Loading...
1999-09-01tep{¢mber I, t199 { egular Day Mee{ing/ (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 1, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., 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, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 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. Mr. Martin asked how many people were present to speak at this portion of the meeting. Several people indicated yes. He then said the Board has a policy where it only hears three people at this time. He asked the first person to come forward and speak. Ms. Eve Watters said she lives on Hilltop Street in Crozet. She said they share their street daily with people of all ages, strolling, biking, jogging, dog walking, enjoying craft shows, ball games, horse shows, concerts, fireworks and the Independence Day parade. For those people who live on her cul-de- sac and for more than 200 other homes in the vicinity of Claudius Crozet Park, there is no way out of the area except by Park and Tabor Streets. Those streets are already overloaded with traffic, already dangerous, and only the cooperation of most residents has so far prevented a tragedy. Without increased road construction activity, the proposed Weather Hill Homes development spells disaster. She speaks only for herself, but she has listened to her neighbors. She has not heard a word about stopping development, instead they spoke about preventing mistakes that make property unsafe and unlivable, and which will cause troubles for the County for years to come. There seems to be a consensus to work for energetic solutions and to develop infrastructure now. Dialogues with these determined residents has already won remarkable concessions from the developer. This is an opportunity for enlightened planning which will benefit all for generations. Ms. Mary Dickens said she lives at 605 East Rio Road. She was present to speak about the Meadow Creek Treatment Plant redevelopment project. She said there was a meeting on August 12 and it was said that the total units planned would be up to 150 units. Then on August 27 she received a letter from the City saying the site plan had been upgraded to as many as 245 units, which would create another 3000 vehicle trips per day. The traffic from this project is planned to enter and exit on Penn Park Lane and then onto Rio Road East just beyond the "S" curve. She said the residents on East Rio Road, due to the overload of traffic, object to this project going forth until the Meadow Creek Parkway has been completed. Mr. John Martin from Free Union was present to speak regarding the Moorman's River. He said that six months ago today, this Board passed a Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding the "Natural Environment." It mentioned the Moorman's River specifically. As an objective, it stated "Continue to protect the Moorman's River exceptional environmental setting, aquatic community, and recreational opportunities." As a strategy, it states "Work with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and appropriate state agencies to balance water supply needs with minimal extreme flow requirements for the Moorman's River from Sugar Hollow." Also, six months ago, the Friends of the Moorman's River came before this Board and made a specific suggestion for correcting the Moorman's problem. Representatives from the RWSA were present although they were not enthusiastic about the suggestion, but the Board did vote unanimously to request that the RWSA bring back some constructive, specific suggestions on how to do it. RWSA has not done that yet. There is no short-term plan or long-term plan for correcting the Moorman's River situation. The Moorman's River is not mentioned in water supply planning by the RWSA in either demand analysis or supply analysis. The Friends have been told orally that at some time in the future that will be corrected. In a meeting where this Board will not be present, one being held with Federal and State regulators, he thinks RWSA will ask that it be allowed to destroy several hundred acres of wetlands, and then to mitigate that damage for the new water supply, they will put water back into the Moorman's River. The point is that that is not either this Board's or the community's plan. He thinks this is an area that definitely needs comprehensive planning. Mr. Perkins said there are several other people present this morning who would like to speak. He September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meetin~i (Page 2) on the agenda in order to allow additi0~i':~'i~ [~ ~P~ak t°day- The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. ~IAYS: None. Mr. Werner Gstattenbauer said he lives at 5762 Tabor Street in the Crozet Hilltop Street neighborhood. He is present to address the Board because of the proposed development at the end of Hilltop Street. Despite the fact that the neighbors have met with the developer and come to some mitigating solutions, it will still have a serious negative impact on the neighborhood. This development will 500 more cars each day on a street that was never designed for that kind of traffic. It is going to ruin an area resource where children play and elders walk every day. The reason this problem has occurred is because Crozet has been designated a growth area, but the infrastructure that is required has not been developed. The first thing that needs to be done is to develop the Route 240~250 connector road. It has been said that a developer should build it as they in-fill the area, but that will not happen. No one developer can bear the cost of constructing a bridge over Lickinghole Creek. He said the County needs to find some way to build and pay for that bridge. Also, the County might consider the option of purchasing the property on which the development will occur, for future use by the County. Mr. Kelly Strickland said he is with Weather Hill Homes. They are the developer of the proposed Parkside Village on 18.2 acres zoned R-6, with 48 units. It is in Crozet right in the middle of the growth area. They bought the property with those facts in mind thinking this was something the County wanted. When they went to the Planning Commission on August 10, residents in the area spoke against the proposal. The Planning Commission denied the request. It is actually a by-right subdivision. The Commission said the developer should work with the community and find some solutions. They have talked with the neighbors and the Crozet Park Board and Mr. Perkins. They ask that the Board look at Crozet. There are five or six neighborhoods being built at this time, and there are several more proposals in the works. He feels it is time to go back and put more energy, effort and creativity in the planning and development process of Crozet. One issue that came up was having the County purchase their property. He handed to the Board a letter this morning talking about their compromise, and he has talked to a lot of people in Crozet and there is a lot of support for this idea. They have also followed the DISC Committee recommendations. He encourages the Board to look at the situation and work with the developer, the residents, the community, and the Planning Department to find some solution. - Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.15 and to the accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. School ® Item 5.1. Appropriation: Education, $42,603.05 (Form #98082). It was noted in the staff's report that at its meetings on June 14, 1999, and June 28, 1999, the Board approved the following appropriations: Appropriation of $16,091.02. Federal funding for the Title VI Grant was increased by $2673.00 from the original budget amount of $43,223.00. In addition, Title VI Grant funds were not fully expended in the 1997-98 fiscal year leaving a total grant balance of $13,418.02. These funds will be used to cover expenses in the 1998-99 fiscal year. Appropriation of $5998.34. As a pilot site for the new Literacy Pro Virginia Adult Education Data System, the Albemarle Adult Education Program received additional funds. These funds were used to purchase equipment and software needed for the project and to reimburse staff for training and extra hours worked in implementing and testing the new system. Appropriation of $6465.05. Albemarle County Adult Basic Education received $2423.00 from the Albemarle and Charlottesville Social Services agencies for classes to prepare their Virginia Incentive Employment to Work Program clients to pass the Virginia driver's license written examination. Funds in the amount of $3000.00 were also received from the Saudi Arabian Consulate for an intensive Beginning English as a Second Language class. In addition, there is a Fund Balance of $1042.05 from the 1997-98 fiscal year. Appropriation of $8514.00. The State Department of Education Office of Adult Education approved Albemarle County Schools' application for $8514.00 in State Department of Education funding to support the General Adult Education (GED) Program, adults who are working toward a high school diploma. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) · Appropriation of $4500.00.. Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation from the Stone Robinson PTO in the amount of $4500.00. The funds will be used to cover expenses for the Volunteer Coordinator position at Stone Robinson. · Appropriation of $34 64.. The Albemarle Education Association has donated $17.32 to Henley Middle School and $17.32 to Brownsville Elementary School. These donations came as a result of a fund-raiser the AEA held with book stores in the area to donate monies for school libraries. · Appropriation of $1000.00. Woodbrook Elementary School received a grant award from the Southland Corp. in the amount of $1000.00. This program, entitled "Peop e-Who-Read-Ach'eve, will fund the purchase of instructional materials to be developed into kits for students in grades K/1 - 5 to directly support the Virginia Standards of Learning and the Albemarle County reading curriculum. This program will help motivate students to read more and help improve their reading comprehension skills. Staff recommends that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $42,603.05 as detailed on Appropriation Form #98082. (Mrs. Thomas said she was fascinated that the Saudi Arabian Consulate had given $3000 for an intensive beginning English as a Second Language class. She thought that was one of the more newsworthy contributions the County has received.) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NUMBER: 98082 FUND: SCHOOL/GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL DONATIONS AND GRANTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1 2210 61101 135000 2210 61101 210000 61101 601300 2203 2252 61101 601300 3104 60212 601300 3102 61311 132100 3102 61311 210000 3102 61311 601300 3115 63322 160300 3115 63322 210000 3115 63322 550100 3115 63322 601300 3115 63322 800100 3116 63348 132100 1 3116 63348 210000 1 3116 63348 600200 1 3116 63348 601300 I 3133 63321 132100 1 3133 63321 210000 DESCRIPTION STONE ROBINSON - PART-TIME WAGES STONE ROBINSON - FICA BROWNSVILLE - INST/REC SUPPLIES WOODBROOK- INST/REC SUPPLIES WOODBROOK- INST/REC SUPPLIES TITLE VI - SALARIES TITLE VI - FICA TITLE VI - INST/REC SUPPLIES ADULT EDUCATION - SALARIES ADULT EDUCATION - FICA ADULT EDUCATION - TRAVEL ADULT EDUCATION - INST/REC SUPPLIES ADULT EDUCATION - EQUIPMENT ADULT EDUC MINI GRANT - SALARIES ADULT EDUC MINI GRANT - FICA ADULT EDUC MINI GRANT - FOOD SUPPLIES ADULT EDUC MINI GRANT - INST/REC SUPP GENERAL ADULT EDUC - SALARIES GENERAL ADULT EDUC - FICA TOTAL AMOUNT $4,162.00 338.00 17.32 17.32 1,000.00 6,676.00 510.72 8,904.30 3,465.00 265.07 81.00 187.27 2,000.00 5,932.61 453.84 16.08 62.52 7,862.67 651.33 $42,603.05 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION $4,500.00 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION 34.64 2 3104 18000 181232 SOUTHLAND CORP 1,000.00 · 2 3102 33000 330105 TITLE VI FUNDS 16,091.02 2 3115 24000 240225 ADULT EDUC DATABASE PROJ 5,998.34 2 3116 16000 161206 ADULT EDUC MINI GRANT 5,423.00 2 3116 51000 510100 ADULT EDUC MINI GRANT 1,042.05 2 3133 24000 240240 GENERAL ADULT EDUC GRANT 8,514.00 TOTAL $42,603.05 Item 5.2. Appropriation: Family Support Program, $111,570 (Form #99014). It was noted in the staffs report that the County's Family Support program administered by the Department of Social Services places family workers in the elementary schools to provide early interven- tion case management, counseling and assistance to children and their families. The program is funded 100 percent with Federal IV-E funds which are leveraged by local dollar expenditures for foster care September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) related prevention services. In FY 19~9, the County was able to leverage additional IV-E funds using County, as well as City, prevention service expenditures. Since community prevention program expenditures were being used to leverage funds for the Family Support program, the Department of Social Services offered the additional Federal dollars to the participating agencies for one-time needs they identified. The four agencies involved are the Health Department, Children, Youth and Family Services, the Commission on Children and Families and the Juvenile Assessment Center. One-time items being purchased include computer equipment and software, as well as some furniture and travel expenses. Some of the funding will be used to help the Commission implement an outcome-based funding frame- work for community agencies with a focus on performance measurement and a new reporting process. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #99014 in the amount of $111,570.00. The Fund Balance referred to on the appropriation form is the Fund Balance in the separate Family Support Fund. There are no local dollars in this appropriation. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00 NUMBER: 99014 FUND: FAMILY SUPPORT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION PRIOR YEAR'S FUND BALANCE EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION I 1557 53150 312210 CONTRACT SERVICES I 1557 53150 312700 CONSULTANTS 1 1557 53150 550100 TRAVEL - EDUCATION 1 1557 53150 800200 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 1 1557 53150 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 1 1557 53150 800710 SOFTWARE TOTAL AMOUNT $8,000.00 22,500.00 1,500.00 5,540.00 55.002.00 19,028.00 $111,570.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2 1557 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $111,570.00 $111,570.00 Item 5.3. Appropriation: HUD Section 8 Housing Assistance, $1,531,673.00 (Form #99016). It was noted in the staff's report that the Section 8 Housing Program is an on-going rental assistance program offered by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Section 8-001 program provides housing assistance with 178 subsidies and is funded through June, 2002. The Section 8-002 program provides 34 housing vouchers. The Section 8-003 program provides housing assistance for 34 units. The Federal government will merge Section 8-002 into Section 8-003 during the current fiscal year. The final amount of the Federal HUD grant will be determined by the final amount of assistance rendered to residents. The Fund Balance will be used for current programs. It is estimated that Grant 8-001 should be approximately $989,777.00, Grant 8-002 approximately $23,368.00, Grant 8-003 approximately $418,528.00, and the Fund Balance approximately $100,000.00 for a combined total of $1,531,673.00. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #99016 in the amount of $1,531,673.00. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00 NUMBER: 99016 FUND: HUD GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR HUD PUBLIC ASSISTANCE GRANTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1 1227 81920 300205 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1 1227 81920 312800 PROF SERV AUDIT 1 1227 81920 579001 HOUSING ASSIST PAYMENTS 1 1227 81921 300205 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1 1227 81921 579001 HOUSING ASSIST PAYMENTS 1 1227 81922 300205 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1 1227 81922 312800 PROF SER AUDIT AMOUNT $98,449.O0 40O.0O 890,928.00 1,980.00 21 388.00 38 097.00 400.00 September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) 1 1227 81922 579001 HOUSING ASSIST PAYMENTS 1 1227 81922 930009 TRS TO GENERAL FUND TOTAL REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2 1227 33000 330015 SEC 8-001 MOD REHAB ASSISTANCE 2 1227 33000 330016 SEC 8-002 VOUCHER PROGRAM 2 1227 33000 330017 SEC 8-003 FAMILY UNIFICAT 2 1227 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - FUND BALANCE TOTAL 439,953.00 40,078.00 $1,531,673.00 AMOUNT $989,777.OO 23,368.00 418,528.00 100,000.00 $1,531,673.00 Item 5.4. Appropriation: School Division Appropriations, $638,298.00 (Form #99017). It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on June 14, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations: Appropriation of $14,298.00. Virginia Migrant Education received additional Incentive Grant Funds 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. Appropriation of $624,000.00. Chapter 935, 1999 Virginia Acts of Assembly (the 1998-2000 Appropriation Act) authorizes the Virginia Public School Authority to conduct an education technology grant program in the Spring of the year 2000. The primary purpose of this educational technology grant program is to provide for (1) networking, retrofitting and upgrade of school buildings, (2) network-ready multimedia microcomputer for classrooms, and, (3) network-ready microcomputers for student use. Albemarle County meets or exceeds the minimum requirements necessary to receive funds. For participation in the Spring 2000 Technology Grant Program, localities are required to provide a match equal to 20 percent of all grant amounts. At least 25 percent of the local match is to be used for teacher training in the use of technology. The local match is provided by funds already allocated to CIP technology expenditures and operational funds already in the Schools budget. This grant will be coordinated with other CIP technology projects as indicated in the Albemarle County Schools Comprehensive Technology Plan for 1998-2003 adopted by the School Board on December 14, 1998. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00 NUMBER: 99017 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: MIGRANT EDUCATION CONSORTIUM GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION I 3103 61101 132100 MIGRANT EDuC GRANT- SALARIES 1 3103 61101 210000 MIGRANT EDUC GRANT- FICA 1 9000 61101 800707 TECHNOLOGY GRANT - EQUIPMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $13,280.00 $1,018.00 624,000.00 $639,298.00 REVENUE 2 3101 33000 330102 2 9000 24000 240265 DESCRIPTION MIGRANT EDUC GRANT EDUC TECHNOLOGY GRANT TOTAL AMOUNT $14,298.00 624,000100 $638,298.00 Item 5.5. Appropriation: #99018). Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant, $49,562.00 (Form It was noted in the staff's report that the COPS MORE 96 grant was approved for the period June 1, 1997, through June 30, 1999. This appropriation request is for expenditure of the balance of the grant period through November 30, 1999. The grant was originally approved to provide a digital mug shot imaging system and five computer workstations for officers. The mug shot imaging system will allow photographs to be captured and stored electronically. The officer workstations will upgrade older equipment so officers will have full access to the records management system. The remaining Federal grant is $32,787.00. The local match was transferred in 1997-98-. There is no local match remaining to be transferred. Excess local funds will be returned to the General Fund. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #99018 in the amount of $49,562.00. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00 NUMBER: 99018 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR COPS MORE GRANT FOR EQUIPMENT FUNDING EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1 1523 31010 319999 PROF SERVICES 1 1523 31010 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 1 1523 31010 800710 ADP SOFTVVARE 1 1523 31010 930009 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND TOTAL AMOUNT $5,660.00 16,055.00 $22,000.00 5,847.00 $49,562.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2 1523 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT REVENUE 2 1523 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE TOTAL .AMOUNT $32,787.00 $16,775.00 $49,562.00 Item 5.6. Appropriation: Federal and State Drug-Seized Assets, $38,318.76 (Form #99019). It was noted in the staff's report that periodically the County receives revenues for assets seized in Federal and State drug enforcement actions. The proceeds are utilized for additional law enforcement activities. This appropriation requests approval of the receipts and expenditures for Federal and State drug-seized assets for the period July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000, and the Fund Balance from prior years. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #99019 in the amount of $38,318.76. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00 NUMBER: 99019 FUND: DRUG ASSETS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND FEDERAL AND STATE DRUG-SEIZED ASSETS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1 1234 39000 580902 DRUG-SEIZED ASSETS 1 1235 39000 580902 DRUG-SEIZED ASSETS 1 1236 39000 580902 DRUG-SEIZED ASSETS TOTAL AMOUNT $612.52 33,057.25 4,648.99 $38,318.76 REVENUE 2 1234 51000 510100 2 1235 51000 510100 2 1235 51000 510100 DESCRIPTION FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $612.52 $33,O57.25 $4,648.99 $38,318.76 Item 5.7. Appropriation: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant - FY 1998, $25,363.00 (Form #99020). It was noted in the staff's report that the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program was authorized by the U.S. Omnibus Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Act for the purpose of providing units of local government with funds to underwrite projects to reduce crime and improve public safety. This grant will be used to fund overtime for a police officer in the Esmont area. This is the second year of the grant. The Federal revenues were received in a previous fiscal year. The local match was transferred in a previous fiscal year. There is a Fund Balance of $25,363.00 to fund current year operations. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #99020 in the amount of $25,363.00. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00 NUMBER: 99020 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR '98 LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1 1537 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES I 1537 31013 210000 FICA TOTAL AMOUNT $23,561.00 1,802.00 $25,363.OO REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2 1537 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $25,363.00 $25,363.00 Item 5.8. Appropriation: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant-FY 1997,$5180.29 (Form #99021). It was noted in the staff's report that the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program was authorized by the U.S. Omnibus Fiscal Year 1997 Appropriations Act for the purpose of providing units of local government with funds to underwrite projects to reduce crime and improve public safety. This grant will be used to fund overtime for a police officer in the Esmont area. The grant extends through September 30, 1999. The Federal award has been received in the previous fiscal year. The local match has been transferred in the previous fiscal year. There is a remaining Fund Balance of $5180.29 for operations through September 30, 1999. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #99021 in the amount of $5180.29. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00 NUMBER: 99021 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR '97 LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1 1536 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES 1 1536 31013 210000 FICA TOTAL AMOUNT $4,812.00 368.29 $5,180.29 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2 1536 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $5,180.29 $5,180.29 Item 5.9. Appropriation: Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Grant, $42,398.00 (Form #99023). It was noted in the staffs report that the 1999-2000 Unified Planning Work Program was prepared by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The program includes transportation studies and.ongoing planning activities, including a Transportation Improvement Program that lists road and transit improvement for the upcoming three years, and the Twenty-year Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) every five years. Other activities address traffic congestion reduction, City-County bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and public-private transit development. The work to be performed by the County of Albemarle will be funded by a $32,318.00 Federal Grant, a $4040.00 State Grant, and a $4040.00 transfer from the Planning Department's approved Budget. Unutilized prior year local matches resulted in a Fund Balance of $2000.00 which will be returned to the General Fund. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #99023 in the amount of $42,398.00. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00 NUMBER: 99023 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1 1208 81201 930009 SALARIES-REGULAR 1208 81301 110000 1208 81301 350000 1208 81301 600100 1208 81302 110000 1208 81302 310000 1208 81302 350000 1208 81302 600100 1208 81309 110000 1208 81309 350000 1208 81309 600100 SALARIES-REGULAR PRINTING & BINDING OFFICE SUPPLIES SALARIES-REGULAR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRINTING & BINDING OFFICE SUPPLIES SALARIES-REGULAR PRINTING & BINDING OFFICE SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $2,000.00 $4,622.O0 $50.O0 $3OO.OO $16,400.00 $5,000.00 $474.00 $500.00 $11,500.00 $1,000.00 552.00 $42,398.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2 1208 24000 240500 GRANT REVENUE - STATE 2 1208 33000 330001 GRANT REVENUE - FEDERAL 2 1208 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 2 1208 51000 512004 TRANSFER - GENERAL FUND TOTAL AMOUNT $4,040.00 32,318.00 2,000.00 4,040.OO $42,398.OO Item 5.10. Appropriation: Virginia Department of Forestry "Living With Wate¢' Grant, $5500.00 (Form #99024). It was noted in the staff's report that the Water Resources group of the County Engineering Department applied for a Federally-funded grant through the Virginia Department of Forestry in June of this year. An "Urban Forestry" grant for a program entitled "Living With Water: Riparian Protection Ideas for Homeowners", has been approved in the amount of $5500.00. The County, and its partners in the grant - the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, Rivanna Rowing Center, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority - are required to provide a 100 percent match to the grant award. The County's contribution to "match" the grant will be in the salaries of the Watershed Manager and the Water Resources Manager as well as from donated volunteer hours, rather than new expenditures. An appropriation of $5500.00 is needed to create a "cost center" from which the County can finance the program until invoicing the Department of Forestry on a quarterly basis. The County will be reimbursed for the entire $5500.00. The project will take an educational approach to help achieve the stream buffer goals set forth in the Water Protection Ordinance. Riparian homeowners in Albemarle County will learn of the importance of maintaining and restoring healthy, vegetated riparian buffers along streams, rivers, and reservoirs and become familiar with techniques and materials for doing so. Activities sponsored by the grant will include: 1) Development and distribution of an educational packet with an explanation of County buffer policies and good buffer maintenance practices; and 2) A demonstration planting along the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir at the Rivanna Rowing Center which will be followed by a public educational event to highlight the demonstration planting. The effort will begin in September and conclude in May of next year. Staff recommends that the County Executive be authorized to accept the grant and sign all required documentation and approve Appropriation Form #99024 in the amount of $5500.00. No local funds are required for this appropriation. (Ms.. Thomas said she was delighted to see the Water Resources group project developing an educational packet and a demonstration plan along the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. She would like to have a report of what it accomplishes at the end of this project.) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00 NUMBER: 99024 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY URBAN FORESTRY GRANT September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1 1000 41000 601302 FORESTRY GRANT SUPPLIES TOTAL REVENUE 2 1000 24000 240230 .AMOUNT $5,500.00 $5,500.00 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FORESTRY GRANT $5,500.00 TOTAL $5,500.00 Item 5.11. Road Name Change Request - Change the name of Cleveland Lane to Roseland Farm. It was noted in the staff's report that the road name change phase of the Enhanced 911 implementation project has been completed in accordance with the Board's Road Name Change Policy. The Board's policy states that after this phase of the project has been completed, no further changes to road names would be permitted without Board approval. Staff has been made aware of a situation for which a road name change should be further considered, and that is a request to change the name of Cleveland Lane to Roseland Farm at the request of the landowners, Mr. and Mrs. David L. King. The farm name has been changed to Roseland Farm. The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. Should the Board approve the new road name as requested, the Board should grant staff the authority to coordinate/implement the referenced change. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the road name change of Cleveland Lane to Roseland Farm, at the request of the landowners. The Board also granted staff the authority to coordinate/implement this change. Item 5.12. Proclamation designating August 31, 1999, through September 5, 1999, as "Albemarle County Fair Week". Mr. Martin read the following proclamation into the record: ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK WHEREAS, for the past 18 years, the Albemarle County Fair has entertained tens of thousands of guests during its annual production; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair is unique in many ways, founded by a group of community-spirited people who wanted something special for their neighbors and friends to enjoy and enrich their lives. The theme has always emphasized the County's agricultural and forestal heritage; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair is a non-profit corporation operated by dedicated volunteers, officers and directors; and WHEREAS,' the Albemarle County Fair offers an atmosphere conducive to families and their children. A friendly, safe, carefree atmosphere is the hallmark of the event. Unique in the state in that all food and drink is sold by local non-profit organizations as an opportunity for them to raise monies for their worthwhile programs; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair supports agricultural and rural lifestyles, offers exhibits of home-art skills, crops, large livestock, small livestock and poultry, with competitions in livestock and numerous other farm skills, and nightly entertainment for all to enjoy; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle ....... Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of AUGUST 31, 1999 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 5, 1999 as ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored and supported by the more than 300 volunteers, public and area businesses. Item 5.13. Resolution supporting the Expansion of Rail Service from Bristol, Virginia, to Richmond, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) It was noted in the staff's report that a letter regarding expansion of rail service in Virginia and encouraging the Board's adoption of a resolution supporting expanded rail service from Bristol, Virginia, to Richmond, Virginia, and Washington D.C. has been received. If the Board chooses to support the resolution, it can be adopted on the consent agenda: (Ms. Humphris said the Board has done this before, but is doing it again because there is still some life left in the proposal, if not funds. A request for funds will be going to the General Assembly this Winter.) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the feasibility of expanded passenger rail service from the Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Virginia, areas to Bristol, Virginia, has been studied and documented by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation; and WHEREAS, this passenger rail service would provide an attractive transportation alternative that could lead to economic, tourism, environmental and other social benefits; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors believes this passenger rail service is both cost-effective and consistent with a well-planned, multi-modal transportation system in the Commonwealth of Virginia; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, reaffirms its support and endorsement for the provision of passenger rail service from the Washington, DC, and Richmond, Virginia, areas to Bristol, Virginia; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors encourages the implementation of this rail service and pledges its assistance to the Commonwealth of Virginia in implementing said service. Item 5.14. Temporary Designation of the Workforce Investment Area. It was noted in the staff's report that the Workfome Investment Act (WIA), which will go into effect on July 1,2000, includes specific requirements for setting up local Workforce Investment Boards and one-stop job centers in the area. These local Workforce Investment Boards will replace the current Private Industry Councils (PIC) and will have representatives from the business community, community agencies and one-stop job centers, all of whom will be appointed by the local governing bodies. One of the first required actions by localities under the new Act is to designate a Local Workforce Investment Area that will be represented by this locally-appointed Workforce Board. Requested local designations must be into the State Workforce Investment Board by October 12. A final plan, including local WIA Board members and program objectives, must be completed and into the State by April 1. The Workforce Investment Act provides three options for local area eligibilitY for designation as a local workforce investment area. Option one, which is an automatic or permanent designation, applies only to units of government with a population over 500,000. Option two is a temporary designation, which applies to any unit of local government (or combination of local governments) with a population of 200,000 or more that has performed successfully in the last two years under the PIC configuration. In 1998, Planning District 10 had a pOpulation of approximately 190,000. Option 3 is also a temporary designation and applies to any unit of local government or combination of units not meeting option 1 or 2. Any local area under 200,000 applying for this new designation must provide justification to the State Workforce Board that they are a rural area, a regional economic development alliance or are involved in joint local planning initiatives, etc. At an August 20 meeting sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, elected officials and administrators from all the localities in Planning Districts 9 and 10 expressed the desire to remain in the same configuration as the current PIC, which includes PDC 9 and PDC 10. This representative group also approved submitting a request to the State for a temporary designation for PD 9 and PD 10 to be the Local Workforce Investment Area. The next step will be a follow-up meeting to begin discussions on the composition and approval process for the local Workforce Investment Board. This meeting will occur as soon as the State Workforce investment Board approves and distributes the official membership requirements for these local boards. Staff recommends approval to maintain the current configuration of Planning District 9 and 10 as the Local Workforce Investment Area. Information on the local board's configuration and administrative recipient Will be brought to the Board of Supervisors at a later time. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved maintaining the current configuration of Planning DiStrict 9 and Planning District l0 as the Local Workforce Investment Area. Item 5.15. Amend Personnel Policy P-40 to raise the tuition reimbursement to County employees. It was noted in the staff's report that during FY 1999-2000 budget work sessions, the Board approved increasing the tuition reimbursement to County employees from $100 to $300, the total cost of which is $3500. Under this program, Albemarle County employees may be reimbursed for any course work that is relevant to their County work and which is not offered by the County's own staff development program. Participants must have the course approved in advance by their department head or immediate supervisor and must provide evidence of a passing grade in order to receive reimbursement. The newly- drafted Personnel Policy only changes the reimbursement amount from the previous $100 per fiscal year to a $300 maximum. No other changes have been made to the policy. Although the Board approved the tuition reimbursement increase during the budget process, the Board must also approve the amended policy. Staff recommends approval of the amended Personnel Policy §P-40 that raises the tuition reimbursement to $300. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the amended Personnel Policy §P- 40 as set out in full below: §P-40 COURSE REIMBURSEMENT - CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES While the primary purpose of staff development funds is to provide training to groups of County employees on an internal basis, the need to take job-related courses on an individual basis is also recognized. When individual course work is taken, the following criteria shall apply relative to reimbursement: The content of the course is not something that would be covered under the County's staff development program; The course is relevant to the individual's current position in the County and will improve skill in this position; The course is approved in advance by the department head or immediate supervisor and the Staff Development Coordinator; and 4. The course is taken outside of the normal working hours. Requests for course reimbursement should be made to the Staff Development Coordinator prior to the semester in which the course is to be taken. Only one course per semester will be approved for an individual with additional courses per year being approved only as funds are available up to a maximum of $300 per fiscal year. Upon receiving proof of a passing grade, reimbursement will be made for the tuition cost for up to a maximum of three credits. This policy is not meant to fund general education requirements leading toward a degree. Item 5.16. Comparison of FY 1999-2000 to FY 2004-2005 Final Allocations for Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway System - Albemarle County Projects, was received for information. It was noted in the staff's report that the FY 1999-2000 to FY 2004-05 Primary Road Final Allocation Plan was approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on June 17, 1999. The following information compares the new Plan with the FY 1998-99 to 2003-04 Final Plan. Attachment A is a table comparing planned allocations to Albemarle on selected projects for the five common years in the Primary System Improvement Program. The thirteen projects in the table are listed beloW with additional comments related to each project. 1. 1-64 Fog Detection System: Afton Mountain fog detection upgrading. No change. 1-64 Rest Areas: Sewer upgrade of the eastbound rest area 3E at mile marker 105 (base of Alton Mountain) and the westbound rest area 3W at mile marker 113 (near Ivy). This was one project last year but has been separated into two projects this year. Rest area 3E has been fully funded. Allocations to 3W over the five common years have been reduced by $361,000. Cost of the two projects increased by $23,000. Route 29: Widening from City line to Rio Road. This project is complete. No change (money shown in the Plan is to complete project funding). September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 4. Route 29: Widening from four to six lanes from Rio Road to the South Fork Rivanna River. The project is complete. Total project cost increased by $15,000 (money shown in the Plan is to complete project funding). Route 29: Widening from the South Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road. The plans are being developed for this project and should be presented to the Board this Fall. Allocations in the five common years have been reduced by $2,466,000. No construction funding through FY 2004-05. The total cost of the project has been reduced from $27,432,000 to $9,915,000. According to VDOT, this reduction is due to the following reasons: a) VDOT felt it was premature to list the construction cost for this project. Improvements of this nature are constantly changing; b) VDOT is experiencing a cash flow problem due to cost overruns and Iow estimates on projects throughout the Commonwealth. VDOT had not been closely using its 70 percent rule. This rule basically states that no construction can begin on a project until 70 percent of the construction funds have been allocated. Twelve other major projects in the Culpeper District experienced the same type of cost reduction. Route 29: Bridge replacement at the South Fork Rivanna River. Allocations in the five common years, as well as the total project cost, decreased by $55,000. Western (Route 29) Bypass: Allocations over the five commons years have increased by $25,000. No change in total project cost. Route 29 Access Management Study from Airport Road to the Greene County line: This project has not been allocated any funding over the five common years. Route 29: Improvement to vertical alignment near Route 641. Allocation in five common years, as well as total project cost, increased by $497,000. 