Loading...
1997-04-09April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 0003J3 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 9, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 7:10 p.m.) and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., and County Attorney, Larry W. Davis. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m., by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mrs. Humphris announced that the Board would allow 15 minutes of public comment on the proposed resolution regarding the Route 29 bypass when that item comes up on the agenda. She asked that if anyone was present to speak regarding the proposed resolution, they wait and not address the Board under this agenda item. Mr. Ken Clarry said his comments are regarding the draft resolution before the Board, and even though he is speaking only for himself, he thinks thousands of Albemarle citizens have similar views. He owns one piece of property on Route 29 North that will not be impacted by the proposed Bypass and another small farm in northern Albemarle. His reason for speaking this evening is to bring to light some issues that disturb him as a County citizen and that he believes would disturb many people, if they were aware of them. This Board has a long history of addressing important issues such as Route 29 North without allowing the public adequate opportunity to provide input. As an example, a few minutes of time are being set aside tonight to comment on the draft resolution without prior public knowledge. Many times important issues are listed under the agenda heading ~Highway Matters". One example was when the ~Three Party Agreement" was approved. This agreement was voted on at a Wednesday morning meeting at 10:30 a.m., without any previous review by the Planning Commission, without a staff report and without public input. This is consistent with how almost everything regarding the Route 29 Bypass issue has been handled by this Board. Important and long-range policy matters are being listed on the agenda as a highway matter. However, in his opinion, it seems that Bypass opponents are always aware of exactly what items are coming before the Board. If it had not been for an enterprising newspaper reporter, the public would not be aware of this important vote the Board is planning to take tonight, and once again without Planning Commission review, a staff report or a public hearing. He asked what person or persons participated in the drafting of the resolution that is before the Board. Many who oppose the Bypass have suggested alternatives such as moving the alignment out further. If that occurred, it would go 20 to 30 miles through the watershed instead of four miles. He asked if the Board supports going east with a bypass and what would be the response to citizens in the eastern neighborhoods. He has been an opponent of the grade-separated interchanges on Route 29 North. They would have removed three of thirteen traffic lights at an untold cost and destroyed businesses, caused loss of jobs and decreased tax revenue. They would have increased pollution in a primary entrance corridor. He asked if the Board views these grade-separated inter- changes as an alternative to the Route 29 North bypass. Mr. Bowerman was quoted in yesterday's Daily Progress as saying ~none of the Board members were in favor of the grade-separated interchanges". If that statement is true, he asked that it be made a part of any resolution the Board might propose. The draft resolution states "... public opposition to this project has been overwhelming .... " Maybe the Board has been led to believe this by the people who have shown up at its meetings, but as the Board knows, project opponents are usually the only ones who show up to speak. Since, in April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) this case, supporters have not known when this important issue was to be before the Board, it would obviously appear that most people oppose the Bypass. The Virginia Department of Transportation recently held a public hearing at which many people said "Don't build the Bypass". He was told that senior citizens were bused from their facilities to support the anti-bypass movement. He urged each Board member to look at all letters addressed to the Editor and take out their telephone books and see where the writers live. More than one- half of all opposition has been from people who live in Colthurst Farms which is near the Bypass route. 'The only evidence he is aware of that has statisti- cal validity is a poll commissioned by VDOT and conducted by an independent national polling organization. The data showed that 17 percent of those polled oppose the Route 29 North Bypass, 43 percent supported the project and 37 percent were neutral. This is far from overwhelming opposition; 75 percent of the respondents were from Charlottesville and Albemarle. There have been many allegations and much fearmongering about the potential of this six mile bypass to cause siltation or other damage to the reservoir. As far as he knows there has been no study quantifying this danger. The Bypass will have minor long range effects on the reservoir. There are currently 200 to 300 miles of road in the watershed along with approximately 20,000 residents. It is not credible to say that an additional four miles of road will signifi- cantly alter the future of the reservoir. Mr. Clarry mentioned another article in the Daily Proqress that outlined many reasons not to build the Bypass. The punch line was that the bypass described in the article was the existing Route 250 bypass that most of these people used to get to this meeting tonight. If the Route 29 North Bypass is built as it should be, with an interchange at Hydraulic Road, it would have the potential of being nearly as useful for local traffic as the Route 250 bypass with the additional benefit of getting through trucks off the shopping boulevard. In conclusion Mr. Clarry said he understands that the Virginia Conflict of Interest law that govern Board members states that if an individual has $10,000 interest he/she cannot vote on an issue. One of the primary bypass opponents, who has been distributing literature, is a resident of Colthurst Farms and lives within a few hundred feet of the proposed bypass. Some of this literature stated that the bypass would devalue properties by 20 percent or more. If this is true, then the Chairwoman of this Board stands to lose more than $40,000 if the bypass is built. This information is according to literature distributed by her husband. While the Chairwoman may have no technical or legal obligation to excuse herself because none of her land is actually taken, he believes that most impartial observers would agree that she has a moral and ethical obligation to refrain from all future discussions and votes pertaining to the bypass and related issues, both as a member of this Board and as one of the Board's representatives to the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Mrs. Humphris commented that her husband did not lose his civil rights because he happens to be married to her. He exercises his rights as a free man. