Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1998-03-04
0000 4 March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 4, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire 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. (Mr. Martin arrived at 9:06 a.m.) 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. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Public. There were none. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. Mr. Marshall presented Certificates of Appreciation to Mr. John K. Pollock for his years of service on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Citizens Advisory Committee and to Ms. Anne Rooker for her years of service on the Board of Social Services. Mr. Marshall then recognized Ms. Sarah Cagle, a reporter for the Daily Proqress, who is leaving the area. He thanked Ms. Cagle for always reporting the news fairly and presented her with a T-shirt to show the Board's apprecia- tion. (Note: Mr. Martin arrived at 9:06 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 6. Consenu Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve items 6.1 through 6.3 and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Item No. 6.1 Set a public hearing for March 18, 1998, for approval of sanitary sewer easement across County-owned property (TM 91-2) near Monticello High School. TMP 77-47, owned by Hillcrest Land Trust, was rezoned to Planned Development Shopping Center (PD-SC) and the developer is preparingdesign plans for the proposed shopping center to be constructed at that site. The proposed shopping center would be served by public water and sewer. The only available connection to an existing sanitary sewer manhole is located on the Lakeside Apartments property. This requires that the proposed sanitary sewer extension cross either TMP 77-43, owned by Calvary Baptist Church, or the County-owned property. The Purchase Agreement for the Monticello High School property contains a provision that states that the County agrees to grant ~utility" easements necessary to provide utility service to certain other parcels owned by the sellers (including TMP 77-47), but a separate provision dealing with sanitary sewer easements does not specifically obligate the County to grant such easements. March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) 0000 5 The 20-foot-wide sanitary sewer easement runs along the property line and, according to the Engineering and Public Works Department, will not have a negative impact upon future development of the County parcel. Virginia Code §15.2-1800(B) requires the Board of Supervisors to hold a public hearing prior to conveying any interest in County-owned property, including easements. Staff recommends that a public hearing be advertised and set for March 18, 1998 to consider granting the proposed sanitary sewer easement. By the above-recorded vote, the Board of Supervisors set a public hearing for March 18, 1998, for approval of sanitary sewer easement across County-owned property (TMP 91-2) near Monticello High School. Item No 6.2 ~ .... ~ .... ~-- -~.~^- =~ ~A~ ~ . ................................. Supcrv~scrs mcctings. (This item was deleted from the agenda.) Mr. Bowerman asked that this item be deleted from the agenda to allow time for him to discuss this further with Mr. Tucker. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board would discuss it in the future, and Mr. Bowerman said the item would be brought back before the Board. Item No. 6.3. Resolution in support of Passenger Rail Service to Bristol, Virginia. Ms. Humphris said the Board had agreed to adopt a resolution in support of the Bristol, Virginia to Washington, D.C. rail service. She said this is a regular service for irregular passengers between those two points, distin- guishing it from commuter rail service. The Board adopted the following resolution, by the above shown vote: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a study of passenger rail service between Bristol, Virginia, and both Washington, DC and Richmond, virginia, has been initiated by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation; and WHEREAS, the initial feasibility study indicated that ridership would start at approximately 520,000 riders annually, increasing by more than 1.0 million over twenty years; and WHEREAS, passenger rail service would provide an appropriate transporta- tion alternative with a reduced dependency on automobiles; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby endorse the provision of rail service from Washington, DC and Richmond, Virginia, to Bristol, Virginia, and encour- ages the implementation of this passenger rail service. Item No. 6.4. Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) Supplemental Funding Request. The Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), implemented in 1995, is the primary funding source for at risk children and families that enter the foster care, residential special education or juvenile court systems. The fund is managed by the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) comprised of the directors of Social Services, Community Services Board, Department Of Health, Court Services and Special Education along with some specifically appointed community representatives. Children and families served with these funds are mandated to be served by the Code and include 1) children placed for purposes of special education; 2) disabled children placed by local social services or the court in private residential facilities and whose Individual Education Program (IEP) indicates such schooling is appropriate and needed; 3) foster care children; and 4) children and families served to prevent foster care placement. Additionally, certain groups of children and families are consid- ered targeted groups and include 1) children placed by a juvenile and domestic relations district court and 2) children committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice and placed in a private or locally operated public facility March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) OO00~ (Page 3) or nonresidential program. These children are not considered mandated but could easily become mandated if they are not served. To provide these services, the Comprehensive Services Act requires that localities match the state funds at the same ratio as their Health Department matching rate. For Albemarle, the match rate is 45 percent local funds, 55 percent state funds. Each year the State allocates a pool of funds to each locality based on a FY94/95 base year with slight adjustments for growth. For FY 97/98, Albemarle's total pool is $1,349,307, $603,114 in local funds and $746,193 in state funds. Since most localities are not able to meet the mandated services within their initial pool allocation, the State allows localities to submit supplemental funding requests based on the CPMT's best estimate of projected costs for the remainder of the year. For FY 98, the CPMT will be submitting a supplemental funding request to the state for $1,077,847 to address the dramatic rise in Albemarle's foster care case load. The FY 98 supplemental request is discussed below. The supplemental request to the state for $1,077,847 will require a 45 percent local match of $485,031. Of that amount, the County has approximately $105,000 in FY 96/97 carry-over funds in the CSA fund and $129,000 in local funds that were budgeted over the required match in the Department of Social Services FY 98 budget. Therefore, the remaining local dollars that the County would need to allocate at the end of the year is approximately $250,000. This estimate is based on 101 foster care children currently under DSS custody at an average cost of $200,000 per month with an expectation of eight more children coming into foster care in the next month. Staff is pursuing Virginia Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) funds for some of the unmandated court cases, which may be able to reduce the need for additional funds by approximately $35,000. The CPMT has taken several measures over the past few years to curtail spending in this program. However, the driving force behind the current increase is: 1) the number of children entering foster care and; 2) the severity of emotional and behavioral problems of the children. Forty-two children have been taken into care since July 1997 compared with 48 children for the entire previous year. We anticipate eight more children coming into care within the next month; two due to being released from Beaumont Learning Center and six from our child protective services caseload. The percentage of cases requiring specialized care has grown steadily since 1994 costing the system an average of $30,000 per year per child. Temporary care for seriously emotionally disturbed children with a history of aggressiveness, chronic runaway behavior and/or suicidal behavior can cost as much as $300 per day to maintain them in a secure setting in order to stabilize them enough to transition to a less restrictive and less costly setting. A complete analysis of these increases has not been completed by the CPMT. However, factors, we believe to be contributing to the increases include: 1) an increasing urbanized population; 2) increase in overall population; and 3) a shift in family preservation efforts to shorter time frames before removal. Other factors may include changes in the poverty population and fewer options for local placements resulting in higher cost placements outside the community. The CPMT has implemented several cost control measures that are working well. However, they cannot be effective at keeping costs down while the number of children being ordered into care, either through court intervention or child protective service intervention, is dramatically increasing. Following are policies implemented by the CPMT to try and control costs: Ail foster care cases are referred to the State Division of Child Support Enforcement for establishment of support. Currently these cases represent 62 percent of the caseload. Since July the CPMT has collected $5,157. The average collection for foster care is between $200 and $300 monthly. Although small compared to the cost of care in most cases, these payments help defray the total cost of the child's care. Ail parents in non-foster care cases are expected to con- tribute to the cost of care for their children. While most parents are unable to contribute significantly to the cost of services, it is policy that all should contribute based on ability to pay, however limited. March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) 000027 Alternative funding sources are aggressively pursued. Federal IV-E foster care funds pay for room, board and clothing for 75 percent of the current foster care caseload. Medicaid, private insurance and SSI defray the costs of medical and psychological care in most cases depending on the vendor. Juvenile Justice funding is used to the extent possible for children served through the court services unit. The CPMT has developed automated financial reports to track and analyze expenditures on a case-by-case basis, as well as on a program basis. This year, an analysis of the 36 cases in residential facilities was completed indicating that services were not only necessary, but that lower cost alter- natives were not available. The CPMT has created a full time case manager, using primar- ily Medicaid funds, to assist the pool agencies in efforts to support foster care prevention, to keep foster care children in community placements and to closely monitor non- foster care residential placements. This year the CPMT finalized a new vendor contract with tighter specifications for fiscal accountability and report- ing on services provided. The CPMT has developed a Utilization Review process (re- quired by the General Assembly) that will review cases on a severity scale to determine whether services are appropriate for the child(ren). The state suggested model has already been put in place by the CPMT. Furthermore, the process established by the CPMT is a joint system for both Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Since Charlottesville is not experiencing the same increased funding demands this year as Albemarle, the increases do not seem to be attributable to a weakness in the cost control system, but more to a greater number of children in need in Albemarle County. A recent review of other CPMTs around the state indicates that Albemarle is not alone, but shares similar increases with counties surrounding urban areas, as well as urban areas in general. The number of Albemarle youth served with CSA funds increased by 43 percent from 1996-1997. In the same time period, Stafford County increased by 71 percent, James City County by 208 percent, Roanoke County by 53 percent, Franklin County by 48 percent, Bedford County by 30 percent, Montgomery County by 41 percent and Floyd County by 257 percent. Cities compared similarly. While Charlottesville increased by 21 percent, Waynesboro increased by 115 percent, Lynchburg by 39 percent, Newport News by 29 percent, and Hampton by 29 percent. A list of the high cost foster care placements made by the Department of Social Services this year was provided, and is on file in the Clerk's office as a permanent part of the record. As demonstrated by the brief descriptions of the children placed, the behavioral and emotional problems faced by these children are significant. Children with these types of needs cannot be placed in low cost foster homes, especially in the initial phase of their care. Finally, a recent study by JLARC resulted in several bills being introduced in the General Assembly regarding CSA. One bill would allow Medicaid funds to be used for most of the services currently funded out of CSA pool funds. If passed, this bill could offer some relief to localities experiencing these cost increases. If the state was able to pull down Medicaid funds on a 50/50 percent state/federal match and Albemarle's local match remained the same, Albemarle would be able to access Medicaid funds at roughly a 23 percent match, rather than state pool funds at a 45 percent match. This information is brought forward at this time to keep the Board apprised of the impending local financial responsibilities for mandated foster care. Unless significant changes occur between now and June, the Board needs to anticipate additional funding in the amount of $200,000 to $250,000 for required CSA match funds at the end of the fiscal year. March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 000,~ (Page 5) Ms. Humphris said that there are a number of people who qualify for services as mandated under the Act. Forty-two people have qualified since July of this year, while last year's total for the entire year was only 48. The cost will rise to $200,000 by the end of this fiscal year. It is a well- meant mandate, but costs will continue to rise. Item No. 6.5. December 1997 Financial Report, was received for informa- tion. Item No. 6.6. Copy of Monthly Bond and Program Report for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts) for the month of February, 1998, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: April 10 and November 6, 1996. Ms. Humphris had read the minutes of April 10, 1996 (pages 1-10), and found them to be in order except for a few typographical errors. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of April 10, 1996 (pages 10-end), and found them to be in order. Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of November 6, 1996 (pages 1-15) and found them to be in order except for a few typographical errors. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Transportation Matters: a) Discussion: Statement to be presented at the FY 1998 Preallocation Hearing on the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that, on February 4, 1998, staff presented the Board with recommendations for primary road improvements to be presented at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) pre-allocation public hearing. The hearing will be held at the Culpeper District Offices April 2, 1998. Staff has provided a revised draft of the County's list of recommenda- tions based on the Board's prior review and comments, as well as a draft speech for presentation at the pre-allocation hearing (a Copy of each which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record). Ms. Humphris asked that the northern urbanized area projects mentioned in the last line on page one be listed. On page five, regarding the Hillsdale connector, Mr. Cilimberg said in the Route 29 development plans for north of the river, parallel roads are being examined as an option along with improve- ments to the main line itself. Regarding item number six, Ms. Humphris suggested it should read remaining ~portion", not ~portions" is now under study. Under the Route 29 South Corridor Study, Ms. Humphris said the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) should have informed the public about the most recent meeting of the task force. She asked Mr. Cilimberg to speak with VDoT about improving the information provided to the public. Mr. Cilimberg said he had suggested that some meetings be held in Albemarle County, and added that both Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Thomas are on the steering committee. Mr. Cilimberg also said that there is a time limit for speaking before the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), and that Mr. Marshall's statement was too long for the time allotted. He suggested the enhancement projects statement be condensed. Mr. Marshall noted that the third priority is the widening of Route 20 South from Route 53 to Monticello High School. March 4, 1998 (Regular DaY Meeting) (Page 6) O00099 Ms. Thomas said she saw an advertisement in the newspaper regarding the meeting, which said citizens could make comments on things other than just the widening of primary roads. If the Board has an interest in the Bristol passenger rail, she wondered if the freight railroad comments could be made too, even though they are not part of primary road improvements. Mr. Tucker said such a statement could be added. Under safety improvements, Mr. Martin said he appreciated the sidewalks on Route 20 North at Wilton Farms. Ms. Thomas said Ms. Tucker had mentioned funding ideas, and asked Ms. Tucker to let the Board know if it would help to have anything added to its statement. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the priorities and the statement to be presented at the FY 1998 Preallocation Hearing on the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems Plan (on file in the Clerk's office). Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. b) Other Transportation Matters. Ms. Thomas advised the Board that she went on a ~'ride about" with Ms. Tucker. She highly recommended that other Board members do the same. Mr. Martin said a resident has complained about mud and the lack of gravel on Route 615. Ms. Tucker then provided an update on transportation matters. VDoT plans to provide an update on the Rio Road Guardrail Project on April 21, 1998, from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m., at Charlottesville High School. Construction will take place in June 1999 on the series of curves between Stonehenge Road and Broadway Street, to be funded by special safety money. The Six-Year-Plan funding is only a ten percent match. The rest is federal funds. Mr. Bowerman asked when "no through truck" signs would be posted. Ms. Tucker said she will follow up to see when this request is scheduled to be presented to the CTB. Mr. Bowerman said the sooner the signs are posted, the better. Ms. Tucker then said she would follow up in writing on other outstanding items. She mentioned that there is no state law that restricts brakes. She said she planned to discuss with the County Attorney whether or not a local ordinance exists. She would be glad to work at a local level if the ordinance can be enforced locally. Mr. Tucker asked if any other Board members plan to attend the preallocation hearing on April 2, 9:00 a.m. If so, staff can arrange trans- portation. Agenda Item No. 9. Request to set a public hearing to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water and sewer service to the proposed Fontana Subdivision. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant, Hurt Investment Company, requests ]urisdictional area designation for water and sewer service to 119 acres located on Tax Map 78 Parcel 57 (portion). This 119 acres is part of the proposed Fontana development which received preliminary subdivision plat approval for 167 lots on December 19, 1997. A special use permit was also recently approved for the Frost Montesorri School on the property near Route 20. The property was part of the larger "Luxor property," and is located on the east side of Route 20 North, north of Phase III of the Wilton Farms March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) 000080 Apartments and the Garnett Treatment Center, lying within a designated Development Area (Neighborhood 3). The southern portion of parcel 57 is already in the jurisdictional area for both water and sewer. The property is located within Urban Area Neighborhood 3. The Land Use Plan provides the following concerning water and sewer service to a Develop- ment Area: Facilities Planning: "Strongly support and effectively implement the County's growth management priorities in the planning and provision of transportation, public facilities and public utilities (p. 5)." Land Use Plan General Principle: "Urban Areas, Communities and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 17)." Part of the eastern boundary for Neighborhood 3 is the 600-foot contour of the Southwest Mountains. There is one small area of less than one acre, which is slightly above the 600-foot elevation. It is a separate knoll located west of the continuous 600-foot contour that forms the boundary of the Development Area. Water service is available on-site and sewer service is approximately 800 feet from the property. Mr. Cilimberg said, as a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacities should be reserved to support development of designated Development Areas. This request is consistent with the public utility policy of the Land Use Plan. Therefore, staff recommends proceeding to public hearing to consider providing water and sewer service for the property noted as Tax Map 62, Parcel 57 (portion). (Mr. Bowerman left at 9:27 a.m.) Ms. Thomas asked if this small area would set a precedent. Mr. Cilimberg said staff would be careful to see that it did not. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set a public hearing to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water and sewer service to Tax Map 62, Parcel 57 (portion) of the proposed Fontana Subdivision. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 9:30 a.m.) At this time the Board moved to the following item: Agenda Item No. 11. Adopt Resolution to Designate Whitewood Park property as Open-Space Land under Open-Space Land Act. Mr. Davis said the Whitewood Park property consists of 22.709 acres. Tax Map 61, Parcel 28, which contains 20.937 acres, was acquired by the County School Board in 1919 by a deed from Mr. John Fishburne and other persons. Tax Map 61, Parcel 29A, which contains 1.772 acres, was acquired by the School Board in 1971 in a deed of exchange with David Wood and other persons. Both parcels were acquired by the County in a deed of exchange with the School Board in 1990. The property conveyed by the County to the School Board in that exchange was the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School site. The Open-Space Land Act authorizes the Board of Supervisors to designate property acquired by the County as open-space land. The significance of this designation is that after such designation the property cannot be converted or diverted from open-space land use unless: March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 00003 . The Board determines the conversion or diversion is essential to the orderly growth of the County, and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; and 2 o There is substituted other real property which is of at least equal fair market value, of greater value as permanent open-space land, and of as nearly as feasible equivalent usefulness and location for use as permanent open-space land. The responsibility for assuring such substitution is upon the Board of Supervisors at the time of conversion or diversion of the property. Designation as open-space property does not prevent any state agency from acquiring the property for an alternative public use by eminent domain. Under such process the above described protection of the Open-Space Land Act would not apply. The Board can designate Whitewood Park as open-space land to assure that a future Board cannot change the use of the property without complying with the procedures and requirements of the Open-Space Land Act. Without such a designation, a future Board could change the use of the property as it deemed appropriate. Mr. Davis said, if the Board desires to designate Whitewood Park as open-space land pursuant to the Open Space Land Act, it should adopt the proposed Resolution. Mr. Bowerman said the County has looked at different ways to preserve the area and asked if Mr. Davis felt this was the most appropriate. Easements or other restrictions could be removed; this is specific enabling legislation that would bind any future Board, protecting the open space land for park purposes. Mr. Davis noted, however, this will not protect the land if a state agency, such as VDoT, wishes to condemn the property. Ms. Humphris asked whether the Board could put in a permanent conservation easement, and Mr. Davis said this, in effect, does that. Ms. Humphris asked if a permanent conservation easement in the public sector could be condemned. Mr. Davis replied, ~Yes, by the state legislature." Mr. Marshall asked if this included the purchase of an additional small piece of adjoining property that would provide access to the park. Mr. Davis said the County recently purchased an adjacent piece of property (0.3 acres) to provide access for the park, that will allow construction of a retention basin, park trails, etc. This parcel was not mentioned in the proposal because of the access issue. Mr. Marshall asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak to the item. Ms. Mary Morris, a resident of Minor Hill Manor Homes, conveyed her hope that the Board would designate the property as open land under the Open Land Act. Mr. Bowerman said staff had considered a conservation easement, but there were many legal issues surrounding it. Designation of open space is the best vehicle to ensure the property stays this way indefinitely. He added that this could be done with other park areas, obligating future Boards to respect these significant attributes to the community. If the property is used for other purposes, future Boards will have to replace the property with like property in the urban area, which would be difficult. Ms. Humphris thanked the public for bringing the issue to the forefront. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt the Resolution to designate Whitewood Park property as Open-space Land under the Open Space Land Act. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 00003;8 Resolution to Designate Whitewood Park Property as Open-Space Land WHEREAS, the Open Space land Act (Va. Code Section 10.1-1700 et seq.) provides for the preservation of land in an urban area for park and recre- ational purposes; and WHEREAS, the Whitewood Park property is a unique and valuable park and recreational resource within an urbanized area of the County; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to designate the Whitewood Park property as open-space land to preserve and protect this valuable resource. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors pursuant to the Open-Space Land Act (Va. Code Section 10.1-1700 et seq.) hereby designates the Whitewood Park property as open-space land. The Whitewood Park property, referred to herein, shall include the following more particularly described propertY: Ail those certain tracts or parcels of land in the Rio Magisterial District of Albemarle County containing a total of 22.709 acres, more or less, and consisting of Tax Map 61, Parcel 28, containing 20.937 acres, and Tax Map 61, Parcel 29A, containing 1.772 acres, as identified in that deed of exchange between the County School Board of Albemarle County and the County of Albemarle dated October 31, 1990, and which is of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1128, Page 650. (At 9:44 a.m. the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:51 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Information Services Technology Planning Report. Mr. Fred Kruger, Director of Information Services Technology (IST), was present to answer questions on the report, which had been provided to the Board previously. Mr. Martin asked for a definition of ~power users", as used on page five. Mr. Kruger said a power user is someone who has the ability to effec- tively use available tools to perform their daily functions. Staff needs to take advantage of opportunities to advance. The County continuously receives new computers. Once their needs have progressed, staff need to inform Information Services that they require an upgrade. Mr. Martin observed that if a staff member is stuck in an office where he or she was beyond the equipment's ability, things slow down. Mr. Kruger said CIP funds are used for upgrading technology. It is a continual process as software becomes more complex and users expand abilities. Ms. Humphris asked about the schools' technology needs. Mr. Kruger said IST has positions funded to support the schools. During FY1997-98 he re- quested two positions; only one was approved. It is extremely difficult to fully support the schools due to the ratio of 1100 computers to each of three support staff, considering the travel time involved. The fourth person will be helpful, but it will not be enough. The ratio typically quoted as adequate for most organizations is between 25 and 125 to one. The County has a ratio of 900 to one, 1100 to one in the schools. Ms. Humphris asked whether IST has any difficulty hiring qualified people in the department. Mr. Kruger said it is difficult. He has worked with Human Resources to create different forms of ads, have placed ads on the Internet, and advertising is widespread, but it is still difficult. He is looking at different approaches that may help through cooperative efforts with CATEC and others. He added that this is not a problem faced only by the County; it is nationwide. Money, activities, and Year 2000 activities have drawn people with large salaries for the next several years. It is hard to find people with experience. Mr. Marshall said Senator John Warner had the same problem finding people with experience. Mr. Martin asked about students from Piedmont Virginia Community College. Mr. Kruger said this spring the County will have planning discus- March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) 000033 sions with the college. The County cannot compete with salaries being offered by others, and the goal is to "grow their own talent". Mr. Martin said more CIP and operating budget funds are being spent on computers, which are both important and expensive. He asked if Mr. Kruger felt he was on top of making decisions about equipment and what staff are able to use, or whether it becomes too expensive at some point. Mr. Kruger said IST operates under a ~bare bones standard". County user need more memory, not more horsepower. His department has to do a lot with available monies, including installing hubs, switches, etc. It is a fine line to balance things to make sure the users have what they need minimally, and still be able to respond to future needs, instead of putting massive numbers of computers out in the field. Ms. Thomas said ~City and County" magazine has addressed this issue. The State of Georgia's goal is to reduce the number of systems in use. She then asked why the County was discontinuing using Davinci E-mail. Mr. Kruger said that system is not Year 2000 compliant. IST considered using a new version of Davinci, but it had lots of problems, and negotiations were not fruitful. The new system is more compatible with those used by other compa- nies. Ms. Thomas asked if the County's system easily interfaces with the Joint Security Complex and Library, or is walled off from other operations. Mr. Kruger said the Library is upgrading it system. IST's role has been to advise and provide information to the County Executive and the Library. Regarding the Joint Security Complex, he received a phone call recently asking for the County's involvement in technical support. In the current environment there are some connections to the Joint Security Complex through the City. IST has worked with the City's IST department to work to connect systems needed by their staff, the County's and the Joint Security Complex's. Discussions are underway, and the County hopes to work cooperatively with everyone. Mr. Martin said the Five Year Technology Plan from the schools was very helpful. Mr. Kruger said Ms. Becky Fisher is responsible for preparing the information, which was cited by the state as one of the better presentations in the state. Mr. Bowerman said "Business Week" magazine recently printed a section on Year 2000 problem. The article said it will take four-tenths of a percent of the Gross National Product for the next three years to deal with the problem, which faces everyone. Programmers are in short supply. Mr. Kruger said IST has tried to make the County mainframe a productive environment, bundling it with other requests from users, to hopefully make other enhancements at the same time. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Kruger has done an excellent job in trying to promote from within the department. However, there is no guarantee staff will not leave, because of lucrative salaries offered elsewhere. At this time the Board moved to the following item: Agenda Item No. 10. 10:00 a.m. - Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation of the Albemarle County Code by amending §8-66, time Limits for appeals of Real Estate Assessments which shall establish time limits for appeals of real estate assessments. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 16 and February 23, 1998.) Mr. Tucker said, under Virginia Code §58.1-3330, the County is required to provide notice of any changes in the assessed value of real estate and to allow a taxpayer at least 15 days' notice to request a hearing before the assessing officer to protest such changes. Virginia Code §58.1-3378 provides that the Board of Equalization may also hear applications for relief from real estate assessments and that the Board of Supervisors may establish a deadline for such applications, provided that the deadline is at least 30 days after the date of the hearing before the assessing officer under §58.1-3330. Finally, §58.1-3378 provides that the Board of Supervisors may establish the deadline by which all applications must be finally disposed of by the Board of Equalization. Albemarle County Code §8-66, which establishes time limits for appeals of real estate assessments, is ambiguous with respect to the deadline for an application to the Board of Equalization. Specifically, §8-66 currently March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 000034 (Page 11) states that any additional appeal must be made to the Board of Equalization within thirty days, but does not clearly state what event triggers the thirty- day limit. Moreover, current §8-66 does not establish a deadline for the final dispositions by the Board of Equalization as provided in Virginia Code §58.1-3378. The proposed ordinance clarifies the thirty-day time limit and establishes a deadline of September 1 for the disposition of all biennial assessment appeals and a deadline of December 31 for all supplemental and pro rata assessment appeals. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance amending and reordaining §8-66. Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. As no one was present to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. Mr. Perkins asked if a notice would be sent to taxpayers. Mr. Davis said the State Code requires that such notice be sent. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt an Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation of the Albemarle County Code by amending §8-66, time Limits for appeals of Real Estate Assessments which shall establish time limits for appeals of real estate assessments. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ORDINANCE NO. 98-8 (1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 8-66, Time limits for appeals of real estate assessments, as follows: Sec. 8-66. Time limits for appeals of real estate assessments. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 58.1-3330 of the Code of Virginia all applications for appeals from any biennial assessment of real estate must be made by the property owner or lessee to the County Assessor by the last business day of February of the year in which the assessment takes effect. A property owner or lessee may also appeal any biennial assessment by making an application directly to the board of equalization by the last business day of March of the year in which the assessment takes effect, or if an appeal has been made to the County Assessor within thirty (30) days from the date of the decision of the Countyb Assessor denying an appeal for such assessment, whichever date is later. Applications for appeals from any supplemental assessment or pro rata asessment for new construction assessed between January 1 and October 31 must be made by the property owner or lessee to the County Assessor within fifteen (15) days of the date of the notice of the supplemental or pro rata assess- ment. A property owner or lessee may also appeal any supplemental or pro rata assessment by making an application directly to the board of equalization within thirty (30) days of the date of the notice of the supplemental or pro rata assessment, or if an appeal has been made to the County Assessor within thirty (30) days from the date of the decision of the County Assessor denying an appeal for such supplemental or pro rata assessment, whichever date is later. The board of equalization shall finally dispose of all biennial assess- ment appeals by September 1 of the year in which the assessment takes effect and of all supplemental or pro rata assessment appeals for new construction by December 31 of the year in which the supplemental or pro rata assessment takes effect. Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Dance Hall Ordinance and Request for Permit to Operate Dance Hall. March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 000085 Mr. Tucker said the Board recently requested staff to research how other localities handle the permitting and regulation of dance halls. Since the County has issued only one dance hall permit in approximately ten years, the current County policy has not been extensively reviewed to take into consider- ation current concerns. A variety of options are available to the County if it is interested in regulating the operation of dance halls in a more compre- hensive fashion. As is the case currently, exceptions to the regulations can be made for education, religious and military dance events. The key points of interest regarding this issue are noted as possibilities below: 1) Security Components -- some localities allow for police access to the premises at any time to ensure peace and quiet; some locali- ties require private security while others hold management ac- countable; 2) Adult versus Teen Dance Halls -- several localities make a dis- tinction between age groups to provide more appropriate settings for teenage patrons, including earlier closing times; 3) Applicant Responsibility -- one County requires complete criminal background checks for .teen dance hall employees and ownership before a permit will be issued; others explicitly prohibit intoxi- cated patrons; and 4) Revocation -- the County's current provisions for revocation of a dance hall permit appear to be less restrictive than the State Code allows. State Code §18.2-433 notes that the local ordinance shall prescribe for "grounds for revocation and procedure for revocation of such permits." The County Code refers to revocation in cases of violation of the provisions of the Code or for any false statement made on the application. Revocation could be expanded to include violations of any provisions of this Code, state law or special use permit. An example could be '~A dance hall permit shall be revocable if the operation of the public dance hall covered thereby is found to violate any provision of this Code or of state law or of the special use permit, including, but not limited to, the creation or facilitation of any fire or other safety hazard on the dance hall premises; any traffic hazard within the parking area serving the dance hall or on the public highway; any public nuisance on the dance hall premises; any undue overcrowding within the dance hall facility or within the parking area serving the dance hall; any public disturbance resulting from the lack of adequate security guards on the dance hall premises; or, any unlawful activities on the dance hall premises."; 5) Approval Process -- other locality Codes establish a process which includes several additional levels of approval, clarification and limitations. Albemarle County's current Code only requires two weeks lead time prior to the Board meeting -- additional time could be justified to review the permit. Henrico, for instance, requires the permit to be approved by the Police Chief, Planning Director & Fire Chief before issuance. Also, if the Board is interested, Albemarle County could have an internal administrative approval process for these types of permits, rather than Board approval; 6) Notification Provision -- Currently the Board can issue a dance hall permit without notifying adjoining landowners. Such a re- quirement could be instituted; and 7) Curfew - The County's current curfew limits minors from being in motor vehicles from 1:00 a.m. through 5:00 a.m., unless they have written parental consent. The City of Charlottesville's curfew prohibits minors under the age of 17 to remain in any public place or motor vehicle from 12:01 a.m. through 5:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and 1:00 a.m. through 5:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday, unless they have written parental consent. Mr. Tucker said a request to issue a dance hall permit is before the Board and on hold pending direction as to whether the current ordinance needs to be amended prior to acting on it. Under the current County ordinance, March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Mee~ingi (Page 13) oooo. 6 minors under the age of 18 would have to have parental permission in order to attend an event such as the ones proposed by the applicant. The Board may choose to leave that provision in place or amend it with any of the options mentioned in this report. Any changes in the current ordinance would require a public hearing under the Board's current practice. Ms. Thomas said she appreciated the information on what other localities chose to do, but wondered how they are working and what, if any problems, they experienced. Mr. Tucker said the localities amended their provisions as problems arose. They do not have a lot of establishments in operation, and he was unaware of any problems when talking with other localities. Ms. Humphris said it is obvious a new ordinance is needed. She felt the Board should discuss whether the police should be allowed access to ensure peace and quiet, or only to make arrests for illegal activity. She also questioned the age groups. The difference between ages 14 and 20 is huge, and she is concerned about the two groups mingling. She likes the required criminal background checks on employees. She suggested there is a need to expand the revocation conditions because of the existing situation in the County. It would be good to have input from the Police Chief, Fire Chief and Planning Director. She also felt the landowner should be notified when an application has been made. Regarding the curfew, she suggested the County's should parallel the City's, to make it easier on the police to perform their duties. She likes one locality's suggestion that there be no reentry after someone leaves. There should be no alcohol, drugs, weapons, or intoxicated persons allowed. Mr. Tucker said staff could develop a draft for the Board to examine. Mr. Bowerman suggested using the schools as a resource, because they have to deal with similar problems. Mr. Marshall suggested the draft then be taken to a public hearing. Ms~ Thomas suggested the appliCant and 0therS:with exP~ri_ ence be involved. It is important to have social activities for teens to attend, and she asked if there were any Board members opposed. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Colley, the applicant, understands the difficul- ties facing the community. Mr. Colley wanted to do something not covered in the ordinance, and he either had to get a waiver of the existing ordinance or go through this process. He is willing to work with the Board and it is important to involve him in the process. Mr. Martin said he would like to see the activity work. The problem is things are required that may be restrictive in terms of making the business viable. He does not think the application needs to be approved by the Police or Fire Chiefs. He is opposed to the mingling of 14 and 20-year-olds. He likes the idea of having a one to 100 ratio of police officers to minors. The manager should not be policing the event .... Mr. Davis said the Board ~till needs to address the parental permission required for under 18. This is currently a requirement under the ordinance, tied to the curfew issue. Mr. Martin said a curfew is unenforceable and the requirement should be deleted. Ms. Thomas said she is not in favor of lowering the curfew from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight to 5:00 a.m. because of the long distances County teens have to travel. Mr. Marshall felt the curfew should be the same as the City's. Mr. Martin said he agreed with Ms. Thomas; the curfew time should not be changed. Mr. Davis said the curfew only applies to people in automobiles. Mr. Bowerman asked that different scenarios be presented in the draft. Mr. Marshall suggested that staff present a draft to the Board for review. The Board can then set a public hearing. Agenda Item No. 13a. Introduction of Doug Morris, Superintendent, Shenandoah National Park. Mr. Doug Morris said Mr. Sandy Reeves left the Park to assume a Superin- tendent's position in Spottsylvania County. He added that the Skyline Drive is still closed following a devastating storm. Crews are working every day to open it within two to three weeks. Ms. Thomas asked how the wood from the cleanup will be used. Mr. Morris said there was some discussion about making it available to the public, but the road is still dangerous. If it snowed again, snow plowers March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Me~in~i (Page 14) 00008'7 along the 105 mile stretch of road would be endangered by the cut wood and it is likely there would be people all over the place cutting down trees without any instruction. One suggestion is that the wood be chipped up and recycled as mulch. Mr. Marshall asked if the Blue Ridge Parkway was open. Mr. Morris did not know. Agenda Item No. 14. Board Briefing on FY 1999 Budget. Mr. Tucker went over the objectives of the budget. The total County budget is $134.7 million, representing an increase of $8.4 million. The total School budget is $83.5 million. The budget calls for a transfer of $49 million to the School Division, a $2.95 million increase, total reserves of $0.39 million (Board reserve) and $0.27 million (School Board). It requires no increase in property tax rates. The budget provides an additional $468,620 in Revenue Sharing to the City, for a total of $5.6 million. It funds $8.6 million in Debt Service, with budgeted funds of $7.4 million and $1.1 million from existing debt service reserves. The budget transfers $2.06 million to the Capital Fund, provides a 3 percent performance pool, a 33 percent phase-in of salary compression funds and provides $0.5 million in mandated Social Service program increases. The 33 percent equates to $200,000. It is primarily for the police, because that is where a lot of the compression exists. Real estate revenues increased by 4.7 percent, compared to a 2.7 percent increase in FY97/98. Overall, local revenues increased by $4.9 million (5.6 percent) over FY97/98, compared to $6.4 million (7.9 percent) the previous year. $2.3 million are expected in additional Meals Tax revenues. The School Division received an additional $41.5 million in state funding, for a 6.2 percent increase over FY97/98. The School Division will be greatly impacted by growth. There 295 new students projected, a 2.5 percent increase. There will be 14.97 new teachers and 4.39 additional special education teachers. Start-up costs for Monticello High School will total $0.8 million. There will be partial Standards of Accreditation funding of $1.2 million (including Phase I of a seven-period schedule for high schools). General Government will be impacted by growth as well. There will be an anticipated 1,670 new County residents, a 2.1 percent increase. A new Emergency Communications Center Dispatcher will be hired, as well as two new Community Policing Officers, 1 new School Resource Officer, an Environmental Programs Coordinator, three foster care/adoption positions, one Library Technical Specialist, and three Library Clerks. Mr. Perkins asked if the librarians were just in Albemarle County. Mr. Tucker replied, "Yes." Concerning the impact of mandated/obligated costs, the General Govern- ment baseline increase is $0.905, or 2.74 percent. This includes salary and benefit costs, level department operations and a three'percent agency in- crease. There are also mandated costs: $0.639 for Social Service programs and $0.014 million for Juvenile Detention. This results in a revised baseline of $1.558 million, or 4.71 percent. Funded priorities include a voice mail system for Juvenile Court, a JCFRA Vehicle Maintenance Fund, a Growing Healthy Families home visiting team, the continuation of "Big Blue" Route 29 bus service, night and weekend service by JAUNT, and start-up funds for the Housing Initiative Fund and Piedmont HouSing Alliance. The Board of Supervisors' budget reserve is at $388,971, the School Division's carry-over is $195,422, and the School Division's Reserve is $75,000, for a total of $659,393. Mr. Tucker noted that the mild winter will result in some fairly significant savings to the school budget. These can be used for one-time expenses. Ms. Thomas asked how this fits in with the $1.7 million shortfall for this year. Mr. Tucker said the shortfall was corrected by savings through level-funding of operations and cutbacks in the CIP. The School Board has made up their shortfalls through funds they anticipate from their share of the Meals Tax. Additionally, he felt there will be some one-time funding to be March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 000038 used on one-time expenses in the fund balance, because the Board's share of the first six months of the Meals Tax will go into that balance. Ms. Thomas said the School Board says they need an addition $888,000, which is not in the budget. Mr. Tucker said the Board has some reserves that could be applied. Total County expenditures are driven by inflation and growth and the actual cost of services, which is still fairly flat. Regarding staffing, Mr. Tucker there has been preference given to the Police Department over the past several years because of the priority given to education and public safety. Over the last ten years, state and federal funding of the budget have dropped from 37 percent to 27 percent. Reassessments have been dropping since 1990/91, from a high or average high of 22.5 percent to two percent from FY86/87 to FY98/99. Increases may begin to occur in the future, based on discussions with developers and builders. The County is at or below the average for the state in terms of per capita expenditures. This bodes well for an efficient government. The one area where the County is significantly above the state level is in miscella- neous, due to the Revenue Sharing Agreement, which no other locality has. The County also compares well in the area of comparative tax rates. The rate for real estate taxes is $0.72 per $100 of valuation. The County operates on $0.62, because $0.10 comes off the top, and is provided to the City under the Revenue Sharing Agreement. The top 20 counties in Virginia average about $0.83 per $100 of valuation. The average for all counties is $0.69, and the average for all Virginia cities is $1.04. Mr. Marshall asked where the County falls in the top 20 list. Mr. Tucker said he would have to get back to him with that information. The County falls in the middle of the ranking for comparative school funding for operations, debt service and capital improvements programming, compared to counties similar in size to Albemarle. Only 25 to 30 percent of residents have children in County schools. In most counties the figure is closer to 50 percent, and they are building more schools than Albemarle County. The County's real estate tax rates are good compared to other counties. Mr. Marshall said Louden County experienced a large reduction in assessed values several years ago. Mr. Tucker pointed out this is happening in Albemarle County too, but more gradually. School Division capital projects include the new Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, the new Sutherland Middle School, the new Monticell© High School, and the expansion or renovation of 15 other schools. Mr. Tucker provided Board members a copy of the proposed budget for the General Government. The School Division's budget would be made available later in the day. Budget work sessions will all begin at 1:00 p.m. Mr. Marshall asked what the Board can do about the $888,000 shortfall brought forward by the School Board. Mr. Tucker said the Board can use its $390,000 in reserves; otherwise, tax rates will have to be increased. The School Division did not use its $270,000 in reserves to fund the shortfall. Mr. Bowerman added that the School Division also has some potential savings in energy costs. Mr. Tucker $400,000 can be used for one-time expense. Mr. Tucker said the Board may find other areas to cut or add during budget work sessions. Ms. Thomas asked about the Fiscal Impact position. Mr. Tucker said funds for that position were carried over. The one person in Environmental Programs is to handle soil erosion issues raised by the new ordinance. Mr. Bowerman asked how many anticipated new General Government employees are included in the budget. Mr. Tucker said all requests for additional employees are already included in this budget. Staff will provide the Board a separate list of priorities. March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Mee~ingi 000039 (Page 16) Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Ms. Thomas remains concerned about the lighting at Monticello High School. She said this is an important issue since the lighting ordinance and light pollution are under discussion. Mr. Tucker said staff is working on a report to determine the additional costs. A bid for the installation of lights was awarded, and lights have been delivered on-site. There will be additional costs if the lights are now changed, and staff is working on a report to show what they will be. Design changes would result in more poles, so there is a trade-off to be considered. Mr. Martin said the Board is scheduled to meet again later in the day, but he must attend the Development Area Initiatives Study meeting scheduled for 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. Mr. Bowerman said he would be present for the appeal on the Ivy Landfill Final Site Plan. Mr. Marshall said that would not be a public hearing. Ms. Thomas said she thought public hearings were held on site plan issues. Mr. Marshall said it is an appeal, not an open public hearing. Mr. Tucker said the Board can determine how they are going to handle this matter later. Ms. Humphris said a lot of attention has been paid to VACO's call for approval of the Vesting Rights Bill. Mr. Davis said it has not been voted on in the legislature. It was amended, but not the way VML and the other interested counties wanted it to be. Three minor amendments were made yesterday, but Albemarle County's language was not accepted. It will have to be reconciled with the Senate bill. Ms. Humphris asked if there is anything else the Board can do. Mr. Davis said legislators simply disagree with the Board. Ms. Humphris said there are also differences of opinion on HB36, which has to do with the Virginia Retirement System. Lobbyists said there will not be additional costs to local government, but opponents say there will. Mr. Tucker said VACO is following the issue. Ms. Humphris showed a Richmond Times Dispatch article on the expansion of the Motorola plant. With the expansion, they informed Goochland County the company's water and sewer needs will increase dramatically. Albemarle County needs to keep this in mind when considering applications. Mr. Tucker said the County Administrator in Goochland said infrastructure costs have led to a proposed 20 cent increase in the general property tax rate. Ms. Humphris commented that Prince William County has good land use regulations. Ms. Humphris mentioned her appreciation of Ms. Charlotte Sticher's article in the Observer about the Neighborhood Connections Workshop on March 28. Ms. Thomas suggested the County's "FYI" publication might be helpful for publicizing this event. Ms. Humphris said there was a favorable article about Albemarle County in the Virqinia Review. Mr. Tucker said staff have since thanked the publica- tion. Regarding Motorola, Mr. Bowerman said there is a big difference in the benefits to the state and localities with economic development. The state receives corporate profits and monies from individual income taxes, which is substantial. The services the state provide for that income is less than what they collect. On the other hand, the locality has the difficulty of providing all the services. It is good for Virginia's economy, but costly to locali- ties. Mr. Tucker said the good economy is reflected in the state surplus, but localities are having collateral problems. Ms. Humphris said she is concerned that personal property taxes will be taken away with no promise of other revenues. Mr. Bowerman said the County needs to get citizens to go to Richmond to speak out on these critical issues. March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) 000040 Mr. Perkins said the University is the driving force in this community. Perhaps there should be a state impact fee when one community is impacted by an action taken by the state. Ms. Humphris said income tax is the only fair tax. Mr. Marshall agreed, saying that only the wealthy can afford to pay the taxes. He said economic development has to exist in a capitalistic society. Mr. Bowerman said state legislators need to understand the effect of their actions on localities. Ms. Thomas said this is why most states help with new school construction, which does not happen in Virginia. Ms. Humphris said private enterprise has made the country great, but the government needs to stay out of it, only providing the infrastructure to make it possible for private enterprise to do what they have to do. Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Appointments to Boards and Commissions, and Legal Matters. At 11:45 a.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris that the Board go into executive session pursuant to §2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia: under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions and to discuss a staff issue; under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to Charlottesville,s transition to town status; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding two service agreements. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Executive Session. At 3:00 p.m, the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to 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 executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. Motions were offered by Mr. Martin, to appoint Mr. Larry L. Miller and Mr. Jeffrey Sobel to the Commission on Children and Families, with terms to be established at the first meeting, by Ms. Thomas to appoint Ms. Meredith Strom- Gunter to the Commission on Children and Families, with term to be established at the first meeting, and by Mr. Bowerman to appoint Ms. Maria Bell to the Commission on Children and Families, with term to be established at the first meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to appoint Mr. Albert Humbertson, Jr. to the Equalization Board, with said term to expire on December 31, 1998. Ms. Humphris seconded the motions. Roll was called, and the motions carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: NOne. March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) 00004:i. Non-docketed Ms. Humphris made the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board adopt the amended service agreement between the Town of Scottsville and Albemarle County to provide Sheriff's Deputies. Changes involved the selec- tion process for hiring deputies, funding, the timing of the agreement and the spelling out of the primary responsibilities of law enforcement officers. The agreement is as follows: AMENDED SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE AND ALBEMAPT.~ COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY JAi~ARY 1.1998 - JUNE 30, 1999 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of January, 1998, by and between the Town of scottsville, Virginia, (hereafter "Town"), the Sheriff of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. (hereafter "Sheriff"), and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "County"), W1TNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, duly approved a boundary adjustment, "Agreement to Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle," pursuant to Section 15.2-3106, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on September 27, 1993; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 14.1-70 and 15.2- 1726 of the Code of Virginia (1950), the Town, the Sheriff, and the County entered into a tripar- tite Service Agreement dated January 31, 1994 and amended December 21, 1994 and June 21, 1996, for the purpose of having the Sheriff furnish law enforce- ment services in the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town, the Sheriff, and the County now wish to amend the Service Agreement to recognize that the County will no longer fund any deputy positions assigned for law enforcement services in the Town; and WHEREAS, the Sheriff has provided full-time police protection in the Town for the past three years; and WHEREAS, the Town has been pleased with the police protection provided by the Sheriff and his Department; and WHEREAS, the Town and the Sheriff have worked well together to provide safer streets, quiet evenings and pleasant surroundings to both the residents and the visitors of the Town; NOW THEREFORE, the Town, the Sheriff, and the County hereby agree as follows: I. The Service Agreement between the Town, the Sheriff and the County dated January 31, 1994 and amended December 21, 1994 and June 21, 1996, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (on file in the Clerk's office), and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby mended by replacing paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 and paragraph 9 therein with a new paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 and paragraph 9 fully set out below and also by adding a new paragraph 13: 4. The deputies shall be selected by the both the Town and the Sheriff. If the Town and the Sheriff agree to reassign a deputy and a new replacement deputy sheriff is assigned to Scottsville, the replacement deputy shall only be appointed as a Town deputy if the deputy has the support and approval of the Town. The purpose for the approval of the deputy sheriff by both the Sheriff and the Town is to ensure a competent law enforcement professional assigned to the Town who has good Working relations with the Town government. 5. A. Funding shall be provided by the Town, either from Town tax revenues, fees and gifts, or from revenues paid to the Town from state, federal or private grants. B. Ail grants initiated by the Town and awarded to the Town or to its police department shall remain under the control and the direction of the Town and if the grants are for the funding of Sheriff's Deputies assigned to the March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 000042 Town, the Town will seek the advice and input of the Sheriff before making a final decision on the allocation of the grant funds. C. Salaries of the deputies shall be paid solely by the Town or the State Compensation Board, and all other costs not covered by the State including, but not limited to, vehicles, police equipment, supplies, uniforms, medical insurance, liability insurance, FICA, retirement benefits and related costs shall be paid by the Town. 9. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of the parties at anytime, or by either party for good cause after providing 6 months written notice to the other parties of the intent to terminate the Agreement on a date certain. All parties shall review the Agreement on an annual basis within 60 days of the end of the fiscal year, however the first annual review shall not occur prior June 30, 1999. 13. The primary responsibility for the law enforcement officers of the Town is law enforcement within the Town limits of Scottsville; These officers shall respond to calls outside the Town limits only when such calls involve life-threatening situations; However, the Town Officers may offer their assistance outside the town limits in non-emergency situations at their discretion. II. Ail other terms, conditions, requirements, and obligations of the Service Agreement, referenced above, shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Ms. Thomas moved that the Board set a public hearing for March 18, 1998 on the Community Development Block Program Community Improvement Grant to Support Microenterprise. The program funds small loans to small businesses, assisting small business to get started. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr..Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (The Board took a break at 3:07 p.m., and returned at 3:15 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 19. ZMA-97-01. Still Meadows (Signs 63&64). Public hearing on a request to rezone approx 142 acs from R-1 to PRD w/max of 150 lots. Loc at end of Northfields Rd. Access proposed to both Northfields Rd & Carrsbrook Dr. TM46,P21 & TM45B2,P2 (part of) & 4 (part of ). [The property is recommended for Neighborhood Density (3-6 du/ac) in Neighborhood 2 of the Comp Plan.] Rio Dist. (Deferred from February 18, 1998. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and 9, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which zs on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. He said the Board had deferred the application to allow the applicant and community to meet to attempt to resolve identified problems. The applicant then sent revised proffers reflecting his attempts to resolve issues. Mr. Cilimberg said proffer number six addressed expanding and establish- ing the buffer area as part of the common area. It further identified how the area would be delineated and enforced as a buffer area. Under proffer number 17, which deals with cash payments, a change was made from a $100,000 initial amount to a $1,000 per single family house lot to go towards the CIP for school projects serving the Rio District. Proffer number 24 is new. It deals with participation in the Still Meadows Homeowners Association by adjacent March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) 000043 subdivisions. Proffer number 25, which is also new, deals with participation in traffic calming measures. Proffer number 26 is an attempt by the applicant to establish alternate access which would line up with Westmoreland Road. Mr. Jay Wineberg and Ms. Penny Skove were present to represent the Crescent Development Group. Mr. Wineberg said the request is to rezone 142 acres of land from R-1 to PRD, subject to 26 proffers. The application is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and furthers the Infill Policy's goal of avoiding urban sprawl. The area would be developed as a residential community. The application has been reduced from 160 to 135 single-family · homes on 142 acres. It provides for a club house, recreational facilities, tennis courts, 65 acres of open space, and the enhancement of the Rivanna Greenway. He noted that approximately 133 lots could be constructed on the R- I zoned parcel with no changes in zoning by-right, but inclusive of some mandatory and discretionary bonuses. If the Board grants a bonus for off-site road improvements, as well as the Rivanna Greenway, the applicant could construct 145 lots. The central question is whether the benefits received by the County by granting the requested rezoning, subject to the 26 proffers, is better than requiring the development under the R-1 standards of zoning, with no proffered conditions. Mr. Wineberg briefly summarized the proffers. The severance provisions say if a proffer is unlawful, it does not affect any of the others. He feels it is in the County's best interest to approve the request. The applicant may not be able to fully implement the infill recommendations, but this is a step in the right direction. The Planning Commission approved the request. The transportation system is adequate, the design is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan, it provides for the Rivanna Greenway and public access and maintenance, it maintains the character of the overall area while providing some increase in density, and conditions are designed to offset the fiscal impact of the development, and the applicant has prOvided a buffer against existing development. This may not be achieved if the zoning remains R-1. Additional lots, plus proffers, permit the applicant to develop a quality community. VDoT, County staff, and Wilber Smith Associates, a nationally recognized traffic engineering firm, all indicate the developer will be able to accommodate traffic without reducing the level of service. This was based on 160 lots, so 135 lots should certainly be fine. The County's analysis shows that neighboring streets will operate at between 19 percent and 78 percent of capacity. The applicant is sensitive to the concerns and wishes of neighbors, has listened to their concerns, and has revised the proffers to reflect these concerns. Further, ne±ghbors have been included on the Still Meadows Homeowners Association as voting members. Mr. Wineberg requested a waiver of §4.2 regarding critical slopes, approval of a modification to §5.16 regarding recreational areas, approve the waiver of storm water retention requirements as requested in the application, and that the Board follow the Planning Commission's and staff's recommenda- tion. Mr. Marshall then opened the public hearing. Mr. Frank Rice, President of the Carrsbrook Homeowners Association said he appreciates the developer's listening to their concerns. He wrote the residents of his subdivision to say that he now supports the agreement as proffered as being the most beneficial to them. The principals are persons of integrity. It is prudent to protect against contingencies. The number of units is no longer restricted by the Zoning Ordinance, but by action taken by the Board. He has spoken with Mr. David Tice, of the Planning Commission, who suggested language could be written in the Comprehensive Plan to indicate that the residential areas in these neighborhoods are built-out after Still Meadows is built. He requested that the Board take such action. Mr. Jim Gillespie, a member of the Raintree Homeowners Association, said he appreciates the time the developer spent with them. Regarding the prof- fers, he said he has a problem with the quantity of information provided. It is hard to see what the County's alternatives are when no one knows what R-1 would look like. The developer never presented an R-1 plan for compari- son. At the meeting with the homeowners, Mr. Wineberg said the Albemarle County School system already has the capacity to absorb the additional students. He disagreed, saying the budget is a desperate attempt to meet the needs of a burgeoning population. These are not starter homes and most people will probably have one to one-and-a-half school-aged children. The proffer of $1,000 per lot does not add up to much, and he suggested it be $1,500 per lot. March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) Ms. Maxine Riddle, a resident of Carrsbrook Drive, spoke regarding the proffer of seeking an alternative entrance to the property. She believes the developer plans to build the road next to her property. She said no one contacted her regarding her objections. She expressed concern and objections to the road being built next to her property because she believes it will devalue her property and reduce her enjoyment of her home. With no one else present to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. Mr. Bowerman said this has been a long, emotional process for all involved. He expressed appreciation to individuals in the community who tried to work with the developer, members of adjoining homeowners associations, and the developer, for being willing to listen to the concerns of the community regarding an infill site. Because completed communities are being accessed by new ones, this will set a precedence in regards to infill development. In this case, concerns of neighbors were addressed by the developer. This is a reasonable application which reflects the fact that utilities are available, and there is now a grudging acceptance by neigh_bors. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve ZMA-97-01 as proffered by the apPlicant, dated February 27, 1998 and signed by Mr. Scott A. Williams. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, M~. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. The proffer statement is as follows: AMENDED AND RESTATED PROFFER STATEMENT CRESENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, L.L.C. REZONING APPLICATION: ZMA-97-01 FEBRUARY 27, 1998 Crescent Development Group, L.L.C, is the contract purchaser, Ollie L. Fitzgerald, Jr. and Florence L. Fitzgerald, Still Meadow Land Trust and Jane Williamson are the owners of that certain property located in Albemarle County (the "County") described in rezoning application ZMA-97-01 as Tax Map 46 Parcel 21 and portions of Tax Map 45B2 Parcels 2 and 4 (the "Property"). The contract purchaser and the owners, and their respective successors and assigns are hereinafter, collectively, referred to as the "Owners". Owners hereby voluntarily proffer that if the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the ~Board,,) to the planned residential development (the "PRD"), development of the Property shall be in accordance with the plan submitted herewith last revised September 18, 1997, entitled ~'Preliminary Plan Showing Lots 1 Thru 155 Still Meadow, Rio Magiste- rial District, Albemarle County, Virginia" prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates (the ~Plan"), and shall be subject to the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended (the ~Code"), and applicable provisions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the ~'Ordinance"). All references to numbered lots are to those lots as numbered on the Plan. If Owners' rezoning application is denied, these proffers shall be immediately null and void and of no further force or effect. All of these proffers are offered voluntarily pursuant to the Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code. The proffers herein shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to apply lesser standards than those contained in any: (I) state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards, or (ii) County ordinance or regulation, including the Ordinance, except as permitted by the regulations of the PRD Zoning District. These proffers shall supersede all other proffers made prior hereto. Protective Covenants. Prior to or concurrent with the recordation of a subdivision plat approved by the County and before the conveyance of any portion of the Property covered by said subdivi- sion plat (other than for the dedication of easements, roads or utilities), Owners shall record a document (the ~Protective Covenants") in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, setting forth controls on the develop- March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) 000045 ment and requirements for maintenance of such portions of the Property and any Common Areas or facilities included therein and at a minimum as set forth herein; Clearing. To the extent reasonably practicable, as determined by the director of Planning and Community Development or his designee, at the time of development the clearing of mature trees on residential lots shall be limited to trees in areas required to accommodate the structure and its normal and customary accesso- ries, open yard areas and those limited areas required to permit utility services, storm drainage facilities and driveways. Any such trees which have been saved may not be cleared by any future owner of any lot without the consent of the Architectural Control Committee of the Homeowners Association provided for in the Protective Covenants. To the extent reasonably practicable, as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Development or his designee, at the time of development the clearing of mature trees (no less than six inches (6") in caliper measured two feet (2') above ground level) in common areas shall be limited to trees in areas required to accommodate pedestrian paths, playing fields, drainage facilities and other open areas, and those limited areas required to permit utility services and driveways. The primary responsibility for the implementation and compliance with this Proffered Condition shall rest with the Homeowners Association provided for in the Protective Covenants; Rivanna River Green Belt. Owners shall reserve a one hundred (100) foot wide area along the boundary of the Property and adjacent to the Rivanna River (the ~Green Belt"). No structural improvements (other than pedestrian and riding trails and utili- ties) shall be constructed or erected within the Green Belt without the consent of the County. The Green Belt shall be preserved in its current condition except for general beautifica- tion measures including, but not limited to the clearing of underbrush, removal of dead trees and shrubs, and clean up along the river. Owners may grant, across the Green Belt, utility easements, and access easements to the Rivanna River for the residents of the development and their guests, and may, at their option, build pedestrian and riding trails or similar recreational uses. At such time as the County decides to establish along the Rivanna River a public area Or park within the Green Belt, and upon a request by the County, Owners shall convey the fee simple title to the Green Belt to the County without monetary consider- ation provided the uses allowed for utilities, and pedestrian and riding trails or other uses identified in this Proffer 3 are reserved in the deed. The Green Belt may continue to be main- tained by Owners of the Property; however, in the absence of such maintenance, Albemarle County at its option or nay public agency or authority designated by the County may maintain the one hundred (100)-foot-wide Green Belt. Owners shall provide public access to the deeded Green Belt and two (2) visitor parking spaces as shown on the approved subdivision plat. The current condition will be documented with photographs or videotape; and Water Quality Concept Plan. In order to assure water quality in excess of normal water detention requirements, Owners will imple- ment the following three (3) tier Water Quality Concept Plan: Storm water detention facilities will utilize BMP Design Criteria to filter storm water, which shall include but not be limited to facilities designed to accommodate one half (~) inch of storage per acre of ultimate development imper- vious area in drainage area; sediment forebays; aquatic benches; and such features as may be approved by the Engi- neering Department. These facilities are shown generally on the plan as Area A, Area B and Area C. Water quality basins to filter the storm water that is not required to be detained shall be constructed with the same BMP Design Criteria as stated in subparagraph a. above and as shown generally on the plan as Area D. March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) 000046 In addition to the existin9 fifty (50) foot buffer along the Rivanna River, Owners shall provide an additional fifty (50) feet of buffer, making such buffer one hundred (100) feet in the aggregate and will consist of riparian trees and shrubs pursuant to plantin9 plan approved by the Engineering De- partment. These facilities are shown 9enerally on the plan as Area E. A riparian buffer of approximately thirty (30) feet will be planted along the stream as shown 9enerally on the plan as Area F. The buffer will consist of riparian trees and shrubs pursuant to planting plan approved by the Engineering Department. A man-made wetland area will be built to act as a regional water quality facility. The wetland area will filter storm water from this sit as well as many up-stream properties, and is 9enerally shown on the plan as Area G. Either a level spreader or a bio-retention area will be built to control water quality for water not bein9 detained. This facility is generally shown on the plan as Area H. This Water Quality Concept Plan has been designed to comply with the County's proposed Water Protection Ordinance, shall be imple- mented pursuant to a design subject to the approval of the Engi- neerin9 Department, can only be modified with the approval of the Engineerin9 Department, and future maintenance of the aforesaid facilities shall be subject to inspection by the Engineerin9 Department; 5 o Critical Slopes. The engineer preparin9 the subdivision plan shall designate the areas of critical slope on the subdivision plat prior to construction of a residence on the applicable lots. The engineer will designate on the final plat as 'Restricted Areas" the portions of lots 96 through 142 as are currently shown on the Plan, by limitin9 the use of the critical slope areas through the Protective Covenants. The Protective Covenants shall limit the removal of live trees within the Restricted Areas, but shall allow for the construction of utility lines and laterals; 6o Buffer Areas. A natural and/or landscaped buffer area a minimum of seventy (70) feet in width, the rear most forty (40) feet of which shall be included in common area, shall be maintained across the rear lot lines of lots 1-15 inclusive as shown on the Plan, adjoinin9 Northfields and Westmoreland Subdivisions. This buffer shall remain in an undisturbed condition except for the removal of trees and other vegetation required for the installation of a sanitary sewer line in the sanitary sewer easement, for improve- ments as may be required by the County or any other governmental body as a condition of subdivision approval, and for essential utilities. Within the sanitary sewer easement, existing trees and other vegetation may be removed, and fall, diseased or dead trees and other vegetation shall be removed. The removal of trees and other vegetation within the sanitary sewer easement shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in width. The removal of trees and other vegetation not within9 the Sanitary sewer easement shall be limited to the minimum extent necessary to provide for the re- quired improvements or essential utilities. Any trees or other vegetation removed shall be replaced, if permitted by the appro- priate departments of the County. The substance of this Proffer shall be included as a restriction in the Protective covenants referred to in Proffer 1. The Home- owners Association shall monitor and enforce compliance with this restriction. The owners of the lots in Northfields and Westmoreland Subdivisions which adjoin lots 1-15, inclusive, as shown on the Plan, shall specifically be identified as third party beneficiaries of this restriction, and shall have the right under the Protective covenants to enforce this restriction; Lot Width. Lots 1-15 inclusive as shown on the Plan adjoining Northfields and Westmoreland Subdivisions shall be at least equal March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) . ..... i ........ 000047 in width to the rear lot lines of the lots they abut in Northfields and Westmoreland Subdivisions as shown on the Plan; Pedestrian Paths. Owners agree to construct with each phase of development asphalt-paved pedestrian paths four (4) feet in width on one side of roads A, B, C (to road D), D (to road F), F, and G, and for two (2) pedestrian access easements to the Open Space. Said roads are shown on the Plan. Owners will construct the asphalt-paved pedestrian paths from road A to Carrsbrook Drive and Northfields Road provided the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion (VDoT) approves the paths to be constructed within the road rights-of-way; 10. Underground Utility Lines. Except for junction boxes, meters and existing overhead utility lines and wetlands, if any, all utility lines, to the extent reasonably practical, shall be underground; Chimneys. No chimneys or gas vent units shall be cantilevered. The exposed portions of all fireplace chimneys shall be brick or of a siding similar to the exterior treatment of the residence. This Proffer shall not apply to direct vent gas fireplaces or appliances. The exposed bases of all chimneys shall be of the same material as the residence foundation; 11. Foundations. The exposed exterior portions of exterior residence foundations shall be constructed o brick or natural stone; pro- vided, however, the exposed portions of exterior residence founda- tions may be constructed of drivit or stucco if applied to a masonry surface, provided that the exterior walls of such resi- dence are primarily of drivit or stucco; 12. Residence Parking. Each residence shall have a two-(2) car garage; 13. Recreation Areas. The proposed Recreation Areas as shown on the Plan shall be completed no later than the completion of the second phase of development; 14. Traffic Signal. Owners shall, upon written request therefor, contribute ten thousand two hundred dollars ($10,200.00) toward the cost of the traffic signal installed at the intersection of Rio Road and Old Brook Road. Payment will be made at the time of final approval of the first phase subdivision plat; 15. 16. Pavement Striping. Owners shall improve the geometrics of lanes by adding additional pavement markings within the existing right- of-way at the intersections of Old Brook Road and Carrsbrook Drive, Rio Road and Old Brook Road, Rio Road and Northfields Road and Rio Road and Huntington Road and will provide additional pavement markings recommended in that letter from VDoT to Mr. Bill Fritz, Department of Planning and Community Development dated May 5, 197. Owners will complete these pavement markings to the satisfaction of VDoT prior to final plat approval of the one- hundredth (100th) lot in the project. This Proffer shall not be construed to require Owners to provide additional right-of-way or paving on any of the roads where said striping will be provided; Phasing Plan. No more than forty (40) residential certificates of occupancy {"C.O.'s") shall be requested in any twelve (12) consec- utive months period following the final approval of the prelimi- nary subdivision plat. Such calculation shall be made on a cumulative basis so that any lesser number of C.O.'s in any such period may be carried over and added to the number of C.O.'s permitted in any subsequent period or periods; 17. Cash Payment. Owners shall make a cash payment to the County for facility improvements and impacts related to the residential development requested herein within the service district for the Property as designated by the Capital Improvement Program for schools which serve the Rio Magisterial District. The amount of such payment shall be equal to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per single family house lot. Such payment shall be due at the time of final plat approval on a section-by-section basis for the March 4, 1998 (Regular DaY Meeting) (Page 25) 000048 number of residential lots included in such plat. If at any time it is determined by the County that any of such funds are not required for such purposes or if any of such funds are not ex- pended for the purposes designated by the Capital Improvement Program within ten (10) years from the date of payment, such excess shall be distributed to the Albemarle County School Board for capital funds purposes anywhere in the County; 18. Playing Field. In order to reduce the impact of the development on the Parks and Recreation Department, the approximately fifty- five (55) acres of open area shall be developed at a minimum for an all-purpose playing field no less than a regulation-size