the Board some type of proposal that can be considered. At this time, it is just information. Staff is also bringing in a financial advisor who will give information on bond issues and how best to design those bond issues. Mr. Bowerman asked if requests for bids have been put out. Mr. Tucker said yes. A@ Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Dorrier represent the Board with a group of people looking at whether there can be a Lewis & Clark interactive museum with tourism and local participation. They are looking at outdoor acreage and that might become a recreation area for the County. Ms. White said that because the swimming pool issue is to be studied, it is possible that some of that money might be used to look at some of the enhanced service levels of more recreational space. Mr. Martin asked Ms. White to discuss the next category, Libraries. Ms. White explained the existing service standards and the current space needs gap. She said a study was done by City/County/Library staff to determine the need for potential libraries. Recommendations are to expand service in the Route 29 Corridor by 50,000 square feet; to provide a new facility of 15,000 square feet in Crozet; to provide a new facility to service Neighborhoods 4 and 5; and to expand the Scottsville Library by 15,000 square feet, at an estimated cost of $14.0 million. Ms. Thomas said she visits four of the five libraries on a regular basis and she does not see the overcrowding mentioned in this study. She said the public will not agree to add major dollars to these facilities if they do not perceive a need. She wants somebody from the Library system to tell her how the system is hurting in a way that is not visible to her. Ms. White said she thinks the question goes back to the standards set out in the Comprehensive Plan as opposed to the reality of the situation. Mr. Martin said he believes that before the Board looks at this as a capital project, it will require more evidence of need. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it is wonderful that there is a library (Northside) in a shopping center. It will take more evidence to convince her to move it out of that shopping center. Mr. Bowerman said that library started the revitalization of that shopping center. Ms. Thomas said it kept the shopping center from having ugly, empty commercial buildings. Ms. White said the lease for that space is renewable in 2001, so there will be discussion at that time. Although there may not be enough space over the long run, it certainly is a wonderful space, and a wonderful location. Mr. Tucker said the Board will have to discuss the value of keeping it in a shopping center, and the other intrinsic values there. They will need to decide if it makes more sense fiscally to build and not pay rent. He thinks it is a great location, and there are other things which make it more valuable in that location. It is too early to look at Forest Lakes, but that is the general area where a site would be sought. Ms. White said the issues for the Board to discuss have to do with the funding priority of libraries relative to other growth needs. A more definitive study has been funded in FY 2001 to look at the need for and timing of a funding mechanism, and under utilization of the Central Library. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Library Board was unanimous in these recommendations. Ms. White said she did not know, but she knows that the Library Board did approve the recommendations, and forwarded them to staff. Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, made a slide presentation of Stormwater projects. He said the purpose of a stormwater management program is to provide master planning and stormwater controls to manage the quantity and quality of runoff to protect properties and stream channels, and the environment. Some of the policies presently in place drive these decisions. Two sections of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Plan section, the Utilities section, and the protection of surface water and groundwater supplies, address the need for this program. The chapter on Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, which was recently updated regarding water resources and stormwater management, addresses the importance of this issue in order to achieve some of the other goals in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to existing regulations at the Federal and State levels, and County ordinances, the 1977 Clean Water Act is driving some of the needs. That Act, through the EPA, drives some permitting requirements. At the State level, there are the Virginia Stormwater Management law, Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control law and the Pollution Discharge Elimination System. Phase II of the NPDES requirements drive the State program through the EPA. These are new regulations which will have to be February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) fully implemented by the year 2003. The Board has also adopted a Water Protection Ordinance which calls for stormwater management measures under current policy. Mr. Foley said the County currently controls nine stormwater basins, but there are 100 stormwater basins which are privately-owned and maintained. These basins are subject to an annual inspection by the County. The facilities which are not inspected by the County have created some recent difficulties. There are miles of underground drainage channels which are privately-owned and maintained, as well as underground pipe systems. These are creating most of the problems. Mr. Foley said project costs over the ten-year period are included to address compliance with Federal and State mandates. One goal is to locate and establish regional facilities. In order to do that, the County will need to have strategic stormwater planning, fund some drainage area studies and mapping, and fund acquisition of property, as well as the construction of the facility itself. Mr. Bowerman asked if the projects mentioned are all in the urban area, and Crozet. Mr. Foley said yes. A@ Mr. Dorrier asked for an example of a stormwater basin owned by the County. Mr. Foley suggested that other staff members discuss this question. Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering, said there are facilities on Berkmar Drive (behind the Daily Progress), Peyton Drive (intersection of Greenbrier and Commonwealth Drives), Colonial Auto (part of a basin beside Colonial), there is the Lickinghole Creek Basin in Crozet which is a regional basin and not controlled by the County, and Four Seasons stormwater pond (the County just spent $150,000 dredging and restoring that facility). Mr. Bowerman asked if the County owns the big basin at Branchlands. Mr. Mawyer said the County recently acquired that facility, the Rio Hills Subdivision basin. Mr. Bowerman said a lot of these facilities are located in the Rio District because that is where the 1983 flooding occurred, and is what precipitated the first urban drainage study. Mr. Dorrier asked if these are examples of recently-installed facilities. Mr. Mawyer said the one in Four Seasons has been in place for about 30 years, but others are newer, of course. Mr. Bowerman said new development has their own runoff control facility for their area, and also in the rural areas. Mr. Mawyer said the 100 that are privately-owned vary in age from recent to 30 years old, and they also vary in design and size. Ms. Humphris said while talking about these problems and where they are, there were several people who came today to speak to particular issues. She feels it would be appropriate to hear brief comments from Mr. Teague and another property owner to hear their problems. Mr. Bowerman said there is a major Southern Urban Area Drainage Study on the books which has not yet been funded but which is planned. He asked what that study will encompass. Mr. David Hirschman said the Dewberry & Davis studies are for the South Fork Rivanna Basin which is Meadow Creek and the tributaries of the South Fork and also Moores Creek which is the boundary of the southern area up to the middle of the City. There are a few regional basins included in that study on which no work has been done at this time. Ms. Thomas asked if this study is ongoing at this time. Mr. Hirschman said that study was completed in 1994. Mr. Foley said studies have been done, but more are needed. The cost of the studies and the cost of the actual regional facilities are a big driver in this ten-year picture. In addition to the things just mentioned, and with the residents who are present at this time, maintenance and operational costs are a major component of addressing stormwater management. A number of these facilities are privately owned, so decisions will need to be made about how those facilities will be maintained in the future. Mr. Foley said an average of $110,000 has been spent annually over the past five years. That average is high because a number of very big projects are in the coming fiscal year ($422,000). The actual requested amount from the Engineering Department is about $475,000 per year. At this time, the CIP Technical Advisory Committee has only included $100,000 per year for minimal maintenance until there is time for the Board to make a policy decision as to how this program will be handled in the future. Note (: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 2:46 p.m.) Ms. Thomas asked where most of the $422,000 will be used. Mr. Mawyer said most of those funds will go toward the Birnam Basin where property will need to be purchased (off of Georgetown Road) and also on Commonwealth Drive and the Whitewood Road area. There was money programmed in for Carrsbrook and on Peyton Drive, but those projects will have to be studied further because of the need for dedication of easements. It is a problem where the water comes off the street and goes across an owners property. = Ms. Thomas said the whole issue of needing easements is an important one to discuss. She asked if this is the proper time to do that. Mr. Foley said staff wanted to do an overview of this issue, but he said that in March, staff will present some recommendations related to the stormwater program. Note (: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 2:55 p.m.) Mr. Foley said staff has identified the growing capital expense for the stormwater management program. In addition, there is an impact on the operating budget. Although it is a fairly minimal program at this time, it is stressing current staff because of its increasing needs. The budget includes basin maintenance of about $13,000 per year with only one-half of a position for an Environmental Programs February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) Coordinator. It is not the full gambit of a stormwater program. In order to address some of these capital needs, the Engineering Department has identified the need for an Engineering Inspector and a Plans Reviewer in the next fiscal year. Future positions needed to actually run a program at the level of service needed will be an Environmental Engineer, an Inspector and a Contract Manager. He said this will be a major new undertaking for the County. Mr. Foley said the Board needs to consider three major areas. The first issue is public versus private responsibility. There is an increasing public role to insure compliance with all regulations and policies, and to address the environmental concerns in the Comprehensive Plan. How will this program be managed and how will it funded? Staff thinks there are three major areas concerned with the management of this program. There is master planning, which should probably stay with the County. There is construction and maintenance which could be done through the Countys Public Works = Department or it could be done by the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA). The driving issue is the large capital cost of the program and how the County can bear that cost. Mr. Foley said there are three alternatives to funding major capital projects. They can be funded through General Fund tax revenues. They could be financed through General Obligation Bonds which would require public approval. There is also the possibility of developer fees on new developments for regional facilities which will be needed in order for them to have that development. There could be ACSA revenues assessed to the citizens in the service areas where most of the stormwater needs are located. Most of this runoff occurs in the urban area. There are also other funding mechanisms through the ACSA. He then offered to answer questions. Mr. Dorrier asked if unfunded Federal mandates have caused the increased needs. Mr. Foley said that is basically correct, but at the local level, there are currently priority items which are needed. Mr. Dorrier said he read in the newspaper that the Service Authority has said it is understaffed to handle any increased load. Mr. Foley said that is an issue the staff will have to analyze. It must be recognized that the County does not have the resources to address the issue, nor does the ACSA. The question is, without resources in either place, what is the best way to move forward with this program? Mr. Davis said the Clean Water Act contains unfunded mandates. They are more significant if a county owns and operates the system. For counties which do not own the drainage facilities, the impact is less. If Albemarle County moves toward taking ownership and building regional systems, the impact will be significant. Mr. Dorrier said someone mentioned that there are about 100 of these facilities in the County now, and most of them are private. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Davis said yes. Mr. Dorrier asked if A@ the private owners of these facilities would be required to upgrade the facilities. Mr. Davis said not A necessarily. Some of the rules only apply to government-owned facilities. @ Mr. Tucker said the question is whether the County should provide the facilities through the use of General Funds. Should the County provide the services in the growth areas? Should they be provided by a mechanism like the Service Authority which already operate in the growth areas? Ms. Thomas said it a question of how many public dollars are used, and how much the neighborhood associations are required to do by ordinance. That keeps the facilities in private hands, but it places a burden on the neighborhood. Mr. Tucker said that is another issue. The private entities don't want to continue to maintain these basins. They would like for the County to take over maintenance of the basins. Mr. Bowerman said there could be some cost-sharing which gives them ownership and accountability to keep the facilities clean, as well as County involvement. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Teague is an example of a situation that she felt might be useful in showing the Board a picture of what it is dealing with in places that already exist. Mr. Martin said if there were no further questions from Board members, he would allow Mr. Teague and Mr. Matthews to speak. Mr. Joe Teague said a couple of years ago he found that the water problems on his property were coming from the University Heights apartment area. There are eight huge storm drains going into 24-inch drain lines which come down on five property owners. These drain lines empty at the foot of the hill on the property of Dorothy Forbes Chappel. Also, Mr. John Matthews recently purchased that property for his architectural firm, and he is having more problems than the others in the area. They found that after forty years, the galvanized pipe has worn out and it has holes in it. The water is coming down an open ravine behind all of the homes in the area. He approached the County above alleviating this problem because he had been told when he purchased the property that there were springs in the area, and later he found that that was not true. There is a problem at the in-grate on Sycamore Drive, which is the road parallel to his property. He asked if Mr. Matthews would speak next. Mr. John Matthews, Mitchell Matthews Architects, owns the property behind Mr. Teague. Essentially, he has about 27 acres of water coming through his property. He needs some assistance with the problem. He said the County began helping them, but they need more help. He said he is willing to contribute financially to solve the problem. Mr. Deke Newman said he owns property in the area and he can corroborate what has been said. When it rains, he and Mr. Teague look at the flow, and he has been in the drainage structures and they are disintegrating. They were not built to handle the construction to the south. He is also willing to participate in funding some of the cost of resolving the problem. He said there is going to be some new February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) construction in the area and that construction had very strict drainage requirements imposed. He is not sure that has been required further south, but it is not being policed directly. Ms. Thomas said there is a question about dedication of easements, and how much the County can do without getting dedication, and ownership. Also, the way the public and private sectors can work together is not clear. Mr. Martin said there are also problems occurring in other growth areas. He has several in his district. As long as staff is aware of the problem, they will keep the Board apprised of what is going on. Mr. Tucker said staff needs to look at a comprehensive solution for the whole question. __________ Mr. Martin then asked for presentation of requests for the School Division. Mr. Al Reaser said he and Mr. Frank Morgan are present to answer the two major questions the Board had at the last presentation. He said that seven new schools had been build and 15 renovations completed, at a cost over $110.0 million, in the last 12 years. He thanked the Board for allowing this is happen. He said they will explain enrollment growth and reduction in capacity. These are the two major drivers in the requests this year. The School Division has averaged a 2.3 percent increase in enrollment annually. That is leveling off at about 1.6 percent, or 200 additional students per year. This will mean that every three or four years there will need to be a new elementary or middle school built. In from six to 15 years, there will be a need for a second northern elementary school, another middle school, and another high school. In year five of the CIP, money has been included to start acquisition of property for those schools. Mr. Reaser said that every year at budget time, there is an outcry of the parents to reduce the student/teacher ratio, but that would require having more classrooms. The School Division used to calculate staff at 15:1. That number also included library staff, physical education teachers, everybody. The capacities of the buildings were rated at 22 students per classroom. Six or seven years ago, that was the average classroom size. The capacity formula used at the present time reflects the reality of 1999, i.e., it is the actual number of teachers in the System. That formula results in reduced capacities. An example is: there is differentiated staffing within the formula. The school which has a higher free and reduced lunch population receives more teachers. Examples of this are: Greers population from 1995 to = 1999 increased only seven students, but they gained 5.3 teachers. Hollymeads enrollment increased by = the same number of students, but they lost 3.03 teachers. Murray Elementary gained 13 students, and they gained 1.14 teachers. This formula reallocated staff to different schools. Mr. Bowerman asked if this is a School Board policy decision to meet inequities between schools. Mr. Reaser said it is not an inequity, but it was done to serve the population of an individual school in a better manner. He then made a slide presentation showing how regular staff is allocated to the individual schools. He said there are about 300 elementary classrooms. Taking an average of 1.75 of that number, if the student/teacher ratio is lowered to 20.25/1, 425 elementary seats are lost. He said that reducing the student/teacher ratio over the past five years, capacity has been reduced. He said the middle schools and high schools are staffed at that ratio. All schools, on top of this first staff, receive additional staffing based on the free and reduced lunch population of that school. An elementary school, for every 11.05 students on free and reduced lunch, received one additional staff member. In the high schools, for every 9.7 students on free and reduced lunch, they received one-half of a teaching position. He then handed out some materials explaining the way staff is allocated to the different schools. He said the differentiation works to get the teachers in the schools