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2 and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Item No. 5.1. Set public hearing to amend Section 6-6(b) of the County Code to create Cale Precinct at Cale Elementary School. It was noted in the Executive Summary that population growth in the Monticello precinct has increased the voter rolls so that significant over- crowding occurs at the current polling place, Piedmont Virginia Community College, on election day. While some of the overcrowding results from temporary problems with the physical space at PVCC, in the opinion of the Electoral Board the best solution is to split the precinct roughly in half and establish a new polling (Page 3) place at Cale Elementary School T~ d© this requires Board action to modify Section 6-6(b) of the Count~ ~d~ ~ delineates the boundaries of the Monticello precinct and adds a Section 6-6(e), delineating the boundaries of the new precinct. The recommendation of the Electoral Board has met with approval from Supervisor Marshall; Gerald Terrell, Principal of Cale; and Dr. Kevin Castner, School Superintendent. The proposed precinct would be bounded by: the southern city limits, Scottsville Road, Red Hill Road, Old Lynchburg Road and Sunset Avenue Extended. Estimated cost in addition to staff time: Mailing of new voter cards $640 - 50 Copy supplies Purchase/programming voting machine $5,20Q. (already requested in budget) Total $5,890 Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing for May 7th to amend the County Code to modify Section 6-6(b) and add Section 6-6(e) to create the Cale Precinct at Cale Elementary School. Mr. Marshall commented that during the last election there was anywhere from 45 minutes to one hour and fifteen minutes of a wait to vote. He personally waited 45 minutes. The precinct is now in excess of 5,000 voters and he expects that to increase to more than 6,000. By the above shown vote, the public hearing to amend Section 6-6(b) of the County Code to create the Cale Precinct at Cale Elementary School was set for May 7, 1997. Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Emergency Operations Center, $7,500 (Form $96067) . It Was noted in the Executive Summary that the Emergency Communications Center Management Board recently approved the use of $7,500 from their fund balance to be used towards the purchase and development of an EMS mini CAD Dispatch System. This system is being developed with the assistance of the Charlottesville Department of Information Services. All hardware will be purchased from State contract. Staff recommends approval of this appropria- tion in the amount of $7,5000 for the mini CAD System as detailed on appropri- ation $96067. By ~he above shown vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NUMBER: 96067 FUND: ECC PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING TO PURCHASE AND DEVELOP MINI CAD DISPATCH SYSTEM. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOLINT 1410031040312711 MINI CAD SYSTEM $7,500.00. TOTAL $7,500.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2410051000510100 ECC-FUND BALANCE $7,500.00. TOTAL $7,500.00 Item No. 5.3. February, 1997 Financial Report, was received for information. Item No. 5.4. Letter dated April 3, 1997, from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, providing notice of April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~) (Page 4) proposed increase in water and sewer rates charged by the Albemarle County Service Authority, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: 1997-98 County Budget. in the Daily Progress on March 30, 1997.) (Advertised Mr. Tucker presented an overview of the budget in a slide presentation. The Board approved a proposed FY 1997/98 operating budget of $126.6 million. The following is a breakdown of the total budget: community development - 2.0 percent; parks and recreation - 2.8 percent; human development - 5.3 percent; public works - 1.7 percent; public safety - 8.2 percent; judicial 1.6 percent; administration - 4.4 percent; miscellaneous 0.1 percent; revenue sharing - 4.4 percent; capital - 1.8 percent; school debt - 5.9 percent; and schools 61.7 percent. Fiscal Year 1997/98 total County expenditures are: general government operations - $33.1 million; school operations $78.1 million; school debt $7.4 million; revenue sharing - $2.3 million and miscellaneous $.02 million. Fiscal Year 1997/98 total County revenues are: local property taxes $61.9 million; other local revenues - $26.1 million; state revenues - $28.9 million; federal revenues - $3.0 million; self-sustaining revenues - $6.7 million and fund balance/carryover - $0.1 million. The next slide showed a five year forecast of the difference between revenues and expenditures, and growth and inflation with added fixed costs for FY 1990/91 through FY 2001/02. In conclusion, In conclusion, Mr. Tucker said FY 1998/99 is going to be a challenging year. Known costs are $1.3 million for the opening of the Monticello High School; $1.4 million for 305 antici- pated new students; $0.4 million for increased debt service; and $0.4 million for VRS COLA for schools. The increased costs for jail operations are not known at this time. Before opening the public hearing, Mrs. Humphris said following the last public hearing on the budget, it was suggested that perhaps she had embar- rassed one of the speakers by calling time before he had completed his remarks. She has met with the gentleman to apologize for any embarrassment she might have caused him. She would not knowingly or intentionally be rude, impolite or unfair to anyone. In an effort to be fair to all the speakers, beginning with this meeting, the Clerk will act as time keeper for public hearings. The Clerk has a stopwatch which has a little beeper that beeps after three minutes. She reminded everyone of the guidelines for addressing the Board, as set out on the agenda cover. Mrs. Humphris remarked for the benefit of the people who had arrived after the meeting began, the Board would allow a total of 15 minutes for public comments on the Route 29 North draft resolution. The time shall be divided equally among the proponents and the opponents. Mrs. Humphris then opened the public hearing on the FY 1997-98 County budget. She then referred to a list of persons who had signed up to speak and asked them to come forward as she called their names. Ms. Julia Mahoney, spoke on behalf of the Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE). She has also served on SHE's Board of Directors since January, 1995, and as a volunteer at the shelter. SHE's mission is to end domestic violence in this community. To affect this purpose, the shelter operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, providing comprehensive services to women and children who have suffered violence in their homes. Among the services offered are: emergency housing for up to six weeks, individual and group counseling, educational programs, a hotline that provides advice and information, free legal workshops, and extensive follow-up services to former residents. This combination of programs enables survivors of domestic violence to build new lives for themselves and their children, and to become self-sufficient. Ms. Mahoney thanked the County for its many years of generous support of SHE. She asked that the Board fully fund SHE's request for the upcoming year. Such support would enable SHE to continue to provide a wide range of high quality programs to residents of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and surrounding counties. Next to address the Board was Mr. Carl Mansoor, representing employees of the Police Department. First, he asked everyone present who supported better