Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1998-06-03
0O0275 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 3, 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 (arrived at 9:05 a.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of SilenCe. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were no other matters brought to the Board this date. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.10 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Item 5.1. Adopt Resolution for the addition and abandonment of Route 671 due to the construction of Millington Bridge. Letter dated May 14, 1998, had been received from Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator, Virginia Department of Transportation, requesting the Board to adopt a resolution for the addition and abandonment for Route 671 due to the construction of Millington Bridge (Project ~0671-002-191,C501,B646) . By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, with a sketch dated May 4, 1998, depicting the abandonment required in the secondary system of state highways as a result of the construction of Project #0671-002- 191,C501,B646, which sketch is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the portion of the old road identified on the sketch as Section 1 to be abandoned is deemed to no longer serve public need; and WHEREAS, the portion of road identified on the sketch as Section 2 is to be added to the secondary system; and WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as that portion of old road identified to be abandoned; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby abandons as part of the secondary system of state highways that portion of Route 671 identified as Section 1, a distance of 0.04 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-155, of the Code of Virginia, and hereby adds that portion identified as Section 2 to the secondary system, a distance of 0.04 miles pursuant to Section 33.1-229, of the Code of Virginia; and June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) ~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. 000276 Item 5.2. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of up to $4.0 million in Revenue Bonds by the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) for Our Lady of Peace, Inc. It was noted in the staff's report that Our Lady of Peace, Inc., is requesting approval of $4.0 million of revenue bonds by the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority to finance the construction of the Alzheimer's Center as a 24-bed special care facility addition to the existing residential facility for the elderly. The IDA held a public hearing and adopted a Resolution on May 27, 1998, to approve the proposed financing. The. Internal Revenue Code requires that the County approve the proposed financing in order for the revenue bonds to be treated as tax-exempt private activity bonds. No public hearing is required except for the public hearing held by the IDA. County approval of the proposed financing does not constitute an endorsement of the bonds and does not create any liability for the County in regard to the issuance or payment of the bonds. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution approving the issuance of up to $4.0 million of revenue bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County to finance the construction of the Alzheimer's Center as an addition to the existing Our Lady of Peace residential facility for the elderly. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Our Lady of Peace, Inc. WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), has considered the application of Our Lady of Peace, Inc. (the "Corporation"), requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount estimated not to exceed $4,000,000 (the "Bonds"), to finance the construction and equipping of an Alzheimer's Center addition (the "Project") to the Corporation's existing facility for the residence and care for the aged known as Our Lady of Peace (the "Facility") and located in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the Authority on May 27, 1998, held a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("the Tax Code"), and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Virginia Code"), provide that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of industrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Albe- marle County, Virginia (the "County"), the Facility is located in the County, and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Board"), constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County; and WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the issuance of the Bonds have been filed with the Board; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Corporation, as required by Section 147(f) of the Tax Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 000Z?? (Page 3) Virginia Code to permit the Authority to issue bonds for the purpose set forth above. 2. Approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 147(f) of the Tax Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code, does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Corporation. As required by Section 15.2-4909 of the Virginia Code, as amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County or the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Item 5.3. Adopt Resolution Supporting ~A Child At Play" signs on Jester Lane in Camelot Subdivision. It was noted in the staff's report that the residents of Jester Lane (Route 1508) have requested that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) install three ~Child At Play" signs on Jester Lane in the Camelot subdivision. Jester Lane is approximately 0.27 miles long and has many homes with young children. The residents have contacted the Planning staff and requested three ~Child At Play" signs and have submitted a petition to demonstrate support for the signs. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution for VDOT to install three ~Child At Play" signs on Jester Lane (Route 1508). By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the residents on Jester Lane are concerned about traffic on their street and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children at play in the subdivision; and WHEREAS, the residents believe that a ~Child At Play" sign would help to alleviate some of the concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports the community's request for VDOT to install the necessary "Child At Play" signs on Jester Lane {Route 1508). Item 5.4. Adopt Resolution designating Region Ten Community Services Board (CSB) as an operating Community Services Board. It was noted in the staff's report that the 1998 General Assembly adopted H.B. 428 which included a number of new or changed requirements for Community Service Boards (CSBs), many of which were explicitly put into the bill to give local governments the ability to exercise more control over their local CSBs. A summary of the legislation's major points has been furnished to the Board in advance of this meeting. H.B. 428 revises Section 37.1 of the Code of Virginia, which governs the establishment and operation of all CSBs throughout the State. One of the major changes is the requirement that each participating locality designate whether they want their CSB to be an Operating CSB, an Administrative Policy CSB or a Policy Advisory CSB. An Operating CSB, the form under which Region Ten currently functions, is appointed by the member jurisdictions and is responsible for the provision of mental health and mental retardation services though its own staff or through contracts with other providers. 3Ln Operating CSB must submit an independent annual audit to the member jurisdictions and must have a fiscal agent (Albemarle County is Region Ten's fiscal agent). ~tn annual performance contract for community services must also be submitted to the locality for approval prior to its submittal to the State. Additionally, an Operating CSB appoints the executive director and sets his/her salary. In general, an June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 00027S (Page 4) Operating CSB carries out all the policy and administrative functions required in the delivery of mental health and mental retardation services. An Administrative Policy CSB is also appointed by and accountable to the local governing body, however, services are provided by local government staff or through contracts with other organizations and providers. The Administra- tive Policy CSB participates with local government in the appointment and annual performance evaluation of the executive director. The local govern- ment(s) sets the compensation for the executive director. Also, by local agreement, the local government may carry out additional responsibilities, including, but not limited to personnel and financial management. As in the Operating CSB, an annual performance contract must also be approved by the local jurisdictions(s). A Policy Advisory Board is a public body appointed by and accountable to the local governing body(s) to provide advice on policy matters to the local government. A local government(s) department actually provides the mental health and mental retardation services. The local government provides the audit and is responsible for the financial management of the programs. The local government department develops and submits an annual performance contract to the governing bodies. The director of a local government department serves as the executive director, although the Policy Advisory Board may participate in the selection and annual performance evaluation of the executive director. The local department sets the director's compensa- tion. Generally, a department of local government(s) administers all the mental health and mental retardation services, with advice and consultation from the Policy Advisory CSB. Region Ten has submitted a request to Albemarle County to remain an Operating Community Services Board. All of the multi-jurisdictional CSBs, including Region Ten, conform to the definition of an Operating CSB. Local government(s) may change their form of CSB at any time by ordinance, although if the CSB is multi-jurisdictional, all members of the jurisdiction would have to agree. Region Ten will be submitting their Performance Contract to the Board for approval prior to September 15. Staff recommends approval of a Resolution designating Region Ten as an Operating Community Services Board. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution designating Region Ten as an Operating Community Services Board, was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, §37.1-194 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, requires each city and county to establish, singly or in combination, a community services board for the provision of mental health, mental retardation, and substance abuse services to its residents; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County already has established the Region Ten Community Services Board pursuant to this statutory provision; and WHEREAS, §37.1-194 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, further requires each city and county to designate, in consultation with its community services board, this board as an operating community services board, an administrative policy community services board, or a policy-advisory community services board with a local government department; and WHEREAS, the Region Ten Community Services Board conforms to the definition of an operating community services board that is contained in §37.1-194 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Region Ten Community Services Board is hereby designated as an operating community services board with the powers and duties enumerated in §37.1-197.A and §37.1-197.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 000279 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) Item 5.5. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 1998-99 Capital Improvements Budget and Resolution of Official Intent for use of VPSA Bond Proceeds. It was noted in the staff's report that the FY 1998-99 Capital Improvements Budget was approved by the Board on April 15, 1998, in the amount of $10,839,981: $5,221,401 to the General Government Capital Improvements Fund, $213,500 to the Tourism Fund for capital projects, $110,000 to the Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund, and $5,295,080 to the School Division Capital Improvement Fund. On April 27, the School Board approved transferring an additional $50,000 from School Instructional Technology projects in the CIP to School Operations to fund a new Instructional Technology Coordinator position in Information Services. This change effectively reduces the General Fund transfer to the School CIP from $350,000 to $300,000 (with a corresponding $50,000 reduction in instructional technology projects for FY 1998-99). It is anticipated that School CIP funds will be used to fund this position in FY 1999-00, as well. Also included with this request is a resolution for an additional $314,922 for the new Emergency Communications Center (ECC) facility. The County's contribution to this facility was approved by the Board on April 15 as part of the FY 1998-99 Operating budget. The revised Capital Improvements budget totals $19,891,403 and reflects the proposed reduction in the School Division CIP Fund, as well as the additional $314,922 for the ECC facility. The revised School Division CIP budget totals $5,245,080, and the revised General Government CIP Fund totals $5,536,323. The Tourism and Debt Service funds have been appropriated as part of the FY 1998-99 Operating Budget resolution of appropriation. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the FY 1998-99 Capital Improvements Program, and the following Resolution of Intent which allows the County to be reimbursed by VPSA bond proceeds for prior school project expenditures incurred over the Summer: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1999 AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPR0VEMENT~ FUND That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph One ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS $471,977 1. County Computer Upgrade 2. County Facilities Maint/Replacement Projects $200,000 $271,977 $471,977 Paragraph Two FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY $3,909,111 1. Fire/Rescue Building & Equipment Fund 2. Police NCIC 2000 Upgrade 3. Public Safety 800 MHZ Communication System $262,500 $15,000 2,926,623 O00280 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) 4. Juvenile Detention Facility $390,066 5. Emergency Communications Center Facility $314.922 $3,909,111 Paragraph Three HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION $531,750 1. Revenue Sharing Road Program 2. Meadow Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Path 3. Greenbrier/Hydraulic Road Street Lights 4. Sidewalk Construction Program 5. Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program $380,000 $20,000 $1,750 $!00,000 $30.000 $531,750 Paragraph Four LIBRARIES $113,000 1. Library Computer Upgrade 2. Library Maintenance/Replacement Projects $100,000 $13.000 $113,000 Paragraph Five PARKS AND RECREATION $510,485 Scottsville Community Center Improvements $47,915 Crozet Park Athletic Field Development $45 070 Southern Albemarle Organization Park Development $50 000 County Athletic Field Study/Development $75 000 New High School Recreation Facilities $18 500 Stone Robinson Playfield Replacement/DevelopmentS200 000 Ivy Landfill Recreation Access Development $30 000 Parks & Rec Maintenance/Replacement Projects $44.000 $510,485 SUMMARY Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $5,536,323 TO be provided as follows: Transfer from General Fund - General Gv't CIP) Transfer from General Fund - ECC Facility Borrowed Funds Juvenile Detention Facility Borrowed Funds 800 MHZ Communication System E-911 Funds (One-Time) Courthouse Maintenance Funds CIP Fund Balance $1,602,312 $314,922 $390,066 $2,094,668 $737,625 $31,730 $365,000 $5,536,323 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $5,536,323 SECTION II - SCHOOL DIVISIQN CAPITAL IMPRQVEMENTS FUND That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph One EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION) $5,245,080 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High School Technology Education Labs Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconfiguration Administrative Technology (Schools) Instructional Technology (Schools) Henley Addition WAHS Building Renovations Northern Area Elementary Stone Robinson Addition Chiller Replacement (Maintenance Replacement) $344,000 $143,000 $70,000 $344,480 $628,000 $975,000 $10,000 $2,414,000 $316.600 $5,245,080 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) SUMMARY Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Transfer from General Fund Interest Earned Proffer Funds (Glenmore) CIP Fund Balance VPSA Bonds $300,000 $100,000 $500,000 $100,000 $4.245.080 $5,245,080 Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: O00ZS:l. $5,245,080 $5,245,080 SECTION III - STORMWATER FUND That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the STORMWATER FUND for stormwater improvement purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph One STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS 1. County Master Drainage Plan $60,000 2. Drainage/Erosion Correction $50.000 $110,000 SUMMARY Total STORMWATER FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Transfer from the General Fund Total STORMWATER FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN SECTIONS I - III IN THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1999 RECAPITULATION Total Appropriations Section I Section II Section III GRAND TOTAL General Government Improvements Fund $5,536,323 School Division Capital Impv't Fund $5,245,080 Stormwater Fund $110.OOO $10,891,403 $10,891,403 $10,891,403 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance SECTION IV Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I, II AND III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. Paragraph One June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 000282 Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. Otherwise. the said appropriations shall be deemed 20 be p0y0ble in such proportion as the total sum of all reolized reven~e of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors. Paragraph Two Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation. Paragraph Three No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual. In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligo~ions of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment. of such obligations. Paragraph Four Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates. Paragraph Five Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance. Paragraph Six Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Paragraph Seven This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and ninety-eight. RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), intends to undertake various improvements to its public school system as described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the ~Project"); and WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project prior to the issuance of the Bonds, as hereinafter defined, and to receive reimbursement for such expenditures from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY: (1) The County intends to finance the Project through the issuance of bonds in an amount not to exceed $4,245,080 (the "Bonds"). (2) The County intends to receive reimbursement from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds for costs of the Project paid by the County prior to the issuance of the Bonds. (3) The County intends that the adoption of this resolution be considered as ~official intent" within the meaning of Treasur~ Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Exhibit A PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BONDED SCHOOL PROJECTS Descrip~iQn High School Technology Education Labs Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconfiguration Henley Addition WkHS Building Renovations Northern Area Elementary Stone Robinson Addition Chiller Replacement (Maintenance/Replacement) Total Amoun~ $344,000 $143,000 $628,000 $975,000 $10,000 $1,914,000 $231,080 $4,245,080 Item 5.6. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 1998-99 County Operating Budget. It was noted in the staff's report that the FY 1998-99 Operating Budget was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 15, 1998, in the amount of $134,889,551. The requested Resolution of Appropriation provides the Board's authority for the County to spend those funds, effective July 1, 1998. The only significant changes to the FY 1998-99 budget adopted in April are as follows: General Fund: At the request of Charles Martin, two juvenile justice positions funded jointly by the City and County with State VJCCCA funds (totaling $69,336) and which originally were recommended to be funded through the Commission on Children and Families, were moved to the County's Juvenile Court Services budget. The County's share of these positions is funded by a transfer of $34,668 from the Commission on Children and Families' budget to the Juvenile Court Services cost center. An additional $34,668 in reimbursements from the City will be collected to cover the City's share of these positions. Additionally, on April 27, the School Board approved the transfer of an additional $50,000 from the School Division's CIP fund to school operations to fund a new Instructional Technology Coordinator position in Information Services. This change effectively reduces the General Fund transfer to the School CIP Fund by $50,000 and increases the One-Time General Fund transfer to the schools by $50,000. The revised General Fund budget is $100,330,715, reflecting the $34,668 in additional City revenues for the juvenile justice positions, as well as the June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) O00ZS4 School Division line item changes. A total of $196,240 remains in the "compression reserve" approved by the Board on April 15. Staff will request later a supplemental appropriation to allocate these compression funds to individual departments after July !. School Fund: On April 20, the School Board approved the use of $110,090 in funds from the School Fund carry-over to purchase textbooks in FY 1998-99. These additional funds, together with the $50,000 increase in the General Fund transfer to pay for the new Instructional Technology Coordinator, increase the School Fund budget for FY 1998-99 to $77,391,036. Self-Sustaining Funds also were revised to fund a Reading Intervention Program in the Summer School Program, and to reflect reduced PREP Program salary costs, for a revised total of $6,545,782, a decrease of $5,264 from the adopted budget. Debt Service Funds: The School Division Debt Service Fund reflects the use of $1,028,749 in Debt Service Reserve Funds, which includes $1,010,799 for the School Division Debt Service Payment in FY 1998-99 (approved by the Board as part of the FY 1998-99 CIP), plus $17,950 in debt-related service fees. With these additional reserves, the School Division Debt Service Fund totals $8,844,189 for FY 1998-99. The General Government Debt Service Fund reflects the use of $152,720 in ongoing E-911 revenues to partially finance the debt service payment on the new 800 MHz Radio System, which also were approved by the Board as part of the FY 1998-99 CIP. With these revenues, the General Government Debt Service fund totals $392,908. Other Funds: This year, the "Other Funds" section of this resolution of appropriation includes the Visitor Center Fund totaling $68,000; the E-91! Service Charge Fund totaling $1,662,033; the Courthouse Maintenance Fund totaling $31,730; and, the Glenmore Proffer Fund totaling $500,000. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution of Appropriation which allocates a total of $135,029,045 to the General Government and School Division operating budgets, $1,181,469 in additional funds for Debt Service, and a total of $7,100,949 among the various other County funds for the Fiscal Year 1998-99. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Annual Resolution of Appropriation of the County of Albemarle for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1999, was adopted: ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1999 A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999; to prescribe the provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNmeNT That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL FIND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph One TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS & OTHER REFUNDS $81,500 1. Refunds and Abatements $81,500 Paragraph Two GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT $5,779,233 1. Board of Supervisors 2. County Attorney 3. County Executive $304,495 $418,997 $601,100 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) 4. Elections $193,309 5. Finance $2,427,061 6. Human Resources $314,185 7. Information Services Sl.520,086 $5,779,233 Paragraph Three JUDICIAL Circuit Court Clerk of the Circuit Court Commonwealth's Attorney General District Court Juvenile Court Magistrate Sheriff $73 382 $5O2 883 $488 9OO $12 830 $132 984 $18 020 $877,856 $2,106,855 Paragraph Four PUBLIC SAFETY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Community Criminal Justice Board Emergency Communications Center (E-91!) Fire Department (City) Fire/Rescue Administration Fire/Rescue Credit Forest Fire Extinction Service Inspections Juvenile Detention Home Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) Police Department Regional Jail Authority SPCA Contract Volunteer Fire Departments (JCFRA) Volunteer Rescue Squads (JCFRA) $3,971 $1,!25,891 $656,040 $888,38O $65,000 $699,443 $132,901 $40,872 $6,354,487 $266 685 $37 440 $642 295 $11,113 901 Paragraph Five PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Solid Waste Staff Services $1,089,413 $218,216 $982,113 $2,289,742 Paragraph Six HUMAN SERVICES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Charlottesville/Albemarle Legal Aid Society Charlottesville Free Clinic Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) Commission on Children & Families District Home FOCUS - Teensight Health Department Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) JABA - Adult Health Care Facility JAUNT 11. Madison House 12 13 14 15 16 17 Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) Social Services Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled Region Ten Community Services $18,579 $5,305 $36,147 $268,703 $4i,i00 $20,205 $703,821 $126,458 $14,400 $317,494 $4,700 $8,535 $20,190 $64,173 $5,466,154 $231,000 $294.500 $7,641,464 Paragraph Seven PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE 1. Darden Towe Memorial Park 2. Jefferson-Madison Regional Library 3. Literacy Volunteers $110,685 $1,778,314 $15,050 O00285 $2,106,855 $11,113,901 $13,800 $186.696 $2,289,742 $7,641,464 $3,751,919 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 4. Parks and Recreation 5. Piedmont Council of the Arts 6. Transfer - Tourism 7. Virginia Discovery Museum 8. WVPT Public Television $1,236,550 $9,360 $585,600 $9,36o $7.000 $3,751,919 Paragraph Eight COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $2,677,699 Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) Housing Office Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) Piedmont Housing Alliance Planning and Community Development Planning District Commission (TJPDC) Route 29 Bus Service (CTS) Soil and Water Conservation VPI Extension Service 10. Zoning $357,456 $433 858 $62 145 $35 000 $994215 $64 926 $48 100 $30 736 $151 104 $500.159 $2,677,699 Paragraph Nine CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND $381,153 Contingency Reserve Compression Reserve $184,913 $196.240 $381,153 Paragraph Ten CAPITAL OUTLAYS $2,012,312 General Government Capital Improvement ProgramS1,602,312 School Division Capital Improvement Program $300,000 Stormwater Fund $110.000 $2,012,312 Paragraph Eleven REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT $5,587,013 1. Revenue Sharing Agreement $5.587,015 2. 3. 4. Paragraph Twelve OTHER USES OF FUNDS School Division Debt Service General Government Debt Service Transfer to School Fund Transfer to School Fund - One Time SUMMARY Total GENERAL FUND appropriations For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund) Revenue from General Fund Balance Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Total GENERAL FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $7,558,748 $110,688 $49,038,488 $200,000 $56,907,924 $92,242,287 $69,916 $5,410,678 $2.607,854 $100,330,715 $56,907,924 $100,330,715 $100,330,715 SECTION II - REGULAR SCHOOL FUND That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 000287 Paragraph One REGULAR SCHOOL FUND $77,391,036 Administration, Attendance & Health Debt Service Fund Facilities Construction/Modification Facilities Operation/Maintenance Instruction Pupil Transportation Services Other Uses of Funds $3,336 387 $256 692 $25 600 $7,746 337 $60,090 168 $5,064 906 $870.946 $77,391,036 SUMMARY Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $77,391,036 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Gen Fd Tnsfr-Ongoing) Revenue from Local Sources (Gen Fd Tnsfr-One Time) Revenue from Other Local Sources Revenue from School Fd Balance, Carryover, Tnsfr Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $49,038,488 $200,000 $612,099 $25,549,819 $1,044,182 $946.448 $77,391,036 $77,391,036 SECTION III - OTHER SCHOQL FUNDR That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph One FOOD SERVICES 1. Maintenance/Operation of School Cafeterias $2,154,$82 $2,154,582 SUMMARY Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Total FOOD SERVICES resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $1,389,582 $45,000 $720.000 $2,154,582 $2,154,582 $2,154,582 Paragraph Two ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE 1. Food Service $344.260 SUMMARY Total ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE OPERATIONS Appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Sales) $344,260 Total ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE OPERATIONS Resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $344,260 $344,260 $344,260 Paragraph Three PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND $68,508 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 1. Special Ed Pre-School Program SUMMARY Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND Appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Federal Government Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND Resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph Four MclNTIRE TRUST FUND 1. Payment to County Schools SUMMARY Total MclNTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Investments Per Trust Total MclNTIRE TRUST FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph Five PREP PROGRAM $68,508 $10,000 $10,000 1. C.B.I.P. Severe $624,602 2. E.D. Program $534,425 $1,159,027 SUMMARY Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Tuition and Fees Total PREP PROGRAM resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph Six FEDERAL PROGRAMS 2 3 4 5 6 7 Adult Education Carl Perkins Chapter I Chapter II Drug Free Schools Migrant Education Title II SUMMARY Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $1,159,027 $89,423 $112,654 $622,630 $43,223 $49,520 $144,938 $31,823 $1,094,211 $138,943 $955,268 $1,094,211 To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: O00ZS8 $68,508 $68,508 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $1,159,027 $1,159,027 $1,159,027 $1,094,211 $1,094,211 $1,094,211 Paragraph Seven COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND $1,450,708 000289 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 1. Community Education $1,450,708 SUMMARY Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $1,450,708 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Tuition Revenue from Driver's Education Fees Revenue from the Commonwealth $1,341,905 $94,006 $14,797 $1,450,708 Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available For fiscal ending June 30, 1999: $1,450,708 Paragraph Eight SUMMER SCHOOL $318,967 1. Summer School $318.967 SUMMARY Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $318,967 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Tuition (Local) Miscellaneous Revenues Revenue from the Commonwealth Transfer from School Fund Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $152,339 $7,328 $99,819 $59,481 $318,967 $318,967 Paragraph Nine SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT $145,997 1. School Bus Replacement $145.997 SUMMARY Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $145,997 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Sale of Vehicles) Transfer from School Fund $5,000 $140.997 $145,997 Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $145,997 SECTION IV - DEBT SERVICK That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the function of DEBT SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph One SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND $8,844,189 1. Debt Service Payments 2. Debt Service Fees 3. VRS Early Retirement $8,569,547 $17,950 $256.692 $8,844,189 SUMMARY Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $8,844,189 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Trnsfr fm Gen Fd) Revenue from Local Sources (Debt Srvs Reserve) Revenue from Local Sources (Trnsfr fm School Fd) $7,558,748 $1,028,749 $256.692 $8,844,189 Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph Two GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND 1. Debt Service Payment 2. Debt Service Payment 800 MHZ Radio System IBM Mainframe $263,408 $129,500 $392,908 SUMMARY Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue fm Lcl Srcs (Trnsfr fm Gen Fd - 800 MHZ) Revenue fm Lcl Srcs (Trnsfer from Gen Fd - IBM) Revenue fm Lcl Srcs (E-911 Funds - Ongoing) $110,688 $129,500 S152.720 $392,908 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: 000290 $8,844,189 $392,908 $392,908 $392,908 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN SECTIONS I IV OF THIS RESOLUTION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1999 RECAPITULATIQN Appropriations: Section I Section II Section III Section IV General Fund School Fund Other School Funds Debt Service Funds $100,330,715 $77,391,036 $6,746,260 $9,237,097 $193,705,108 Less Inter-Fund Transfers General Fund to School Fund General Fund to School Debt Service Fund General Fund to Gn'l Government Debt Service Fd School Fund to Debt Service Fund School Fund to Self-Sustaining Funds School Debt Service Reserve to Sch Dbt Srvs Fd E-911 Surcharge Fund to Gn'l Gv't Dbt Srvs Fd ($49,238,488 ($7,558,748 ($240,188 ($256,692 ($200,478 ($1,028,749 ($152.720) ($58,676,063) GRAND TOTAL $193,705,108 ($58,676,063) $135,029,045 SECTION V - OTHER FUNDS That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER PURPOSES herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph One COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND $1,977,778 1. Comprehensive Services Act Expenditures $1.977.77~ SUMMARY June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Trnsfr fm Gn'l Fd) Revenue from Local Sources (School Fund) Revenue from the Commonwealth $665,000 $225,000 $1,087,775 $1,977,778 Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph Two AT-RISK FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND 1. Bright Stars Program $245.217 SUMMARY Total AT-RISK FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Trnsfr fm Gn'l Fd) Other Local Revenue Revenue from the Commonwealth $130,616 $16,960 $~7,641 $245,217 Total AT-RISK FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND resources Available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: O00Zgl $1,977,778 $1,977,778 $245,217 $245,217 $245,217 2 3 4 5 6 7 Paragraph Three TOURISM FUND Rivanna Greenway Development Route 250/616 Turn Lane Project Ivy Road Bike Lanes Tourism Development Tourism Projects Virginia Festival of the Book Visitor's Bureau SUMMARY Total TOURISM FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Trnsfr fm Gn'l Fd) Other Local Revenue (Developer Contribution) Other Local Revenue (Proffer Funds) Total TOURISM FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph Four TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND 1. Darden Towe Memorial Park SUMMARY Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund) Miscellaneous Local Revenue City of Charlottesville $108 000 $100 000 $5,5OO $150,000 $126,985 $10,000 $124.315 $624,800 $585,6O0 $10,000 $29.200 $624,800 $196.$50 $110,685 $17,800 $67.865 $196,350 $624,800 $624,800 $624,800 $196,350 $196,350 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph Five EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND 1. Emergency Communications Center Operations $1.795,041 SUMMARY TOTAL EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund) City of Charlottesville University of Virginia Miscellaneous Local Revenue Federal Revenue Total EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND resources Available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph Six E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND $810,969 $806,779 $167,193 $1,900 $8.200 $1,795,041 Transfer to General Fund $771,688 Transfer to Gen'l Gv't CIP Fund - One-Time $737,625 Transfer to Gen'l Gv't Debt Service Fd - Ongoing$152.720 $1,662,033 $1,662,033 SUMMARY TOTAL E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue Prom Local Sources Total E-9!l SERVICE CHARGE FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph Seven VISITOR CENTER FUND 1. Debt Service $68,000 SUMMARY TOTAL VISITOR CENTER FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Total VISITOR CENTER FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph Eight COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND 1. Transfer to General Government CIP Fund SUMMARY TOTAL COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Total COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available $68,000 $31,730 $31,730 000292 $196,350 $1,795,041 $1,795,041 $1,795,041 $1,662,033 $1,662,033 $1,662,033 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $31,730 $31,730 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: Paragraph Nine GLENMORE PROFFER FUND 1. Transfer to School Division CIP Fund SUMMARY TOTAL GLENMORE PROFFER FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Total GLENMORE PROFFER FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: $500.000 $500,000 000293 $31,730 $500,000 $500,000 $500,OOO BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this resolution of appropriation. SECTION VI Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through V are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. Paragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. Otherwise. the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal by the Board of Supervisors. Paragraph Two Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation. Paragraph Three Ail balances of appropriations at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June, 1999, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the County treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be made in the resolution of appropriation for the next fiscal year, beginning July 1,' 1999. Any balance available shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of the respective funds for the next fiscal year. Paragraph Four NO obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual. In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County. and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obliga~iQns, Paragraph Five Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates. Paragraph Six Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance. Paragraph Seven Ail previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions to the extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Paragraph Eight This resolution shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and ninety-eight. Item 5.7. Appropriation: Various Funds, $919,256 (Form #97061). It was noted in the staff's report that this appropriation approves and authorizes expenditure of the following for FY 1997-98: E-911 Service Charge: The County's share of the E-911 operation as well as related expenses for the E-911 addressing project are budgeted in the General Fund. These expenses are eligible for use of the E-911 service charge revenues. The appropriation authorizes the transfer of this revenue to the General Fund to offset the expenses. Visitor's Center: Authorizes the expenditure of the Visitor's Center rental income to make the scheduled loan payments. County Attorney: Approves the expenses incurred for FY 1997-98 for special litigation. (Ms. Humphris asked where the appropriated money was being spent and why the signs for visitors now say Monticello Visitors' Center, without mentioning either Charlottesville or Albemarle. Mr. Tucker replied that the vast majority of the Visitors' Center is being used by Monticello as their own visitors' center. That may change in the future. There was some signage put up for Monticello to help the attendance there, but he thought that there was still some signage mentioning the Charlottesville/Albemarle Visitors' Center. Ms. Humphris said she did not feel this was right; there should be some recognition that it was not just for Monticello. Mr. Tucker said he would deal with that.) 000 95 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98 NUMBER: 97061 FUND: VARIOUS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1997-98 ALLOCATION OF E-911 FUNDS, VISITOR CENTER LOAN PAYMENTS AND SPECIAL LITIGATION EXPENSES FOR FY 1997-98 EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1 4101 31042 520100 1 4101 31042 950085 1 4101 31042 930000 1 9800 72050 910024 1 9800 72050 920024 1 1000 12040 300203 DESCRIPTION POSTAL SERVICES JOINT CITY/COUNTY PROJECT FUND TRANSFER LOAN PAYMENT INTEREST SPECIAL LITIGATION EXPENSES TOTAL AMOUNT $1,000.00 20,000.00 710,256.00 32,000.00 36,000.00 120.000,00 $919,256.00 REVENUE 2 4101 12000 120605 2 4101 15000 150101 2 9800 15000 150229 2 1000 51000 510100 DESCRIPTION E911 SERVICE CHARGE INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS RENT ON VISITOR CENTER GENERAL FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $650,000.00 81,256.00 68,000.00 120.000.00 $919,256.00 Item 5.8. Appropriation: EMS Recruitment and Retention Mini-Grant, $6,930 (Form #97062). It was noted in the staff's report that the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant to provide funds to purchase four defibrillators to be placed at various volunteer fire stations. The mini-grant is funded by a $6930.00 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant. There is a 50 percent local match that will be funded from current operations. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98 NUMBER: 97062 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR EMS RECRUITMENT GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1 1555 32015 800100 DESCRIPTION EQUIPMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $6.930.00 $6,930.00 REVENUE 2 4101 12000 120605 DESCRIPTION Egll SERVICE CHARGE AMOUNT $6.930.00 $6,930.00 Item 5.9. Appropriation: Education, $1,850 (Form #97063). It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on May 11, the School Board approved several appropriations for donations made to various schools. Appropriation of $1500 for Holl_vmead Elementary School from the Sperry Marine's parent company. Foundation of the Litton Industries, Recently Litton invited their employees to submit proposals for providing financial support to schools with classes ranging from K - 12. The intent of the program is to help schools by providing a direct impact on planned expenditures and needs, and to involve the Litton/Sperry employees in nominating schools. Hollymead School was nominated as a recipient for this program. The donation will be used to support the 000296 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) purchase of a computer presentation system in each classroom to include a TV, VCR, wall mount and computer support box. Appropriation of $100 for Murray Elementary School. Murray Elementary School has received a donation in the amount of $100 which is to help pay for the purchase of a portrait of Murray Elementary School. Appropriation of $250.00 for Yancey Elementary Sch©@l. Yancey Elementary has received a donation from J.W.K. Properties, Inc. to support the students at the school. By the recorded vote set out above, the following ResOlution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98 NUMBER: 97063 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SCHOOL DONATIONS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1 2205 61101 601600 1 2215 61411 580000 1 2213 61101 601300 DESCRIPTION DP EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES MISC EXPENSE ED/REC SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT Si/500.00 100.00 250.00 $1,850.00 REVENUE 2 2000 18100 181109 2 2000 18100 181109 2 2000 18100 181109 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DONATIONS $1,500.00 DONATIONS $100.00 DONATIONS $250.00 TOTAL $1,850.00 Item 5.10. Appropriation: Court Facilities Study and Clean the Virginia Confederate Monument, $37,000 (Form #97064). It was noted in the staff's report that the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville have experienced considerable growth in overall population. This has created a need to provide additional space and parking for expanding court services. The existing court facilities date back, in some cases, to the 1800's and have experienced minimal renovation with the exception of those in the 1980's. The estimated cost for the Court Facilities Study is $110,000 of which the City of Charlottesville will pay half. Part of the County's share of $55,000 will be funded by $30,000 previously approved in the FY '98 Capital Improvement Program for a juvenile court study. The remaining $25,000 for the expanded court facility study will be funded through the Courthouse Maintenance Fund. A consultant will perform a comprehensive programmatic and space needs study of the entire County/City court system, to include the County and City Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney offices. The consultant will also perform a facility condition survey of the five court facilities and provide a written assessment of each. The Virginia Confederate monument is located adjacent to the Courthouse. This sculpture is a "life-sized" bronze figure that stands on a pedestal. The sculpture and pedestal are very dirty, discolored and require a thorough cleaning. The City is having some work done on their statues in June and it would be economical for the County to have the statues cleaned at the same time. Staff recommended approval of Appropriation Form #97064 in the amount of $25,000 for a Court Facilities Study, and $12,000 to clean the Confederate monument with funds being taken from the Courthouse Maintenance account. By the recorded vote set out above the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98 NUMBER: 97064 FUND: GENERAL CIP June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) OO0297 PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COURT FACILITIES STUDY AND CLEANING OF THE VIRGINIA CONFEDERATE MONUMENT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEQORY DESCRIPTION 1 9010 21000 312343 COURT FACILITIES PROJECT 1 9020 21000 950058 MONUMENT PROJECT TOTAL AMOUNT $25,000.00 12,000,00 $37,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 9010 51000 512002 TRANSFER FROM COURTHOUSE MAINTENANC~37.000.0Q TOTAL $37,000.00 1 9150 93010 939999 2 9150 51000 510100 TRANSFERS TRANSFER TO OTHER FUNDS APP FROM FUND BALANCE $37,000.00 $37,000.00 Item 5.11. Letter dated May 19, 1998, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding transportation matters discussed at the April 1 and May 6 Board meetings, was received as follows: ~We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at the April 1 and May 6 Board meetings. Wilkins Construction, Inc. has been awarded the contract to build bridges on Sugar Hollow Road (Route 614). Construction is to begin June 1, 1998. A field review was conducted on Rocky Hollow Road (Route 769) with Mr. Wilson Cropp. We are in the process of gathering current data on right of way, traffic volumes, and accident history. This information will be used for consideration to include Route 769 in the Secondary Six Year Plan. The Through-Truck Restriction for Rio Road (Route 631) is on the Commonwealth Transportation Board's May 21 agenda for approval. A right and left-turn lane on Four Seasons Drive (Route 1456) will be provided under the upcoming Rio Road construction project. Please find attached a copy of a letter to the Department of Transportation from the Department of Historic Resources confirming the boundaries for the historic resources at Brookhill for the Route 29 Western Bypass. We will replace and/or relocate some of the rumble strips installed on Route 240 at Con Agra that were damaged by truck traffic. We are reviewing Interstate 64 and Dick Woods Road (Route 637) for additional signing to alert large trucks to the restrictions between 1-64 and Route 250 at Ivy. We will review Hydraulic Road (Route 743) between Lamb's Road (Route 657) and Rio Road (Route 631) for an increase in speed limit and advise the Board of the results before any change is made. Our field personnel do not report a reduction in large debris dump sites throughout the County. Please share this information with the Board. If you have any questions, I will be prepared to discuss these matters at the June 3rd Board meeting." June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) 00029 Item 5.12. Letter dated May 11, 1998, from Mr. Claude D. Garver, Jr., Assistant Commissioner Operations, Department of Transportation, providing notice that changes in the primary system made necessary by the relocation and construction of Route 20, Project #0020-002-V21, PE-101, C-501, was as follows: "Changes in the Primary System Route 20 Project: 0020-002-V21, PE-101,C-501 Albemarle County Dear Board Members: Changes in the Primary System made necessary by the relocation and construction of Route 20, Project: 0020-002-V21, PE-101, C- 501 in Albemarle County were confirmed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on April 16 as shown on the attached sketch and described as follows: SECTIONS ABANDONED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 33.1-148 OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA: Section 1- Old location of Route 20, located east of the new location, from Sta. 229+50 to Sta. 236+00 Opp. M. L. 0.12 Mi. Section 3- Old location of Route 20, located east of the new location, from Sta. 240.50 Opp. M. L. to Sta. 246+00 0.10 Mi. SECTIONS TRANSFERRED FROM THE PRIMARY SYSTEM TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 33.1-35 OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA: Section 2- Old location of Route 20, located east of the new location, from Sta. 236+00 Opp. M. L. to Sra. 240+50 Opp. M. L. and numbered Route 874 0.09 Mi." Item 5.13. Copy of Tentative 1998-99 Construction Allocations and Six- Year Improvement Program for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, as well as Public Transit, Ports and Airports, including an update of the Six-Year Improvement Program through Fiscal Year 2003-04, was received as information. (Ms. Humphris said she wished to discuss this item under "Other Transportation Matters." Item 5.14. Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report for 1997. It was noted in the staff's report that State Code § 15.2-2308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals to keep a full public record of its proceedings and to submit a report of its activities to the governing body or bodies. The full report summarizes information for the past five years. The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance and appeals from decisions of the Zoning Administrator or other administrative officer. It appears that more people are requesting written decisions as a result of a State law provision which finalizes the decision if not appealed within thirty days or changed by the administrator within sixty days. A number of appeals are the result from determinations of zoning violations. Zoning regulations cannot be composed so as to accommodate every situation and, hence, the need for a variance arises. The State Code requires that ~no variance shall be authorized unless the board finds that the condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance." Staff and the Board of Zoning Appeals have identified areas of recurring variance. The most frequent variances fall into these categories: sign regulations, such as the height of a wall sign; front yard setbacks for building additions to nonconforming houses; and front yard setbacks for gasoline dispenser canopies. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 000299 The Board of Zoning Appeals recommends zoning text amendments which respond to these three areas of zoning variance requests. Staff has written a revised sign ordinance which addresses most sign variances and will be taken to public hearing in the near future. We are drafting language to deal with the nonconforming structure additions and the gasoline canopy front setback. Once language is reviewed, staff will proceed with public hearings. Item 5.15. Monthly update on the FY 1997-98 Project Report from the Department of Engineering & Public Works as of May 22, 1998, was received as information. Item 5.16. Copy of letter dated May 18, 1998, from Ms. Janice D. Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Bill Jobes, re: Official Determination of Development Rights, Section 10.3.1 Tax Map 58, Parcels 75 and 75C (owned by John T. or Shirley B. Cunningham) and Tax Map 58, Parcel 75D (owned by Arthur M. Whitehill, III), was received for information. Item 5.17. Copy of application dated May 15, 1998, filed with the State Corporation Commission by Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc., for an increase in its rates for natural gas service, was received as information. Item 5.18. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for April 16, 1998, was received as information. Item 5.19. Copy of letter dated May 20, 1998, from Ms. A. G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, to Mr. William Mawyer, Director of Public Works, re: West Leigh Drive, was received as follows: "We now have a CSX Transportation estimate covering the installation of flashing light signals and short arm gates at the proposed West Leigh Drive grade crossing. The estimated amount is $95,004.68. We are prepared to authorize this work once the following items have been addressed: 1) West Leigh Drive must be accepted into the state system for maintenance (similar procedure to acceptance of subdivision streets). 2) A public hearing to notify interested persons of one addition to the Secondary Six Year Plan must be held. This addition consists of West Leigh Drive rural addition and CSX railroad crossing upgrade. We will review other revisions to the Six-Year Plan (FY 98-99 to FY 03-04) in several work sessions starting in August of this year. A separate public hearing notice is not required if changes with respect to West Leigh Drive occur in time to consider them with the annual revisions. Please let me know if you have any questions. We look forward to moving forward with this project as soon as possible." Agenda Item No. 6. 2, 1996. Approval of Minutes: June 12, August 7 and October Mr. Martin said he had read the minutes of June 12, 1996, and pages 27 (Item 10) to the end of October 2, 1996, and found them to be correct with some minor typographical errors. Mr. Marshall said he had read the minutes of August 7, 1996, pages 27 (Item 14) to the end, and found them to be correct to the best of his knowledge. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the minutes read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: 000;300 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Work Session - Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II. Mr. Tucker stated that Mr. Cilimberg would make a brief presentation bringing the Board up-to-date on the Meadow Creek Parkway project and discuss some of the latest changes in the plans, particularly with the access, as well as the Route 29 Bypass northern terminus. Ms. Tucker can fill in with other information the Board might want. Mr. Cilimberg made a slide presentation giving the history of the project. The cost estimates of the Meadow Creek Parkway at present day costs is a little over $31.0 million. In the year 2005, assuming a three-percent inflation rate per year, the cost will be $42.0 million. Staff could not find documentation of how much of this cost incorporated the interchange at Route 29. That cost was calculated by the County Engineering Department along with VDOT, and staff thinks it did not include much more than continuation of the stub out of that interchange. Mr. Martin said that is correct; that was one of the ways the cost of the project was reduced. Mr. Cilimberg said he will show the Board the present plan for that interchange, and how that interchange is being phased for the Route 29 Western Bypass and the Meadow Creek Parkway. If any part of that interchange were to become part of the Meadow Creek Parkway project, the cost would increase. In response to a question, Mr. Cilimberg stated that the road is to be a four-lane, divided highway since it does not increase the cost significantly and it is a more efficient approach to do the entire roadway at the same time. Ms. Humphris said the Board needs to let it be known that as far as this County and VDOT are concerned, Phase I will be built starting next year. Mr. Cilimberg said nothing has changed to his knowledge. City Council has not taken any action to make a change, although they did send a letter. Ms. Thomas noted that the letter was addressed to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make sure that a more extensive environmental impact statement should be done, to which the EPA replied that it had already been done. Mr. Tucker stated that approximately a month ago a letter was sent to the City about the issue of having the Meadow Creek Parkway designated as a primary road. There has been no response to that letter, but he has talked with the Mayor who said a letter has been drafted and is being circulated to Council members. Council's concern is that, if it was designated a primary road, the City might lose some of its highway funds. Mr. Marshall said the Mayor seems to be concerned that if there was primary road status for Phase II, it might affect the City. Mr. Tucker said a primary road would also include all of Phase I since a primary road has to connect to another primary road. Mr. Martin said he wanted to emphasize the need for Phase I. More traffic cannot be added to Rio Road without knowing that Phase I will alleviate some of that traffic. Mr. Bowerman said the costs for this road have increased from $31,282,545 to $42.0 million. He asked if the $179.0 million cost for the Route 29 Western Bypass also takes into account the same three-percent inflation rate. Mr. Cilimberg said he was not sure. Ms. Humphris said the figure being used in the current Six-Year Plan is $168.0 million. Mr. Bowerman said those figures were developed some years ago and the project is not to be built for many years. He would just like to know if that figure has been inflation adjusted, and whether it reflects the actual costs to build it. Mr. Perkins said he thought the design and engineering costs were high at $1.0 million per mile. Mr. Cilimberg said before leaving the issue of primary roads, he would like to mention that in 1994, the Board was provided with a report where staff took the criteria for qualifying a road for primary status and tried to answer the criteria. A lot of it could not be answered, and at the time some of that information was forwarded to the Department of Transportation (VDOT) so they June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) O0080 L could address the issue. There has never been a final determination on the qualification of the Meadow Creek Parkway for primary road status based on that criteria. The County never got a response. The criteria included information