with the greatest need. The result of this is that the high schools (except for Monticello) are staffed at 22 per classroom, to the lowest in the elementary schools of 16.75 overall. There is a great difference in the types of students in a school. The result of this formula is that the School System lost 895 seats. About 800 of those were in the elementary level. Mr. Reaser said without the CIP, if nothing were done, the System would need 846 elementary seats by the year 2005, 238 middle school seats, and there would be five high school seats. He showed a list of additional projects based on the capacity formula. He said the parity issue is one that always comes back to the boards. The System delayed $13.0 million in projects two years ago. For example, Henley Middle School has received an addition and been renovated, but Jack Jouett is waiting for the same type of project. That is one of the major parity items, and the Division also needs the middle school seats. He said that at this time the System is also using 46 mobile classrooms. Mr. Bowerman asked where most of the mobile classrooms are located. Mr. Reaser said there are five located at Cale Elementary. There are four at Hollymead. There are four at Monticello High School. He said what is done will depend on the level of funding granted. The capacity issue, with a differentiated staffing formula, is a big issue. He said everybody wants to lower the student/teacher ratio, but there are significant capital costs. He said that 12 of the 15 elementary schools are at capacity now. Mr. Bowerman asked how many special needs children are in the system as a percentage of the total school population. Mr. Reaser said it is about 17 percent. Mr. Morgan said the School System tries to incorporate those children into the regular classroom. Mr. Bowerman asked if those children are built into the average class sizes. Mr. Morgan said they are built into the baseline class sizes because to a large degree those children are served in the regular classroom with the use of resource help. Mr. Reaser said the elementary schools have few self-contained classes, except for the pre-school handicapped. There are a few self-contained classes in the middle and high schools, but they are counted at eight students per classroom. February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) Mr. Bowerman asked if where there are special needs children in the classroom, there is extra personnel in those classrooms. Mr. Morgan said for the most part, they are served in the regular classroom, and the staffing goes in the classroom with them, which has some benefits for everybody. It depends on the level of need of the child. Mr. Bowerman asked the cost to purchase and equip a mobile classroom. Mr. Reaser said they cost $40,000 without a restroom. Mr. Bowerman asked the useful life of a mobile classroom. Mr. Reaser said it is about 25 years. Mr. Bowerman asked about the restrooms. Mr. Reaser said that would cost an additional $10,000 to hook up the classroom to water and sewer. Ms. Thomas said when saying that one teacher equals one classroom, how many times is that not true? How many special education teachers are there that do not equal a classroom? Mr. Reaser said there are no special education teachers reflected in any of the numbers he has discussed today. They are in an auxiliary group. Of the 80 teachers allocated to differentiated staffing, less than 50 percent of those would be in a regular classroom. The other one-half are in tutorial situations and small pull-out groups. Mr. Morgan said that about one-half of the differentiated staffing goes into class size, and one- half into pull-out situations, small group tutoring, and occasionally a school will pick up part of a social worker position. Those things are decided by each individual school. Ms. Thomas asked if this means that schools should be built with classrooms of a different size. Mr. Reaser said every new school contains auxiliary spaces, one-third size classroom areas. Mr. Bowerman asked if the State has a requirement as to the size of these rooms. Mr. Reaser said the only requirements is for the regular classroom. There is no standard for the pull-out spaces. Mr. Dorrier said at the State level, funds coming to the local school system are decreasing, yet the needs are increasing. Other than trying to change the composite index formula, is there any other effort to get the State surplus to come back to the school systems? Mr. Morgan said the School Board asked in its legislative requests that lottery funds be allocated to the schools with the school divisions having flexibility on the use of those funds. He said there is a big push to look at capital needs in a comprehensive way because lottery funds are not a dependable long-term source of revenue. The Schools have been concerned that because Albemarle County has put emphasis on capital, that they not be penalized because they have done that. They feel that any funding formula should factor in their previous effort. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any prognostication as to what will happen in this session of the General Assembly. Mr. Tucker said the only bill where there are no strings attached is the Five-for-Five A@ bill which would give the localities five percent of State revenues with no strings attached. He does not believe that bill will pass. He said there are other versions which would require that the locality reduce its real estate by the same amount. A lot of localities are concerned about that. He does not know anything definite at this time. Mr. Morgan said he has not seen any specific bills relating to building and construction. The lottery bill is the one getting the most emphasis. Mr. Reaser said Virginia ranks at the bottom of the states who fund the capital needs of localities. He said the lottery bill is getting the most emphasis. He said the composite index goes up every two years, and there has been discussion about providing some relief for that, and also providing additional funding for technology. He said the County has received about $400,000 the last two years for capital. The State of Virginia ranks in the bottom three or four in the nation as to how they fund capital needs. Mr. Morgan said anything the County gets is filtered through the composite index, so what may be a limited amount of funding is made more limited. Ms. Humphris said she thinks everyone needs to remember what Mr. Reaser said at the beginning of his presentation. It is important to remember that seven new schools have been built, along with 15 major renovations at a cost over $110.0 million in recent years. Mr. Morgan said School staff tries to make this point every time the capital budget is discussed. Ms. Humphris said the effort has been tremendous so far. Mr. Morgan said the quality of Albemarle County facilities is outstanding. This is attributable to the Supervisors’ efforts in funding. Mr. Bowerman asked if the