10. Route 29 South: Bridge replacement at the South Fork Hardware River (southbound lane). Allocation in the five common years, as well as the total project cost, increased by $12,000. 11, Route 20 South: Bridge replacement at Hardware River (southbound lane). The allocation in the five common years has increased by $331,000. 12. Route 20 South: Preliminary engineering only for widening to four lanes from Route 53 to Mill Creek Drive. $200,000 previously funded. VDOT has done some preliminary engineering. No additional allocations are programmed for this project. 13. Route 250 West: Intersection improvement at Bellair (Route 809). This project has been completed. The total project cost increased by $127,000. These thirteen County projects were listed to receive $53,559,000 in the FY 1998-2005 Plan between FY 1999-00 to FY 2003-04 (the five common years of both plans). The same projects are listed to receive $51,684,000 in funding over the same five years in the 1999-2005 Plan, a decrease of $1,875,000. Attachment B is a table comparing planned allocations in Albemarle on selected projects for the five common years in the Hazard Elimination Safety Improvement Program. Total project costs have decreased by almost $400,000. One new hazard elimination safety project was added to this year's plan: Route 20 South, improve horizontal and vertical alignment at intersection with Route 726. The total project cost is $300,000, with a $270,000 allocation in FY 1999-00. Item 5.17. Notice of Government Finance Officers' Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the County's 1997-98 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Was received as information. It was noted in the staffs report that the County of Albemarle has been awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its 1997-98 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report by the Government Finance Officers' Association. The Certificate is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. The Report has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program including demonstrating a construction "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential users and user groups to read the Report. (Ms. Humphris said that Albemarle County has again been awarded the certificate of excellence which is the highest form of recognition for governmental accounting. She said that Albemarle seems to get this award regularly and it is a tribute to the County's fiscal officers.) September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) Item 5.18. 1999 Second Quarter Building Report, as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for information. Item 5.19. Letter dated August 19, 1999, to Mr. Jeff Dise, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels and Development Rights (property of The Miller School of Albemarle, Tax Map 85, Parcel 49), was received for information. Item 5.20. Letter dated August 19, 1999, to the Honorable Charles S. Martin, from the Honorable Virgil H. Goode, U.S. House of Representatives - Fifth District, re: assistance that may be available to farmers facing drought conditions in Albemarle and other counties, was received for information. Mr. Marshall said basically this is of no help to the farmer. As far as he is concerned, he does not want to borrow money. If the Federal Government is going to help at all, he would like to have hay or feed of some sort to help him get through the Winter so he does not have to sell off part of his cattle. A lot of his neighbors are having to sell, but so far he has been able to hold on. But, he has no pasture due to the drought. He thinks help in the form of feed would do more good than borrowing more money. Mr. Tucker said that request was in the Board's resolution. He understands the Governor is also pushing that effort. He does believe the Governor and others are trying to do more than just the loan program. Ms. Humphris said she interpreted the sentence in Congressman Goode's letter where he said "However, I know that the loans that the USDA can offer are not going to be of much help to farmers, therefore, I will continue to urge the Secretary and the President to provide additional and immediate assistance." to mean other types of help, but not loans. She said there is supposed to be a program in operation matching people who have hay with those who do not. Mr. Tucker said that is already occurring. He can discuss what is actually being done with the Extension Service. Item 5.21. Letter dated August 18, 1999, to the Honorable Charles S. Martin, from Mr. Barry E. DuVal, Secretary of Commerce and Trade, re: resolution adopted by Board of Supervisors requesting disaster designation and federal assistance for farmers in Albemarle County, was received for information. Ms. Thomas asked about the letter from the Governor's Office which implied that Albemarle had not yet reached the proper level for Federal disaster designation. She wondered if that has an effect on what the farmers are getting in the way of help. Mr. Martin said the issue is that as far as the Board knows, it is doing everything that can possibly be done. Hopefully, that will be beneficial. He suggested that staff look at ways to do more. Mr. Tucker said the Extension Service should know how to go about that. Mr. Marshall said if nothing else, maybe people in the northern end of the County would help out people in the southern end of the County. Item 5.22. Copy of letter dated August 18, 1999, to the Honorable James S. Gilmore, III, from Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, President, Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, expressing support in Albemarle County's request for designation as a drought disaster area, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: March 10(A), 1997; April 21, June 2, June 9 and July 21, 1999. Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of July 21, 1999. She had a question concerning a statement by Mr. Davis on Page 7, line 2. Mr. Davis has clarified his statement, so an asterisk needs to be added at that point in the minutes stating the following: "Mr. Davis said if the water level encroached upon City property, the C .....y RWSA might be liable for any ~ .......... '~ ~"'~'~" .... "' ,,,,r-, ,,-~ ........ ,~,,~- .... encroachment on affected property." ,, . Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of June 9, 1999, and found them to be correct. Mr. Martin had read the minutes of June 2, 1999, and found no errors. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to approve those minutes which had been read with the addition she had stated for the record. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters. Meadow Creek Parkway, Discussion of. Mr. Cilimberg said it was decided at the August 4, 1999, Board meeting to defer discussion on this item until all Board members could be present. There were five points raised in a letter from Mayor Virginia Daugherty, dated July 19, 1999. The first was to revisit the previous Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS) and the regional network of roads with particular emphasis on an "eastern connector", a "near eastern connector", and other roads north and south of the City. Staff notes that the CATS will be reviewed next year. Underway this year is the Eastern Planning Initiative which is focused on the whole transportation system east to the north of the City all the way out to Fluvanna and Louisa counties. That is the place where the road network can be addressed best. Mr. Cilimberg said the second point had to do with acquiring additional parkland over and above the acreage necessary to replace the land taken for the Parkway. Staff notes that the County has taken a strong position for the preservation of parkland with this project and has recently adopted a resolution, which was forwarded to the City and VDOT, supporting the acquisition of additional parkland adjacent to Phase I. Staff also notes that the northern end of Phase I as it comes into the existing Rio Road is developable urban infill land as identified in the County's Land Use Plan. He said the County envisions the Parkway having pedestrian and biking facilities along its entire length in Phase I as well as future Phase II. Mr. Cilimberg said the third point regarded possible consultant assistance in design and construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway in the City and County in Phase I. He said the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has had a design committee working with VDOT's design consultant for the past three years. Staff feels the MPO is the proper place to discuss the possibility of bringing in a consultant to assist that design committee. Staff noted that hiring such a person might extend the design process further. Mr. Cilimberg said the fourth point speaks to opposition to any kind of cellular towers located along the right-of-way for the Parkway. The Board has previously gone on record stating this is a county which does not support towers in the rights-of-way of roads without having county review as would be given any tower project. Mr. Cilimberg said the fifth point states concern about the Melbourne Road intersection with Meadow Creek Parkway. The Design Committee has been working to provide pedestrian access at this intersection. He said the League of Women Voters' has requested that an environmental impact study on Meadow Creek be prepared. That had been a specific request by David Hirschman to VDOT to be addressed in the design of the Parkway. VDOT has had a consultant specifically addressing water quality and environmental issues as relates to Meadow Creek. Mr. MarShall asked if the County's portion of the Parkway will be four laned to the intersection on Melbourne Road and then feed into two lanes. Mr. Tucker said the current design in the County is for four lanes. The City has asked that the County consider a two-lane roadway to match the two lanes they propose. That decision will ultimately be made by the Commonwealth Transportation Board which controls the design of the road in the County. Mr. Marshall said he believes the road should have four lanes through the County. Mr. Martin said he assumes it is still the desire of this Board to have the road have four lanes throughout its length in the County. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it is equally important that the good design work being done on the City's portion of the Parkway continue into the County. If it is going to be called a parkway, it needs to be as much of a parkway as possible. She thinks that with the group working on its design, it will be possible to have a park with a road through it. She would like the Board to take some leadership in this and do what the Comprehensive Plan says will be done, and that is to develop a greenway plan. She knows the Rivanna Trails Foundation has been working on a plan for a greenway, but this Board has not seen that plan. She has seen some pretty architectural sketches. She would like for the Board to be assured that staff can determine what pieces of property need to be reserved or purchased for a greenway. Mr. Bowerman asked if"staff" means MPO staff or County staff. Ms. Thomas said she means County staff because it is the County's Comprehensive Plan that says the County will develop a greenway plan. Mr. Tucker said once the final design of Phase I is completed, staff Can do what Ms. Thomas is requesting. Mr. Martin said he agrees with the second part of what Ms. Thomas said. He wants to be sure the response is worded in such a way that everyone understands the Board is in favor of having a park or a greenway. Mr. Cilimberg said staff wanted to be sure all are aware that what is shown in the Comprehensive Plan once it gets to Rio Road is no longer a park or a greenway north from that point. It is development land. That is the distinction because City Council was asking for a parkway all the way to the Rivanna River. In the recently adopted Chapter 2 there is a greenway plan, and that can be integrated into the design. Obviously the point of connection is the Meadow Creek Parkway with pedestrian and bike trails along that road. It will not be the same environment as that south of Rio Road into the City. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) Ms. Thomas said she is talking about the part of Phase I from Melbourne Road to Rio Road. Mr. Martin said that is what he is also saying. He thinks the Board should focus on Phase I. Ms. Thomas said it can be designed so it does not have the effect on Meadow Creek that the present VDOT design has. Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board should not deviate from its desire to have a four-lane design, nor let it sound as if the Board would accept a two-way road even if it is well-designed. Mr. Perkins said it is possible to build two lanes only but keep the right-of-way and do the major grading so that at the appropriate time, only gravel and pavement would be needed for four lanes. Mr. Martin said he does not agree with that at all. That would just be extra money to be spent. Mr. Perkins said that is where the Board needs guidance from VDOT. Mr. Bowerman said obviously, the Board wants to be sure that whatever the City does, the County's portion has a reasonable connection to that roadway. He thinks VDOT will be concerned with that also. The concern expressed by the LOWV is certainly this Board's concern also. It is VDOT's responsibility to work with some of the ideas this Board has expressed to soften the impact of the roadway. Ms. Thomas said when the City had their consultant look at all the various possibilities, she was impressed that the difference between a two-lane and a four-lane road was not great in terms of its impact. What really made a difference was the design speed. She just wants a well-designed road that is a parkway. Mr. Bowerman said he would like the reply broken into two segments. The first segment needs to be more positive and restate the County's desire for four lanes, and the Board's concern with an appropriate design. The second portion is correct in that the second phase from Rio Road to the River is different and not consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. He thinks the reply needs to be phrased in a more positive way. He thanked the other Board members for deferring this matter so he could participate in the discussion. Mr. Tucker said staff will draft a letter for the Chairman's signature addressed to Mayor Daughtery and will incorporate all of the items discussed today. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, said the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) will soon receive the package of materials concerning the Meadow Creek Parkway on which it will vote at its September 16 meeting. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Will Rieley's concept will be part of what the CTB considers. Ms. Tucker said only as the City comments on that concept. VDOT is forwarding a recommendation for a four-lane roadway as presented at its public hearing, with modifications for a lower design speed and other issues brought up by the City such as stormwater detention basins, etc. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Thomas if that meets the concept of what the MPO looked at in terms of Mr. Rieley's presentation. Ms. Thomas said it does for the City's portion. It does not say anything about the design speed on the County's portion. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Rieley's design incorporated that lower design speed for the County's section. Ms. Thomas said she does not know. Mr. Rieley was the consultant to the City, not to the entire project. Mr. Bowerman said his concept did not end at Melbourne Road. Ms. Tucker said VDOT is looking at this as one project, Phase I of the Meadow Creek Parkway. The design speed that will be decided on will be based on the City's recommendation and will be carried through to the County's portion. The City believes that if their recommended design speed is not accepted, then the project will not happen. She has not heard VDOT discuss the change in design speed at Melbourne Road. There has been discussion of changing the two lanes to four lanes. Ms. Thomas said she feels strongly about continuing the design speed that the City is proposing to at least Rio Road. She asked if the other Board members share this feeling, should the Board go on record supporting that design speed. Mr. Martin said he thinks it would be easy for the Board to go on record saying it wants to have a continuous design speed, whatever that might be. Mr. Bowerman said it is a better design in terms of the environment and has a lesser impact on grading, etc. Ms. Tucker said she would recommend that the Board go on record as supporting that. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes the Design Committee and the MPO has already endorsed the idea that the design speed be a lower speed concept, and he thinks it would be consistent. Ms. Thomassaid it would be consistent, but she thinks it should be stated. Ms. Humphris said the Board needs to make that statement. At least two VDOT people from Richmond told her that Albemarle County should be on record as of this moment as to what it wants. Mr. Martin asked for a motion to maintain a continuous design speed for the whole section of Phase I of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Cilimberg suggested adding the word "lower" to the motion. Motion was then made by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to maintain a continuous lower design speed for Phase I of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) Ms. Tucker said the traffic counts on Hilltop Street in Crozet should be available in the next day or so. She will fax those results to Mr. Perkins. Ms. Tucker said Proffit Road (Route 649) was closed earlier this week for emergency repairs to the bridge over the railroad at Proffit. The bridge had been posted at the minimum legal weight of three tons. Railroad crews, just prior to the closing, saw many vehicles far in excess of that weight crossing the bridge, which was alarming. Crews have found that the repairs needed to bring the bridge up to some minimal posting will require at least two weeks of work in addition to the two weeks already set aside for the work. Mr. Martin said the repair crew has been pretty invisible so far. Ms. Tucker said the closing is supposed to occur only between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mr. Tucker said he received a call from a resident in Grassmere Subdivision wanting to know if repairs to that roadway is still scheduled for the next fiscal year. Ms. Tucker said the project is to be done in this fiscal year, but the advertisement will not occur until next Spring. Ms. Thomas said she also heard from these people because the school buses are refusing to take students over the railroad crossing. Parents, are therefore, driving their children to school, or the school buses must go through tortuous routes to drop off the children. Mr. Perkins said he has received a request for a "Children at Play" sign in the Free Union area. He will get the information to staff so they can prepare the appropriate resolution for adoption by the Board. Mr. Perkins asked if Ms. Tucker has any comments about the Route 240~250 connector in Crozet and financing for the project. Ms. Tucker said that for other than some minor token spot improvements this year, there is no money in Albemarle County's budget for primary improvements. She has heard that any money forthcoming for Virginia will go to the Southwest, Northern and Tidewater areas. The County can continue to press for priority needs. Mr. Perkins said Mr. Carter Myers has said that there may be some park funds like those used at Walnut Creek Park that could be used for the Route 240/250 connector because it would access Claudius Crozet Park. Ms. Tucker said she has not looked into that possibility. Mr. Perkins said he would like for the whole Board to discuss this project in the near future. The landowners need to get together and come up with ways to finance this project. If the County has to "front" the project, then the County needs some way to recover that money. Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be a primary road just because it would connect two primary roads. Mr. Cilimberg said several years ago, VDOT did some work on that connection and discussed whether it would qualify as replacement of some improvements on Route 240. There was no answer. Mr. Bowerman said part of the connector has been built. Mr. Cilimberg said a very small portion of what would be the connector was built in Cory Farms and a reservation of land was provided in Western Ridge. Mr. Bowerman asked what assumptions were made at that time. Mr. David Benish said those connections were built as subdivision streets. The Comprehensive Plan now recommends a completely different concept for that roadway based on community comments from the Crozet Neighborhood Planning process. The land use planning review, at one time, intended it to be a road that supplemented the Route 240 north and east concept, as kind of a truck route. Mr. Bowerman said that would allow that central portion of Crozet to develop. Mr. Benish said the recommendation in the Plan now is for an interconnection of neighborhood streets. It is not intended to carry through truck traffic. It is a different concept for a roadway that will probably not meet primary road requirements. Mr. Bowerman said he never thought of it as a primary road. Mr. Perkins said at one time the concept was for four lanes. He asked staff to look at the concept, financing schemes, and getting the landowners together. A landowner told him he would be interested in sitting down With County representatives to discuss the roadway. Mr. Marshall thanked Ms. Tucker for the arrows installed by VDOT on Route 20 South to direct traffic into one lane. He asked if it is possible to get a sign alerting people to the fact that the four lanes are going to change to two lanes. Ms. Tucker said her office did review that section for the placing of an additional sign. There are so many signs there now, they wanted to see if the pavement markings would do the job. Ms: Thomas said the Morgantown neighborhood residents had a meeting. She encouraged Ms. Tucker to work with them to see if any decisions were made as to where they would like the signage and lines. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Ms. Thomas said the Board's statement to the Governor's Commission on the Future of Transportation did not get Personally delivered, but it can still be mailed. The Commission ran out of time for hearing people at the hearing on Monday. The Chairman of the MPO sat for the entire day, but did not get to give her statement. Ms. Humphris said she has not gotten an answer to her question as to why the signs on Route 53 which used to say "Charlottesville-Albemarle Tourism Information Center" now say simply "Monticello Information Center." She has been questioning that change for a while. It makes it look as if there is no Tourism Center, and yet the County is spending a lot of money to maintain such a center. Ms. Humphris said the Virginia Chamber of Commerce has unveiled a new transportation model to prioritize projects. She found their press release to be interesting. The State Chamber set up criteria concerning quality of a road, the cost benefits, the environmental implications, etc., with a list of criteria assigning points to those categories, and in a neutral fashion rank them according to need. It is interesting to note that calls to the Chamber showed that they had not sent copies of their report to any of elected legislators in the General Assembly. She felt that was an amazing oversight. She said the Board needs to know what this research shows. Ms. Humphris said the Governor also has a plan. His plan has two roads in this area; one is for a bridge and something else to do with Route 53. Mr. Marshall said there is be a rock bridge built over Route 53. Ms. Humphris thought that was to be funded from ISTEA funds. Ms. Tucker said the Thomas Jefferson Parkway is enhancement funding. There is also a proposal to replace the bridge on Route 15 just north of Route 53. Ms. Humphris said she thought there was a separate part of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway which was for the bridge. Mr. Davis concurred. Ms. Tucker said there is the rock bridge entrance into Monticello, in Phase Ill, and it has been funded. Mr. Cilimberg said the funding was a little short of what is needed for the project. Ms. Humphris said it would be interesting to get a copy of the study by the Virginia Chamber to see where the Western Route 29 Bypass ranks on their list of priorities. According to news reports it was not a priority. Mr. Bowerman asked if VDOT has adopted a new color of green for its traffic signals, like those on Rio Road. Ms. Tucker said they are new signals, light emitting IOD-LED signals. Eventually, all signals will be replaced by those; instead of one lens with a single bulb behind it, there will be multiple bulbs. That way it will reduce the long-term electrical costs associated with these signals, and will reduce the need to respond to emergency bulb burn-outs. Agenda Item No. 8. Water Supply Emergency Ordinance, Request Adoption of. Since the Board meeting was running behind schedule, this item was skipped, and is to be discussed later in the day. Agenda Item No. 9. School Board Report. Mr. John Baker, Chairman, was present to make the report. He handed to the Board members a packet of materials he would use for the presentation. First he referred to a report from the Superintendent comparing Albemarle test scores on the SOLs with the state results released yesterday by the Virginia Department of Education. He said quite a bit of attention has been given to these test scores. He said that world geography is the only test on which scores dropped from those of last year. He said the Superintendent and the School Board have set a goal for the year 2002 of having all Albemarle County schools fully accredited. They are confident that this goal can be met well before the time set by the State. Next he mentioned a summary of Summer Major Projects. The School Division has been active in all departments; administration of programs, collecting data, training of teachers and staff, SOL test administration, an equity and diversity task force was developed, menu development, building projects and maintenance, hiring of staff, review of crisis plans, safety training, Y2K testing, driver training, mailing of individual schedules to parents, restructuring of the School Board Office; employed 125 new teachers, 25 bus drivers and approximately 20 other employees for the new school year. It is expected that there will be 46 trailers throughout the division during the coming school year. The division Website has been an excellent communication tool with some 118,000 hits on that site between October, 1998 and August, 1999. Mr. Baker said there was a Summer School Program with 45 high school students from Charlottesville, Albemarle and some contiguous counties. There were 14 graduates from Albemarle. As to Charter Schools, Mr. Baker said there are 132 school divisions, and Albemarle County is only one of 13 who offered this opportunity. He just received notification yesterday that the Department of Education has approved the Virginia request for funding for charter schools that it denied last year. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) · Mr. Baker said there had been some problems with funding for the School Division Handbook but they got different corporate sponsors and now believe it will be ready in about three weeks. This will be mailed to each individual student's home along with a copy of the County School Board's Rules and Policies. Mr. Baker said there is a new principal at Murray High School, Dr. Vicki Miller. She had prepared a comprehensive letter which is more definitive about the mission of Murray. They have decided to call Murray a "non-traditional" high school as cOmpared to an "alternative'' high school, so it is not confused with other school divisions who use the term "alternative" to manage disciplinary problems. Mr. Baker said there have been some questions about the maintenance status of Monticello High School. He included in the materials handed out earlier a one-page summary of major warranty items and original contract items not yet completed to the satisfaction of the County. None of these items have interfered with the on-going education process, or the completion of programs at the high school. Mr. Baker said on September 10 there will be the first of scheduled monthly meetings with area legislators. They are particularly interested in the Standards of Learning, and want a breakdown in each category, and want to know how Albemarle County is doing in this regard. Mr. Baker mentioned the August 9 issue of "Board Briefs" and brought the Board's attention to an article entitled "Non-Public School Student Access." He said the School Board approved a program that makes it possible for parents, regardless of their choice for educating their children, to have those children participate on a part-time basis in English, math, science, history, social studies, vocational education, fine arts, foreign language, physical education and health class in Albemarle schools. Also on August 23 there was a listing of 1999-2000 School Board/Superintendent Priorities. These priorities are consistent with the Standards of Learning. He highlighted a couple of areas: 1) Literacy Passport. Major emphasis will be placed on grades K-3, but emphasis will be placed in all grades. 2) Strategic Plan for Total Compensation. A five-year plan will be developed and presented to the joint boards. The FY 2000-2001 budget requests in this area will reflect that plan. On August 23, the School Board approved a "Welcome to Albemarle County School Board Meeting Guide" which provides information about understanding how School Board meetings are conducted and how citizens may participate in the meeting process. Mr. Baker said the Long Range Planning Committee made its report to the School Board on August 23 and made several significant recommendations. These include, increasing the capacity in the middle schools to 750 students. There was a recommendation for early acquisition of land based on projected needs in about 15 years, for new elementary, middle and high schools in the Route 29 North corridor. He said the full report is available to any Board member who wishes to have a copy. Mr. Baker said a Criminal Justices Service grant has been procured to fund one additional School Resource Officer. The School Board has matched that grant. That will make three SRO's in the middle schools. The School Board believes these officers should be a part of the Police Department staff, and that the Police Department should assume all costs associated therewith. Mr. Baker said the School Board has been briefed on the FY 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 Capital Improvements Program. It recognizes what the community and the Board of Supervisors has given in the way of funding to the School Division over the past ten years. There have been seven new schools built during that period of time. There have been 15 major renovations and additions including the technology and maintenance projects, totaling close to $110.0 million. That has been an extraordinary support of the School Division. As enrollment continues to grow, it is projected that some of the 40-year old HVAC systems will need replacement. Differentiated staffing, which is an initiative to size the classroom commensurate with the abilities of the youngsters in the classroom, makes a lot of sense. However, the schools were built based on a different stacking pattern, so suddenly the schools do not have the capacity needed. As a practical matter, introducing educationally-sound practices sometimes runs in conflict with buildings. This will be brought to the Board's attention forcefully when looking at the CIP. Mr. Baker said the Superintendent has set up an information meeting with candidates for the School Board and Board of Supervisors for September 15, 1999. The idea is to inform and prepare candidates so that when elected they can intelligently address the issues of the school division, The School Board supports this effort. Mr: Baker said the new Ivy Creek School will be dedicated on October 20, 1999. Mr. Marshall said he understands the School Board is holding back $135,000 to do some repairs. He has heard concern from some parents and teachers that the principal at Monticello High School is holding back some money from last year. Mr. Baker said the principal, based on earlier projections, indicated to staff that a certain amount of money would be available. He wants to be judicious and is retaining 15 percent of the monies allocated in order to do some better planning. He is being careful with the moneys with which he is entrusted. When he made that announcement, Mr. Baker said he believes that some of the teachers and department heads already had made plans to do some things with that money. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) Mr. Marshall thanked Dr. Castner for going out to Esmont and helping him deal with a problem at that school. He hopes it has been resolved. Mr. Martin said he has four children in the school system. This week he received hoards of material with each child. Some of the stuff was important, particularly the classroom information. Every one of those things came without copies, and he had to sign and send them back the next day. He said it is impossible to retain all of that information without having a copy. It would be helpful to have had an extra copy sent to the parent. At 10:44 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:01 a.m. Agenda Item No. 8. Water Supply Emergency OrdinanCe, Request adoption of. Mr. Tucker said the Albemarle County Service Authority has helped in preparing an ordinance to govern water restrictions. At the time the ordinance was drafted, reservoir capacity was below 80 percent. At the end of last week, it was above 80 percent, but today it is back at 80 percent. He suggested that the Board delay consideration of this ordinance, and if capacity drops below 80 percent, the ordinance can be added to the next available agenda for discussion. Ms. Thomas said she finds this a little frustrating. When the Board of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was asked what they do when there is a water supply emergency, they referred to a policy adopted several years ago. If nothing is adopted now, they will continue to refer to that other policy which is somewhat different from those things recommended in this ordinance. She asked if the Board could adopt these recommendations as a policy. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority could put this into place automatically when the level drops to a certain percent of capacity. Mr. Davis said there are two different things involved. Virginia enabling legislation has a specific provision which allows the governing body to adopt an emergency ordinance when there is a water shortage emergency. That is what staff proposed under this draft ordinance. An emergency ordinance is valid for 60 days but can be readopted after public notice is given. Second, it is possible to have an ordinance on the books setting out the stages and how the locality would want to deal with any sort of water shortage emergency. There are other issues to address before adoption of such an ordinance. Mr. Martin said that even if there were that type of policy in effect, the Board would still have to declare a water shortage emergency. Mr. Davis said that was correct. Ms. Thomas said she understands the legal situation, but believes it is up to this Board to adopt a policy so the public would know when the Board found there to be an emergency, the policy would go into effect. Mr. Tucker said the Board can do that, but still must adopt the emergency ordinance first. Mr. Davis said there are a couple of outstanding issues to be resolved. One is that there needs to be consensus between the City and the County as to the policy provisions. The other issue is that there is the urban reservoir system and then there are the Scottsville and Crozet systems. Those systems have not been addressed yet. Third, a water shortage can result from something other than a drought, something such as contamination, etc. That also has not been dealt with. Those are all 'critical parts of a standing ordinance. Staff needs assistance from Rivanna, the ACSA and the City to craft a workable ordinance for long-term use. Mr. Tucker said staff can redraft the ordinance in another form and have it on the Board's consent agenda next week. Mr. Bill Brent, EXecutive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, was present. He said emergency water restrictions have been adopted as policy by the ACSA so they are enforceable to the extent the ACSA has authority. They do not have the same force as what legislation allows the governing body to adopt ...... Mr. Martin said he thinks the s tuation is covered. Ms. Humphris said she thinks the pUblic is expecting this Board to take the correct, but firm action. It is hard for the public to understand why the Board would not take such action. Mr. Bowerman said this ordinance does not deal at all with the issue of the continuing weather pattern which is supposed to continue into the Winter, with a warmer, dryer than normal winter season. Just because there were a couple of thunderstorms that filled the reservoirs, it is not a good way to approach this question. Where he lives, there have been four inches of rain in the last week. Mr. Marshall said on his side of the County, there has been no rain at all. Mr. Davis said the stages adopted by the ACSA indicate that for the Board's purposes there are three critical percentages, the first being 80 percent capacity where the reservoirs are now and where they have stood for the past few weeks. That number really only requires that the public be made aware that September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) there is an impending situation and it may be important to conserve water. The next phase is at 70 percent. At that point, there is a plea for voluntary conservation of water and imposition of an odd/even day watering restriction for outdoor watering. Stage II is still 10 percent away; the real crisis level where people are impacted directly and where water is restricted. If the Board does not accept the percentages put forward by the ACSA, the Board could ask them to bring back a different set of criteria for when restrictions should be imposed. Mr. Bowerman said the difference is that although there was not a lot of rain last year, the groundwater supply continued to Supply the reservoirs with water. This year, it has become critical, and there have only been a few localized rain events. Mr. Martin said he understands what is being said, but he believes all bases are covered. The Board has acknowledgedto the public that there is a problem. He does not think anyone should yell "emergency" when that is not the case. He knows the rainfall has been localized, but it does end up in a reservoir somewhere. Ms. Thomas said she was not suggesting that an emergency be declared before there is one. She feels it would be good for the public to know what will follow from such a declaration. If the ACSA has adopted something like this ordinance as a policy, that is a step in letting the public know. She would like to discuss how the various percentages were determined. Mr. Perkins said he believes the time of year is more important than the percentages. If the reservoirs were to be at 70 percent on the first day of June, that would indicate real trouble with the water supply. Maybe there needs to be something like that built into the ordinance. He thinks the Board needs to "preach" conservation. It appears from reading the ordinance that even at 70 percent there is still a very liberal use of water allowed. He thinks all the restrictions should kick in at 70 percent rather than at 65 percent. Ms. Humphris said she was not happy with the stages as presented by the ACSA. She thinks Stage I and Stage II should be combined in some way at 80 percent, and Stage III should be 70 percent. Mr. Martin said if the Board wants to make those kind of changes, he thinks the Board needs some information as to why it is being done. He thinks that when the Board puts itself into a situation where it is going to fine people, he thinks it needs some scientific information to say this is the time to do it, and not just do it as a reaction. Mr. Marshall said there is a big difference over the 740 square miles of Albemarle County. He asked the status at Totier Creek Reservoir. Mr. Brent said Totier is almost full. Mr. Marshall said it is amazing. He has an eight-acre lake on his property, and in 15 years he had never seen its level drop. He has a six-foot square overflow in the middle of that lake because a lot of water comes through it, and at this very moment, the water is standing about six inches below that overflow. Mr. Bowerman suggested the Board just make a statement saying it feels the next six months is a critical time for the area, and it will be wholly dependent on the amount of rainfall and the Board has adopted a policy of voluntary water conservation which consists of these items. He is very concerned because when reservoir capacity is going up and down based on rainfall from thunderstorms, there is already a significant problem. It has taken 18 months to develop, and it will not go away in a couple of months. Even if capacity got back to 100 percent, it could drop back to 80 percent in a couple of weeks if there were no rain. This last rainfall was pretty widespread over the entire watershed, and it rained hard enough that most of it ran off and got to the reservoir, but the reservoir is still below overflow level. Mr. Martin asked what the Board members wanted to do in terms of how to proceed. Mr. Marshall said he likes the suggestion made by Ms. Humphris. Mr. Martin said even t° use that suggestion he thinks the Board would need more information next week. Ms. Humphris said she suggested that Stages I and II be combined at 80 percent except for the last sentence referring to lawns and yards which she thinks should move to Stage III unless there is scientific evidence that it should be somewhere else. She said it seemed logical to her that first you advise and warn and, second take action. Mr. Davis suggested that Mr. Brent address the percentages. Mr. Martin said the Board is not going to do anything until next week, so he suggested that this might be incorporated all together with a statement of fact as to whether it should be 65 or 70 percent. The number does not matter to him aS long as the number chosen is the correct one. Mr. Bowerman said he has a more serious view of the situation. Mr. Martin asked his suggestion. Mr. Bowerman suggested there be some sort of positive statement encouraging conservation of water now at 80 percent capacity because there is no way of knowing if there will be any rain in the next few weeks. If there is no rain in the next three weeks, it is already known what will happen based on what has happened during the last four to eight weeks. There has been direct correlation between localized rainfall and the depths of the reservoirs. They are not being recharged from groundwater sources as they have been in the last ten years because of an on-going dryness. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bowerman was suggesting that a statement be made concerning voluntary conservation. Mr. Bowerman said he Would like for this Board to make a statement. He is personally September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) concerned about the water supply. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bowerman would make a motion that this Board adopt a resolution, or make a strong statement, as the reservoirs are now at 80 perCent, that the citizens need to voluntarily conserve as much water as possible. Mr. Bowerman said he would make such a motion. Ms. Thomas said she would second that motion. Mr. Bowerman said he thought it would be helpful to continue to publicize the situation. Ms. Thomas said one of the useful things that has been mentioned several times is the connection between groundwater and surface water. The only thing the RWSA and the ACSA have any control over is public water usage which is metered. She thinks it would be helpful if that statement could include a sentence to include all water users, including those on their own private wells. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. Mr. Martin asked if more than a consensus is needed for staff befor.e they begin working on the redraft. Mr. Tucker said staff will use what Mr. Martin suggested. Mr. Bowerman asked that that be restated. Mr. Tucker said that would be all of the items that were going into the current ordinance, but change the percentages to 80 and 70 rather than 70 and 65. Mr. Davis asked if the BOard members wanted information from the ACSA on that issue. Mr. Martin said some statement as to why the percentage should be at 70 rather than 65 and whether or not that is an important number. Mr. Brent said he would ask the ACSA Board to address the issues brought up today, and he will hold discussions with City personnel to see if they concur. Mr. Martin said the Board members need to realize that if this item is not on the agenda next week, it is because the Board is asking for a complicated procedure to take place within one week. Mr. Davis said the real issue is when this Board feels there is an emergency. The Board can adopt an emergency ordinance at any such time. What has been attempted is to coordinate the policy of the ACSA and the policy of the Public Works Department of the City to bring together a unified position as to when that emergency is occurring. The ACSA has already adopted a policy, but the Board can deviate from 'that policy. Mr. Bowerman said in the 22 years he has lived in Albemarle he has recorded rainfalls and temperatures. He arrived in 1977 just after the last drought ended. Since that time, there have been long periods of time without significant rainfall, but there has never been a situation since 1978 where reservoir capacity has been an issue. There has been sufficient water over the last 22 years but it seems to have reached a different stage. All the indications he has read point to a continuance of the pattern we are in, indefinitely. Mr. Marshall said the area is drier now than at any time in this century. Mr. Bowerman said that is exactly what his records show. Agenda Item No. 10. Introduction of Dave Blount, Legislative Liaison, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Mr. Tucker said Ms. Bonnie Fronfelder was the County's legislative liaison for the past seven years. She recently left this area and Mr. David Blount has been selected to replace her in this position. Mr. Blount worked at WI NA from 1987 to 1991 and recently has been a lobbyist with the Virginia School Boards Association. Mr. Blount said he was happy to be back in the area. He has been on the job for about a month. He has met with Roxanne White and Jeff Blank. If there are any major areas of concern or interest in the coming weeks, he will be glad to help with drafting legislation. He expects to have a draft of the Planning District's legislative program for the 2000 Session of the General Assembly available for review in October and hopes there will be final approval given in November. Agenda Item No. 11. Burning Permit Fee for Agricultural Activities, Discussion of. Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Perkins had recently suggested reviewing the need to assess a burn permit fee for farmers burning land debris. The current fee for a burn permit is $125 and the permit is valid for 60 days. The permit requirement is designed to help insure that fire officials are aware of planned burning activities and are able to conduct an investigation prior to the burn. During the current calendar year, the County has issued 91 burn permits for farms, for which only 13 paid a fee. Few farm owners paid a fee because staff worked with these landowners to reduce the debris to be burned by advising them on alternative means of disposing of the debris (chipping, mulching and the use of debris for firewood). By reducing the amount of debris, landowners are able to avoid the assessment of a fee. However, larger farming operations unable to significantly reduce the amount of debris to be burned are not able to avoid the fee. One issue to consider is that the elimination of the permit fee for farms may serve as a disincentive for landowners to reduce the amount of debris actually burned. Small burns improve fire safety and result in fewer calls for service or the need for monitoring. The vast majority of burn permits September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) issued have not required a fee because the ultimate burn was so insignificant. Without the requirement of a fee, the number of permits and actual burns could actually increase, as well as complaints and the need for investigations. The majority of investigations currently conducted are a result of fire companies requesting assistance at the scene of a fire. Mr. Martin asked the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Perkins said he would like to make some comments. He was told by the County Attorney and Mr. Tucker when the new ordinance was adopted that it did not change anything, but simply brought the County into compliance with State law. There were no fees charged at that time for agricultural or forestry operations. He does not think these fees encourage agriculture to do anything, because burning is the cheapest way to get rid of woody waste. He suggested that any bona fide agricultural operations be exempt from the fee, not the permit. He said there are professionals who do the burning for a living. They are certainly as knowledgeable as anybody on County staff about how to burn a brush pile safely and at what time of day to burn. He does not see the need for the County to send a staff member out to inspect the piles of debris. Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with that. Four representatives from the seven fire companies he talked with said their major complaint was the last sentence in the staff's report: "The majority of investigations currently conducted are a result of fire companies requesting assistance at the scene of a fire." He said someone calls 911, a fire company shows up on the scene, and there is an investigation required. This becomes a public relations issue for the volunteer fire companies. A lot of these are small fires, and the rest of them are being done by professionals. It is the fires in between these two that get the most attention. Mr. Perkins said the fire puts up smoke and people react to that. They call 911 and say there is a fire. Cellular phones make this easier to do. The fire company can't assume this is a fire which someone has a permit for. They have to respond just to be sure there is no house on fire, or there is not an uncontrolled burn in that area. Ms. Humphris commented on a brochure she found on the rack at the front door of the County Office Building. She said the information is not specific enough. If it contained the same information that is in the staffs report, it could be helpful. The present brochure is much too vague about who does what. As for exempting anybody from the permitting fee, she wonders about setting a precedent. She thinks the permit fee is just a cost of doing business. Mr. Davis said the law requires that there be a rational relationship between the fee charged and the service rendered. He assumes this fee does not recoup the full cost of the program. The question is, how much of the program should the fees pay for rather than using the General Fund, and whether the County differentiates between fees for agricultural and fees for other land uses which produce debris. Those are the two issues the Board must deal with if fees are going to be adjusted. When the ordinance was brought to the Board, the ordinance simply addressed permitting requirements to conform with the Statewide Fire Code. The Board subsequently adopted a resolution that set the fees for these permits, as well as other fire-related permits and inspections. What the Board has to decide is how it wants to pay for that fire service. Ms. Thomas said she knows fostering agriculture and forestry uses is a high priority in the Comprehensive Plan. Although, she is sympathetic with Mr. Perkins, there were only 13 people in the last year who paid this fee. Instead of being a large issue, it appears to be a fairly small issue. If the whole process actually assists farmers to have smaller debris piles, then she has trouble changing the process for 13 people. Mr. Perkins said he voted on the new ordinance because he was promised there would be no changes. There have been changes, and he would not have voted for it had he known there would be changes. He feels it is important that agriculture and forestry be exempt from these fees. The County does not charge a fee for the creation of an Agricultural/Forest District and that takes a lot of staff time. He thinks the County can make better use of resources, mainly the Virginia Department of Forestry. They can react better to this kind of situation. Fire trucks are not made to fight brush fires. He thinks better use should be madeof State resources rather than depending on County resources to do this. Mr. Martin Said there appear to be a I°t of mixed feelings. To him, this looks like a situation Where a motion should be put on the floor to see how it goes. Mr. Bowerman asked if most of the permits where a fee was required were for burning in the urban area. Mr. Pumphrey said the 13 mentioned were for farm-type agricultural operations, but they were significant burns at their locations. Mr. Martin asked if of all these burns, only 13 paid, is it because the others didn't pay, or is it because the others weren't charged? Mr. Pumphrey said the others were not charged for a permit because staff tried to work with the owners. The fire companies, many times call into the County Office because they feel the burn is not a safe operation. Not everyone is an expert with burning. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) Mr. Bowerman asked if all of the burns have been issued permits. Mr. Pumphrey said "no", they do not always have permits. Many times, County staff goes to the scene and if they need to have a permit, staff will work with them. It is staff's job to go there and educate them and make sure everything is safe. In most cases some common ground is found. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to encourage agricultural permitting. He does not have a problem with eliminating the fee if it is an agricultural use. On other commercial uses, he feels there should be a fee. Ms. Humphris said she is having a problem for different reasons. She is an advocate for protecting and promoting agricultural/forestal uses. As to the fee, if the Board were to give an exemption it would have to find a rational basis for eliminating the fee. She does not see how there could be a rational basis since what is being done, clearing and burning, is a cost of doing business for the farmer just like any merchant. On the other side, the Board would be going against its sustainability policy by discouraging the use of chipping and mulching and using debris for firewood. Mr. Perkins said chipping is expensive. He thinks the farmers should be encouraged to use whatever is possible for firewood and other uses, even brush piles which are good wildlife habitat. He encourages landowners to do that all the time. But, there are situations where the only feasible thing to do is get rid of the debris, and burning is the best and cheapest way to do that. Ms. Humphris asked the rationale for eliminating the fee. Mr. Perkins said a lot of this is the grubbing of stumps, and the burning of those stumps. There needs to be education so people realize there is no need to grub the stumps. However, some people want instant land which is debris free, but the stump will rot if it is cut Iow. It takes a little longer, but it is possible. Ms. Thomas said the application fee for creating a new agricultural/forestal district has been exempted because the end result is something the County wants. She asked if the $125 fee for burning would be exempted because staff wanted to encourage people to burn. She said that is not what the Board members are saying, and she wants to be sure the Board does not take an action that has an unintended result which is that the Board encourages people not to think through the burning process. Mr. Martin said Ms. Thomas' argument is the argument for not supporting Mr. Perkins suggestion. To him, that is the only argument he has heard for saying "no" to the suggestion. Mr. Davis said the difference between not charging a fee for agricultural/forestal districts and this discussion of burning, is that the agricultural/forestal districts is a program where the only people who are applying for the program are people who are agricultural based. With this fee system for the burning, there are people in various classifications who could burn after coming to the County and getting a permit. It is distinguishing between the developer and the homeowner or the existing business that needs to burn debris, from the farmer who needs to burn debris. He does not believe that is impossible to do, but the staff would need to look at that issue and give the Board some data on who applies for such permits. Mr. Bowerman said he is convinced by the arguments he has heard to not follow Mr. perkinS' request. He is sympathetic, but he thinks more would be accomplished by having a fee. Mr. Perkins said he has had a number of farmers come to him and ask why the County is charging a fee. Even after adoption of the new ordinance, there was no fee collected for a while, and now there is. Mr. Martin said he believes the Board is at the point where all the information is on the table, and there will be no convincing of anyone, so someone needs to put a motion of the floor to see how it will go. Mr. Perkins then moved that any bona fide agriculture operation be exempt from the fee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Roll was called, and the motion FAILED by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. Ms. Thomas said she agrees with what Ms. Humphris said about the informational brochure. She thinks it can be better written.. Note: Mr. Tucker said the last item on the agenda today is a work session on Brass, Inc. There is no way that can be done before lunch. He suggested that the Board set a time for that item to be heard this afternoon so that some of the people waiting can go ahead and leave the meeting now for lunch. The Board members agreed to 2:30 p.m. Agenda Item No. 12. Bright Stars and Family Support Program, Presentation of. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive said that Ms. Charity Haines, Bright Stars and Family Support Program Coordinator, will provide an update on both the Bright Stars and the Family September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) Support program. She said the Bright Stars pre-school initiative began in FY 1996 under the leadership of the Department of Social Services and an advisory board of school and community agency representatives. The program began at Stone Robinson Elementary School and has added a new program each year, one at Greer, one at Agnor-Hurt and one at Cale. In FY 1998-99, the Department of Social Services implemented the new Family Support Program in all of the County's elementary schools to complement the pre-school program and to work with children and their families from kindergarten through the fifth grade. She then introduced Ms. Haines. Ms. Haines made a presentation based on a report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. Agenda item No. 13. Request to Adopt Resolution Ratifying the Filing of an Application with the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for a Loan in a Principal Amount not to Exceed $2,835,000. It was noted in the staffs report that funding for the FY 1999-00 Capital Improvement Budget anticipated the issuance of $2,835,000 in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for various school projects. Participation in the bond issue requires that both the School Board and the Board of Supervisors pass a resolution authorizing application to VPSA. The required application has already been submitted to VPSA for their September 2, 1999, deadline. A number of actions (resolutions, public hearings, approvals)will be required between now and November, 1999 to meet the requirements of VPSA and to maintain their time schedule. The required documents will be submitted to the Board as same are received by the Director of Finance from the County's bond counsel. Staff recommended adoption of the resolution authorizing and ratifying the application to VPSA. Motion to adopt the following Resolution Ratifying the filing of an Application with the Virginia Public School Authority for a Loan in a Principal Amount Not to Exceed $2,835,000 was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY FOR A LOAN IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,835,000 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia, (the "County"), in collaboration with the Albemarle County School Board, has determined that it is necessary and desirable for the County to undertake various capital improvements for its public school system: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board hereby ratifies the filing of an application with the Virginia Public School Authority for a loan to the County in a principal amount not to exceed $2,835,000 to finance various capital improvements for its public school system. The actions of the County Executive, in collaboration with the other officers of the County and the Albemarle County School Board, in completing and delivering an application to the Virginia Public School Authority are hereby ratified. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately. Agenda item No. 14. Resolution proposed by the Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition (CALAC) regarding committees appointed by the Board of Supervisors, Discussion of. Mr. Tucker said that on July 1, 1999, the County introduced several new procedures that not only met the new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) standards but also provide expanded opportunities for the public to become aware of and get involved in critical policy issues. Mr. Martin recently received a letter from Mr. Bob Watson, Director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Legislative Action Committee, requesting that the Board adopt a resolution which reinforces the need for the County to remain vigilant in and committed to basic principles of open government. In response to Mr. Watson's letter, Mr. Martin asked staff to review the resolution and existing County policies and to recommend action to the Board on this issue. Mr. Tucker said that as the Board considers the resolution, it should be aware of the following information with regard to specific items mentioned in that document. Meeting Notification: Public bodies (and any subcommittees of those bodies) are required to post the date, time and location of all their meetings at least three working SePtember 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) days in advance in a public lOcation within the County Office Building, which has been designated as the First Floor Lobby near the Visitor's Entrance. Standing meetings (such as the Planning Commission which meets every Tuesday evening at 6:00 pm) can be posted as one listing on an annual basis. Any changes in date, time or location should be posted by the appropriate department. Meetings not occurring on a regular basis will be posted by the appropriate department. Departments will also be responsible for taking down expired notices within three days following the meeting. Emergency meetings occurring with less than three days notice should be posted as soon as date, time and location information is available. Minutes: Minutes for public bodies as determined by the County Attorney's Office are recorded. Even when minutes are not required, all committees and subcommittees are strongly encouraged to record minutes of all meetings. Agendas and Associated Materials: Agendas of meetings of public bodies are made available to citizens who request them by whatever means is most convenient to all parties, E-mail, regular mail, picking up in person. At least one copy of all agenda packets and, unless exempt, all materials furnished to members of a public body for a meeting is made available for public inspection at the same time as such documents are furnished to the members of the public body. Agenda packages are distributed when they are sent to board members. Although the term is not well-defined, it is the County Attorney's opinion that once these materials go to members, a copy is to be made available for inspection by the press. Staffing: County staff members are appointed to all major appointed committees. While it is very difficult to assign dedicated staff to every committee due to manpower issues and the sheer number of appointed committees, every effort is made to insure that the committee receives staff support and input as is appropriate to its mission. Membership: Openings on Board-appointed committees are advertised through paid advertisements in the local media as well as through other outlets such as newsletters and on the County's Homepage. Mr. Tucker said if the Board chooses to adopt a resolution to express its support of efforts to make local government and its processes accessible and responsive to citizen interests and concerns, staff has prepared a draft resolution which incorporates issues brought forward by Mr. Watson and lists those procedures that have been implemented to meet FOIA standards. Mr. Martin said he believes everything mentioned by Mr. Watson was included except for a couple of issues. One was that each temporary committee should have a reasonable date established for completion of its work. Second, members of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission may not be a chair person of a committee. He asked to discuss those two items and said he would also like to give Mr. Watson a chance to address the Board. Ms. Thomas asked if this will be a public hearing. There may be others who would like to comment. She said it seems strange to propose this resolution which speaks to openness in government and not have it be a public hearing. Mr. Martin asked the sentiment of the other Board members. Mr. Tucker said staff did not know what action the Board would take on this request, so drafted the resolution for discussion purposes. Mr. Martin said it was put on the agenda as an issue to discuss, and to see whether the Board wanted to go further with the request. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Martin to speak about the two points he just mentioned. Mr. Martin said when Mr. Watson approached him about his ideas, he was pretty much in agreement with him, including having a reasonable date for completion of cOmmittee work. He does have some sentiments about Board or Planning Commission members being chair persons for committees. If the Board decides to take any action on this request, there can.be a public hearing if that if the desire of the members. Ms. Humphris said she agrees 100 percent that Board or Planning Commission members should not be the chair person for committees. To go further, they act as liaison to the Board, which has a slightly different meaning than just being a working member. She crafted her relationship with the Historic Preservation Committee such that for a long time she sat apart from their meeting and only offered information when requested by the committee. Later on, she moved to the table at their request, but she still refrained from imposing her thinking on the committee members. She sees that as the role of a Board member on any committee the Board establishes. Mr. Martin said he agrees. While serving on the DISC Committee he kept his distance in terms of not wanting to impose anything on that committee. If a Board member sits on a committee and forces that committee to go in a certain way, then the Board might as well just adopt something without committee September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) input. He did see himself as liaison when he saw things being discussed which he thought was beyond the scope this Board had sent forth for them to deal with, he thought it was very important that he speak up. Also, when he felt issues were being discuSSed that would cause great problems when the report did come to this Board, then he felt he should speak up. Ms. Thomas said she does not think anything proposed is criticizing any actions the Board members have taken, but is criticizing one example where one Planning Commission member had been chairman of a committee before he was appointed to the Commission, and remained as chairman. That is the only example she knows of of a member of the Board or Planning Commission being a chair person of a committee. She thinks it is unfortunate to single out one situation and make policy based on that. Mr. Martin said he does not even know of the situation referred to by Ms. Thomas. Ms. Thomas said it does not then need to be a policy. It is not in the proposed resolution before the Board, and she th nks that is for a good reason. Ms. Humphris said if it is a single instance being responded to, then it is not necessary to respond. Ms. Thomas said she thinks staff was right in not tying the Board into something that should be flexible. If someone was chair of the committee that was about to finish its work, and was then appointed to the Commission and had to artificially resign, she thinks the Board would lock itself into a policy that is not needed. Ms. Humphris said she would like to comment on the suggestion that each temporary committee have a reasonable date to complete its work. There is a difference in the way committees work. If a committee has a consultant to work with that committee within a specific time frame of a contract, that is one thing. If a committee is relying on staff support and the staff allocation of time varies from time to time and the committee has to go along with staff availability, that is another thing entirely. She does not think it is the desire of anybody to have these things linger as the report on historic preservation has; there are just unforeseen circumstances. Mr. Martin said it seems to him that when the Board gives a committee a charge it should have some type of date of return. He asked Mr. Watson if he would like to speak. Mr. Bob Watson thanked everyone for helping with this request. He thinks the proposed resolution captures the essence of what he wanted to do. His thrust was not just compliance with FOIA, etc., but to try to make the public policy formulation process more open and accessible to the citizens. He has tried to get people involved in all kinds of public things, and he was trying to have the process of politics more open to the citizens. By doing that, there is the opportunity to develop ordinances and regulations in an atmosphere that is less contentious when it finally gets to the public hearing process. He does understand the comments made by Ms. Humphris about the time frames and the fact that things do come up. As to the comments about the chair person of a committee, he felt that if a Board member was chairman of a committee, the opportunity is there to drive the process differently than if they were not there. Other than that, he thinks the resolution suggested is appropriate. Mr. Martin asked if the Board members wanted to put the resolution on a future agenda for a public hearing. Mr. Bowerman said it seems the resolution grabs the substance of the request from Mr. Watson. At the end of the resolution, the Board just resolves to continue doing what it has been doing. Mr. Martin said he still thinks it is an important point about how Board members participate on committees. Ms. Thomas said she does not believe that has been a problem. Ms. Humphris said she still has a question about how a reasonable date for completion of work should be a part of this policy. Ms. Thomas asked what guidelines have been developed about openness and accountability, referring to the second "Whereas" in the resolution. She said if there are problems about how committees are working, staff and committee chairmen should get together and make sure they know about the FOIA. Committee chairs might have some input to staff as to what kind of help they would like to have. The Board usually uses committees to deal with the most difficult and delicate issues. In Albemarle County, the people who volunteer to work on committees contribute expertise that Albemarle could not afford to buy. That is the kind of volunteers that she does not want to insult. Mr. Martin suggested that this item be tabled and brought back in a different format. His whole approach to this was simply that if any group approached him as chairman of the Board suggesting ways to make government more open, the committees more open to the public and more responsible to what the public wants .... Ms. Thomas interrupted to say that Mr. Martin used the word "more" indicating that they are not doing that now, so it is already insulting. Mr. Martin said he does not know what every committee does. Several months ago the Board passed a resolution about the FOIA setting out things to be done. Just because the Board adopted the resolution saying these things would be done did not imply that they were not being done at the time. He does not know where the tension is coming from because his only intent was, if any group came to him and offered some ideas about how things can be, should be, or will be done, he did not intend to go out and research to find out how things have been done. He said all the things make sense to him and he had actually suggested that it be put on the consent agenda because he did not think anyone would be upset with the suggestion. Mr. Bowerman said he would have done the same thing and brought the idea to the Board. Mr. Marshall said he does not believe that either Board members or Planning Commission members should September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) be the chair of that committee. Mr. Martin said if that is an issue which members of this Board want to debate, then the Board should have more background data before it. He suggested that this item be tabled at this time. Ms. Humphris said the four "Whereas" paragraphs as an affirmation of existing policy are fine. She does not agree with the last "Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved" paragraph which sets out individual situations. She thinks that if anything like this is done in the future, it should be only "Be It Resolved, that the Board reaffirms its policy of such and such." She does not want the public to think the Board has been doing something wrong. Agenda Item No. 16. Closed Session: Legal and Property Matters. At 12:54 p.m., motion was made 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 consider appointments to Boards and Commissions; under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of properties for school sites and parkland; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to the Ivy Landfill and the transition of the City of Charlottesville to town status and regarding specific legal matters relating to an interjurisdictional agreement. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Closed Session. At 2:57 p.m. the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The motion was seconded by MS. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Work Session: CPA-97-05. Brass, Inc. (Willoughby). This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for property consisting of approximately 53.89 acres located in Urban Neighborhood 4, described as Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels 2A and 2B, lying east of Fifth Street Extended (State Route 631) and north of Interstate 64, within the Scottsville Magisterial District. The proposal seeks to change the designation of the property from Industrial Service to Regional Service to support the eventual rezoning from LI, Light Industrial, to C-1, Commercial, or PD-SC, Planned Development- Shopping Center. The applicant is proposing development of a regional shopping center with a maximum of 160,000 square feet to be occupied by a "big-box" anchor store with 90,000 square feet of associated retail, for a total of 300,000 square feet (deferred from July 14, 1999). Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner, said the Board has considered the Brass, Inc. project on two occasions: at a work session on July 7, 1999, and at the July 14, 1999, public hearing. At the public hearing, the Board indicated that a subsequent work session would be scheduled for September 1. The Supervisors made specific requests for additional information which staff has attempted to provide. Staff does have an Engineering-prepared layout on display. It has not been modified because staff has simply not had the time to do so. The Board also asked for some information from Wal-Mart regarding reuse of their buildings. They called the architecture firm which did the "green" Wal-Mart in Kansas. They did not get a response from them. Staff was not able to get floor plans from Mr. Jacoby whom Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas spoke to on a conference call earlier this year. Staff has a slide show which it will present showing examples of the kind of shopping center design it has been recommending. There are some photographs in this slide show giving examples similar to what he is designing. Ms. Susan Thomas said there are representatives from the Zoning Department present to talk about parking standards. In the past, there has been interest in outdoor storage and display, and Zoning will discuss that also. Staff also included in the paperwork today an inventory showing some of the other acreages or sites in the County which could be used for this type of mixed-use, commercial/residential/ office type of project. All of these sites are unique. Some have the correct zoning in place, and some do not. Some already have site plans in place. Some are just Comprehensive Plan designations. Mr. David Benish then presented the slide show. Ms. Susan Thomas said when staff first looked at this site, it seemed to offer what most Albemarle neighborhoods want, privacy, seclusion, natural beauty, a good location relative to both public September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) infrastructure and supporting commercial uses. The big-box proposal seemed to require that the site be completely transformed into the kind of site that might be found anywhere in the country. The big footprint did not allow the flexibility needed to Work with a site that had this kind of topography and vegetation. Staff is always interested in retaining housing capacity, and she thinks this would be a great site for housing, although that was not the proposal made by the applicant. She felt the big-box commercial development did not utilize the site fully because it was relatively inflexible in its requirements. This type of development needs a level site and a lot of parking. The site is impacted greatly because so much of the remaining area is used for mitigation of the impacts created by the impervious cover and the structures themselves. The opportunity to fully use the site is then lost. Ms. Susan Thomas said the site is big enough for development of a neighborhood center or small community. Although the single access point to the property could be called a deficiency, in some ways it is an asset for residential development because it provides a measure of automatic traffic calming. It probably would keep users out of the site who otherwise might pass through. Staff felt an industrial use had merit in that areas are needed for research and development. But, some community service level commercial could be included which would support office, commercial and residential uses. There is an upward ceiling of 65,000 square feet per single user allowed by the Community Service designation in the Comprehensive Plan. There could be a good-sized retail establishment. After talking with the Water Resources Manager and Engineering Department, flexibility could be gained from a series of smaller users and make a difference in water quality impacts because Biscuit Run and Moores Creek are both close to the site. The site provides the opportunity to do the kind of in-fill the DISC Committee has been looking at. It is also much more in keeping with what is around it, both on Fifth Street and what is in the Willoughby development. Ms. Sally Thomas mentioned the 1995 Southern Charlottesville Transportation Study. She said it recommended the road that has now been constructed in front of Monticello High School. It also had a proposal between the site in question and Bent Creek Road going over to Avon Street. It is called "Alternative D". She had forgotten about this road until recently. She asked staff for comments. Mr. Marshall said it also showed an interchange at Avon Street, and that will never be built. Mr. Benish said he would comment on the Study which looked at a number of access issues. It evaluated some of the recommendations which were already in City and County plans for connector roads. The Study did recommend that the two connector roads near 1-64 be constructed as important components for addressing traffic in the southern City neighborhoods, and Neighborhoods 4 and 5 in the County. One of the other alternatives was a connector road from Avon Street to Fifth Street north of 1-64 which ran through part of the old landfill property and over onto the Brass, Inc. site. That portion of the old landfill is largely undeveloped. There is one building along the frontage, but the remainder of it is undeveloped. The Study estimated the cost of Alternative "D" at $2.0 million, and it states: "Alternative D would not significantly enhance subarea circulation given Alternatives A and C-2. But, without the Southern Parkway extension portion of Alternative A (which is the part of the road that has not been built yet) it would provide an alternative between Fifth Street and Route 20." It was not recommended as the ideal connector road, but was seen as an option if the Southern Parkway were not pursued. Staff discussed that with the applicant, and at one time the applicant indicated a willingness to design the site in such a way that the road system could be extended at some time in the future. Ms. Sally Thomas said she does not believe the Board has to discuss this option in detail, but when it is time to consider the Comprehensive Plan amendment that road should be made a part of what would be expected from any development. Mr. Marshall said if a large store serving the people of Southern Albemarle is built on that site, and knowing there will be no interchange at Avon Street, the best way to control traffic is through the limited access highway (the interstate). The traffic coming off of Fifth Street and returning back onto 1-64 would keep a lot of traffic out of the City, and would keep a lot of people from driving through the City to get to Route 29 North. That is the major reason he has supported a large store on this site. He had a petition containing 1500 names of people living in Southern Albemarle who want the store. People have reminded him of the need they have for this type of store. All of the arguments he heard at the public hearing seem to be of the NIMBY type. They did not have anything behind them to support their objections. This store would not increase traffic through the City. This store would not compete with the specialty businesses located on the downtown mall. Planners have a tendency to see things in an ideal situation. The way he sees this property being developed is what he thinks is needed on the southern side of the County and is not going to affect growth in that part of the County, or traffic, or any other retail business. He has not heard any argument that has convinced him that it will be detrimental to the community. This site is located right off of an interstate highway so traffic can be controlled. The site is much better than anything on Route 29 North. It is more accessible. He will support the request, as do the people in Southern Albemarle. Ms. Sally Thomas said she would like more discussion about traffic. Her constituents in a nearby large subdivision are divided as to whether they want the convenience of discount shopping because of