pay for Police Department employees to stand and be recognized (approx- April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Me~ingi (Page 5) imately 35 people stood). Mr. Mansoor said there is a problem with the pay police officers receive which has an effect on police service. The officers want merit pay for satisfactory or better performance. He read an article in the Observer, which refers to the police offers as "poor performers". Most of these officers have consistently scored above average and some have scored outstanding on their performance reviews. Many of these officers are on specialty teams within the Department, lead those teams, train new officers and are asked to teach at the Police Academy. He then referred to a comment made at a previous meeting by Mrs. Thomas in which she said maybe the police officers should take a test to see if they understand the pay plan. He said this statement was followed by laughter and Mrs. Humphris commented that she thought the same thing, but did not say it. Mr. Mansoor said if a police officer went to a crime scene and laughed at a victim, there would be an uproar. The police officers have the same reaction to that comment. He asked the Deputy Director of Human Resources to provide information on how the pay plan worked and how it would be implemented. He was told that information did not exist. The officers understand the pay plan as best as it was explained. At one of the budget work sessions, Mr. Huff stated that the pay range was comparable to other localities. However, the officers were told they would only reach mid-point, and possibly never reach maximum. If the pay range is between minimum and maximum, and they will never reach the maximum, the plan is deceptive. That is not a fair pay range. Another issue is a lack of consistency in what the officers are told. At one time they are told compression is a problem and at other times, they are told it was eliminated several years ago. The Police Department's general order states that it is a privilege to take home a police car; yet it was stated at the work session that this was part of their compensation package and was a benefit. Mr. Mansoor concluded by asking the Board not to place the entire burden for fixing this problem on the shoulders of the Police Chief without giving him the resources he needs. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. Mr. Howard Porter said he is a registered voter in the County, married and with two young sons, and he became a police officer in August, 1991. Prior to relocating to Albemarle, he was a police officer in Baltimore County, Maryland for three and one-half years. He is concerned about the pay plan and its unfair clustering effect. Since 1991 he has received excellent evalua- tions. He has been at Skill Level I in the Skill Proficiency Program since July, 1994. He receives a five percent pay increase since being at this skill level, but this increase is not vested in the retirement system. He had to do extra work to attain this level and to maintain it. He can also lose it at any time. His concern is that police officers who were hired in August, 1995, four years after he was hired, are only making $1,400 less per year than himself. If the five percent for Skill Proficiency is subtracted from his pay, these officers are actually making more than he is annually. He asked that someone seriously look into the pay plan and make it fair and equitable. He also attended the work session when the Police Department's budget was discussed. He thinks the joke about their pay concerns was unprofessional. His family's quality of life depends on his income. He is finding it harder to make ends meet without working overtime. Mr. Peter Baber said he also is a police officer and is speaking on behalf of all the employees of the Police Department. When he was hired as a police officer no one mentioned the compression or pay disparity. No one seemed to be able to explain the County's pay plan. The officers are not asking for a raise, but they are asking that pay disparities be fixed. Police Department employees are devoted to the County; they sacrifice their time and well-being to ensure the safety of citizens. When everyone is in bed, they are on the street. When it snows and everything is shut down, they are on the street. During natural disasters, they are on the job. The officers trust their Chief and administrators and urge the Board to provide the funds to correct the pay problems within the department. Mr. Roger Mathias said he is a resident and voter in the County, and an employee of the Police Department. The pay issue is a serious matter. He indicated that a plan has been developed, similar to the teacher's pay scale, which the officers feel would be fair. He asked that Board members meet with April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Me~in~) 0003~ (Page 6) the police officers to hear their conCerns and discuss the plan they are proposing. He concluded by saying it is hard to ask the Chief to motivate officers with more years of service when they are evaluated the same as an officer just off probation. Mr. Mike Wagner said he is an employee of the Police Department. He cited several examples in which persons in the community treated him unfairly or rudely, simply because they had an experience with him while he was performing his duties as an officer. Other officers have had similar experi- ences, and feel their work and lives are worth the compensation. Mr. Mike Webb, a resident of Charlottesville, said he supports the police officers and their request for a pay raise. He has been involved with the Police Department for seven or eight years, both City and County, and has assisted the County with crime analysis studies for approximately three years. He also served on the Police Chief's Advisory Panel for the City of Char- lottesville. He is an officer, organizer and fundraiser for the annual ~You've Got a Friend Day" in September. He has logged over 2,000 hours in the Ride-Along Program with police officers. He has witnessed many disturbing situations, including both physical and verbal abuse of police officers, who always act professionally. He feels they deserve more money simply due to the nature of their job. He, too, gets threatened because of his involvement. He believes the pay scale for officers should not be similar to other depart- ments, instead it should be better. As the community continues to grow, services will be needed, and it would be a good idea to retain good officers. Mr. Webb said he was also disturbed by the comment and subsequent laughter made at the Board's budget work session with regard to testing officers to ensure they understood the pay scale. This comment was rude and insulting to police officers, and he questions this leadership approach. In conclusion, he stated that everyone in this community should be proud of the police officers. Mr. Ed Strauss said he lives in the western part of the County. He said every year the County gets to the point where it has no reserve fund. He asked what the Board plans to do in the future to remedy this situation, and to prevent the same mistakes from occurring again. He said the Enhanced 911 System was poorly handled and citizens never received the partial refund they were promised. Citizens' requests are just as valid as employees' He said the Board wants to tax citizens even more to get money for the school