School Board was aware of the long-term financial implications of differentiated staffing when they made that decision. Mr. Morgan said it was a part of the discussion. The whole formula thing came up during the 1996 redistricting. He said it has taken three years to get to a formula which they believe will work. He said that for the first time, capital improvement plans, the long- range planning report, and the staffing formula, are congruent. Mr. Martin said that would complete discussion of this item today. _______________ Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. motion Mr. Dorrier offered to reappoint Mr. James E. Clark, Jr. as the Scottsville Magisterial District representative on the Equalization Board with said term to run from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. seconded The motion was by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. __________ Ms. Humphris said she and Ms. Thomas would like to discuss the potential for a meeting to discuss hiring a consultant to do the Countys section of the Meadow Creek Parkway. She asked that = Ms. Thomas explain the position is due to their membership on the MPO Policy Board. Ms. Thomas said the VDOT person designing the portion of the Meadow Creek Parking running from Melbourne Road to Rio Road is the same person who is designing the portion from Route 250 to Melbourne Road. This person has said his proposal is the only way the road can be done. When the City Parks Department hired Will Rieley, Mr. Rieley found many different ways to design the road. She said the Board wants a linear park which will enhance the urbanizing area and become in-fill. If the Board wants it well done, she thinks the Board needs to hire a consultant to help ensure that this road is actually a parkway. There is also the possibility of getting some State or Federal moneys for parklands. How this person works with VDOT is a question that Angela Tucker is trying to help with. Ms. Thomas said the Culpeper District Office is stonewalling against changing the road which was designed for a much faster speed and does not fit in with a park. Mr. Martin asked if VDOT has agreed to use Will Rieleys concept. = Ms. Humphris said VDOT has not said the same concept cannot be continued into the County. They have said they dont know how to do it. She said that in December, Angela Tucker said she would = see to it that the road was designed to suit the County in the Countys area. After that, problems = developed. At the January MPO meeting, Ms. Humphris asked Bob Booth, the VDOT designer from Richmond, if VDOT is able to design a parkway-type road through a park setting. He did not give any answer. She asked the question the second time and again received no answer. She then asked Ms. Tucker and it seemed that she was embarrassed by the whole situation. She said Ms. Thomas then repeated the same question. Ms. Humphris said she and Ms. Thomas met with Ms. Tucker this morning before the Board meeting began. They have reached the point where the three of them agree it is more than likely that Albemarle County will need to retain a consultant to look after its interests in the design of the road, or it will not get from VDOT what it deserves or what it should have. They do not know why this is being made so impossible. It sounds like a simple thing for design engineers to do, but there is stonewalling. Nobody knows the source of the stonewalling. She said the County deserves having as intelligent of a road lying as lightly on the land as the City does. As the Boards representatives on the MPO, she and Ms. Thomas = are making a report to the Board. Mr. Bowerman asked what happens if the Board hires this person and then VDOT does not take the recommendation. Ms. Humphris said they do not know how it would work. She said VDOT wants to build the road, and the County wants to build the road. They cannot get together as to how the road lies on the land. The road needs to fit with the Boards idea of being in a park like setting. = Mr. Dorrier asked if the design speeds for the City and County portions of the road are the same. Ms. Thomas said they are not the same today. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the design speed needs to be determined first. Ms. Thomas said VDOT has said it will design the second portion at the same design speed as the first portion. That agreement is on paper. But, the designer has presented the MPO with the same design that worked for the 50 mile per hour speed with the same centerline of the road saying it is the only one available based on design criteria. Mr. Martin said Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris represent the Board on the MPO. They started with differences of opinion as to what was needed. They have now revolved into one opinion, and the Board needs to accept their recommendation and ask Mr. Tucker to find the money and what it would take to get a consultant. Mr. Perkins said he does not disagree, but he remembers the sequence of the City. Their design work was done, and then the consultant came in and did a redesign. He asked if there is a design for the County portion at this time. Ms. Humphris said there is the VDOT design for a 50 mile per hour road. VDOT has said it is okay to have the 35 mile per hour road so she does not understand why the road cannot be better designed in a park like setting. Ms. Thomas said she and Ms. Humphris discussed with Ms. Tucker earlier today how to keep VDOT from putting in a lot of time and effort in a design, and then have a County designer come up with a different design. They would like for this to be a process where everybody comes up with the same design, rather than the way the City ended up doing it. Mr. Davis asked if there is any commitment from VDOT that they would follow this design. Ms. Thomas said there is the commitment on the part of Ms. Tucker and VDOT seems to agree with her that they will build a road the community will support. Mr. Martin said Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas are saying that in their opinion this will not be the best-designed road unless the County hires a consultant. He asked if there were a motion to back that move sentiment. Mr. Dorrier said he would that the County hire a consultant. He asked what the cost would be. Ms. Thomas said a motion to hire is premature, but they needed to have this discussion to bring the Board up-to-date. Mr. Bowerman said a motion to authorize the County Executive to look into an RFP and the potential cost, and returning the information for a vote at a later meeting would be appropriate. February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) moved Mr. Dorrier that the Board authorize the County Executive to look into an RFP and the seconded potential cost of same and return the information for a vote at a later meeting. Mr. Bowerman the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. __________ Ms. Thomas said she was in Richmond