soccer field for the use of residents of Still Meadows and their guests as shown on the Plan no later than the completion of the second phase of development and shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association provided for in the Protective Covenants; 19. Number of Lots. Notwithstanding the number of lots shown on the Plan, no more than one hundred thirty-five (135) lots shall be developed on the Property; 20. Berms. An undulating, landscaped, earthen berm between three (3) feet and six 96) feet in height shall be developed along the rear of Lots 128 through 135, inclusive, and Lots 145 through 154, inclusive, to provide privacy and screening for the residents of such lots; 21. Exterior Lighting at Recreation Areas. Any exterior lighting fixtures at the Recreation Areas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height as measured from the grade at the base of the lighting standard, shall be produced from concealed sources of light (i.e., shoe box type), and shall not exceed one-half (~) foot candle at the boundaries of the Property; 22. Severance. The unenforceability, elimination, revision or amend- ment of any Proffer set forth herein, in who or in party, shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the other proffers or the unaffected part of any such proffer; 23. Signatory. These Proffers shall run with the Property and each reference to Owners within these Proffers shall mean the then current owner of the Property or portion thereof and shall be binding upon, Owners' successor(s) in interest and/or the devel- oper of the Property or any portion of the Property; 24. Homeowners Association. Carrsbrook, Westmoreland and Northfields Subdivisions shall be entitled to appoint one voting member from each subdivision to serve on the Board of Directors of the Still Meadows Homeowners Association provided for in the Protective covenants, so long as there is any undeveloped lot in Still Meadows Subdivision; 25. Participation in Traffic Calming Measures. Owners shall partici- pate with Carrsbrook, Westmoreland and Northfields Subdivisions in seeking assistance from the County and V/DoT in implementing traffic calming measures in the immediate area including, but not limited to, Carrsbrook Drive, Old Brook Road, Westmoreland Road, Northfields Road and Huntington Road. Traffic calming measures may include, but are not limited to, seeking the reduction of speed limits, establishment of four-waY stops, increased Surveil- lance and ticketing by police. Such participation shall include paying for the cost of four-way stop signs upon thirty (30) days prior written notice by the County to do so, within three (3) years from the acceptance of these Proffers by the Board, if such four-way stop signs are required as part of the traffic calming measures and are not paid for by VDoT; and 26. Alternate Access. Owners agree to use reasonable efforts to purchase sufficient right-of-way from Clarence Wetzel and the house and lot from the owner o the property located at the terminum of Westmoreland Road to accommodte the relocation of the proposed entrance from Carrsbrook Drive to its intersection with Westmoreland Road, provided said properties can be obtained at March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) 000049 commercially reasonable prices and all required governmental and legal approvals can be obtained for such relocation. No assurance can or is given that such properties can be obtained or that such entrance can be relocated. Ms. Humphris expressed her appreciation for everyone's cooperation with this application. Ms. Thomas asked about Ms. Riddle's concerns. Mr. Bowerman said the likelihood of obtaining a different easement is moot. In the event that an easement is required, the concern would be on the table, and regardless of where the access is, it will be between two homes. The applicant is willing to buffer and to screen in agreement with neighbors. He added that he appreciated Mr. Rice's comments that the Comprehensive Plan in this area is pretty well finished. Ms. Thomas said this sets a good precedence. These are good proffer examples that have raised expectations of developers. Mr. Davis said many of these are real proffers, not "just for show". Mr. Marshall said the Fiscal Impact Module is where the figures regard- ing the potention impact on schools comes from. He expressed appreciation for the cooperation of everyone involved. Agenda Item No. 20. Appeal: SDP-97-110. Ivy Landfill Final Site Plan. Mr. Marshall said this is not a public hearing. It is an appeal filed by Mr. Ed Strange. (Mr. Martin left at 4:00 p.m. to attend the DAIS meeting.) Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said the Rivanna Solid Waste Author- ity's (RSWA) goal is to implement option 7-A, primarily the construction of a transfer station and other landfill-related improvements. He showed a map of the site, which was reviewed for two site plans, one for a recreational area with a new entrance on Route 637, and one for a transfer station area. There is no proposal for developing a natural area at this time. Nor is the area still used by the Landfill affected. He mentioned the public was concerned about this issue. This is a point-in-time plan, not an end-use plan. The RSWA still obtains several permits from DEQ, and the gas collection still remains to be designed and installed. The Planning Commission conducted three reviews and took the following actions: 1) recommended approval of the transfer station plan subject to numerous conditions, 2) recommended the recreational area site plan be approved subject to conditions, and 3) unani- mous agreement that the recreational area is in compliance with the Comprehen- sive Plan with the understanding that recreational use will be part of a Board of Supervisors' approved master plan that includes the final mitigation measures, the final grades, and the stormwater management plan for the entire property, and addresses future uses for the entire property. Mr. Ed Strange, an adjoining property owner, said he addressed the Planning Commission on February 23, 1998. He said prior to the meeting he overhead staff saying to a couple at the counter, ~We only have one landfill and it is closing this summer." He said this is a misrepresentation, because the landfill will be bigger. Misrepresentation is what is getting people angry. He said he was told in 1969 that the Landfill would be closed. Regarding transfer stations, he said they should be for citizen-use only to ensure they stay small. Since a local business, BFI, closes at noon on Saturdays, haulers will take trash to Ivy, and the site will increase. He said SDP-97-110 is a site plan, not the master and final plan. Even as a site development plan, it only covers part of the site and does not provide much of the information needed. A gas capture plan was not submitted, so there is no commitment, nor is there one with a sewer line. He does not think it will be built. He said a gas capture plan must be in place before children play on the Landfill. He said no buffers appear on the site development plan. The Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan states that a sanitary landfill should be on a site visually buffered, through vegetation, from residential and commercial uses, and from any roadway in the vicinity of the facility. Sanitary landfill activities, location of cells, transporting, dumping, bulldozing, etc., must occur at least 750 feet from existing or planned residences, schools or parks. This proposal violates the guidelines, and the March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 000050 new cell will further violate it. He said Cell 4 should not be built. If DEQ enforced its own rules, it would be declared an open dump and shut down. This does not relieve the Board of Supervisors from their responsibility. He asked that the Landfill be shut down completely. If the RSWA does damage, taxes will have to pay to repair it. This operation will risk public money, for a projected $340,000, which will be split between the City and County. The payoff is a small amount of money, with a whole lot of risk. When Rivanna goes into business they will be in competition with experts in this area, and historically, government has not done well in the business world. Mr. David Booth said the Ivy site is not visually buffered from private residences as required by the Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan. Sanitary activities are to be located at least 750 feet from any park, and the proposed child lot is only 200 feet away from the most offensive composite pile, and the proposed playing fields are only about that far from the truck transfer station. CDD landfill operations are also within 750 feet of the park. This proposal violates the Comprehensive Plan. The Solid Waste Organization Agreement dated in 1990 states this will be a regional system. There has been no change to the organizational agreement. A mini-transfer station for the Ivy site will be a regional transfer station tomorrow unless the Board imposes limits that preclude commercial users. He would welcome a convenience center to users in the western area of the community, but it should not be open up to the public in general. The Board does not have a final plan for the site, which is expanding. The Board should make clear its intent to expand the Ivy site by 40 acres and by over 60 years, or twice the length of time the ~'temporary" site has been open, particularly since the Planning Commission recently told a citizen the Ivy site is closing. Many items were not included in the plan, including end uses for the site, maximum final grades over the entire site, details of what the low budget transfer station will look like, details of the industrial truck wash rack, treatment of the cemeteries on-site, the location for the appliances stored for months at a time, the location of the industrial wood grinding operation, etc. The RSWA plans do not clearly show the spring in the proposed burrow area or the intent to fill in the top of the spring. The 1992 Comprehensive Plan criteria for the review of potential landfill sites states they should not be located within a watershed if possible. It is possible to protect the watershed by disallowing the RSWA to put landfill materials on top of springs not shown in the plans. Plans do not show details of the gas capturing control system or its stack. There are no details on ground water remediation techniques that will require discharge into the headwaters of the watershed. He asked the Board to take responsibility for its legacy. Children's activities should not be mingled with solid waste. Ms. Cynthia Dupree said for three years there have been many misunder- standings between residents and the RSWA. This has occurred because of different perspectives. The RSWA defines "buffer" to be a horizontal distance between the edge of a garbage cell and a property line. Neighbors call a ~buffer" a visual screening and sound buffer, which is not what has been proposed. RSWA says a ~mini-transfer station" is a low-cost operation that has a large maximum capacity, and which could serve the region. Neighbors say it is a small station with a small footprint. Closing the Landfill, to the RSWA, means reducing the rate of expansion. Neighbors said closing means stopping all waste burial and related activities. Regarding the final height being 700 feet above sea level, as recommended by the Board of Supervisors, RSWA defines "final height" to be the projected elevation at the edge of the Landfill cap, after it has settled for an undetermined amount of time. Neighbors define it as the top elevation at the highest point of a capped cell before settling has occurred. It is evident that the two sides of the issue are hardly speaking the same language. County officials and realtors made promises, which were actually only soothing words which may well be inter- preted as promises. She said the final site development plan submitted by the RSWA, is only a partial site plan. She asked for a comprehensive final site plan which delineates for the entire site all final uses, final elevations, final slopes, and all final land form shapes. She further asked that 700 feet above sea level be specified as the highest elevation in the center of a cell before settlement, require in writing that cell contours should vary, that three-to-one slopes should be the very steepest, and that the plan should reflect the character of the surrounding landscape. There is no reason to have a regional transfer station. She asked that the Board of Supervisors specify that the size of the transfer station be reduced so that it cannot be made regional. The gas system should be oversized so that neighbors do not have to suffer from off-gassing. It is inappropriate to insert soccer fields into a piecemeal plan; they should be incorporated into the final site plan. March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) 00005 Mr. Marshall said Albemarle County is 900 feet above sea level. Ms. Dupree said the projection is 700 feet above sea level. Other Board members said it varies throughout the County. Mr. Marshall said the average is 900 feet. Ms. Thomas said what is being discussed is the top of mounds. Ms. Susan Bocheck said this is not a dialogue. Several neighbors asked her to speak for them. Mr. Jack Marshall, who spoke to the Planning Commis- sion at its last meeting, said the Planning Commission should pay attention to the well-being of all County residents rather than be influenced by narrow interests. She said she is a citizen who votes and pays taxes and does not have narrow interests. She expects protection of the water and air like anyone else. She urged the Board of Supervisors to protect all of the citizens in the County, not some at the expense of others, which is the current situation. She is concerned about the aeration of organic volatiles coming out of the polluted ground water, because they enter the air. This is becoming a "George Orwill" nightmare that she has to deal with 24 hours a day. She has been told this is partial closure, but the Landfill is actually expanding. Mr. Marshall commented that this is an appeal, not a public hearing. Ms. Thomas suggested that someone else in the audience could give Ms. Bocheck their time so that she could continue. Mr. Marshall permitted Ms. Bocheck to continue. She said she hears about the private sector all the time. She wants to know why the County feels it is their duty to provide private contractors with a place for their CDD's. The RSWA claimed no off- site pollution would take place, but there is pollution. Mr. David Booth had the water tested at his own expense. RSWA's response was to offer to buy the land. DEQ stopped dynamiting. The Board of Supervisors should have a healthy skepticism of the RSWA's recommendations. The County must either pay now or pay later. There is no easy answer, but there is a right answer. She asked that the dump be closed and cleaned up. Mr. Dale Copeland said there are moral and environmental reasons to completely close the Landfill. When the Board voted not to continue with MSW, some of the moral and environmental reasons were important. He asked the Board to remember when they made the original decision not to go with MSW. There were financial reasons. There are financial advantages to transferring CDD. One problem with MSW was that new cells had to be built. Construction of new cells costs $3.0 million each. That meant that as the waste stream began to fall, it became expensive to have these very large cells. With CDD, there is a similar problem. While the construction of the new cell is a little less expensive, it is still $1.5 million to be paid up-front. If the goal amount of 32,000 tons of CDD per year is not reached, the facility loses money. He asked what are the contingencies. What if it only takes in 24,000 tons per year? Profits will be reduced, and the Environmental Contingency Fund will be affected. The problem is that there is a crossover point where transferring CDD and MSW becomes more viable in terms of total profit after tonnage has dropped below a certain level. Mr. Copeland concluded by saying that the Board should not say 32,000 tons is what the Plan said and accept it There should be contingencies if the tonnage changes. Without the downside, the Board cannot know what the alternatives are. Mr. Michael Weber, who lives in the City, said if the Board accepts the Planning CommisSion,s recommendation, the Comprehensive Plan should be negotiated and made binding and reasonable to everyone. Current problems came about because people have different expectations. Mr. David Millhoan said the Board of Supervisors cannot doubt everything landfill management presents to them. The original maximization plan that was to be presented to the Planning Commission in the spring of 1995 showed final elevations for the three mounds of encapsulated garbage to be 910 feet. The RSWA said it would never get that high. He asked why it was put on the plans if there is no intention of the garbage reaching that height. He asked if this is an easily lowered bargaining chip. Also in 1995, he had asked if contaminates were lighter, and the Planning Commission said they were, but they are actually heavier. Either the respondents were ignorant, or they lied. Regardless, this makes one distrust RSWA management. Mr. Jim Baber, a member of the Board of Directors of the Soccer Organi- zation of Charlottesville/Albemarle, urged approval of the Planning Commis- March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Me'ting) (Page 29) 000052 sion's proposal. At present, virtually every public playing facility is overused. The need for fields in this area is well-documented. Problems of overuse would not be addressed by restricting participation, but by adding more facilities. By approving the plan, the County will be taking a step toward resolution of the space shortage. He views conversion of part of the Landfill into playing fields as advantageous to the participants. He is not an environmental expert, so he relies on the Board of Supervisors to monitor safety. Separation of the vehicular and operational entrances is a beneficial feature. The separation of the operational facilities from the playing field by use of grading, fences and planting will allow the use of fields without fear of interfering with the operation of the Landfill. The times when the fields would be scheduled for use will not generally coincide with waste management operations, and the gas collection system will provide acceptable air quality. He trusts that proper actions will be taken to monitor any actions that threaten public safety. Ms. Patty Cohen said when the Ivy Steering Committee began working on this plan, they talked with other localities who had closed landfills. The public has followed the rules, but have not been given a real public meeting where there is dialogue. They have not tried to disrupt operations or harass the Board. The public should be rewarded for their restraint. If the Board does not close the Landfill, she suggested it should at least give the public a hearing that is not moderated. At this time Mr. Marshall closed the hearing to public comments. He is not personally unsympathetic to the residents. He tries to do what he thinks is right for the community, but has to live within constraints. He agreed that people buying homes in that area had been "screwed" by realtors. The Board never officially promised the Landfill would be closed in 1969. No vote on that matter was ever taken. Some Board members may have made that promise individually, but it was not done as a group. He is uninformed and so are other Board members. Ms. Thomas said the Board of Supervisors was not reconsidering its decision concerning Option 7A; rather, it must make decisions about the plans in front of them. In two-and-one-half years the County will look at the construction debris site. Staff is working on the full cost of the handling of solid waste. The Planning Commission has good ideas, and Ms. Thomas suggested the Board of Supervisors follow the advice provided them. One question is whether recreational use of this site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Thomas then moved that, "the Board of Supervisors agree with the Planning Commission that recreational use at the proposed site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, being an opportunity for cost-effective use/reuse of public land, but, as staff recommended, no County expenditures should occur until the Board has made a positive finding under §5.1.14 of the Zoning Ordinance, which has to do with the gas management system, and as the Planning Commission recommended, the recreational use will be part of a Board-approved Master Plan that includes the extent and final contours of the grading, tops and slopes of all the cells and proposed cells before settlement, storm water management plan and mitigation measures for the entire property and which addresses future uses for the entire property. Mitigation measures include location and description of the treatment of gas, surface water and ground water, springs, and streams and monitoring mechanisms. The plan must show buffers and plans for management and preserva- tion of the buffers and limits of disturbance within buffers. Also to be included are plans for plantings and land forms to reduce visual impacts and enhance the long-term appearance for it to look as much as possible like indigenous pasture land. The detailed Master Plan must be approved by the Board of Supervisors, with citizen participation. The Board also recognizes that permitting of landfill-related activities such as ground-water remediation and gas management rests in the hands of DEQ and we cannot preempt that responsibility." Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) 000053 Regarding the site plan that includes the Landfill entrance area, Ms. Thomas said this plan is much more desirable than a windy knoll, which would have dominated the view as drivers drove down Gillams Mountain Road and for some of the homes in Peacock Hill Subdivision and Melvern Farm, which was originally proposed. Ms. Thomas next moved that, "The site plan which includes the Landfill entrance, 'encore' center, composting area, MSW transfer station and gas management area should be approved so that burial of MSW at the Ivy Landfill can stop on schedule this summer, but approval is subject to the following conditions, as recommended by the Planning Commission, with a few amendments: a) Engineering Department approval of an erosion plan; b) Engineering Department approval of the location, design and operation of the tire wash facility to prevent off-site tracking of mud from unpaved roadways; c) Engineering Department approval of leachate containment measures for the MSW transfer station and composing operation if Engineer- ing Department finds that to be necessary; d) Engineering Department approval of the active aeration system or other process used to capture or reduce any offensive odors associated with composting operations at this site, (this was not one of the items the Planning Commission listed, but she said the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has said there will be an active aeration system at that site); and e) Engineering Department approval of method of MSW transfer to ensure that transfer activity is designed and managed so as to reduce wind-blown debris and exposure to precipitation, thereby minimizing the volume of leachate and minimizing the danger, nuisance, or unsightliness to adjoining property or activities. (She said, as an aside, this does not require a building for the transfer operations, which is something that many people think would be desirable. The Option 7A decision effectively precludes that option, because it does not provide the funding, other than this truck-to-truck transfer system. If that is an error, it rests firmly on the shoulders of the Board of Supervisors and City Council. If this system is unsatisfactory, the Board and Council will have to return to that decision. She regards reconsideration of' construction debris burial after 2.5 years of operation as an opportunity to do so.); f) Planning staff approval of strong measures to prevent uncovered vehicles from entering or using the Landfill, including, but not limited to, approval of a sign regarding state and Albemarle County Code (since Albemarle County Code is actually stricter than State Code) applicable to loads being or secured in vehicles. The sign shall be approved as to location and wording by the Planning staff and shall be considered as a sign as required by the Plan- ning Commission under ~32.7.8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; g) Planning staff approval of landscaping/buffering measures of landfill improvements from Route 637, Dick Wood's Road, so as to shield from passing autos the sight of the transferring opera- tions.'' (She said this can be done with the type of plantings that are there now, but they must be planted denser.) h) V/DoT approval of any landscaping materials within the public road right-of-way; i) demonstration to the County of Attorney of compliance with all applicable provisions of the Code of Virginia as related to cemeteries and places of burial of the dead; j) Engineering Department approval of a Stormwater Management Plan consistent with ~32.7.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; and k) review and approval by the Facilities Management subcommittee of the RSWA Citizens Advisory Committee of compost-mixing building's and gas management silo's external appearance, color and design. The Board of Supervisors has reserved reconsideration of the transfer of CDD after 2.5 years. The Board may require installation of a left-turn lane to serve the site at that time or at an earlier date upon determination by VDoT that warrants have been satisfied." Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) 0000.54 Mr. Bowerman asked if the conditions have been reviewed with staff. Ms. Thomas replied, "Yes, the review took place today." She added that the Planning Commission approved the preliminary site plan for recreational use. Ms. Thomas moved that the Board defer approval of the preliminary site plan submitted for recreational uses (with its curvilinear parking), at least until the Master Plan has been approved by the Board. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Ms. Thomas said delayed approval would also allow the Board to see the transfer station and composting activities, etc., in operation and.determine suitability of land next to these operations to be in active recreation. It will be easier to judge when the Board can see it for itself rather than imagining it. A deferral requires the applicant's agreement, and she does not anticipate any disagreement. Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, said the issue is the length of delay and when other things would be in place, because the End Use Plan would take some time to develop. Ms. Thomas said she anticipates the Master Plan would be worked on in the next few months. The CIP does not allow money for the development of fields and a road for a year or two. These conditions would therefore not delay the process. Mr. Arthur Petrini, of the RSWA, said the Master Plan would not be ready in a matter of a few months. DEQ has to approve mitigation measures. If the Master Plan says mitigation measures have to adhere to DEQ regulations and approval, that could be written now, and the issue would be solved. If the Board wants to see what is approved, it will not be known until it is ap- proved, which could take six months to two years. Mr. Mullaney said the timeline called for the area to be completed by the spring of 1999, including installing the gas system; and grading and seeding. They had planned to build the year after that for seeding of the area. They then proposed adding another year to test to make sure the gas collection system is working properly, as they do not want kids playing on the area until it is safe. They do not propose spending money on the roadway until have one year's data on the gas collection system. That pushes use of the field back to the fall of 2000. Mr. Steve Chidsey, of the RSWA, said it depends on the level of detail the Board is looking for regarding the remediation activity and the progress of DEQ. If the Board is referring to the physical structures, that is achievable. However, if it is referring to permits and final assessment and corrective measures to be approved, that is on a timeline his office does not control. vote: Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. (Mr. Bowerman left at 5:08 p.m.) Ms. Thomas said that no actions tonight guarantee what the neighbors will like. She would like to explore making the detailed Master End Use Plan a part of the Comprehensive Plan. That is not a guarantee, but it is the best thing she can propose. It would require a separate hearing and a separate process, and it would not be something that could be "snuck in". It would provide one more level of assurance than otherwise. Mr. Cilimberg said he will talk with the County Attorney about this issue. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 5:10 p.m.) Ms. Thomas said at some point the Board has to deal with the fact that the Zoning Ordinance states that the County cannot approve recreational use until it is assured that the gas handling system is adequate. This will happen sometime after the Master Plan has been approved. It can even happen after the gas handling system is in the ground. Therefore, no County expendi- tures within the CIP can occur until the Board has made a positive finding under Section 5.1.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. Approved by Board Date Initials t~ March 4, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32 ) 0000.,.55 Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. With no further buSiness, the meeting was adjourned at 5:16 p.m. hai~man ~