system. After a few years, the Board will want to do something else with the money. In his opinion, reversion is not a problem. If the City reverts, let it happen. The Board can either accept it or close down the government, but he asked that it not spend any more money. Mr. Strauss said at the last meeting on the budget, the Board talked about its pet projects; he believes all that money should go into a reserve fund. He suggested combining City and County police resources instead of continuing to pursue bureaucracy. He believes disgruntled employees should go to their supervisors, not to the Board, to deal with their problems. There are plenty of people who want to work; let them compete for the available jobs. He wondered if citizens were getting their money's worth from this school system. A man who did not identify himself, said he is a retired lawyer. He thinks the Board needs to consider the complaints, wishes and desires of police officers, and find a way to work with them. They get a lot of abuse from the public, but little support, monetary or otherwise. Mr. Mike Fields, also with the Police Department, said his pay is an investment in his children, who are the future. Mr. Barry McLean said police officers work hard to develop relationships with the community. When they see better opportunities elsewhere, they leave, which is a loss of someone the community trusts. He has three children, and is founder of "You've Got a Friend Foundation". He wants children to feel comfortable relating to police officers, and he believes the community needs to support them. Police officers should not be considered as equals to other employees, due to the risks and nature of their. The officers are not doing this for the money. Officer Tom Hopwood said the Police Department has grown significantly 000339 April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) over the past six years. These are professional men and women. Many of the officers are college-educated. He is the head leader of a field training program. The officers should be compensated for their skills. Mr. Joe Teague, Jr., said he is also a resident of the County, and he has a brother who is a police officer. He, personally, is involved with the police community. His business depends on police support during funeral professions. He believes the police force is outstanding. He thinks the Board members need to listen to the many concerns of the officers. The County also needs to expand its police force when possible and avoid losing good, trained officers. Mr. Mike Kennard said he has been with the Police Department since 1988. He came from Richmond, Virginia, with six years' prior experience. Police officers love their jobs. Police officers do whatever is necessary to guard the public. This is not just a job, this is their life. Police officers certainly do not do this work for the pay. In his opinion not many officers would perform this job just for the money. Young men and women entering the police force with the idea of changing the world must be encouraged to keep that attitude. With no further speakers coming forward, Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing on the budget. Mr. Marshall said he was not present for the budget work sessions. First, he would like to thank the police and fire departments for their assistance in putting out a fire at his mother-in-law's home while he was away on vacation. During the past six years while being on the Board and previ- ously as a School Board member, he has heard these same issues about compres- sion and pay. He is impressed with the turnout from the Police Department. When he was elected he said he would support the Police Department. He knows a little about what the officers go through, because he also had a gun pointed at him. He sympathizes with them regarding the salary issue and wants more information before voting on the budget. Mrs. Thomas said her statement at the budget work session was as a result of frustration. No disrespect was meant. She was a participant of the Citizens Policy Academy and she respects officers. She apologized if her flippant phrase caused harm. She said the Board learned a great deal this evening and appreciated their comments and presence, and all of their hard work. Mrs. Humphris concurred. The Board was dealing with a difficult situation. No disrespect was meant; the Board was trying to come to a solution. She then asked Mr. Tucker that, because fiscal constraints dictate what the Board does right now, and since there is no money to correct the problem, would it not be correct to say the Board would have to raise taxes to increase salaries in the future. The Board will be analyzing options during the next year. She suggested the officers work with the staff. She added that this is a problem for all County employees, not just the Police Depart- ment. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. He has written to representatives of the police officers and explained that the Board plans to study compression issues for the entire County. Revenue constraints are currently an issue. If the Board chose to, it could shift some funds that were previously allocated for other programs. It would be hard to implement anything without setting aside some reserve funds. The County's new pay plan, which was adopted last year, has not been in place for a full year. The evaluation process has not yet occurred for this year. This discussion is already about changing the plan. A committee of Board members and School Board members, with input from citizens, looked at the plan. Everyone supported the plan, and that is what was implemented. If there is a need to adjust the plan, staff is willing to do that in the future. Mr. Martin said he thought the new pay plan would help deal with some of the compression issues. Mr. Tucker said that was correct, but the compression issue will not be solved in one year. Someone mention the "mid-point". The whole plan is based on a process that moves employees more quickly to the mid- point of their full range over time. Beyond the mid-point, the market value of each position, and mobility is slower. The previous pay plan did not do that. The entire process, since it is a plan based on pay for performance, is based on each individual's performance in this organization. April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) ~i~_~.. 000340 Mrs. Humphris said this plan has only been in effect for nine months. The Board was told it would take several years before compression issues were resolved. She said it was her understanding that employees will eventually reach the maximum of their pay range. In the meantime they will be at the mid-point or market range. Mr. Tucker confirmed this was true and it depends on the longevity of the employee. After reaching the mid-point, an employee advances more slowly. Mr. Bowerman said it seems to him there are two separate issues. One issue is County-wide compression. He asked what was the cost to bring everyone to the midpoint. Mr. Tucker said he did not remember the exact dollar figure, but it was significantly more than revenues were available last year. Mr. Bowerman said the second issue of pay for police officers based on the nature of their work is something he is willing to look at. In order to meet some of the requests the Board has heard tonight, additional funds would be required, and this would mean a tax increase. He would be happy to meet with representatives form the Police Department to hear their argument. Mr. Martin said he strongly supports a merit-based system, and realizes it contributes to some compression. He is employed by the state. For years employees made the same amount of money as regardless of how good or bad a worker. In his opinion, if one employee is a better performer than another employee he/she deserves to make more money. A merit-based plan offers the opportunity for outstanding performers to move more quickly into a higher range, even if this puts them alongside with someone who has been there for years, but who had not been performing as well. Mr. Marshall said he is concerned that no one is at maXimum. He believes at least one officer should be at that point, and asked why no one was. Mr. Tucker said that is the nature of the plan. When an entire system is changed and the scale is shifted by 3.5 percent, although the scale moves, no one necessarily moves up in the range, even if they received a pay in- crease. This plan allowed for the expansion of the minimum and maximum ranges, so it is impossible for someone to now be at the maximum point. No County employee is at the maximum. Mr. Martin added that any time a system changes its pay scale where a large group is at the top of their scale, employees would have no room to progress and that would cause dissatisfaction. Mr. Tucker suggested the Board wait until the first evaluation probess occurs, and see what effect it may have on the entire compression issue. Mr. Marshall asked how long that would be, and Mr. Tucker responded that evalua- tions are coming up in the next couple of months. Mr. Marshall asked if the Board could revisit this issue in about three months so that something could be done to raise the morale of the police officers. Mr. Tucker said that would be up to the Board. Mr. Tucker then suggested the Board look at the compression issue and discuss how they might be able to correct the problem. Mrs. Thomas said during the budget work sessions, the Board went through each budget items with a fine tooth comb. She is always looking for ways to shift revenues to other areas. The Board could not find anything to cut or shift during the meetings. Mr. Marshall said he wants to look at shifting funds around. Mr. Tucker commented that the budget could not be adopted next week, if the Board shifted revenues now. The Board would have to address the pay issue, determine costs, and determine how to shift revenues. Mr. Marshall asked if all reserve funds have been spent. He asked if the County could create a stipend for hazardous duty pay. He also asked if there are any savings in fuel costs. Mr. Tucker said any savings would be a one-time expenditure, and should not be used to fUnd an ongoing cost. Mrs. Thomas added that those funds have already been accounted. Mr. Bowerman suggested that Mr. Marshall meet with the staff to review decisions that were made in his absence. If Mr. Marshall then wished to make a suggestion next week as to where money can be shifted, he would be happy to hear from him and the Board could then take action, if it so desired. Mr. Martin said he thought this was an excellent idea. Mr. Marshall said that was what he would do. Mrs. Humphris commented that no action was required by the Board tonight. Adoption of the operating and capital budgets is scheduled for the April 16th agenda. There was no further discussion. April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 000341 (A representative of the police officers came forward and said they accept Mrs. Thomas's apology.) Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: 1997 Tax Rates. Daily Progress on March 30, 1997.) (Advertised in the Mr. Tucker said the Board proposes retain the same tax levy in FY 1996- 97: real estate and mobile home $.72/$100; public service corporations $.72/$100; personal property - $4.28/$100; and machinery & tools - $4.28/ $100. The transient/lodging tax is recommended to be increased from two percent to five percent. The Chairman opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphris commented that the Board will consider adoption of the tax rates at the April 16th board meeting. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Request by Tandem Friends School to acquire 1.494 acres of property on the south side of the new connector road at Monticello High School. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Ethan Miller, on behalf of Tandem Friends School, has submitted a request to the County to purchase a 75 foot strip of land constituting 1.494 acres adjoining the Tandem Friends School property for the purpose of expanding the Tandem soccer field so as to accommodate a regulation sized facility. Staff has reviewed this request and determined that the parcel that the strip is being acquired from consists of approximately 8.1 acres which would leave 6.6 acres. Staff believes that, as long as utility easements over this 75 foot strip are preserved, this sale would not adversely impact the master plan associated with development of this parcel. The Building and Grounds Committee has reviewed this proposal and is recommends that a public hearing be held to dispose of this 1.494 acres to Tandem School at a price of $20,000 per acre which approximates the County's investment in this property to date. Additionally, the Building and Grounds Committee is recommending that a stipulation of this sale include availability for use of this soccer field by the public at times not used by Tandem School in exchange for some assistance with trash pickup and portable toilet facilities. Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, believes that this field would be a great benefit to have available to the community and is willing to work through the issues on trash cleanup and toilet facilities while working with the scheduling issues. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board accept the Building and Grounds Committee's recommendation and hold a public hearing to dispose of this property under the conditions outlined above. Mr. Ethan Miller, Chairman of the Board for Tandem Friends School, said this would mean a lot to Tandem to have this extra 75 feet of land. It allows them to have a bona fide soccer field. He believes Tandem saves the County between $500,000 and $700,000 yearly in the school budget by educating children at private expense rather than taxpayer expense. He appreciates the Board's positive consideration of this matter. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to set the public hearing as recommended for May 7, 1997. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Route 29 North Bypass Draft Resolution. Before beginning discussion on this item, Mrs. Humphris presented a Transactional Disclosure Statement. She owns property in close proximity to the proposed bypass corridor. She is also a member of a large group of property owners who are in close proximity of the proposed bypass. She has been active in efforts to protect the Southfork Rivanna Reservoir since the early 1970's, which was long before discussions of a bypass. She will April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) continue her efforts to protect the Reservoir. She is able to participate in this transaction fairly, objectively and in the public interest. Mrs. Humphris indicated that she would sign and file the disclosure with the Clerk. Mrs. Humphris again stated that the Board would allow 15 minutes for persons to speak on the draft resolution. Mr. Ed Strauss, a resident in the western part of the County, said this is a uno-win" situation. If the Board opposes the bypass in this location, then VDOT will probably suggest an eastern bypass. The people in the eastern part of the County will then oppose that bypass. He feels the Board needs to make it clear to VDOT that they are opposed to any bypass, if that is their position. Mr. George Larie, a County resident and President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Coalition (CATCO), spoke in support of the resolution. At a public hearing on February 25, the total comments received by VDOT were contained in 20 large books. CATCO, under the Freedom of Information Act, obtained a copy of the books and summarized the pros and cons. There were 9,303 comments, of which 8,079 were opposed to the construc- tion of the proposed bypass, and 1,224 people supported a bypass. For every eight people, seven were opposed to the construction of this bypass, and one person supported, its construction. On January 18, 1995, Transportation Secretary Martinez said, "I do not believe we should be in the business of constructing facilities that people do not want." Mr. Larie said this Board has been the subject of duplicity by V DoT. CATCO also obtained a copy of an internal VDOT memorandum, dated May 4, 1994, in which Mr. Claude Garver, Assistant Commissioner of Planning and Programming, which indicated the Commonwealth Transportation Board's intent to revisit the agreement with the CTB and to place more priority on the Route 29 Bypass. Mr. Melton Moore, also a County resident, said VDOT has been trying to force a western bypass on the community for 20 years. In 1982, after a vocal and well-attended public hearing, this Board voted to delete the western bypass from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study Plan (CATS). In July, 1991, two Board members and the County Executive met with Secretary Milliken to discuss transportation issues. Without public input or debate, the Board voted, four to two, to stop fighting the western bypass. In return VDOT agreed to continue with the base case improvements on Route 29 North, the three grade-separated interchanges and the Meadow Creek Parkway. Then, depending upon traffic, the western bypass might be considered for construc- tion in the year 2010. The Three Party Agreement between the County, the City and the University, to this effect, was signed in December, 1991, and January, 1992. Through the lobbying efforts of the North Charlottesville Business Council, led by its founder, Carter Myers, the three interchanges were eliminated. It is his understanding Mr. Myers told two members of this Board that if they did not withdraw their support of the interchanges, the County would never see construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Without the interchanges and the Meadow Creek Parkway, traffic would remain at a level of service ~F" level, so VDOT and the CTB has the excuse to push the western bypass construction up to the late 1990's, possibly. The CTB's resolution of February, 1995, which rescinded the November, 1990, resolution further solidified VDOT's western bypass agenda. For the past three weeks, he has been reviewing VDOT files, and this project has a sordid history, one of betrayal and deception. When given accurate facts, citizens of this community have overwhelmingly voted against a western bypass. In June, 1990, the citizens voted 3,212 to 51 in opposition to a bypass. VDOT's comment sheets from the final design public hearing in February, 1996, listed 1,585 people in opposition to the bypass and 183 in support. Oral comments opposed the bypass 124 to 16, with 4,980 citizens signing a petition in opposition. It is inconceivable that intelligent, rational people would promote and continue to support a bypass in this location, especially when there are viable alterna- tives. He commended the Board for returning to a position they should have stayed with 15 years ago. Mrs. Babette Thorpe spoke on behalf of the Piedmont Environment Council. The Board has fought for over 20 years to protect the City's and County's water supplies. Now VDOT wants to run a four lane, 55 mile per hour highway through the watershed within 700 to 1,000 feet of the Reservoir. Tractor trailer trucks, some carrying hazardous materials, will make up a significant amount of the traffic on the bypass. Arthur Petrini, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, has expressed concern that the road may April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 000343 lead to toxic spills, contaminating the Reservoir. The Environmental Protec- tion Agency is worried too. According to a letter from the EPA to V/DOT dated February 26, 1997, Alternative 10 poses long-term risks to the Southfork Rivanna River Reservoir, the only source of drinking water for the County for the foreseeable future. The most fool-proof way to protect the Reservoir from these contaminants is to drop this project. It is not even cost-effective, as it will cost $170.0 million and carry about 16,000 vehicle trips per day by the year 2015. If each vehicle was charged $2.75 for every six mile trip on the new road, it would take 20 years to pay for the project at current public project borrowing rates. Spending so much money on so little traffic will likely leave VDOT with neither the funds nor the interest to deal with what will continue to be major congestion on Route 29 and other major area road- ways. PEC opposes the construction of the bypass, supports the resolution and urges VDOT to honor the construction phasing plan that was originally set out in the four-party agreement. Mrs. Humphris asked for a show of hands of those who were in support of the resolution (approximately 16 people raised their hands). Mr. Bowerman said the opposition (9,300 comments and signatures with 8,000 being negative) to this project is significant. In comparison, the meals tax proponents have only gotten about 2,000 signatures. The reversion petition in the City took 18 months to get 3,000 signatures. Other items this Board addressed in the past had far fewer people make reference to what they like or dislike. This 8,000 represents a significant portion of the County and City population and should be reflective of a mandate which reflects the opposition in the community. Mrs. Thomas concurred, saying her constituents, who are not directly affected by the bypass, have commented on their opposition to the bypass and their support of the resolution. Mr. Marshall said the state has a great Governor from Albemarle County. He appointed two fine gentlemen, Mr. Carter Miles and Mr. Bill Roudabush, to the CTB. He respects those gentlemen a great deal. He knows that they are supporting the Governor. Even though the Governor is loyal to Albemarle County, he has to think about the entire state. The areas north and south of Charlottesville want a bypass. In his job as Governor, he has agreed to do that, and has instilled in these two gentlemen the belief that they should support his feelings. However, Delegate Peter Way told Mr. Marshall he had to vote his conscience, even though his constituents were not directly affected by the bypass discussion. He reminded Mr. Marshall that all three legisla- tors, Mr. Mitchell VanYahres, Mrs. Emily Couric, and himself are opposed to the bypass. He said he would vote his conscience tonight. Mr. Perkins said he appreciated all the information provided to him from citizens, and including Dennis Rooker. One of the most significant pieces of information he saw was a letter in 1991 from Secretary Milliken to Chairman, Rick Bowie. Secretary Milliken outlined the sequence of how the roads would be improved in this community. He supports the proposed resolution because he finds it inconceivable that the Secretary of Transportation would write such a letter and then for the State to decide to back out of it. It is hypocritical to write something like that and then go behind the Board's back to do something else. He does not know whether the resolution would have any effect, but hopes it would. Mrs. Thomas suggested that certain phrases be underlined to allow them to stand out in the resolution. Mrs. Humphris agreed that would be helpful. She then asked Mr. Tucker to provide a brief cover letter summarizing the resolution and signed by all Board members. She further asked that Mr. Tucker hand deliver the letter to the CTB and ask all the delegates to attend the CTB meeting. Mr, Bowerman suggested that 16 individual letters be done, each signed by all Board members, addressed to the CTB members. The letters could then be sent via Federal Express for overnight delivery to each member of the CTB. He does not believe the CTB will allow an opportunity to speak at the meeting. Mr. Martin said he might abstain from this vote. Further back in history there was an argument over whether there would be an eastern or western bypass. He ran for this seat on the Board against the person who lead the opposition to an eastern bypass. He does not necessarily object to the resolution, because it is basically a statement of history, but he has not made his mind up yet. His constituency would be affected by an eastern April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 000344 bypass. There are people on Route 29 who are in favor of a western bypass because of its convenience. Therefore, he is not committing himself to signing 16 letters or voting for or against the resolution. Mr. Bowerman said he respected that, but the resolution is simply to set the record straight about the transgressions that have happened to the community, and discusses the letter written by the Secretary of Transportation outlining a course of action that was agreed to with this community. At the time, he was told by some people, who were opposed to it, that the letter was not worth the paper it was written on. He responded that if %/DOT broke the agreement, they would have to do so publicly, but they did not. It was done in CTB meetings. He is asking Mr. Martin to support the resolution; not an eastern or western bypass. The sequence of events that took place resulted in unilateral decisions made that did not include community discussion. Mrs. Humphris said she has been involved in bypass issues for many years. She is certain the people in this community have never wanted a bypass anywhere. She does not remember any battle between an eastern or western bypass. There had been some talk at one time about constructing a bypass to the east, but it was never promoted by anyone. Mrs. Humphris then remarked on a letter the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) received from Mr. Brouder, VDOT's Chief Engineer. The letter, dated June 21, 1996, was in response to a letter written by the MPO concerning the inclusion of an interchange on the proposed bypass at Hydraulic Road. In the letter Mr. Brouder stated ~I have directed staff to advise the consultant to discontinue any work on developing a concept for a future interchange in that location .... This action means that the Department will no longer consider an interchange for this location either now or in the future." She then received a copy of an inter-office memorandum from Patricia Napier, VDOT Project Manager for this project. The subject of the memo was the Route 29 bypass discussed at a meeting held on July 21, 1996, at the Charlottesville residency. Mrs. Humphris said there were many interesting things in the memorandum, such as "... We will consider at-grade railroad crossings from Old Ivy Road to existing Ivy Road. We will shift the alignment to the west into the Colthurst Farm neighborhood (at a time when VDOT was telling the Board this would not happen). At Hydraulic Road, we will utilize the existing road alignment for the crossing of the bypass. We will look at the possibility of a tight diamond interchange in the future at this location. I think we are all aware that this is not the best location for a future interchange, but this is where we will place it. No mention of an interchange, either now or in the future, will be discussed for this location. I hope this is the main ideas of the changes that we discussed today. I hope we are making the right decision at Mount Falcon, but I think everyone better be ready to accept the consequences of making this move into this very controversial area. Thanks again for meeting on such short notice and at such an early hour, but Mr. Meyers was very insistent about meeting this week and his schedule was very limited .... Mrs. Humphris said she was sure everyone understood the memorandum. Chief Engineer said VDOT would not consider that interchange now or in the future, and the inter-office memorandum says something entirely different. The Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt the proposed resolution opposing construction of the Route 29 North bypass, and that the letter be forwarded to all 16 members of the CTB. Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. (The adopted resolution is set out below:) RESOLUTION REGARDING ROUTE 29 BYPASS WHEREAS, the Resolution of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on November 15, 1990, which approved the road improve- ments in the Route 29 corridor in Charlottesville and Albemarle, provided for a sequence of other road improvements in the corridor to be completed before the construction of the Alternative 10 Western Bypass (the ~'Project"), and for the Project to be con April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 000845 structed only "when traffic on Route 29 is unacceptable and economic conditions permit"; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid sequence of Route 29 road improvements was established following and based upon a $3.70 million study performed by Sverdrup Corporation, which study was performed and paid for specifically for the purpose of determining the sequence of, and need for, road improvements in the Charlottesville-Albemar~ Route 29 corridor; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid sequence of improvements was also recommended to the CTB by the Chief Engineer of VDOT in 1990; and WHEREAS, the CTB passed a second resolution in December, 1991, confirming the State's commitment to the sequencing of the Route 29 bypass "in concert with the remaining construction projects of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Area Transportation Study (CATS) plan after Phase I and Phase II recommendations of the CTB November 15, 1990, resolution has [sic] been completed"; and WHEREAS, an Agreement signed by the County of Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia in December, 1991 and February, 1992 (the "Three Party Agreement"), which was