yesterday representing this Board. She opened her speech by saying this is a divided Board on many issues, but it is together in support of Senator Emily Courics bill concerning towers. Senator Couric had rewritten the bill overnight to make it as narrow as = possible, so it barely was going to do anything. They certainly allowed everyone to speak, but the tower industry brought out all their big guns. It was a heavy-handed effort to make sure this bill was defeated, A@ and it was defeated. There is S.B. 758 that is very dangerous in that it strips localities of their zoning authority, etc. She hopes staff will work to oppose that bill which is in an entirely different committee. She said there has been growing momentum for the bill which was defeated. Mr. Tucker said he received a letter from the Committee to advance the Trans-Dominion Express going through the State (and through Charlottesville). The request is that all localities in Virginia provide some investment money to promote this idea in the General Assembly. They are asking the County to A@ provide $1,000. He asked if the Board is interested in providing any revenue for this effort. He said the County did support Nelson County in having a station in Nelson County. Mr. Martin asked the Board members their opinion. Ms. Humphris said when the request came from the High Growth Coalition the Board supported its work in an amount up to $1,000 for a paid lobbyist, but nothing has been paid to them thus far. She thinks that issue is more major in the big A picture although the Board does support the Trans-Dominion Express. Ms. Thomas said unless there is @ some bill before the Legislature at this time, it would be wasted money because they would not be lobbying for anything. Mr. Martin suggested the Board be provided more information on this request, not on the Consent Agenda. __________ At 4:00 p.m., the recessed and reconvened in Room 235 at 4:10 p.m.. _______________ Agenda Item No. 17a. Joint Meeting with School Board. The meeting was called to order by Mr. Charles Ward, Chairman of the School Board, and Mr. Martin. School Board members present at this time were: Mr. Kenneth Boyd, Mr. Madison Cummings, Ms. Susan Gallion, Mr. Gary Grant, Mr. Stephen Koleszar and Ms. Diantha McKeel. Also present were Dr. Kevin Castner, Superintendent, and Mr. Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Martin said this morning he read a proclamation into the record proclaiming February, 2000 as School Board Appreciation Month. He read the proclamation and gave same to the Chairman. __________ Item 17b. Presentation of School Divisions Budget. Mr. Martin turned the meeting over to Mr. = Ward who in turned asked Dr. Castner to make the presentation. Dr. Castner distributed copies of a slide presentation he would be making. He said the primary mission of the School Board is to make sure the children are prepared to be successful when they leave the School System. There are many factors which continue to have an impact on the budgeting process. The cost of growth has been significant on both the Board of Supervisors and the School Board. Over 1750 students have been added since 1992. Next year an additional 203 students are expected. Recent information from the consultants study shows that the salaries for both teachers and classified employee = are below market. State mandates and Standards of Accreditation are costing local school systems dollars. While they do receive additional support from the State, support for Albemarle County is always filtered through the Composite Index. The trend data for the last several years has the State support dropping from 37 to 34 percent. This trend continues. The ability to pay, based on that formula, ranks Albemarle County as sixteenth in the State. He said the State is passing on a lot of the responsibility for funding to Albemarle County. Dr. Castner said the issue is are we were we need to be? The answer is no. At a time when A@A@ the workplace is asking that graduating students know more than has been required in the past, the focus of the Division should be on the students to insure their success as they leave the school system. He said the Division is in the top ten percent in Virginia on the Stanford 9 Achievement Tests and in the top A@ 20 percent in Virginia on the Standards of Learning tests. However, there are gaps in learning between A@ different segments of the population. The challenge is that increased workplace requirements and SOL standards show performance trends in the County which are significant. Previously, when the Literacy Passport Test was given in Grade 6, only 76 percent of the students passed, but by the time they graduated, 99 percent of Grade 12 students graduated. However, that test was not what the community would expect from students in order for them to be successful. Even though Albemarle County students tested in the top 20 percent of students in the State last year, only 50 percent of eighth graders passed the SOLS. If these students fail these tests, they will not receive a Virginia diploma showing six verified credits. This leads to many of the decisions and priorities recommended in the Superintendents budget. = February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) Dr. Castner said the context of this budget relates to employee compensation. It is important to insure the County has the best teachers possible in the classroom. In the past, because growth has always come first, other counties have bypassed Albemarle on the salary scale. The School Division is having trouble competing with the Richmond area and is particularly having trouble recruiting for areas such as special education, math and science. There is a national teacher shortage where a shortfall of 40,000 teachers is predicted for the Fall of 2000. The starting salary in Albemarle is seventieth in the State. He said the consultants study shows that the Division is 5.7 percent below market on teacher = salaries, and eight to ten percent below market for classified employees. He said the strong economy and the low employment rate is coupled with the challenge that this area has the second highest cost-of- living in Virginia. Dr. Castner said the national data and state data mirror what is happening in Albemarle. He then showed a slide to represent the ages of teachers in Albemarle. He said the baby boomers are going to A@ start retiring and there is no one to replace them. This comes at a time when expectations in the classroom are higher than ever before and enrollment is increasing. He said recruiting efforts, based on the beauty of the area, cannot compete with the salaries offered by other localities. Dr. Castner said the Superintendent's proposed FY 2000-01 budget is a Needs-Based Budget. A@ The assumption is that there will be $6.1 million in new revenues. He has made employee compensation the first priority. Although this is early in the budget process, it is important that the Board of