on truck traffic and inter-county traffic, in other words, traffic that is more regional than just local. There were no numbers from the traffic modeling that they could pull and definitively say the road did or did not meet the criteria. Ms. Humphris said she thinks it is pertinent to remind the Board that at the work session of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on whether or not to designate this for primary road funding, Jack Hodge, Chief Engineer at the time, said it was eligible and would meet all or most of the criteria without doing all of the traffic studies, etc. She said the County has been depending on the opinion of the Chief Engineer. Also, at that workshop, the two local CTB members were asked if the County had done it right to put construction money into the Western Bypass project instead of into Meadow Creek Parkway and there was no answer. Later, one of them said the CTB was not going to spend $200.0 million on road projects in Albemarle County. After that workshop, nothing happened. Mr. Marshall said that is basically what he heard when he went to the Preallocation Hearing in Culpeper; it was said that would set a precedent. Ms. Humphris said no one at the CTB said this could be done without setting a precedent. The CTB does whatever it wants to do, so that is not an acceptable explanation for what has happened in Albemarle. Mr. Cilimberg said that after the initial plans for the Route 29 Western Bypass were presented to the Design Committee, there was a question as to the historical significance of the Brookhill property. At that time, the plans for the interchange were completely changed, and everything shifted to the west. He mentioned a letter dated May 12, 1998, addressed to the Transportation Department's Architectural Historian, from the Department of Historic Resources, giving their finding as, ~We agree that the boundaries of the 38-acre parcel will properly serve as a boundary for the historic resources at Brookhill that is both acceptable and defensible under the National Parks Service guidelines." Initially, a large group of parcels, constituting several hundred acres, was considered. In response to that statement, VDOT changed back to the original concept for the Bypass interchange with Route 29. Mr. Cilimberg showed a slide to show how the Meadow Creek Parkway would be developed in conjunction with what would be necessary for the Western Bypass. It shows a three-sided cloverleaf, and shows that there would be a design to incorporate the two roads together. Coming from the west on the Bypass, it ties into Route 29; coming from the east on the Meadow Creek Parkway, it ties into Route 29; and, it allows for the necessary loops to accommodate turning movements on Route 29 headed either west or east. He said this is the most recent plan, and although it is a preliminary plan, it is being developed in conjunction with a Route 29 North plan which is also still in a preliminary stage. Mr. Marshall said it appears that the Western Route 29 Bypass will be built no matter what this Board wishes. Ms. Thomas said there are expensive alternatives that will be needed. She had informed one member of the CTB that if one is traveling north on Route 29, and wants to get onto the Bypass, there is just to be a stop light, and a left turn. He was quite distressed, and said they couldn't just do that. This plan says that ~Loop D" will not be needed until the Meadow Creek Parkway is built. In fact, ~Loop D' cannot be used to get onto the Meadow Creek Parkway, it is only to accommodate traffic traveling from Route 29 south getting onto the Bypass. Mr. Bowerman said this is politics, and not common sense. Mr. Cilimberg said there is funding for the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II of over $1.0 million in the County's Secondary Road Plan. That was included with the intention of beginning the environmental process this year. Concerning the environmental process, staff was told that the environmental impact statements have only a certain number of years of shelf life. Because the Meadow Creek Parkway project has no construction date assigned to it, he was told it would be premature to begin the environmental process. So, staff realized that the County needs to get some commitment on construction of this project and know when it is going to begin. O0030Z June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28 ) Mr. Tucker noted that on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the question arose as to who would manage the EIS. It had been assumed that VDOT would do that, and then it was learned that they were shifting that responsibility to the County. Mr. Cilimberg said with VDOT's experience in handling such things, they were the obvious choice. It does not make a lot of sense for the County to do it since this is something VDOT has a specific division set up to handle. Mr. Tucker said he wanted the Board to understand that this is still an issue. He is not aware of when localities have to take on an EIS analysis of roads that ultimately will be in the State System. Ms. Humphris said she keeps hearing that the County is not willing to put any money into this Phase II project. It has already put a lot of money into Phase I. She will interject that one thing being overlooked is that all of the traffic projections for Route 29 and other roads are done assuming the Meadow Creek Parkway is in place. This means that if the Meadow Creek Parkway is not built, the entire transportation system in the corridor will fail; there will be an ~F" level of service all along Route 29. This is something the CTB has never acknowledged to be the fact. Those traffic numbers show there will be gridlock in Albemarle County without construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway. She said the Board needs to continue to make that very clear. The movement of vehicles in the area in the future is predicated on construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway. That is what VDOT staff and the CTB refuse to deal with. On the one hand, the State is promoting economic development and making sure that trucks, etc., can be moved, and on the other hand, they refuse to acknowledge that the Meadow Creek Parkway is a necessary road and that Albemarle County has been willing to put money into it. If the CTB would just put $2.0 to $3.0 million per year into the project, in 10 years the road project would be ready to be started. She asked if it is still VDOT's policy that 70 percent of the construction funds must be available before construction can begin. Ms. Tucker said that is still the policy. Ms. Humphris said that does not seem to be the process on the Route 29 Western Bypass. Ms. Tucker said she cannot answer about the Bypass funding. Mr. Marshall said there are Federal funds involved in that project that the MPO did not sign onto, so they may be lost. Ms. Humphris said ~no", there is another three-year window before that will happen. They moved the proposed construction date to 2003. Mr. Marshall said the Board needed to proceed to other items on the agenda. He asked if there were any further discussion of this item. Mr. Tucker asked what the Board wished him to do next. The Board had discussed possibly inviting the CTB representatives to a meeting. Mr. Marshall said the Governor will be making new appointments to the CTB in June. He did not know if the two local people will be reappointed. Ms. Humphris said there will still be one person on the CTB to represent Albemarle County. That person should be invited. Her concern is that if someone not familiar with the situation is appointed, a packet of information should be sent for that person to read and absorb before the meeting. Mr. Marshall said the Board will just have to meet with whoever the new representatives are after June. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a meeting of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) scheduled on June 30 with Shirley Ybarra, Secretary of Transportation, in Richmond. He asked whether there is anything the Board feels relates to this discussion today that should be discussed at that meeting. Ms. Humphris said there will be a lengthy discussion at the regular meeting of the MPO on June 8 to make that determination. She hopes Secretary Ybarra realizes this is a public meeting and that anyone can attend. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. Ms. Humphris said she had a few questions about the Six-Year Plan. In the Primary System Improvement Program, she did not understand the description on page 45: ~29 Bypass, Albemarle, Complete third lane, northbound and southbound Route 64 to Fontaine Avenue," and then on page 51, in the Urban System Improvement Program, the description: Charlottesville, Fontaine Avenue, four-lane, from western city limits to Jefferson Park Avenue." Ms. Tucker said they are two separate projects. The project on page 45 refers to what could be considered a spot improvement as one travels on Route 29 northward and it turns into the Route 29/Route 250 Bypass. Between the 1-64 interchange, and the exit at Fontaine Avenue, a third lane will be provided to act as an acceleration/deceleration lane combined. Ms. Humphris asked if the June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) 00030,;3 four-laning is what was agreed to on the City's Fontaine Avenue segment. She did not think it was to be four lanes. Ms. Tucker said it is essentially the installment of a center shared turn-lane in that section. She saw paperwork recently which described the project in that way, rather than the description in this plan. The project will be more appropriately described in the final version of the Six-Year Plan. Ms. Humphris said through the MPO there has been a consistent problem with this project because every time a decision is made and the City feels secure in what they have gotten, the next time there is a publication, the project is described as being "four-laned." Ms. Humphris said on page 47 of the Primary System Plan, it shows the ~Albemarle Connector Road to UVA, 4-lane divided, Route 250 Bypass to Massie Road (Northgrounds UVA Campus)" but it gives no dollar amount for the estimated cost of construction. She said that at the public hearing in Pebruary, 1997, there was an amount listed of $4,473,500. Ms. Tucker said she would have to compare this Plan to other Six-Year Plans, but she imagines that was the proposed allocation which has been taken away, and this Plan only shows what has been allocated at this time. In other words, they are funding all of the Western Bypass before actually funding this piece of the project. Ms. Humphris said she thought the term ~estimated cost" meant ~estimated costs" and not ~funding." Ms. Tucker said she would check on this. Ms. Humphris said it appears that VDOT is treating this project differently than any other project by not having the estimated construction costs in the Plan. She said that adds another $4.5 million to the costs of the Bypass. Mr. Marshall asked whether the University was going to raise any money to pay for this road. Ms. Humphris said ~no," the taxpayers were going to fund it. Ms. Thomas mentioned the Transportation Enhancements Federal Fund Allocations on page 44, and asked if when the Federal share is listed under this grouping it means funds have actually been allocated to projects such as the landscaped island at the corner of Preston Avenue and McIntire Road in Charlottesville, and the Town of Scottsville's Canal Basin Square. Ms. Tucker said, insofar as this is a tentative budget, ~yes." Ms. Thomas said that is big news. There were no further questions concerning this Six-Year Plan. Mr. Perkins asked that VDOT check the speed limit on the Miller School Road (Route 635). There is no posting of any speed limit on that road now. There are quite a number of private driveways entering that road and there was one pedestrian fatality on that road last year. Ms. Thomas said there has been a request that the County consider sidewalks out Fontaine Avenue past the University Research Park. She said there is a Montessori School and the church in that area. Evidently it has been discussed that sidewalks could be considered when Reservoir Road going to Camp Holiday Trails is paved. She thinks a safe pedestrian way is more important and more immediate than whenever in the far-distant future that road is paved. She asked that VDOT continue discussions as to some way of getting safer passage for pedestrians on Fontaine Avenue Extended. Ms. Tucker said Fontaine Avenue Extended (Business Route 29) is a primary road, so funding for that project would need to come from the Primary Six-Year Plan. It would need to be prioritized in the projects within that Plan. She said that she would alert VDOT's District office when it comes time to update the list of primary projects and say that interest has been expressed in some pedestrian way. Mr. Martin asked for an update on Pave-in-Place roads. He said it was his understanding when this was last discussed that VDOT had guidelines that basically went against the Legislature's intent, and the guidelines were such that not much could be done with pave-in-place. To date, there have been no such projects in Albemarle. Ms. Tucker said that was correct. Mr. Martin said he received a phone call the other night from a person who said that VDOT told him there had been no Pave-in-Place projects because the Board had not done anything to make it happen; this concerned Route 600 from Stony Point to Cismont. Mr. Perkins said that road would not qualify because the Pave-in-Place Policy is only for dead-end roads. Mr. Martin said he tried to explain that VDOT has guidelines under which roads must qualify. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) This gentlemen said he was told by VDOT that it was this Board's decision. Ms. Tucker asked if Mr. Martin would like for her to call this gentleman. Mr. Martin said he would give Ms. Tucker the gentleman's name and telephone number tomorrow. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Tucker to follow up with Mr. Charles Trachta, in Woodbrook Subdivision, regarding a request for some stop signs and some crosswalks. He said someone from VDOT did meet with Mr. Trachta. Ms. Tucker said a VDOT staff member did meet with him. The problem is that there is no sidewalk or pedestrian pathways formally in place in all locations where they are requesting crosswalks. It is VDOT's policy not to promote crossings where there is no area to formally receive pedestrians. Mr. Bowerman said that community has not changed in 30 years, and probably will not change in the next 30 years, so if what they want to do can be accommodated, that would be nice. Mr. Bowerman said what was done on Hillsdale Drive in terms of the new striping is absolutely amazing. The traffic is at least 10 miles per hour slower and the ~race track" is gone. Putting in two bicycle lanes, and a center turn lane has changed the character of that road entirely. That is a 35 mile per hour road which does not meet traffic calming requirements, but it was a joint initiative of VDOT and County Planning staff to look at that road in terms of making it more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Bowerman said two thoughts occurred to him. The Raintree community would like to have bike lanes extended from Hillsdale Drive all the way through to Carrsbrook Subdivision ultimately going through Still Meadows to the River. This would be a natural progression because it would take bike lanes all the way from the High School to the Rivanna River Greenbelt. He asked if it is possible within the guidelines for traffic calming, to look at measures like what was done in the Hillsdale Drive situation where there is a perceived problem with speed and where they do not want to physically impede automobiles but where visual clues could be used such as on Hillsdale. Ms. Tucker said that pavement markings are a form of traffic calming. The inclusion of bike lanes was not specifically used for that purpose, although in this situation they did work. She said that VDOT can look at that idea. Mr. Bowerman said there is a three-lane road in Raintree and it would easily accommodate bike lanes. One of the side effects of putting in two bike lanes in Raintree is that they would cause people to think about their speed, and cause them to slow down. He said that where it makes sense to be able to do things like this, and where there is a perceived problem, and where a public need for bike lanes can be met, it makes sense to implement that. It is cost effective, does not take enforcement, and in many cases will solve some of the problem. Mr. Cilimberg said he and Mr. Benish have talked about looking in the Six-Year Road Plan for opportunities to do just this as road paving and retrofitting of existing roads occurs. Also, the County's Bike Plan needs to carry statements about the need to accommodate bikes more directly in the neighborhoods. Recently, in Hollymead/Forest Lakes there was slurry paving done and restriping of roads. It would make sense to establish a bike lane shoulder (those roads are built to a rural cross section), which would have reduced the lane width, but would have kept it acceptable, and it could have accommodated bikers or kids who walk along the road and may have had the same effect because those are neighborhoods where the same concerns exists. Mr. Bowerman said they also serve to make them more neighborhood-friendly, which, by appearance, has an effect. Mr. Marshall said there is a need for traffic to be slowed down on Avon Street Extended. He stopped to administer first aid at the scene of two accidents at the intersection with Mill Creek. He saw another accident on Route 20 where Mill Creek Drive enters the road. He said some of this is due to construction, but there will be more traffic when the new high school opens. He thinks traffic lights are needed to help slow down traffic on both of those roads. Ms. Tucker said VDOT recently completed a traffic count on the various streets in Mill Creek Subdivision, as well as Avon Street Extended. There is a section carrying 17,000+ cars per day on the two-lane section of road. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) 000305 Mr. Marshall asked whether there would be a traffic light installed at the intersection of Avon Street and Mill Creek. Mr. Bill Mawyer said the contract has already been awarded and they are in the process of installing a light on Avon Street at Mill Creek Drive. Mr. Marshall asked about a traffic light on the other end of the road at its intersection with Route 20. Mr. Mawyer said staff has come up with some draft recommendations they will bring to the Board in another week. Engineering criteria suggests that a traffic light is not warranted. The continuing political concerns says that if it is important, it can be done. Mr. Bowerman said his perception of the two roads is that Route 20 has a lot more traffic than Avon Street, but the intersection at AvOn Street meets the warrants for a traffic signal. Mr. Mawyer said that is correct. Mr. Bowerman said he does not understand why. Mr. Marshall said he got a request from some doctors and business owners in Pantops Shopping Center that a traffic light is needed at the intersection where one exits from the Food Lion in Pantops Shopping Center onto Riverbend Drive. Ms. Tucker said VDOT plans to install a signal at South Pantops Drive and Riverbend Drive, possibly within a year. Ms. Tucker said VDOT understands the Board's request to place a signal at the intersection of Route 20 with the Avon Street connector road, and is in support of that request. The light may have to stay on flash until such time as a stop light is warranted. She said this is a model analysis, and it is possible the model is not accurate. If the Board requests that a signal be installed at that location, it is her recommendation that it be left on flash. At the other end of the connector road, the warrant for that signal was met by factoring in the commercial development as well as the trips generated by the residential properties. She said the County provided both analyses, which VDOT reviewed. She believes they both had to be modeled, which is different from actually going out and physically assessing an intersection already in place. Mr. Marshall said he was concerned about the number of teenage drivers who will be on Route 20. Ms. Tucker said that over the years, there have been requests for an interstate interchange at Avon Street Extended with 1-64, so there will be a certain popularity with the new connector road for those who were looking for faster access to 1-64. They will be doing so via this connector road and then making left turns going north on Route 20. It will probably prove to be a significant situation at this intersection. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Camelot Treatment Plant. Mr. Tucker said he had asked Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), to review the basis for the request from the Rapidan Service Authority, After that, he has asked Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Benish to address the planning implications from the sewage treatment plant that might be operated by Rapidan and the ultimate interceptor that would run down Route 29. Lastly, Mr. Davis will address any legal issues that the Board should be mindful of in this issue. Mr. Brent said he has had discussions with the General Manager of the Rapidan Service Authority concerning the future of the Camelot Treatment Plant. This plant was constructed in the 1960s by the developer of Camelot Subdivision, dedicated to the County of Albemarle and subsequently transferred to the Albemarle County Service Authority and then to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA). The plant has been expanded on several occasions to its present daily treatment capacity of 365,000 gallons. When the plant was last expanded in the 1980s, the Board of Supervisors declared that there would be no future expansion of this treatment facility. ACSA, RWSA and the County concurred that future sewer needs in this growth area should be met by transporting sewage to the Moores Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plant is owned and operated by RWSA, but the plant capacity belongs to ACSA. Under the Four-Party Agreement which created RWSA, the operational cost of this plant is included in the urban wastewater rate structure, this means that the City of Charlottesville is paying 63 percent of the operational cost of the plant, although the City has no customers served by it. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) O0030G Mr. Brent said the existing capacity of the Camelot Treatment Plant is not sufficient to meet the needs of the present growth area. Although flows into the plant are currently only one-third the plant's capacity, ACSA feels it should begin planning for a permanent means of serving this area. There are several options available, and these will be the subject of future discussions with the Board of Supervisors. While the City is obligated to pay a portion of the operational cost of Camelot, it is not obligated to pay any capital cost for its replacement. It is clear that capital costs will be borne solely by ACSA, either directly or indirectly through RWSA. Mr. Brent said that knowing the Rapidan Service Authority (RSA) needed to plan for providing sewer service to the area south of Ruckersville in Greene County, he initiated discussions with RSA's General Manager, Mr. Dudley Pattie, about whether they would be interested in the Camelot plant after ACSA abandoned it. Any facility RSA would construct to meet Greene County's needs would flow into the North Fork Rivanna River. It is in Albemarle's best interest to have a new sewer discharge into the river occur below the drinking water intake at Camelot. The basis for the discussions that have been held with RSA is that RWSA/ACSA have an asset (the Camelot plant) which is functional and with a current permit for discharge into state waters; RSA has a need for a treatment facility and will have to construct one which will also discharge into the North Rivanna River. The direction of future discussions with RSA would be to determine a value for the plant which would be beneficial to all parties. Should this concept not be workable, this asset becomes a liability and the ACSA will have to fund the removal of the plant once the permanent sewer is in service; RSA will face the costs of obtaining a discharge permit from the Department of Environmental Quality and constructing a new facility. RSA has indicated that it will need the treatment facility in approximately two years. Before continuing these discussions, ACSA needs to know if this conceptual arrangement would be acceptable to Albemarle County. Mr. Martin said he thought Mr. Brent had done a good job summarizing when he said "Should this concept not be workable, this asset becomes a liability .... " He believes the possibility should be discussed further. Mr. Perkins asked if the sewer line was extended down Route 29 through Albemarle County to access the plant, who would control access to the sewer line through Albemarle County? Mr. Tucker said that is the purpose of this discussion and Mr. Davis will discuss the legalities of this proposal. Mr. Davis said there are a couple of considerations from a control standpoint. Currently, the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance only allows sewage treatment plants and facilities and transmission lines that are owned by the RWSA. No other treatment facilities or transmission lines are permitted, either by-right or by special use permit. In order for this project to be pursued, the Board would have to first amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow Rapidan to own and operate either a treatment plant, transmission lines, or whatever would be required in the County. If the Board did that and allowed Rapidan to operate transmission lines in the County, there is no direct authority this Board would have over the RSA. So, unless, in the sale of this facility there were contractual limitations which limited who their customers could be, they could connect whatever customers they wanted to, even customers within Albemarle County. Mr. Perkins said they could connect any customers who applied for service, but this Board would still have control, through zoning, over the types of businesses, etc., constructed along that easement. Mr. Davis said the Board would control the land uses that could be located in Albemarle County. The Board could control the location of transmission lines. The Board could control the location of the treatment plant itself if RSA wanted to expand it, through zoning. If the sale was made contingent upon there being restrictions, RWSA could put in a provision that Rapidan could not accept any customers in Albemarle County without the approval of the RWSA, or something to that effect. Mr. Tucker said that would have to be a separate agreement if that is what the Board wanted to do. Ms. Humphris said the Board does not want the ACSA service areas subverted in any way. Mr. Cilimberg stated that theoretically part of this line would pass through the Piney Community which is shown as a development area in the Comprehensive Plan. It has always been anticipated that Piney Mountain and the rest of Hollymead would be served by the RWSA and ACSA facilities. In fact, to replace the Camelot Plant, other means of sewer service have to be provided in that area to accommodate the ultimate growth. The potential line June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) does not serve any purpose from a land use standpoint in the County. Its sole purpose would be to accommodate development in southern Greene County. County staff does not presently have knowledge of Greene County's Comprehensive Plan and the potential land use and development that could occur in Greene County. Obviously, there is anticipation of the need for this sewer line to serve that growth. He said that by the Fall there is to be a Planning District-sponsored summit at which all of the counties and the City will share their comprehensive plans. Obviously, in accommodating growth in southern Greene County, there are potential implications for Albemarle in terms of the proximity and the traffic associated with that growth. Albemarle County would still be relying on the RWSA and the ACSA to provide sewer service in that area under the County plan in place. It would be expected that anything done to accommodate this particular line going to Greene would be done in such a way as to give the County control over access to that line, so there would be no possibility of development not consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan hooking to this sewer line. If a Zoning Text Amendment were adopted to allow a line such as this from another authority, and if it were by special use permit, that would allow the Board to put conditions on the permit concerning access to the line. Mr. Davis said if there were new transmission lines required by special use permit, that would likely be a reasonable restriction. The whole purpose of the special use permit would be to make sure it conformed with the Comprehensive Plan. If these areas were not intended to be served by sewer, that could be a condition. Ms. Humphris asked if development in Greene County caused them to need to expand the plant, and it were in the conditions that that could not happen, and they came to the Board and asked for a change, what would be the limiting factors the Board would want to anticipate. What considerations would there be about whether or not Albemarle would allow that sewer treatment plant to be expanded? Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks that would come under the Zoning Text Amendment. Anything they would want to do would come under zoning allowances. Ms. Humphris asked whether Mr. Cilimberg could anticipate any circumstances under which the Board would want or not want the plant to expand. Ms. Thomas said this Board evidently made a decision that the Camelot Plant should not be expanded. Whatever those reasons where, should be reexamined. Mr. Cilimberg said it has been his understanding that the plant has not been expanded because it was not economically practicable. Mr. Brent agreed, saying the costs of treating sewage at the Camelot Plant is much more expensive then at the Moore's Creek Treatment Plant, so if the amount of sewage to be treated gets any larger, the sewage will need to be brought to Moore's Creek in order to benefit from economies of scale and reduce treatment costs. Mr. Cilimberg said as with any special use request, the Board would be looking at the need driving the request and that would bring up the question of why the expansion where necessary, and that would have to be associated with land use. It would also require staff to look at the impacts created in Albemarle County by that expansion. Mr. Bowerman said the regional aspects of this discussion should be looked at. He knows that Greene has some serious concerns about the impact the Real Estate Foundation's industrial park could have on their housing and school situations. He also thinks that if they took over the Camelot Treatment Plant and the County put a line from Camelot to Moore's Creek, the obvious expansion would be to connect to Moore's Creek. He wondered if the planning commissions of the two counties need to look at the growth aspects of this and look at a rational policy for that whole area, and then make recommendations to both boards of supervisors. He said that is rather broad, but isn't that what the Board is talking about? Albemarle has no control over Greene, and Greene has no control over Albemarle, so maybe the two should talk about these issues. Mr. Cilimberg said that discussion was to be part of the summit. Mr. Bowerman said this is a real need and it seems to serve as the basis for better understanding and better coordination. This decision cannot be made in isolation to a lot of other things going on. Ms. Thomas said the director of the Rapidan Service Authority was present. She wanted to ask him some questions. She thought there was a new sewer line going south on Route 29, and she assumed the sewage was going north to the Greene treatment plant. She asked where the sewage treatment plant for the new sewer line south of Ruckersville is located. Mr. Dudley Pattie, General Manager, Rapidan Service Authority, said the construction along Route 29 is part of a project to extend service to the Ruckersville area from the Corner Store south to Ruckersville, then left on June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) 000,29 Route 33 West to the existing sewage treatment plant just to the east of the town of Stanardsville. That plant has capacity since there has been no growth in that plant since it was built in 1988. The County decided it needed to have sewer service for Ruckersville so the impetus for that project came from the citizens. They got together about eight years ago, and it culminated in a CDBG grant project to bring a Food Lion complex into the Corner Store area. That sewage will be pumped to the existing Stanardsville sewage treatment plant. Ms. Thomas asked how far south the line comes. Mr. Pattie said it stops right at the Food Lion shopping center. Ms. Thomas asked whether that line has outlets for residential hookups. Mr. Pattie said it is a pump system, so it would require pumps to get into the system. It generally was constructed to serve the business community in Ruckersville. Houses could connect, but generally, when the project developed it was not financially feasible without having a commitment from the business community, so basically the capacity of the line has been sold with the businesses buying into the line. Ms. Thomas asked whether the sewage going to the Camelot Plant would be mostly residential. Mr. Pattie said it would be a combination. He said the Greene County Comprehensive Plan and existing zoning indicate that the Corner Store area is where Greene is focusing most of its growth. There is a lot of development anticipated in that service area, and the Rapidan Authority is trying to stay a little ahead of that. Ms. Thomas asked if the Corner Store area develops as Mr. Pattie suggests, would the Stanardsville Plant be able to deal with that growth. Mr. Pattie said uno." That is a land application system, so that means that more land would be needed to treat the sewage. That is an option, but at this point, they basically are looking at conventional treatment at another location. Ms. Thomas asked what the alternative would be to obtaining the Camelot Plant. Mr. Pattie said it would be for Greene to put its own treatment plant on a stream in the Corner Store area of Greene County. Ms. Thomas asked what watershed that area is in. Mr. Pattie said it lies in the James River Basin. Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Pattie knew what stream the plant would be on. Mr. Pattie said they have looked at several different streams, but all of them end up in the same place. Ms. Thomas said Preddy Creek ends up south of Albemarle's raw water intake, but goes through an area where it was once thought there might be a drinking water detention area. That is just one more thing to think about. Mr. Bowerman asked if the connection from the Corner Store area southward would be gravity fed or pumped. Mr. Pattie said it would be pumped to a certain point and then flow by gravity the remainder of the way. Ms. Thomas asked if it would have to be a tertiary treatment plant. Mr. Pattie said for a new plant, the DEQ would do a stream study to determine discharge limits. After those discharge limits are set, the engineers would decide which creek and what treatment process would be required to meet those limits. Mr. Tucker asked when some decision needs to be made. Mr. Pattie said they are working in a two-year time frame. Mr. Tucker asked if the Board would like to proceed or wait until the Planning District summit takes place later in the Summer. Mr. Martin said it would make sense to proceed cautiously and look at all the variables and legals. Mr. Tucker suggested that staff start working on this issue, with a report being made to the Board after the Planning District summit. Mr. Bowerman said since there are two specific counties involved in this discussion, he thinks this would be an opportunity for some mutual planning which affects both communities rather dramatically, whereas, without this as the issue, there may not be as much impetus to have these talks. He thinks staff could go ahead with discussions now. Mr. Martin said he does not disagree with that recommendation. Mr. Marshall said that sounds good. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) 000;309 (Note: At 10:55 a.m., the Board took a recess, and reconvened at 11:13 Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation: 1999 Legislative Proposals. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said VACO has requested that legislative proposals for the 1999 General Assembly be submitted to them by June 15. The following proposals are submitted for Board consideration: The first request is that the Legislature either fully fund the 599 funds for police departments across the State or utilize the same formula for funding Police departments as the Compensation Board currently uses for Sheriff's departments. Right now that is one officer per 1500 population, and that may go to one officer per 1000 population. Mr. Bowerman asked the rationale for differential funding from the State, when it is public safety and it is county citizens in both situations. It is their money coming back to them from the State. Ms. White replied it is because historically the Compensation Board has decided on the funding for constitutional officers. The 599 Funds were set up under separate legislation. Mr. Bowerman noted that one group has a strong political lobby and the other does not. Ms. Humphris said that is correct; it is politics. Ms. Thomas said she made this same request to the VACO Finance Steering Committee, so VACO already has it on their list. Ms. White said the second request is for legislation to preclude the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) from erecting towers in their right-of-way without permission from the locality. In several localities, VDOT has allowed cellular companies to erect towers on their right-of-way with the rental fees accruing to the State. VDOT has used these towers to install their own equipment, such as cameras and road monitoring device. They have done this in James City County and Fairfax County. Mr. Davis said there has been a lawsuit in Fairfax County where they sued to have the towers removed, and they lost the case. Ms. Thomas noted that the same thing is being considering in Albemarle County. Ms. Humphris said Fairfax County appealed that decision, so that might not be the final decision. She told Ms. White that she might have other language to suggest for this proposal after she has time to think about it further. Ms. White said the third request is for legislation to bring counties under the same meals tax code provisions now enjoyed by cities. Under current law, counties may only collect a meals tax on meals served in restaurants or single platters in deli's or grocery stores. Cities may collect a meals tax on any food or drink sold separately outside of a restaurant, e.g., ice cream cones, alcoholic beverages. Counties may collect a meals tax on beverages only if they are served with a meal. Current legislation is confusing to citizens and inequitable between cities and counties. Mr. Davis said the problem occurs because the enabling legislation applicable to counties says the meals tax is only applicable to food served by restaurants as defined in the article that defines restaurants (which are the Health Department provisions), and then it limits the taxation of beverages to those beverages which are served with meals, which are not defined. Those two limitations in the enabling legislation puts constraints on counties which are not found on cities. Cities have the ability to impose a meals tax, which they impose broadly on all food and all beverages. As being construed, the County can only impose a tax on that food served in restaurants, and only on beverages which are served with meals. Staff would like to have the section that enables counties to impose a meals tax changed to simply say that counties can impose a meals tax on all foods and beverages. Ms. Thomas suggested the Board follow Mr. Davis' idea, because she thinks VACO also wants to suggest that the meals tax can be imposed by counties without a referendum. If that is a VACO proposal, it probably won't get any where; it never has. But, if that is one of their proposals, Albemarle's proposal will get lost. As Mr. Bowerman said, to allow counties which have had a referendum be able to tax the same as cities has a better chance of passing. Ms. White said the fourth proposal is to request legislation to change the composite index formula to account for land use taxation, as well as local school construction and renovation costs. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) 000;3 0 Ms. Humphris said it makes no sense to include income in the composite index, since it cannot be taxed. Ms. Thomas said she is not interested in having the composite index account for land use taxation since that is a choice the Board makes as to how tax dollars are spent. It does not say anything about the community. Including income is very misleading when it cannot be taxed. Mr. Bowerman said the reason it is included is that the State expects the wealthier counties to pay more for their schools. That is measured by income. Ms. Thomas suggested that it could be measured by the value of real estate assessments. Mr. Bowerman said the State is now differentiating wealthy counties by this provision. Ms. Thomas said she thought the formula was a good idea. It is the factors that are at issue. Ms. Thomas said the Governor has spoken in terms of taking positive actions to counter sprawl, possibly including purchase of development rights. Perhaps, State funds could be requested for localities that have a PDR program and which are putting their own money into it. It might be possible to get gubernatorial support for the program since it will be rather hard to afford it solely at the local level. Mr. Marshall agreed. Mr. Perkins said the whole area of PDRs and land use needs to be looked at. The legislation is antiquated and there needs to be some new ways to get hold of land and preserve it. A number of people have talked to him about having family subdivisions. In only one year, someone could take a family subdivision and sell it off to anyone. Ms. Thomas said that is a local regulation which this Board could change. Ms. Thomas said in response to the Housing ruling, the Board should request enabling legislation to allow an ordinance for mandatory affordable housing. Mr. Davis said the current enabling authority for counties, other than Fairfax and Loudoun, does not enable a county to require a developer to build affordable housing. It only provides authority for a county to adopt an ordinance that would give an incentive for a developer to participate in an affordable housing program. The question is whether or not there should be enabling authority to allow a county to require a developer to build affordable housing. He has talked to the County's Housing Director and they are trying to come up with concepts that could work. Under the opinion of the Attorney General, it is now clear that the County does not have the authority to require anything of developers. Mr. Bowerman said the direction of the Board is to pursue equality of funding for sheriff's and police departments. Mr. Charles Abbey and Mr. Jim Morris, a couple of weeks ago, were at a Board meeting and asked that the Board analyze police versus the sheriff. He said the Board should respond to them giving the Board's position which is the same as the legislative request concerning 599 funds. Citizens should not be treated differently just because local government has decided the public is best served by having a police department rather than a sheriff. Mr. Marshall said he thinks that is another problem with the Commonality Policy on salary and benefits between the County and the Schools. If there is an agreement with the State Compensation Board regulating sheriff's salaries so that their salaries are equal, that throws off the formula as far as commonality with the County employees and school employees. Mr. Tucker said the legislation request is funding of departments. The Board will be dealing with the issue of the constitutional officers' salaries; that is still an issue being looked at in the budget. That is a separate issue. This legislation would either fully fund the 599 funds as has been requested numerous times, or give the same funding formula for police as the constitutional officers have for sheriff's departments. The issue is funding, not salaries. Ms. White asked whether there was a consensus of the Board to submit the first three proposals, but not the last proposal. Mr. Martin said he agreed with Ms. Thomas. The County chose to grant land use taxation, but it had no choices about income tax. If the County chooses to use land use taxation, it does not necessarily need favoritism from the State because of that choice. Ms. White said that she would add one more request about funding for PDRs. Ms. Thomas said it seems the Housing Committee is not ready with a recommendation on housing. Mr. Davis said the Board may want to get a more solid recommendation about housing in order to make a request. Ms. White said June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) O003:Z the Board is not precluded from making an additional legislative request later in the Summer. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the whole issue of TDRs, PDRs, growth management, etc., needs to be reexamined comprehensively. He said the ability of the current legislation to deal with the issues the County is facing has been out paced. Agenda Item No. 11. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 11:35 a.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board go into executive session pursuant to section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia, under subsection (1) to discuss personnel matters concerning the status and/or assignment of two specific employees; under subsection (1) to interview and discuss appointments to boards and commissions; under subsection (1) to discuss an administrative evaluation; under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to a service agreement; under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to a cooperative agreement; and, under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to the transition of Charlottesville to town status. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Certify Executive Session. At 1:41 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Appointments. There were no appointments to be made today Agenda Item No. 14. Work Session: Mountain Protection Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said Mr. David Tice would make a slide presentation, followed by Ms. Mary Joy Scala making a presentation regarding the ordinances, Comprehensive Plan amendments and the Planning Commission's recommendations. Three other presentations will follow, one regarding EMS, one regarding forestry issues and one regarding land values. Mr. Tice said it was about one and one-half years ago that the Board first heard recommendations from the Mountain Protection Committee so he would take a few minutes to review the history of the issue. Efforts to preserve mountain resources go back to the 1971 Comprehensive Plan which identified the mountains as conservation areas. As the County has worked through Plan revisions, the mountains have continued to play an important part in conservation. In 1989, the Comprehensive Plan recommended development of an Open Space Plan, which the Board held hearings on and adopted in 1992. The Open Space Plan recommended that the County develop a Mountain Protection Ordinance. One reason was that as designated growth areas began to fill out, it was assumed there would be building activity in the mountains. Ashcroft is an example of a well-planned development in the mountains. In the last few years, many individual homes have been built in the mountains, as well. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) In 1995, the Board appointed the Mountain Protection Committee made up of 12 members, including mountain landowners, Realtors, foresters and Chamber of Commerce members. They were to look at the issue of what the build out of the County means and what the implications would be on the mountains. At the time the committee met, they did not have the benefit of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's analysis, which maps he then showed to the Board as a slide presentation. The map on the left shows a schematic map of the current density of the Planning District, with colors ranging from dark green with no houses to red being dense housing. The map on the right'is a map of what would develop with current zoning, regulations and environmental restraints. The short of it is that if you superimpose the areas of mountains, with the current zoning in place, most of the mountain areas can be developed at a density comparable to Barracks Road out toward Foxfields or the area within Glenmore or around Earlysville. Most of the mountain overlay area consists of critical slopes, slopes that are too steep to build on. So, if you take the same density as suggested by the maps on the right and reduce it to those areas on the mountain overlay district that can actually be built on, you are looking at a much higher density within those areas. There is no good answer as to how many development rights there are. On a strictly theoretical level, the best estimate is approximately 7000 potential development rights within the mountain overlay district. From a practical standpoint, many of those would probably never be used because of the constraints of property lines and critical slopes. The number, however, is not important, but the impacts are. There are a number of concerns associated with housing development in the mountains. The point about development rights is that, no matter the number, if you have a concentration of them in one area, there are questions of the impacts both from an environmental and economic standpoint. Mr. Tice said the Committee developed a Mountain Protection Plan with three basic parts: (1) the proposed Mountain Overlay District, (2) the lighting ordinance, and, (3) areas suggested for further study by the County, such as PDRs. There were several recommendations from the committee for the Mountain Overlay Districts, one was that, because of the unique nature of the steep slopes, the County should establish a higher level of scrutiny for erosion and sedimentation control within those areas. Secondly, it recommended that houses be allowed on ridges only if those are the only building sites on that parcel. It also recommended further restrictions on building sites and parcel developments and that the final plats show the building sites so that the County's zoning and building inspectors know where the building sites are. The committee also recommended driveway standards because of concern about erosion and sedimentation and also for emergency vehicle access. That part of the committee's recommendation, based on advice from the County Attorney's office, was not part of the Ordinance. Water quality and soil erosion are the most important reasons for looking at mountain protection. Mountains are inherently unstable, as illustrated by large debris flows. More often, this is seen in minor erosion and soil stability problems that cumulatively can affect water quality. The watersheds depend on the quality of the water that comes out of the mountains. The driveway standards were brought up because the committee was concerned about the ability to maintain stable side slopes on private roads, which is why the Ordinance has a requirement that side slopes be no steeper than 2:1. The committee was concerned about tight curves and the grade of roads within the districts and the implications for access of emergency vehicles. Mountains tend to be fire-prone, and fire in mountains behaves differently than fires in level areas and access can become a problem. The mountain areas are some of the last undisturbed blocks of land in the County and for that reason, tend to be important for a number of species, such as the black bear. Of very high importance is the recognition that mountains are important for the economic vitality of the region, both for the direct benefit of forest products, agriculture, orchards and vineyards, and also the indirect benefits on tourism. Of great importance to continued growth is the attractiveness of the region. The local economic importance of Albemarle's mountains is as raw materials, indirect economic benefits and non-commercial, non-recreational benefits. Mountains are key to the region's socio-economic and environmental viability. The Committee recommended the Plan two years ago. The Board sent the Plan back to the Planning Commission and asked them to begin developing a proposed Mountain Ordinance. The Planning Commission held three work sessions June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) 000;313 in the fall of 1996 and then directed staff to begin preparing an ordinance. Over the next year, staff, in conjunction with members of the Committee, Commission and local groups, looked over a wide range of alternatives. It is probably safe to say that all possibilities have already been considered. The Ordinance then came before the Commission. In response to an enormous outpouring of concern from the public, the Commission made some major changes. If what came from the Committee was compared with what came from the Commission, the two ordinances are very similar. Ms. Scala began by talking about the three proposals before the Board. She said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 19, 1998, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of CPA-98-01, Mountains, and ZMA-98-10, Mountain Overlay District, both as proposed. They also recommended approval of ZTA- 98-05, Mountain Overlay District and related provisions, with some changes (see staff report for list of changes). She said the first Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, CPA-98-Ol, Mountains is an amendment to Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, "The Natural Environment," to include a section on "Mountains," including a list of mountains described by contour elevation; and to amend the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan Concept Map description of mountains by contour elevation. This is important because if the Board adopts any provision that requires a special use permit, that language in the Plan would be looked at for guidance. The second is an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Text, ZTA-98-05, Mountain Overlay District and related provisions. An amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Code of the County of Albemarle to add Section 30.8, Mountain Overlay District, and to amend related zoning provisions. The Mountain Overlay District establishes a new zoning district to regulate subdivision and building activity above designated contour elevations in mountain districts, including a requirement to obtain a special use permit to subdivide lots under 21 acres, and restrictions such as allowing no building to occur on the mountain ridge. In addition, amendments to Chapter 20 would apply County-wide: An amendment to add Section 4.2.01, Constructed Embankments, which requires that no slope be created in any zoning district which is steeper than 2:1. Amendments are also proposed to related Code provisions, including Section 3.0, Definitions, Section 4.2, Critical Slopes, and, Section 31.2.2, Building Permits. The third is an Amendment to the Zoning M~D, ZMA-98-10, Mountain Overlay District. This is an amendment to the official zoning map to add a Mountain Overlay District designation to certain properties which are located above designated contour elevations and described as Mountains in proposed Section 30.8, Mountain Overlay District, and in the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. Ms. Scala then spoke about District Boundaries. She said a Mountain Overlay District (MOD) boundary for each mountain has been identified by a specific contour line elevation located in the area where the critical slopes begin on a particular mountain. (For example: The MOD boundary for Fox Mountain begins at the 1200 foot contour elevation.) ~The intent is to protect the mountain resources above this elevation, where the mountain becomes visually prominent, and where development is more difficult due to concentrations of critical slopes." Within the MOD boundaries, Ridge Areas have been delineated (In no case does a Ridge Area extend outside a MOD boundary). The Ridge Area is the highest and most prominent part of a mountain, defined as land within 100 vertical feet of the mountain ridgeline and peaks. The intent of the ordinance is to keep development off the Ridge Area as much as possible. The proposed MOD boundaries and Ridge Areas have been shown on topographic maps and on tax maps, which will become the official Mountain Overlay District zoning maps when adopted. As far as what the Ordinance specifically does, the Mountain Overlay District (MOD) overlays the original zoning district. In almost every case, this is a Rural Areas (RA) zoning district, with few exceptions. The proposed MOD overlays the RA district and currently that means the owner has to already have development rights for small lots or do minimum 21-acre parcels. Also, he cannot build unless there is a building site defined as 30,000 square feet with a minimum 25 percent slope, and the property must meet subdivision ordinance requirements. Many mountain properties are already limited by development rights, building sites or access. These requirements of the MOD will be in addition to the requirements in the underlying zoning district. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) 000314 Ms. Scala said the Rural Area requirements and the critical slope requirements were put into effect in 1980. The critical slope requirements require a building site, while the house, septic fields and the driveways are not regulated. The Committee's version of the ordinance required a special use permit for the small development right lots. Under the Planning Commission's version, they have done away with that requirement, so the 21-acre parcels and small development right lots would be allowed by right in the MOD, but not on the ridge area. The original ordinance and the Planning Commission's version both kept the requirement that building could not occur on the ridge area. There is one exception, and that is that if there is no other place to build on the parcel, the owner is allowed to build one house. When the Planning Commission made its recommendation, they said the Board may want to look into allowing a limited amount of building in the ridge area, perhaps by special use permit. There are listed exceptions in the ordinance for the ridge/no-build area, one being production/agricultural, so a barn could be built; another is an accessory structure of less than 500 feet a hunting cabin could be built, but not a dwelling. Another is a structure, but not a building, of less than 20 feet in height, like a gazebo. Towers are also exempted. The Committee said it did not want to see towers in this area, but there may be existing towers. The Ordinance exempts towers, but they still require approval by a special use permit. In order to get a building permit in the mountain area, the owner has to show where the building will be on the building site. They can do this by either submitting the final plat showing the building site or by showing the building site on a boundary survey. Water ordinance provisions define the disturbed area within the MOD as 2500 square feet, but they are described in other areas as 10,000 square feet so that would be one impact of this ordinance. If 2500 square feet were disturbed within the MOD, an erosion control permit is required. Most people building a single-family home get an agreement in lieu of a plan for an erosion control permit. Under the MOD, the Water Ordinance says special consideration should be given to properties in the MOD; probably, a plan would be required more often than an agreement because there may be concern about erosion. As to Constructed Embankments, the Ordinance specifies that there shall be a maximum 2:1 slope to all driveways and building pads throughout the County. Private roads are currently restricted to 16 percent grade by the existing Subdivision Ordinance. Private road in the MOD, which would be for three or more lots, are required to have a 2:1 side slope and a minimum 40-foot turning radius for horizontal curvature in order to allow emergency vehicles to get to dwellings. The Committee's ordinance did not talk about existing residences. The Planning Commission, in their other major change to the Ordinance, recommended that a grandfathering clause be added so additions could be put on existing residences, and if they were destroyed by fire they would not become non-conforming, and could be replaced. Ms. Scala said the two major changes made by the Planning Commission to the original proposal were: (1) they deleted the requirement for a special use permit for small lots and made it all a use by right, except on the ridge area, and (2) they added the grandfathering clause for existing residences and then said that the Board should consider some mechanism, such as the special use permit, to allow some building on ridge areas when it can be shown that building on the ridge would be less damaging environmentally then building below the ridge area. Deleting the requirement for a special use permit for small lots goes back to the Committee's original recommendation. The Planning Commission provided wording for the Board if it wants to allow some development on the ridge area by special use permit. They only considered allowing single-family dwellings on the ridge area by special use permit; the Board may want to discuss other uses on the ridge, either by right or by special use permit. Ms. Scala said she had a list of approximately nine subdivisions which are currently in the approval process in the MOD. A question often asked is about rural preservation developments (RPDs), which would be allowed as they are now, except in the ridge area. If the Board approves the ordinance recommended by the Committee, the only way the clustered RPDs would be allowed is through a special use permit. Ms. Scala said there is an impact analysis which evaluates housing costs, staffing needs and development review time. Other related costs and benefits, were also evaluated including reductions in time and expense commitments. The proposed MOD would apply to approximately 84,000 acres, June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 41) including 15,000 acres in the Shenandoah National Park. Since 1991, there have been between nine and 17 dwellings per year constructed on parcels totally or partially within the MOD. This number is expected to continue to escalate. In summary, the housing costs, staffing needs and review time will be slight to moderate; the Ordinance will add moderately to the cost of a single-family dwelling in the MOD areas. It was the Commission's opinion that less expensive affordable housing should not be significantly impacted because it is unlikely that housing in this cost range would be built in the MOD. As to staffing time, the main impact will be a moderate increase in inspections in the MOD, particularly by engineering department staff. Review times for building permits would increase significantly only when the parcel has not been subdivided, and hence, they do not have a plat in hand. The Ordinance should provide positive impacts in terms of public road maintenance, emergency services response time, school busing times, soil erosion and water quality impacts. Ms. Scala said there were many guest speakers present today. She then introduced Ms. Kurt Ellison, the emergency and medical services person out of Culpeper, Mr. Joseph Samuels, an appraiser, and Ms. Cindy Frenzell, Department of Forestry. She said each made important additions to the staff report. She then offered to answer questions. Ms. Thomas noted that on Page 2 of the staff's report it is noted that the Engineering Department staff would have to inspect driveways, but there is no regulation in the ordinance for driveways. Ms. Scala replied that they would have to inspect the side slopes, but not the grade of the driveway; all other private driveway requirements were taken out. It is expected that they would do this at the same time as they looked at the building pad to make sure building is occurring on the approved building site. Mr. Marshall questioned a statement made by Mr. Tice that the primary reason people are attracted to Albemarle is due to the beauty of the mountains. Mr. Tice said that statement was actually made by the director of the Thomas Jefferson Economic Partnership at a recent meeting. Mr. Marshall said he disagrees, and thinks the primary reason is the University of Virginia, second, the County's schools~ and third, aesthetics. He feels the main reason people move to Charlottesville and Albemarle is its people. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Samuels to explain how he goes about appraising land values. Mr. Samuels said his specialty is the appraisal of rural lands, particularly with partial interests. A fee simple value is a bundle of rights. His specialty is the value of land if you remove one or more of those rights, by comparing it with other similar properties. Mr. Samuels said he reviewed the documents related to the proposed Ordinance. The implications of the Ordinance, particularly as it applies to land value, cannot be considered in a vacuum. The intent of the Ordinance was to steer new construction away from the ridgetops. Existing lots in the MOD may be used; existing houses in the MOD can be used, expanded or replaced, and the ridgetop can be used when no other house site exists. Relative to application, the proposed ordinance is inclusive of all properties with certain mountain characteristics and individuals are not isolated in the implications of the ordinance. He said even distribution is important in the consideration of value implications. Mr. Samuels said an argument might be made that owners of mountain land are being singled out and it is important to recognize that mountain properties have always been a separate market segment within the RA district, just as all river or forest properties, and they are segregated for various characteristics. The ordinance, therefore, does not create a new separation of these properties. Relative to scope, the ordinance applies to all mountain areas in the County with elevation adjustments. There is no favorable treatment of some areas of the County over another. Albemarle's unique position in the Central Virginia area ensures that the market for these properties will not radically alter with the passage of the ordinance. Mr. Samuels said he gathered Albemarle County sales to guide him in finding out how the current market perceives these properties. He used the local MLS system and his own records. He collected data only from January 1, 1995, when the Mountain Protection Committee was formed, simply to reduce the amount of material to go through, and it was likely that anyone looking at mountain property since that time had an idea that something was happening. Because the ordinance addresses new lots and new construction, he limited his June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 42) search to unimproved land and to improved land where a sizeable portion of the land was in the MOD. He did not research sales in Ashcroft and Rosemont. Mr. Samuels said he gathered sales data to determine if there would be any implication on the value of land from passage of the ordinance. He found 30 sales totaling 8000 acres where most of the land was in the MOD. The distribution was fairly geographically even. Only six sales were of less than 21 acres, and all of these were unimproved lands. Two hundred and fifty-eight acres were purchased where some house sites are now being marked as above the MOD elevation lines. Alternatively, there were 997 acres in three tracts, purchased subject to conservation easements, with an average density of 111 acres. Of the remaining sales, brokers and/or owners confirm that the sale was not motivated by anticipation of utilizing the area for anything except foresting or recreation. The importance that might be gleaned from this information in that there is a market for properties with restrictions on development, and passage of the ordinance as proposed cannot automatically be considered a detriment to land values. Mr. Samuels said value is enhanced by utilizing land at its highest and best use. In this case, it might be argued that value is enhanced when the consistent highest best use is applied. These sales suggest the broader market assigns a highest best use and value to the mountain land for the scenic or recreational amenities it offers. Building sites on ridgetops are not a critical component to the overwhelming majority of investors in mountain lands. A minority use inconsistent with the best use has the potential to erode value to the remainder because of the inherent high profile. Lastly, and perhaps least important, the data suggests that purchasers seek mountain land in quantities to compensate them in privacy for the loss of convenience. Value is not an absolute, it is relative in measure against others of its kind. Mr. Samuels said a careful reading of the proposed ordinance and the proposed revisions shows a fairly flexible document. There does not appear to be a single rigid element of the ordinance that absolutely eliminates a property from residential use. In one of the documents circulated recently, landowners said they will have a 50 percent loss of value from the ordinance. From his experience, a value loss of that magnitude is encountered only when the highest and best use of the land is for development and you cannot build a single house on the property and equally important, the neighbors are not similarly restricted. To argue a loss of property value by virtue of the ordinance assumes the property cannot be built upon at all or that denial of the ridgetops as building sites will irrevocably alter the market. In his opinion, neither is true. The old adage, "Location, location, location" seems appropriate. There is no alternative to Albemarle County mountains with respect to convenience to the larger work centers or the University of Virginia and the other amenities offered inside the County. Mr. Samuels said that in the foreseeable future, he does not envision buyers driving to other counties away from the centralized amenities in order to build on a mountaintop. This is especially true when you consider that the ordinance leaves a certain flexibility to find elevated settings that cannot be found outside the County and circumstances where even a mountaintop can be found with the right combination of elements. He appreciates that there are those for whom the proposed ordinance appears, in the abstract, as a loss of property rights. A closer examination reveals a fairly flexible document that will support the broader higher and best use as defined by the market in a consistent manner sustaining value for all as a consequence. There is no scientific or empirical evidence to suggest that there is a loss of property values to those affected by the ordinance as proposed. Mr. Bowerman asked whether Mr. Samuels brought any biases or prejudices to his analysis. Mr. Samuels said he took on the role that the Board was his client and that he wanted to be as objective as possible. There was no intent to show bias. Mr. Marshall asked whether this ordinance would constitute a taking of anyone's land, and if so, is the County prepared to compensate. Mr. Davis replied that legally, there would not be any taking of the property, since all property still has a reasonable use as residential use or other uses that are not affected. A taking of property has been defined by the courts of Virginia as leaving no reasonable use of the property after a regulatory process has taken away some rights. That is not the case with this ordinance. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 43) 000,2:1.7 Mr. Marshall asked about an individual who purchased property and wanted to build a home for retirement purposes on a mountaintop; would the County not be taking away that person's right to build a home. Mr. Davis said there is a distinction between someone being able to maximize the value of their property and having a reasonable use of the property. Courts have not viewed regula- tory efforts of government to be a taking unless you have so restricted the use that there is no reasonable use left for the property. Simply taking away the maximization of use of the property is not a taking. From a strictly legal viewpoint, this has never been a taking of property, and is not something a government has been required to compensate someone for. From a philosophical viewpoint, you could view this as taking away some rights, but it is not a property right taking that would require compensation. Mr. Marshall said he was referring to a case in South Carolina where an individual who had oceanfront property who wanted to develop it, took it to the Supreme Court, and he won the case. Mr. Davis said in that case, the court found that there was no reasonable use of that property allowed after the government imposed the regulations because they basically said ~you cannot use this property for anything' and that is not what this ordinance proposes. Mr. Marshall said the county would be taking away a right from an individual. If an individual buys property to build on, and then at this point cannot build because of this ordinance, the County may have no legal right to compensate this individual, but does it have a moral obligation to compensate the individual. Mr. Davis replied the Court decisions do not deal with moral rights; as a legal basis, that is not a taking of the property, and is not anything any court would make the County compensate the landowner for. Mr. Samuels noted that there is an even distribution of the implications of the ordinance. Landowners are not isolated; their neighbors are treated equally. There is no loss in value to the property, and to the money invested in the property by virtue of the ordinance. If the only building site is on the ridge, he can build on it. He said the broader market recognizes the lower elevations as being equally important. It is a minority part of the market which looks at the ridge top as the best place to build. It is that minority profile which creates an inconsistency in the highest and best use. The ordinance has the potential to solidify that. Mr. Martin asked whether Mr. Samuels was saying that the property had not necessarily lost value, just changed use. Mr. Samuels said ~yes." Ms. Thomas asked whether family subdivisions were still allowed in this ordinance. Ms. Scala said that ~yes," they were still allowed, but they would have to conform to the requirements of not building on the ridge, etc. If they have development rights, building sites, and can meet those requirements, they are still allowed. Mr. Martin said most mountaintop property is in the Rural Areas, except for exceptions, such as Lewis Mountain. Any subdivisions would have to be based on current Subdivision Ordinance regulations. So, if someone owned 50 acres, under the current ordinance, they would have three division rights. Ms. Scala said that with 50 acres, two, 21-acre parcels could be divided, and that would leave eight acres, so there could possibly be four division rights, and two large parcels under a maximum division. Mr. Martin asked if this new ordinance is adopted, what has changed? Ms. Scala said it would depend entirely on where that ridge area falls on that parcel. Mr. Martin said to assume that of 52 acres, 48 of those acres are in MOD and the ridge area. Ms. Scala said on a parcel that straddles the ridge area, the MOD and is partly outside of the MOD, they can do anything that is normally allowed outside of the MOD. Within the MOD, they can do their 21-acre parcels and, if it is done as the Commission recommended, the small five, two-acre lots. The caveat is that there would still have to be a building site. If they do not have enough building sites outside of the MOD and inside of the MOD to use all of their development rights, they would lose those development rights. The only way they could build on the ridge would be if the entire parcel were on the ridge or if it straddles the MOD and the ridge, and everything outside of the ridge is steep slopes, so the only building site is on the ridge. That is an extreme case where one house would be allowed if there were no where else to build. Mr. Martin noted that the Commission recommended the Board allow special use permits that would allow some flexibility even in those kind of situations. Ms. Scala agreed and noted that the Committee discussed that in their initial recommendations. They thought it would be good to have flexibility on the ridge. The Committee was June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 44) 000 3 .S concerned about what might be allowed. The Commission suggested the Board look at some mechanism such as a special use permit. Mr. Marshall said what he has been hearing from people is the objection that someone builds a white houses on a bare spot on top of a mountain, making it visible for miles. He thinks they should be required to build using earth tones, and screen it with as many trees as possible. He asked if the Board could regulate that practice. Ms. Scala said she did not think that a person could be made to paint their home a particular color, but under the special use permit process, such things could be addressed, based on what is listed in the Comprehensive Plan. Currently, a site plan cannot be required for a single-family home; the only requirement is that they build on a building site, the driveway can be any steepness. This ordinance does allow the Board to look at development on the mountain much more critically. Mr. Perkins asked whether anyone had tried to calculate what this ordinance will cost the average person who wants to build a home, for permits and extra construction. Ms. Scala said there are four main changes. They might have to make the driveway wider. They need a soil erosion plan instead of an agreement, which could cost up to $1000. The benefit of having the plan is that it will control soil erosion much better in steeper areas. The written agreement that most homes have now just says that they agree not to cause soil erosion. They would have to show that they have a building site, either through the normal subdivision process where they'd show it on the final plat, or by a boundary survey to show that they meet the ordinance; a survey which might add $400 to $2500 to the costs. Also, the final driveway and building site would need to be verified before construction begins. The cost would be variable, depending on the fieldwork involved; the estimated cost range is $300 to $1000. Ms. Thomas asked if it would be a fair summary of Mr. Samuels' report to say that since rural land and mountain land have a particular niche in the market, it will retain its niche and value for rural residential land because it is a limited commodity and it has its values because it is close to Charlottesville. Mr. Samuels said that statement was essentially correct, but his analysis was based on how the market perceives the land and if the market saw the land as useful for development purposes, that is how he would have reported it. For the vast majority of the land he looked at, people are using the land as a recreational or scenic amenity. There is a high minority profile that looks at it as building sites, but by and large, the market does not perceive it as such. So, for the reasons Ms. Thomas listed, he does not believe the value would decline because of passage of the ordinance. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Samuels saw any increase in people from outside the area coming in and wanting to build on prominent ridge tops. Mr. Samuels said that a minority have taken that opportunity, but it is very much a minority use, but by the very nature of the property, it is high profile. Mr. Martin said his concern was more with the person who owns the property in terms of division rights and retention of value. Mr. Bowerman asked if, since Mr. Samuels had referred to the Board as his client, had they paid him, to which Mr. Samuels replied "no." Mr. Bowerman said he found the presentation very persuasive, refuting the main argument against the ordinance, which is a decrease in land value. Because this is the main issue, Mr. Samuel's credibility is very important. If, of the 85,000 acres, only 6000 of the 7000 division rights could be used, is it the argument that all 6000+ would be higher after adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Samuels replied that he did not think a lot will move significantly in the present market. Evidence suggests that people do not view the mountaintops as viable or important building sites. In the broader market, there is a high profile minority that desire these sites. In the nine subdivisions that Ms. Scala mentioned briefly, he suggests that this might be changed. Mr. Bowerman asked if the value of a lot would be the same. Mr. Samuels said he did not anticipate a significant change, but it depends on the numbers given. Mr. Kurt Ellison, regional coordinator with the Virginia Department of Emergency Services and nationally certified emergency manager, said he deals with emergency management in highly urban areas to highly rural and has 25 years experience in emergency management. Just recently, Roanoke Valley was announced as a candidate for the newly-formed Project Impact, a highly publicized mitigation program. The push is mitigation and when you have structures that are located up in mountainous areas, it makes sense that it is difficult to get services to them. It used to be that there were no problems June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 45) 000319 with people near rivers, oceans or mountains. People just did not live there because they saw rivers rise or hurricanes hit beaches. The number one killer in Virginia is flooding. More people died in Nelson County from a hurricane than have ever died on the oceanfront, and it was as a result of flooding. He was intimately associated with the Madison operation during the flood some years ago and the number one problem was access. It is still, and always will be, a major problem in flooding, debris flows, fires and snowstorms. Driveways and access roads wash out during storms and people are stuck in their homes. There are no statistics on how many people have died because of lack of access, but it has caused major hardship in areas. People who live in mountainous areas tend to be self-reliant, knowing that such problems happen, but when they need help, they ask for help and people cannot get to them. Mr. Ellison said he is concerned about driveways and access roads; fire trucks and ambulances are usually quite high, in addition to width and drainage, these vehicles are quite heavy and the roads often cannot bear their weight. Today's regulations do not pay for any repairs to driveways, so if a person's private driveway washes out during a flooding event, there are no dollars to help repair it. The other issue is whether rescue personnel should be repairing these driveways. Some feel that those who put themselves in such situations should not be eligible for FEMA assistance. The focus these days is on mitigation; spend a dollar today to save ten dollars down the road. The Department of Emergency Services is interested in, not necessarily restricting, but controlling the kind of development so that when they do call for service, service can get there. Ms. Thomas asked for a definition of mitigation. Mr. Ellison said it is like fire prevention; doing something that prevents the impact of a future disaster. For instance, for someone who lives next to a river that constantly floods, moving the people away and not letting anyone build there would be mitigation. He noted that there were currently such projects going on in Madison County, purchasing land and relocating the residents, then dedicating the land to the County with the provision that nothing ever be built there. Ms. Thomas asked whether he was also suggesting that there should be less disaster relief for people who knowingly put themselves in harm's way. Mr. Ellison agreed, saying that FEMA does not look favorably on applicants who place themselves where they know that disaster could strike. Mr. Marshall noted that access is not always the problem. His tenant house that is only 100 yards from the highway, burnt to the ground with fire trucks sitting all around it. Mr. Ellison said that fire service configuration: location, equipment and such, are also important issues. Ms. Thomas asked about the turning radius mentioned in the ordinance. Mr. Ellison said it was added to make sure the large vehicles, such as the fire trucks, could make the curves. Mr. Perkins said this also brought up the question of whether it was the County's responsibility to protect everyone from everything. Mr. Marshall said he did not think you could, that he chose to live on a mountaintop and that it was his own responsibility. Mr. Ellison said the common opinion was that it was the government's job to fix everything after an emergency and that they were trying to change that attitude and make people aware of what they can do to lessen the impact of the next disaster if they choose to live in such areas. Ms. Cindy Frenzel, from the virginia Department of Forestry and working for the Forest Protection Team, said her job was to protect forests from forest fires as well as homes in the urban/rural interface, built near or in forests. She specializes in fire prevention programs and activities for woodland homes. They have been counting the number of homes and doing various projects to get an idea of what kind of risk is involved. The number of homes across the state has increased seven- to ten-fold since 1979. The Department of Forestry fights fires; they are the quick initial response to forest fires. During the fire season from March through May, they have helicopters on standby just to be able to save these woodland homes quickly. It does not just happen. Homes do not just survive by luck. The main issue is access and she fully supports everything that has already been said about access. If the truck cannot get up the driveway, that is where the protection stops. Ms. Frenzel said that in Afton, there was one home that survived the full force of the forest fire partly because the house was made of virtually June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 46) 0003 0 fireproof materials. Key issues are access, driveways, bridges, water for firefighters, building materials and landscaping around the home. People enjoy living in the woods, surrounding your home with trees, but she recommends that there be at least 30 feet of clearance between the landscaping and the home to keep the house from catching on fire from a forest fire. In Shenandoah, where she lives, at one point if lots were larger than three acres, they were exempt from road specifications, so they have three large subdivisions with grossly inadequate roads. If people want to build woodland homes, there needs to be access. Ms. Thomas said people have suggested that roads built for logging uses be used for residential development. She asked if logging routes were adequate for access for fire trucks. Mr. Samuels said one problem was that flat roads without any drainage wash out quickly. It is not so much the turning radius as no drainage ditches or maintenance. Mr. Perkins said it is not the initial road that is the problem. The road is adequate when the cement truck comes up to pour the foundation. The problem is that the road deteriorates and is not maintained. It depends on what happened to the logging roads after the logging was over. If you put ditches in, you need to have pipes and if the pipes stop up, you are better off not having any pipes. The road would be more stable with broad-based dips than one with stopped-up pipes. Mr. Perkins then handed out a drawing showing what happens with a 2:1 slope as compared to a 1.5:1 slope. Mr. Mawyer said a 2:1 side slope requirement takes more width. If your objective is to minimize the disturbed area, you are better off having steeper slopes. That will, however, put you in an erosion control loop, since you have less disturbed area, but a steeper slope is more prone to erosion. The erosion problem has not been helped. The ordinance does allow more flexibility for the engineer's office to allow steeper slopes in cases where it is warranted. The engineer's department has been working with planning to allow steeper slopes, even up to 1:1, and would want the language in the ordinance dealing with private roads and constructed embankments revised to give them more discretion, if for example, a 2:1 slope would be impossible because of rock or it would require removing trees or a soils report said the soil was adequate. Ms. Thomas asked what would be required if there were public roads. She was told that a 2:1 side slope would be required. She asked if all public roads could be required. Mr. Mawyer noted that the 2:1 side slope requirement is County-wide, and affects everyone's embankment slopes, and said that the slope of the driveway itself is not regulated, only the side slope. Private roads only come into play when you have three or more houses. He said that there were three types of roads under discussion: a public road which VDOT accepts and maintains; a private road which serve three or more lots; and, driveways which go from the lot line to the house where a private road goes from the public road to the driveway. Ms. Thomas noted that the MOD says nothing about the steepness or turning radius of a driveway, only the embankment. Mr. Mawyer said the embankment slopes, as well as the turning radius of a private road, have been affected by the MOD, but only the side slope of a driveway. Ms. Thomas asked if there were any limitation on the steepness of the private road itself. Ms. Scala noted that a private road currently can have a maximum slope of 16 percent. Mr. Bowerman asked whether Ashcroft Subdivision could have been built under the new provisions, and whether the white house (mentioned often as the big white house on the top of the mountain which sticks out like a sore thumb) could have been built as well. Ms. Scala said that white house has a private driveway, so the side slopes would have to be 2:1. She does not know if it could be built because the lot is extremely long and narrow. Mr. Bowerman asked if this ordinance would prevent this kind of development in the future. Mr. Cilimberg said there was a building site that was actually shown to the Planning Commission during preliminary approval of the subdivision plat lower on the mountain but the Commission could not restrict development to it because they had alternative building sites. This ordinance would restrict them to the building sites below the mountain line. Mr. Marshall said the most offensive thing, both to him and to those who desire to have this ordinance adopted, is a big white house sticking out in June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 47) the open where everyone can see it, and the ordinance will not stop that kind of behavior, so the ordinance will not have solved anything. He thinks the Board is trying to kill a fly with a cannon to stop that kind of thing from happening in the future. Mr. Perkins said the mountains are protected somewhat now. He would like to see a list of all existing County ordinances which provide protection to the mountains, as well as the entire County, and how the Mountain Protection Ordinance adds to that list. Mr. Martin said that by the time of the public hearing, he would like to see some examples of language that could be added to the Ordinance to allow for a special use permit for family divisions and whatever else the staff might think would be helpful. Mr. Davis said where a lot straddled the ridge area and the building site above the ridge area was better than the site below the ridge line, the Commission wanted a special use permit process to allow substitution of the building site from below for the building site above, but not to allow additional lots to be created. Mr. Cilimberg said family divisions cannot be done beyond the owner's development rights in any part of the rural area, so this should not be considered in the context of mountain property either. Mr. Davis said the language proposed by staff was to simply allow a transfer of a building site, and not for creation of additional lots above the ridge area. If there is a piece of land entirely above the ridge area and there are two development rights, under the proposed ordinance, only one house could be built and the land could not be subdivided to create any additional lots that are entirely above the ridge area. He thinks Mr. Martin is asking for the possibility for the Board to grant a special use permit to allow another lot to be created to use that development right. That is something that has not been considered by the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas asked if this is strictly for family subdivision, and would be by special use permit, the way it is now. Mr. Martin said that over the years he has been a Board member, the Board has only approved those that were for family divisions. Mr. Davis said in the existing ordinance there is a special provision in the RA District that allows the Board to create addi- tional development rights by special use permit in certain circumstances and the Board has done that rarely. That has been basically in a family subdi- vision situation where the Board granted an additional development right. Mr. Martin said he would like the Board to have the power to create those addi- tional lots. Mr. Ron Keeler noted that the additional development right which has been utilized for a family division, is not available throughout the rural areas. It is not available in the reservoir watershed. Mr. Marshall asked whether the Board wished to go ahead with a public hearing next week. Ms. Humphris said the hearing had already been advertised. Mr. Martin said he thought the Planning Commission did a good job making changes to the ordinance so it is more of a compromise everyone can live with. He wishes there were some way to get that word out to the public before next week. Ms. Scala said she had a letter ready for mailing to the same property owners who were notified before the Planning Commission's public hearing. There will also be an advertisement in the newspaper outlining the changes made by the Commission. Mr. Martin noted that his work phone number should not be put in advertisements, his home number should be used instead. Ms. Humphris said she thought the Planning Commission's public hearing was quite informative and she appreciates the people who appeared here today to address their concerns. Ms. Thomas said a lot of people had brought up the question of whether residential development should be preferred to forestry uses of mountainous properties. They seem to think that forestry uses would be a lot worse than residential development. She said the County's Comprehensive Plan is based on the idea that agricultural, and within that, forestry uses, are what the land is intended for. She asked for an opinion on this question. Mr. Perkins noted that houses are a good deal more permanent than cutting of trees. Trees do grow back, so that is temporary. He feels that many things are altered when a house is built. It disrupts the migratory routes of animals and birds, etc., and disrupts the natural flow of water. It June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 48) 00O3;8;8 does have a permanent and more severe impact on the environment than just cutting timber. Mr. Marshall agreed with Ms. Humphris that the staff had done an excellent job. He commended Mr. Jared Loewenstein on the way he conducted the Planning Commission's public hearing. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker noted that every year the JAUNT Board asks their stockholders to meet and approve the appointment of board members. Each year he asks the Board of Supervisors to appoint a proxy so the Board members do not need to attend. He requested that Ms. Roxanne White be appointed as proxy to the JAUNT Board until August 30, 2000. Motion was offered by Ms[ Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to appoint Ms. Roxanne W. White as the Board's proxy to act and vote all of the County's shares at the annual meeting of the shareholders of JAUNT, Inc. through August 30, 2000. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Ms. Thomas said she received a notice that on Monday, June 8 from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., there will be a meeting sponsored by the Metropolitan Planning Organization to discuss commuter rails. Ms. Thomas said she had attended the meeting the Board was invited to about Ash Lawn. She learned a lot of history that day. The main question was whether the building should be returned to the way the Monroe family had it, which would mean removing the pillars, which is the part one sees when first entering the grounds. Those pillars where added in the 1920s in order to make the building look more Jeffersonian because it was for sale at the time. The group decided that was not a good idea, they like the house the way it is today. Mr. Marshall said he has always been fascinated that a President of the United States lived in such tiny rooms. Ms. Thomas said that is what most school children visiting the home also speak about. The house was not designed by Thomas Jefferson. Ms. Thomas said that on June 9, in the evening, the Sugar Hollow Dam reconstruction will be discussed at a meeting to be held in White Hall. The dam is having safety repairs made on it, and one of the questions is whether any of the repairs will allow for a flow of water down the River during the Summer which it does not allow for. Ms. Thomas said she had one thing she would like staff to think about. There are many committees working on many different things and there is an issue of how they all fit together and whether some are stepping on the toes of others. For example, the PDR Committee and the Mountain Ordinance, the Dark Skies Ordinance, the Agricultural/Forestal Committee, and the agricultural portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The interconnection of these committees is something Mr. Bob Watson mentioned recently as something the Development Committee is interested in. Whether this could be a meeting of a development roundtable; she does not know what form the discussion would take. Mr. Perkins said there will be a meeting on June 4 about the Bargamin tract in Crozet. Mr. Cliff Fox called about that meeting yesterday. He is working with the property owner on the concept, and they are trying to find a way to get a higher density on the property. They have 51 units on less than 20 acres, and he is talking about 75+ unites. He has been working on several conceptual plans, and they are inviting the community to let them help choose a plan. Mr. Perkins said he has a Planning District Commission meeting tomorrow night, but he has asked his wife to attend the meeting. He believes Mr. Fox has invited the Board members just for informational purposes. Approved by the Board of County Supervisors June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 49) 0003 83 NOT DOCKETED: At 4:09 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board go into executive session pursuant to section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia, under subsection (1) to discuss an administrative evaluation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (Note: Mr. Martin immediately said he would have to leave the meeting for about 20 minutes. He returned to the Executive Session at 4:46 p.m.) At 5:30 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session (Note: Mr. Marshall left during the executive session at 5:20 p.m.). Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business coming before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.