endorsed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as an amendment to the CATS in January, 1992, and which referenced the sequencing called for by the CTB resolutions of November, 1990 and December, 1991, specified the following improvements and sequencing in the Route 29 corridor: Widen Route 29 North as provided for in 1985 CATS; and Design the North Grounds connector road facility; and Address each element of CTB Phase I recommendations of November 15, 1990 [these included: (1) widening of Route 29, (2) reserving right-of-way for interchanges as may be needed at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive and Hydrau- lic Road, (3) restricting, to the extent possible, local land use development on needed right-of-way in the aforesaid areas, (4) acquiring any needed right-of-way under advanced acquisition policies, (5) developing North Grounds connector facility with additional mass transit, (6) recommending approval of Alternative 10 as a corridor for future development and Albemarle County assistance in preserving necessary right-of-way and minimizing adverse impacts associated with development of the corridor, (7) providing Albemarle County with preliminary plans for the Alternative 10 corridor to aid local officials in the preservation of the corridor and development of compatible land use plans, and (8) noting that the preservation of the Alternative 10 corridor would assist the County in a no-growth position in the watershed and assuring that access to the corridor would only be provided at the request of the County]; and Construct the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to U.S. 29 North as soon as funding is avail- able; and Construct grade-separated interchanges on U.S. 29 North at Hydraulic Road (Route 743), Greenbrier Drive (Route 866) and Rio Road (Route 631), with early acquisition of right-of-way for these interchanges based upon hardship (same program being used for early acquisition for Alternative 10 Western alignment); and Construct an alternate controlled vehicle access [sic] for traffic bound for University areas only, including the North Grounds from Route 29/250 Bypass; and Complete remainder of CTB Phase II recommendations of November 15f 1990 [these included (1) constructing interchanges at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive and Hydraulic April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Road, as traffic continues to increase and economic conditions allow and (2) continuing the preservation of right-of-way for the Alternative 10 corridor and the advanced acquisition of right-of-way as needed and economics permit]; and Construct Alternative 10 after completion of the above and when traffic on Route 29 is unacceptable and economic conditions permit, concurrent with remainder of 1985 CATS. WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors opposed the Alternative 10 Bypass due to its severe environmental and economic impacts, and agreed to the construction of the Alternative 10 Bypass only after receiving specific assurances from the CTB in two separate resolutions, and only after receiving several additional assurances from the Secretary of Transportation, as recently as June, 1994, that said sequence of construction improvements would be followed; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 1995, following a motion with no discussion, and without p~ior notice to Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, or the MPO, the CTB passed a resolution rescinding specific actions of the Board taken at its meetings November 15, 1990 and December 19, 1991, which relate to the interchanges at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Hydraulic Road .... "and relating to the phasing of construction for the Route 29 Bypass based on increases in traffic and economic conditions"; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid February 16, 1995, CTB resolution: (1) was contrary to the findings of the $3.70 million Route 29 corridor study, (2) ignored the recommendations of the VDOT Chief Engineer concerning the sequence of Route 29 improvements, (3) violated the agreements and assurances made by VDOT to Albemarle County concern- ing the sequencing of Route 29 improvements and (4) was contrary to the Three Party Agreement and the CATS; and WHEREAS, it is contrary to the Three Party Agreement to commit public funds to the construction of the Project until currently committed projects, such as the base case widening of Route 29, the four-laning of Hydraulic Road and Rio Road, and the Meadow Creek Parkway are completed, and a reasonable period of time has passed after the completion of those improvements so that a determination can be made of their effect upon traffic flow in the Route 29 corridor; and WHEREAS, the improvements in the Route 29 corridor scheduled to be completed prior to beginning construction of the Project, as identified in the Three Party Agreement, the CATS, and the CTB resolutions of November, 1990 and December, 1991, have not been completed; and WHEREAS, the recently completed Design Study (the "Design Study") for the Route 29 Bypass disclosed that there are many important community impacts from the Project which had not been previously disclosed or determined; and WHEREAS, there have been numerous variations and increases in the VDOT cost estimates for the proposed Project and the cost estimates of the Project have grown from $68.0 million in 1988 to more than $170.0 million now; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Route 29 Corridor Study, for the length of U.S. 29 between Charlottesville and Warrenton, has concluded that Route 29 should not be turned into a limited access facility; accordingly, this Project does not fit into a desired limited access north-south Central Virginia corridor; and WHEREAS, the public opposition to this Project has been overwhelming; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in light of the aforesaid facts, the County of Albemarle hereby opposes any additional 000347 April 9, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) expenditure of public funds for the Alternative 10 Bypass and withdraws its support for this Project. Agenda Item No. 11. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel Matters. At 9:10 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss personnel matters regarding appointments to boards and committees; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to version and to a matter relating to an easement on County property. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Certify Executive Session. At 10:50 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall NAYS: None. Approved by Board Initiais~ Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to appoint the following persons to the Purchasing of Development Rights (PDRs) Committee: Mr. Walter Perkins, WESTVACO, Board of Supervisors; Mr. David A. Tice, Forestry Consultant, Planning Commission; Mr. Daniel P. Jordan, Monticello; Ms. Sherry Buttrick, Virginia Outdoors Foundation; Mr. Stephen McLean, Realtor, Chamber of Commerce; Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom or Ms. Babette Thorpe, Piedmont Environmental Council; Mr. Joseph H. Jones, Farm Bureau; Mr. Joseph Samuels, Appraiser, Realtor; and Mr. H. Wayne Elliot, Albemarle Neighborhood Association. Roll was called and the vote recorded as follows: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.