Supervisors understand the challenges to the School Division as the composite index rises and more pressure is put on localities to fund their own needs. He does understand the General Assembly might put more money into teacher salaries and he hopes this does happen. Dr. Castner said his budget has been calculated on three levels. The first level amounts to more than the projected additional revenue of $6.1 million, and that figure did include growth and compensation. If the $6.1 million is not available, 12.28 growth teaching positions, bus replacement will be deferred, and increases for substitute teacher pay will not be funded. He said the Extended Learning Time Program, the Literacy Program Support, School Climate, and some of the Staffing Committee recommendations for support of the SOLS will not be funded. He said the Countys programs for upper = level students are successful. The School Board is dealing with some different choices. Since this is only the beginning of February, all of the information concerning revenues is not available yet. He said more pressure is being put on the Board of Supervisors each year as the composite index rises. The amount of growth occurring is presenting tough challenges. That is the reality of the situation. Mr. Bowerman asked if the term composite index is a misnomer and the composite index being A@ used is actually a taxing index. Mr. Martin said the composite index acts as if the County has taxing power over income, because it is based on the wealth of the community. The Board actually has no way to access that wealth in any kind of tax. It cant, therefore, be called a taxing index. = Mr. Bowerman asked why the composite index is not referred to as what it is. Ms. Thomas said the index is a composite of several different factors. It is a comparative tool since it compares the cost of real property throughout the State. She said the County has no ability to tap into the income tax which it raises. Ms. Humphris said the Countys land use taxation program and the Revenue-Sharing Agreement = with the City (which this year diverts $6.0 million from the County to the City) are not considered in that index. Mr. Bowerman suggested that it be called something more appropriate to what it is and what it does to Albemarles school system. = Mr. Martin asked if there were other questions for Dr. Castner. Mr. Dorrier asked Dr. Castner the age of the teachers in the system. He wondered if many teachers in their early 50's retire, when this will impact the County. Mr. Jackson Zimmerman said they have seen an increase in the past two years in service retirement requests at 50 years of age with 30 years of service. Mr. Morgan said they already have 25 or more applications on file for early retirement this year. They have assumed that number will increase in the next budget. Mr. Dorrier asked if paying retirement and hiring new teachers increases expenses substantially. Dr. Castner said they hired 125-plus employees last year. That is a combination of people moving away and the continuing growth rate. Their retention rate is not bad. Mr. Martin said if a teacher retires and has to be replaced with a new employee, does it cost the System more because they are paying the new teacher and also paying retirement on the teacher who retired. Mr. Zimmerman said the answer is no. Mr. Dorrier asked if money is saved when an employee A@ retires. Mr. Morgan said it was originally thought that lower-paid teachers would be hired to replace those who retired, but that thought was based on having an adequate pool from which to pick employees. When the older teachers retire, it will be less expensive to replace them if a replacement can be found. Mr. Bowerman said the Federal Government has been debating as to whether it will have a one trillion or a two trillion dollar surplus over the next decade, and what to do with it. They are taking that surplus from the citizens. The same thing is happening at the State level. Money goes out of Albemarle and it does not come back at the same rate, although the dollar amount which comes back is greater, but the cost associated with the dollar amount it is paying for comes back at a lesser amount. The School System is required to use band-aids to educate the children. The Board of Supervisors has no way to pay to make that happen other than to take it out of local peoples pockets the second time after they = have sent their money to the State. That is what the School Board and the Board of Supervisors is faced with. He said it is frustrating. February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) Ms. Thomas asked the growth figure for school bus replacements. Dr. Castner said the big issue now is where the dollars could be used most effectively for learning. Mr. Perkins said the composite index does statewide what the County is trying to do locally with the differentiated funding. Dr. Castner said in this locality there is concern about that policy. It has been said that too many funds were moved from other items to this funding policy. Mr. Bowerman said the poorer counties have to be given funds to help make their school systems equitable. That is not a question. But, for the higher growth counties it is not equitable for them. It is disproportionate, and it needs to be fixed. Note (: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 4:45 p.m. He handed the gavel to Ms. Thomas, Vice-Chairman.) Mr. Boyd asked why the School Board must present two budgets to the Board of Supervisors instead of waiting until it knows exactly what revenues will be. Mr. Tucker said the first budget allows staff to put preliminary numbers in the budget which is presented to the Board of Supervisors in March. The School Board can then continue to develop its budget until it is known what State revenues will be. Dr. Castner said the School Board has to vote for a budget so the Board of Supervisors has something on which to make a recommendation. If the School Board wishes to defer the budget to April, it can do so. Mr. Koleszar said it helps keep the public apprised of what the School Board is thinking. Ms. McKeel said each School Board representative has his/her own list of priorities. The goal is to agree to a short list of priorities. Mr. Grant said the two pages being talked about in their budget book are Page 87 and 88. From his standpoint, these two pages do not represent the School Divisions budget. They represent the $6.1 = million of what is called new money over the baseline amount. That is why he supported, and the A@ School Board has voted, setting up a budget review committee of Mr. Koleszar, Mr. Boyd, and himself, to go over the process. He does not have the information he needs to make a decision on this budget. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Grant will be ready to make a decision when the School Budget is submitted to the Board. Mr. Grant said he does not believe so. The School Board has a big meeting coming up on the 9th and maybe someone will convince him to change his mind. Mr. Ward said their budget shows 80 percent going to salaries, which is usual for a service-type organization. He is comfortable with the process. Mr. Boyd said it would impact his decisions on the budget if he knew how much money there would be to work with. He realizes that figure is not known on February 16, but there would be a much better idea on March 15. He feels the School Board can make a request for funds, and that is different from presenting a budget. If there is not enough money, the School Board will have to make value judgments on what to spend and what to leave unfunded. Mr. Cummings said the Legislature is considering salary increases, but the School Board will not know the results of the legislative session until after the veto session on April 15. Ms. Thomas said she wants a persuasive, intelligent, well-thought out, well-documented request for money. The School Board has to be able to defend its budget to the public if it expects the Board of Supervisors to do the same. Mr. Bowerman said it is better for the School Board to develop its own priorities than expect the Board of Supervisors to be able to do it. Mr. Dorrier said the first priority in the budget is for higher teacher salaries. That is a decision the School Board made. Mr. Grant asked if the Board of Supervisors believe in and trust the Slabaugh/Morgan/White Compensation Study. Do they believe the results are accurate and well- documented. Mr. Bowerman said he could make no sense of the study beyond one year. Ms. Thomas asked if other members of the Board wanted to comment on the study. Mr. Perkins said he does not have a lot of faith in the report. Ms. McKeel said it was troubling to the School Board since the whole premise of their budget is based on that study. Mr. Bowerman said the Board of Supervisors had no input in the process. There used to be two members of the Board on the Compensation Committee, but not this time. He said there were some generalized discussions with the group about what it wanted to see, and things which the Board felt would motivate employees. But, the Board did not get down to issues like it did with the last report by Hendrix & Co. Ms. Thomas said after the Board had that meeting on the plan, questions were sent to staff and answers were received to those questions. She does not find any reason to think their conclusions are wrong. Everything that conventional wisdom says about this community supports their conclusions. The Board of Supervisors may not understand exactly how the consultants arrived at their conclusions, but, someone would have to disprove their recommendations before she would not support the report. Mr. Dorrier said if the Boards have spent $20,000 for a study that is not accurate, they should send it back. Mr. Bowerman said he cannot make a judgment because he cant understand the study. It should have = been presented in a form that did not require three weeks worth of study, and he would understand it immediately. He needs to know the underlying assumptions that it was built on. Mr. Ward said he asked similar questions at a joint meeting and he got a voluminous answer back. A lot of the sources they quoted came from national resources he did not recognize. Dr. Castner said the Boards should not base a decision on just one piece of evidence. He does have the pay scales for Charlottesville and surrounding counties. He is looking at other things when he is talking about competition. Some of the things the consultants studied, are flawed. The question does not come up in just one year. If it is found that the Division is slipping behind and then the retirement rate increases, the February 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) Division cannot catch up in just one year. The Board does not have different trend data than it had before the study. Mr. Perkins said there is a shortage of teachers because this is the longest period of growth that has ever occurred in the country. Albemarle County is competing for all employees, not just teachers. He thinks it may be necessary to base the salary of teachers on their individual specialty. He said that can change quickly. He said the price of milk last year was $20/cwt, and now it is $9/cwt. That is the kind of thing that happens, and the market must respond. The County can increase teacher salaries as long as the economy is good, but if the economy turns downward, there will be more applications than positions available. A lot of this is out of the Boards control. = Mr. Koleszar said he believes the Slabaugh study is right when they say County salaries are not at market level, and are not competitive. He can see that in the pool of teachers and in the fact that classified staff is being brought in above entry level in order to even attract people. Mr. Boyd said the School Board is faced with a lot of conflicting data. Also, they are trying to predict the future and not basing that on what happened in the past. He said in the private sector people are leaving their jobs in all walks of life for higher salaries. In the case of teachers, he heard that Albemarle is eighth in terms of average teachers pay in counties. The reason for that goes back to one = of the charts shown. Albemarle County has a lot of very experienced teachers. Salary expenditures could be significantly lowered by just hiring all beginning teachers. This is the kind of conflicting data the School Board has to deal with. Mr. Cummings said the Countys Human Resources Department recently did a recruitment/ = retention study which showed that the County is not able to recruit as successfully and retain as long as in the past. One of the issues is salary. Mr. Bowerman asked if the cost-of-living in the area is also a factor. Mr. Cummings said that is part of it, and part of it is the demands made on educators because of SOLS. Mr. Koleszar asked the retention rate for teachers. Mr. Ward said it is 93 percent. Mr. Koleszar said he thinks that is good. He knows a lot of private companies who would like to have such a retention rate. He said there are a certain number of things the County cant change. There will be turn-over, = regardless of salaries. Mr. Ward said the School Board hopes to get the new Northern Elementary School project underway this year. He understands from Mr. Reaser that two years is needed to complete the project. There is still a growth problem in the northern part of the County, so the School Board will be looking at further redistricting. Mr. Koleszar said the School Boards Budget Committee is taking responsibility for the Schools == Capital Improvement Program. Ms. Humphris said she thinks the Board of Supervisors will be happy to see this happen. __________ Item 17c. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Members. There were no other matters presented. _______________ Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date Initials