the traffic impacts. That has not been discussed at length, and no facts or figures have been given as to that impact. She asked for staff comments. Ms. Susan Thomas said that detail regarding traffic comes at the rezoning stage. That does not mean that there has not been a lot of discussion concerning traffic so far. The traffic impact evaluation for September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) this site has been complex because of jurisdictional questions. There is only one access point to the site (Bent Creek Road), and all of that road up to the intersection lies within the City. The City has a different kind of control over traffic improvements than the County has. VDOT did furnish staff detailed comments on the applicant's traffic analyses. The City makes the final decision on whether or not improvements will be made to Bent Creek Road to accommodate the substantial increase in traffic. City representatives have said on several occasions that they are not interested in making any changes to Bent Creek Road to accommodate this development. All parties agree that Bent Creek Road would not function well without some changes. Redesigning the road depends on approval from a governmental entity that has gone on record as saying it will not support any redesign. That has been a complex issue, and it is beyond the County's control. Mr. Benish said the staff has discussed what physical improvements would be necessary. The interchange at 1-64 and Fifth Street would have to be upgraded in terms of installation of traffic lights, and upgrading of the ramps in order to allow the appropriate turning lanes to make that intersection function properly. There may be a need for additional lanes from the ramps to Bent Creek Road, although how they are designed and where they are needed has not been finalized for a Comprehensive Plan review. The bigger issue is the regional impact of introducing commercial in this location. Now, the highway- oriented uses are located on two corridors, basically Route 29 and Route 250. Whether there is an overall benefit to traffic by introducing a use south of town that avoids having traffic go to Route 29 North, or if it introduces additional traffic that normally would not come to this part of the County, is an issue that staff has "stepped around delicately." Although there can be arguments made in both situations, it depends on the use. Staff focused on whether the road system will support this level of intensive commercial development. The portion of the system over which the County has some control can be upgraded. There are questions with the City's portion, and whether the approvals to make it work can be obtained. Ms. Sally Thomas said the latter part of the explanation was what her constituents were concerned about, rather than how one gets into the development. The people who already use Fifth Street were not certain how their lives would be impacted by an additional development. Also, Covenant School is enlarging thereby creating more traffic in the mornings and afternoons. Mr. Benish said the South Pointe commercial development is also in this area. Mr. Marshall said once South Pointe is completed, there will still need to be signaling and adjustments to the road system. Mr. Benish said for either development, some portion of the improvements will be necessary at that interchange. Certain lanes and turning movements are more critical to one development than the other, but for either one, there must be an upgrade to that interchange. Mr. Marshall said the one development has already been approved. Ms. Sally Thomas said that was done without any proffers for the intersection. Mr. Marshall said he met with a group of people at Covesville, and one individual had gotten everybody stirred up about all of the increased growth this development would cause in Covesville. He said they don't understand that Covesville is a designated Rural Area, and the Board is not going to subdivide any of that property. How would that growth occur? People jump to conclusions about these sorts of things before they understand what is happening. After he explained to them that Covesville is a designated Rural Area, they were satisfied. Then they thought this development would help them in not having to drive to Route 29 North. Ms. Humphris said this is a very sensitive site, and what this Board decides about changing the Comprehensive Plan is of the utmost importance. She does not think that a "big box" in terms of the number of square feet that have been given for a big box is at all suitable for the area. She thinks it should be some type of mixed-use development. She is not sure what those mixed Uses should be, or how much residential should be included. She thinks this is a place where the County needs to have the best model for in-fill development. She wishes the Board could use that as a starting point for its next discussion. Is this site suitable for regional or community service and what sizes of buildings, should be allowed? She thinks the proposal brought forward by the Planning Commission was a well thought out plan. She would like to see the Board work with that plan to see if there could be a resolution to what the Board believes should be on that site. It might not be what the property owner wants on that site, but she does not think it is up to the Board to maximize the applicant's investment. The Board's responsibility is to the County, its people and the future. Mr. Marshall asked why the Board has the authority to tell a developer what he should build. An individual owns a piece of property and he wants to develop that property in a way that is economically feasible. For the Board to say it wants something else developed, it is the applicant's prerogatiVe to do it or not to do it. In this case he can see what is going on the site, and he knows what the citizens in that part of the County want. Staff has said that apartments, or whatever else they want, should be built there when the developer does not want that and that is not what the people in that part of the County want. Mr. Bowerman said a critical issue is differentiating urban growth areas from rural areas. Also, differentiating delivery of services and the expectation of services from the urban areas to the rural areas. There is a limited amount of area that is true in-fill left in the already designated growth areas. This property is already zoned light industrial. The site can be flattened, and it can be used for something like a Fed-Ex facility, or it could be used for a research-type facility. It could also be used for a significant amount of retail, and there is an opportunity for a creative use of multi-story, attached housing. The soccer field that was proffered on a portion of the site would be an amenity for the Willoughby September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) development. He said this site could be connected with approximately another 100 acres and there could be the Southern connector road connecting it to Avon Street. That would give the site two access points. The site could accommodate residential and retail and these uses would not change the character of the area. He wants to set a precedent on this property that says the Board means what it says about growth areas. The Board wants to create more opportunities for residential development, and community-scale surroundings that fit into the community and do not detract from them. He said there is a lot of economic value to be gained from this site depending on the type of development proposed. He thinks it is a question of timing. The Board has to make these decisions all the time. Mr. Marshall said he does not care what the applicant wants. He cares about what the citizens of Southern Albemarle want. They want a place to buy goods at an affordable price without having to drive all the way through Charlottesville to Route 29 North. Mr. Bowerman said he can,t go along with that argument. Mr. Marshall said he is only stating a fact. People in his district do not want to drive all the way to Route 29 North. Is the Board here to serve its needs or the developer's needs or the needs of the people of the County? Mr. Bowerman said the Board is to serve the needs of the community. Mr. Marshall asked why Mr. Bowerman does not listen to what the people in the community have said. Have there been huge numbers of people come to the public hearings from Southern Albemarle County who said they don't want the development? The answer is "no", there were people from the City of Charlottesville who said they want to support local, small businesses. He said those people don't support those businesses. They all drive to Route 29 North. Mr. Bowerman said it is one community, and everybody's opinion counts. He thinks the County's overall strategic plans for growth areas and its ability to supply services to those areas are different. Mr. Marshall said these people have lived here all their lives. Mr. Bowerman said the Board is also committed to buying development rights in the rural areas. Mr. Marshall said he supports that program. Mr. Bowerman said if a site like this could be used for up to 200 residential units, with commercial use on two stories, there would be quite a bit of retail for a larger retailer. There are different ways to do that. The Board has the power to make things happen, or just go along and do business as it has done business in the past. He is personally willing "to push the envelope" a little bit. Mr. Marshall said it is obvious that he is not reaching Mr. Bowerman. He said that in his district there are probably more people living on minimum wage, or underemployed, than in all the other districts in the County. Mr. Bowerman said he thought there are more of these people living on Rio Road in apartments which this Board approved. Mr. Marshall said the people he is talking about did not just move here yesterday into an apartment, they have lived in Albemarle County all of their lives. They are second, third and fourth generation people living in small homes on fixed incomes, and they elected him to look out for them, to speak for them. They are not the sort of people who get involved and come to meetings. They do call him on the telephone or come to his house and talk to him. Those are the people he is speaking about. Mr. Bowerman said he understands that. Mr. Marshall said these people want to continue living in Albemarle. Mr. Bowerman said there are 80,000 people in Albemarle County that this Board has to look out for. Mr. Marshall said he thinks that is being done with zoning laws. Mr. Martin said he does not hear anyone convincing anyone of anything. Mr. Perkins said he thinks all are talking about the same thing. He thinks the people will get what Mr. Marshall is asking for with the smaller store. He does not think the store has to have "x" number of square feet to offer Iow prices. He thinks it is time for the Board to look at other styles of doing things. When he first became a Board members, McDonald's said they would not build a restaurant without their arches. That is not true anymore. With all the other national brands, they are coming in and fitting into shopping centers without the obnoxious signs. Things are changing. It is time that a "new box" is created. He said the new box involves retail and some mixed uses. There is a need to blend things in and make it a neighborhood. Mr. Marshall said he does not expect there to be just one huge store on this entire site. But, he does want a large, discount retailer on the site. Ms. Humphris asked what the argument is about. Mr. Marshall said what he is hearing is that the Board does not want that. Ms. Humphris asked him to define the word "large." She said the new Lowe's building is 165,000 square feet, and that size is larger than she thinks should be on the site in question. Maybe the Board should define "large retailer" and "big box". Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be four acres under roof. Mr. Tucker referred the Board members to Attachment 1 of the staff report which discusses the original proposal and the Planning Commission's revised proposal. Ms. Humphris said she thinks the Planning Commission's proposal is suitable for the site. Mr. Marshall said that implies that 160,000 square feet is okay for the site. Ms. Humphris said that is something the Board should discuss. She would not go bigger than that number, but she is relying on the advice of the planners and the Planning Commissioners who sent the alternative proposal to the Board. Mr. Martin said he will summarize. No Board member is going to convince any other Board member of the extreme sizes, so the Board is back to discarding the original proposal and looking at the Commission's proposal versus the applicant's revised proposal presented at the last meeting. The Board should look at where there are differences and decide if there could be a compromise. He thinks all would get most of what they want, although no one would have everything they wanted. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) Mr. Marshall wanted to ask a question of the landowner. He asked if what he wanted could be done in 160,000 square feet. Mr. Martin asked for the applicant's representatives to come forward. Mr. Steve Blaine said if the Board approved the master plan as shown in the Gaithersburg model (slide show a~t the beginning of this meeting), the applicant would accept that. Mr. Marshall asked the number of sq'uare feet in that development. Mr. Blaine said it is about three-quarters of a million square feet. The owner does not really think there is a market for that kind of development in this area or that the Board wants the kinds of uses shown in that model. That presentation showed some design features that are outlined in the proposal developed by the Planning Commission with the developer. In the example of the two-storY buildings, one could not tell if the buildings were two-storY or just appear to be two-story. That is part of what the owner has offered as an attractive design standard. In terms of some magic size for a single building, they don't know the answer, but, there is a clear demand for a super discount store. Mr. Marshall asked the amount of square footage for such a store. Mr. Blaine said 160,000 square feet is the lower threshold of the super discount category. The Wal-Marts, the K-Marts, the Targets can be as large as 220,000 square feet. However, there is not an appetite for that in this community, partly because of the features which have been identified on this site as being valuable. He said the owner is willing to take a risk on limiting the number of potential users by paring down the footprint. All the market analyses they have show there is a demand for a super discount store. Mr. Perkins said he would like to make a statement. There are different sizes of what are called Super Wal-Marts in Staunton, Culpeper, Lynchburg, Roanoke and Covington. In LexingtOn there is a "Super Wal-Mart", but it is a much smaller store than any of the others he mentioned. These stores are flexible and can be made to fit the design. You can buy anything in this store that can be bought in the bigger stores. Mr. Martin suggested the Board look at both the Planning Commission's and the applicant's revised proposal. Ms. Sally Thomas said she thinks the markets that have converted to a more intense use of the land have converted because there is not more land available. The big-box sprawl pattern developed in the mid-west where there was lots of land and a great need for retail shopping. It developed there because the land was cheap and it was an economical way for the retailer to use the fork-lift trucks to get the goods in. If the Board allows land to be used as if it this were a small mid-western town, the Board has the model in front of it to do that. There have been Class B retail buildings built in the community. She thinks there can be Class A retail establishments. If the Board does not hold some boundaries, then it will not get developers to convert to a tighter use of the land. It will not be done voluntarily. It was not done voluntarily in other communities. When the Board discusses this, she would like for the Board to raise its sights because it is not so hungry for retail development that it has to "sell itself out." Mr. Martin said in comparing the two proposals, there is no difference between the two until the seventh item listed. Mr. Bowerman said there is nothing showing conditions. Number 2 says "mixed-use plan is encouraged" and he suggests that it say "mixed-use plan is required." That is a specific. There should be a 310,000 square foot limit on all development. Assuming that number is correct, assume a 250,000 square foot maximum on retail and commercial uses leaving 60,000 square feet for residential. He thinks that should be added at the bottom of the list. Mr. Martin said he does not necessarily agree that the Board can say there has to be residential. Mr. Bowerman said he believes the Board can say anything it wants if it is a legislative decision. If the developer disagrees, then he does not build at all. If the Board is going to control the destiny of the County, it needs to start exercising some consistency between what it talks about and what it does. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Bowerman is talking about in-fill development. Mr. Bowerman said "yes". He is also talking about purchase of development rights and using in-fill sites. Mr. Tucker reminded the Board members that this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Martin said when he said he did not think the Board could say a developer had to have residential, he did not mean legally. He does not know whether he, personally, would say they are absolutely required to have residential. A lot of this is coming out of the DISC Committee hearings, and some day there will be a final report. But, until this Board signs off on something as its objective, he is not willing to say every development is required to absolutely also have residential. Mr. Bowerman said the applicant's expectation of what the Board is looking for should be clear. Ms. Sally Thomas said this site is designated for mixed-use, so the applicant could apply for a rezoning at any time that does not show mixed-use. The Board could then ask for mixed-use and discussion could go from there. The Board could say in the Comprehensive Plan that this is an area that should have mixed-use. Mr. Martin said a statement was included at the top of the list that there should be mixed-use. Mr. Bowerman said that was his suggestion. Mr. Martin said everYone seems to be in agreement with that suggestion. He assumes a mixed-use would not necessarily include 65,000 square feet so someone could live there. Mr. Bowerman said, referring to the sheet showing the two proposals, he does not know if the 310,000 square feet is right or wrong, and he does not know if the 250,000 square foot maximum for retail is right or wrong. Mr. Martin asked if the definition of "mixed-use" means there has to be people living on the site. Ms. Susan Thomas said the staffs recommendation definitely included residential. The Planning September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) Commission then made it optional as a bonus 60,000 additional square feet beyond the commercial. The concept of mixed-use has always included the element of residential, but the Planning Commission recommendation did not require it. It allowed it as a bonus of 60,000 additional square feet if it was residential. If the 60,000 square footage was not residential, it would not be allowed. Mr. Bowerman said that was not clear to him. Ms. Humphris said there should have been included a bullet on the chart from the Planning Commission noting, "all buildings in excess of 250,000 square feet must be residential." Mr. Martin said when it is said "must be residential" that is one thing. When it is said "mixed-use", to him that is not necessarily there must be residential. Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission's recommendation was intended to encourage "mixed-use". Mr. Martin said Mr. Benish did not understand the question, which is simple. Does "mixed-use" mean that there has to be people living there? Ms. Sally Thomas said they would need to live within the piece of property, but not that each building had to have someone living in it. Mr. Martin said he was assuming that "mixed-use" could be a Wal-Mart store, with office space above it. Ms. Humphds said that was not correct. The limit on all development on the site is 310,000 square feet. Of that, they can have only 250,000 square feet maximum for retail. Mr. Marshall said that leaves a lot of office space. Ms. Humphris said they can have whatever else they want in the mix. They can use it for anything, but if they want to use the additional 60,000 square feet, that would have to be residential. Mr. Martin said he is still lost. Mr. Bowerman said mixed-use is different types of big boxes. Mr. Martin said that is what he thought. He did not know that mixed-use had to include residential. Mr. Marshall said he does not see mixed-use as necessarily including residential. Ms. Sally Thomas said she does. Maybe the Board should define terms. Mr. Marshall said he does not want to require residential, or otherwise why does the County not buy the land and develop it themselves. Mr. Bowerman said the County is not in the development business. Ms. Humphris said there are three Board members who just said they believe "mixed-use" includes residential. Mr. Marshall said he does not agree. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Planning Commission said there could be 250,000 square feet with no box being bigger than 65,000 square feet. Mr. Dennis Rooker said there could be two 65,000 square foot boxes next to each other. They could be opened up, or partitioned into different stores, and be unlike the old Marshall's Department Store in Seminole Square. Mr. Marshall said that will not work. You cannot tell a retailer there is a 160,000 square foot building they can rent, but that it has to be partitioned. They will design the interior of that building the way they know merchandise will sell. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Marshall wanted to make a 'motion. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Bowerman would like to make a motion. Ms. Sally Thomas said before doing that, she would like to speak. At this time, Mr. Martin asked that the Board members speak only one at a time, and called the meeting to order. Ms. Sally Thomas said Mr. Bowerman had said he did not know if the 310,000 square feet mentioned in the Planning Commission proposal was the correct number. She does not know.if is correct, but to make any motion today would imply that the Board does know that is a correct amount. She would like some assistance from staff as to what 250,000 square feet in retail uses and 60,000 square feet of residential looks like. She knows this cannot be decided until there is a site plan, but she does not feel it is fair to the applicant to come up with numbers at this point, and then months later at site plan review to object to what is proposed. Mr. Bowerman said the retail would be on about six acres. Ms. Sally Thomas said she knows that the building where Harris-Teeter, Bed, Bath and Beyond, and Goody's is located is 96,000 square feet. That building looks very large to her. Office Depot, Drug Emporium and Marshall's is 81,000 square feet, and that also looks like a big building. Mr. Bowerman interrupted to say that 80,000 square feet is two acres; 250,000 square feet is about ten percent of the site. Ms. Thomas said she cannot visualize acres, nor can she visualize square feet. Mr. Martin said the original proposal was 300,000 square feet. The Planning Commission and the applicant agreed to 310,000 square feet. He cannot visualize that size, but if that is what the Planning Commission recommended, it is an okay number with him. Mr. Bowerman said that would leave a lot of room on the site. That would not be overdevelopment of the site. How the retail is located on the site would be important, and that is what is decided at site plan review. Mr. Perkins said parking requirements are what impact the site. Mr. Benish said the square footage is the building square footage. Albemarle Square is about 250,000 square feet. Ms. Sally Thomas said help her visualize that amount of square footage. Mr. Benish said the 250,000 square feet came about because that is the limit of size for a community service designation. That is what staff wanted in terms of scope and scale of development, and style of development. It is the guideline from the Comprehensive Plan. The constraint of community service is 65,000 square feet. Community service is intended to serve community needs, not regional needs. The type of buildings and uses in those types of developments are grocery stores, shopping centers, and things of that scale that do not traditionally tend to be in the hundreds of thousands of square feet. The Planning Commission was trying to hold to that design scale and scope, and allow for an opportunity for, in essence, a regional service type of use. This is hard to visualize in a Comprehensive Plan amendment process where hypothetical ideas are being thrown out. It is not whether 300,000 square feet fits on that site, but rather because that is the concept for the scale of development for this type of use. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) Mr. Cilimberg said it was important in the Planning Commission's recommendation that one-third of the roof and foundation be two-story. That was an attempt to set out parameters which are scale- related. It is hard to Put it into preciSe terms in a Comprehensive Plan amendment. There has to be some flexibility of design. He said that 60,000 square feet of residential is not a lot of residential: There would be more apartments than there would be townhouses. It depends on the amount of square feet per unit, and whether they are stacked on top of each other, whether they are multi-story, etc. Normally, residential is not counted in terms of square feet, it is usually done according to the number of dwelling units. The Board would need to put something into the parameters so the applicant would know what the Board wants, but leave enough flexibility to deal with the site. Mr. Benish said he thinks the Board was on the right track in setting up parameters for the Board's expectation. There is a fundamental difference between what staff was looking for, more of a mandate to try mixed-use. The Commission, in its revised proposal, encoUraged that. 'If the Board thinks the stronger language is needed, staff needs direction to modify those parameters. He does not think the Board can come to terms with the difference between 250,000 and $10,000 square feet. He also does not believe staff can say any number is exactly right. Mr. Bowerman said if the Board approves a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow this development, the applicant needs to know what this Board is looking for, and flexibility needs to be allowed. That is the only point he wants to make. He does not want to dictate that it has to include "x" number of units, or "x" number of space, but there could be, a lot of flexibility. If a building footprint is limited to a certain size because of site limitations, that is a reasonable expectation. He would like to offer some flexibility, but he would also like to require some combination of residential, commercial, office, retail, or whatever. Mr. Martin said he would like to make a suggestion to see if he can move the meeting forward. If the Board takes the Planning Commission's recommendation and changes it to require a mixed-use plan, and leaves everything else as the Planning Commission recommended, the other change would be to compromise in the other direction. On the last recommendation where it says "one-third of the roof and foundation to be two-story or greater", go to the revised proposal and use that as compromise language. That gives one compromise to each side and keeps the intent of the Planning Commission. Mr. Marshall said he misunderstood the last part of what Mr. Martin said. He asked if one-third of the roof and foundation would be required to be two-story or greater; the revised proposal says "two-story buildings shall be encouraged." He asked if Mr. Martin is proposing that that now be a requirement. Mr. Martin said "no". The language could now say "two-story buildings and facades shall be encouraged." Ms. Sally Thomas said she feels strongly that this site should be impacted as little as possible while using the site as much as possible. That is a tricky concept, but she believes that is what the Board is looking for in the community. The way to do that is to occasionally go to two stories in places where that is not the case. She would hate to give up requiring that there be some two-story development. Mr. Martin said based on what Mr. Cilimberg just said, and based on the Planning Commission's discussion, and based on this discussion today, he thinks the applicant understands the kind of things that are wanted. He hopes the applicant will present something the Planning Commission and Board can approve. There has to be a compromise somewhere. Ms. Humphris said it is very important to her that this be made firm in writing, and not just be a case of the applicant understanding the Board's wishes. She thinks the Board should be talking about swapping, or whatever it is called, the 65,000 square foot limit on individual buildings and what goes along with that. She said the Board might be able to agree that the applicant's proposal may be the proper one. She agrees with Ms. Thomas and thinks it is important that the roof and foundation part of the Planning Commission's recommendation be maintained, and that some of that development be two-story to save the site. She is not sure the Board needs to require the 65,000 square foot limit on individual buildings as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman said if the parking was reduced there are different ways a proposal could be presented that would be acceptable to the community, and the Commission and Board. He thinks the applicant should be allowed the flexibility to present something. Mr. Martin said he believes the Board has already agreed that a mixed-use plan is required. Mr. Benish said he does not believe the Board is going to vote on this matter until the staff presents some more refined language. He said the intent of the one-third roof and foundation being two- storied was to try and maximize the utility of the site. Sprawl on site was an issue. That was important to the Commission, but there are other ways to address what the purpose of that issue was, and maybe what is needed is the language that goes with this amendment to explain the purposes trying to be achieved by these points. If staff outlined this as the general intent, and then explained what the purpose is, they can address it through one-third of the roof and foundations being two-stories or something else that addresses that intent. Mr. Martin said staff will take the conversation today and try to reformat this into something. Mr. Benish said he senses that basically the Commission's proposal is a reasonable proposal with some details that need to be worked out. There needs to be an explanation of its purpose that allows either September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) some flexibility to give the applicant direction, or a mandate. He has heard a consensus that mixed-use is required. Mr. Davis said the only issue he thinks the staff may not have enough guidance on is the one Ms. Humphris just mentioned. That is the one that requires the individual limit on the size of the buildings. The Board may want to give staff some more direction on that issue. Mr. Marshall said he wants 160,000 square feet minimum in order to get the retailer what is needed. He does not care about how the building goes up. If the building is built so it can be split up into 65,000 square feet, or smaller uses, that is fine with him. Ms. Humphris said the revised proposal from the applicant says "any building in excess shall be designed to easily subdivide and must possess the architectural facades and massing to present the appearance of a smaller building." She said that is what has been discussed. That is seen in well- designed shopping centers everywhere. Mr. Marshall said he does not disagree with that. Ms. Humphris said if the Board had both of those things, the single user item from the Commission, and the revised proposal from the applicant, that would probably be something to which the Board could agree. Mr. Martin asked if the other Board members agreed. Mr. Marshall said he will agree as long as there is the 160,000 square feet for a single user. Ms. Sally Thomas said when the Board got the proposal that is being referred to as the "Planning Commission Proposal", it had many more facets to it than what has been mentioned today. When she spoke to the applicant a couple of days ago, he thought they had agreed to most of the things in the Planning Commission's proposal. All of those things did not appear in the short proposal given to the Board today. She would not want to lose any of those things. Also, she would like to have the connector road to Avon Street mentioned, and it did not appear anywhere in the Planning Commission's notes. Ms. Susan Thomas said the Planning Commission wrote that proposal as a draft text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benish said the Board would have to actually adopt the Comprehensive Plan language. Ms. Sally Thomas said the Board does not actually have the items she mentioned before it today, and she did not want the other Board members to forget that there were other things included such as a recycling center, etc., which seemed to make good sense. She said she has not heard from a lot of people who want a discount store south of town because a lot of people know that the "supposed discount" is not actually that much of a discount. They really want better service than they get at such stores. If she is the only one who feels that way, she will go along with the allowance that a single user can occupy up to 160,000 square feet, but she and nine-tenths of the people she has heard from, are not looking for that kind of retail if it continues to have the impact on the economy that has already been seen from the big-boxes. She said the economy has already been impacted by Lowe's and Wal-Mart in a way that has reduced the amount of service provided, employment, and local dollars. She will agree to this with some disappointment if this is what the Board is going to come up with. Mr. Bowerman said even the "clerk" will be gone in another six years. Mr. Marshall said it is technology. It is not what people want, but it is technology driven. Ms. Sally Thomas said it will be technology driven away from these types of facilities. Mr. Marshall said when computers first went into businesses it was thought that they would save money and work. It has turned out to be exactly the opposite. Mr. Martin asked if staff has enough guidance on this matter. Mr. Tucker said he believes they have enough guidance to develop a proposal for next week's agenda. Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments. Ms. Humphris offered motion to reappoint Mr. John Hood to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals and to the Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals for a new term which will expire on November 21, 2004. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr.. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS:. None. (Note: Mr. Marshall left the meeting at 4:35 p.m.) Not Docketed: Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board members. Ms. Thomas said she will give the Board members a report another day about the trip to Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington. One thing that came out of those meetings is the idea that the people who are in charge of transit services should be allowed to make comments at every site review meeting. She said she knows that VDOT personnel comment on site reviews, but she thought it would be a simple addition to the process to keep from having mistakes made to have a transit person comment on site reviews. Mr. Benish said it would not be a difficult process to send requests directly to Helen Poore's Office if the City were interested in providing their comments. He makes sure staff looks at accessibility in September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) developments for transit services. When they look at turning radii they are looking at large, fixed axle buses, etc. Ms. Thomas said she attended the High Growth Coalition meeting and they will draft a mission statement and would like to have input from each of their members. They would also like to have suggestions for legislative priorities. She asked 'that staff work up a draft of a mission statement for the Board members to see in the neXt couple of weeks. (Note: Mr. Marshall returned to the meeting at 4:38 p.m.) Ms. Humphris said she brought in an article from USA Today showing what happens to housing costs when there is sudden growth in an area. She suggested the Board members review the article. She said an article in the Richmond-Times Dispatch notes that Intel is too much of a good thing. Intel in Hillsboro, Oregon, where Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris just returned from, is imposing a $1000 fine on every manufacturing job over 4000 that Intel brings to the area. Ms. Humphris said she had sent each member an E-mail message giving her response to an invitation to a symposium on economic development that the T. J. Partnership is having. She thinks the people who are doing everything on their list to promote economic development in this community have an absolute obligation to pay attention to the negative impacts of that such as: affordable housing, funding for schools, protection of the water supply, all of those things. Ms. Humphris said she had received a letter from a constituent about land-scalping. This gentleman indicated that people are taking all of the trees off their property, clearing building sites of all trees prior to construction. She asked if the Board can effect some requirements with penalty teeth into the development procedure whereby developers and/or builders cannot denude an area of trees only to plant a stick of a tree later on each lot. Ms. Humphris said she thought the County's ordinances were built to deal with this situation. Mr. Davis said that in the Rural Areas, this is not an allowed practice. Mr. Cilimberg said if there is a site plan approved, then they can clear for development of that site. There has to be a site plan in all of the urban zoning districts. Ms. Humphris asked what happens if someone is clearing without an approved site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that would be a zoning violation. Ms. Humphris said there is an Architectural Review Board issue dealing with U.S. Cellular at the Camp Holiday Trails antennae. They reviewed a plan to add three-panel antennas and associated ground equipment. One of their conditions was: "Antennae shall be mounted so there is no more than eighteen inches between the face of the pole and the back of the antennae." She said that does not seem to follow the Board's restrictions and requirements. She thought to add something, they had to come back for further approval. Mr. Cilimberg said if it is an addition to a pole, it has to come back as a special use permit request. Mr. Davis said it depends on whether or not the special use permit conditions allow the additions or not. They may have. Ms. Humphris asked that staff check on ARB-P(BP-99-17), U.S. CelluladCamp Holiday Trails antennae. (Note: Mr. Martin left the room at 4:41 p.m.) Ms. Thomas said she also marked this as an item for discussion. If the ARB does not know about what this Board and the staff is learning about how panels can be snuggled to the poles, would someone educate them? That is not snug, but sticking way out from the pole. Ms. Humphris mentioned the letter from Mr. George Lade, President of CATCO, telling the Board that a letter fraudulently bearing his signature was sent on his CATCO letterhead to Senator Chuck Robb, which totally misrepresented his position on the Route 29 Western Bypass. Ms. Humphris said she read a copy of that letter and the letter said that Mr. Lade had had a chance of heart and an awakening experience. It also said that Mr. Larie had to acknowledge that all of his opposition had not been due to environmental concerns all these years, but his opposition had really been NIMBY, and that he was recognizing that he had been wrong and that he was just an old man with nothing else to do with his time. It was a terrible thing. She did not think there would be participating people in this community who would do something that Iow, but it has happened and Mr. Lade is trying to find out from anybody to whom any of the CATCO letters went whether they have also received a fraudulent letter. When the people in Senator Robb's office got the letter, they did not know whether it was real or not. Mr. Lade had enough relationship with Senator Robb that his staff did call Mr. Larie to see if he had really written the letter. He was horrified. He is involving the State Police and so forth because it is the kind of thing that should never happen in this community. Mr. Tucker said staff just asked him if the Board would consider delaying the meeting next week on Brass, Inc., to September 15 so they would have more time to put together the packet of information the Board has requested. Mr. Bowerman said he had no objection as the applicant knows what the Board is doing. Mr. Marshall said he will not be in town on September 23. There were no objections expressed. September 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) . (Page 36) Not Docketed: Closed Session. At 4:46 p.m., Mr. Bowerman offered motion that the Board go into closed session pursuant to section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff relating to an interjurisdictional agreement. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin was absent at this vote, but joined the other Board members in the closed session. At 6:15 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify' by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. was immediately adjourned. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting "Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors