Loading...
1997-05-07May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 0000 A regular meeting of the B~ard of Supervisors.of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 7, 1997, 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 (arrived at 9:08 a.m.). ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Special Recognition of Donald Lyons. Ms. Humphris said it gives her great pleasure to recognize the outstand- ing contributions of County citizens in making this community a wonderful place to live. Today she is happy to have the opportunity to honor such a person. On March 7, 1997, several police officers went on a call for a traffic problem on Route 29 North in the area of Woodbrook Subdivision. As the officers were trying to resolve that problem one of the drivers involved became very agitated to the point where the officers had to arrest him for disorderly conduct. The driver continued to resist attempts to be taken into custody. At that time, Mr. Donald Lyons pulled up in his car, got out and assisted the officers in subduing the man and getting him into custody. At a time when many people are reluctant to get involved in situations that do not immediately involve them, Mr. Lyons went out of his way to help these officers in handling what could have been a very threatening situation. On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, Ms. Humphris thanked Mr. Lyons for stepping forward to assist the County's police officers. His actions exemplify the type of partnership between citizens and law enforcement that makes this community a safer place for everyone. She said Mr. Lyons has always been an active and involved citizen in this community on many issues. The latest event is just one more example of his concern for Albemarle County. On a personal note, she thanked Mr. Lyons as one citizen to another. She thinks everyone should feel reassured that there are people living in the community who will still go out of their way to help their neighbor, to help somebody whether they know them or not. She is glad Mr. Lyons brought his wife and three children here today to see this presentation. She then asked Mr. Lyons to come forward along with Police Chief John Miller, Captain Rhoads and Officer Larkin. Chief Miller presented, on behalf of the Albemarle County Police Department, a Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. Lyons. He said it means a lot to a police officer when a citizen takes the time to offer assistance. thanked Mr. Lyons for his help. He Ms. Humphris said Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) recently held a ceremony and gave awards to Count~ Police officers and others for their successes in keeping drunk drivers off the road. She asked Chief Miller to take the Board's thanks back to officers from Albemarle who won those awards Timothy Aylor and Greg Jenkins. The Board is grateful for all their endeavors in getting drunk drivers off the road. Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. Ms. Humphris presented a plaque to Lettie E. Neher for service to the County of Albemarle and the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Neher began working for the County on September 1, 1957, as a clerk typist for the County Executive May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) 000082 and Purchasing Agent. In 1968 she was promoted to the position of bookkeeper and in 1972 was appointed as Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. The Board members especially want to offer their thanks and support to Ms. Neher for her outstanding and extensive service to the Board over the past 25 years. Ms. Neher has worked for numerous boards and personalities and managed to retain her sanity through it all. Ms. Humphris again thanked Ms. Neher for her service to the Board. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Andrew Middleditch served on the Public Recre- ational Facilities Authority from January 5, 1994, until March 26, 1997. During his tenure, the Authority signed two rural preservation easements totaling 316 acres and they agreed to accept a conservation easement of ten acres from the Piedmont Environmental Council on West Leigh Drive. Mr. Middleditch's certificate will be mailed to him. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Jerry Jones served on the Library Board from September 6, 1995, until February 19, 1997. Mr. Jones was thought of by his co-board members as their own resident authority on Robert's Rules of Order. His knowledge of them led to many lively discussions, lighthearted and not, at meetings. She presented Mr. Jones with a certificate of appreciation. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Robert J. Walters, Jr. served on the Advisory Council on Aging from February 21, 1990, until September 1, 1996. Mr. Walters routinely provided the Board of Supervisors with copious notes updating them on JABA's activities. These reports served as a template in other jurisdic- tions as well. There were many times the Council called upon him for his incredible recollection of the details of Robert's Rules of Order to help keep the Council of up to 25 members in order. She then presented Mr. Walters with a certificate of appreciation. Ms. Humphris said Mr. George Stovall served on the Social Services Board from October 16, 1991, until December 4, 1996. Mr. Stovall served on the Social Services Board for two terms beginning in October, 1991 and ending in October, 1996. He served as Vice Chair from June, 1993 through October, 1996. During this time he was diligent in his review of departmental policies, cases and finances, and provided responsible stewardship of taxpayers' money. While George served in this capacity, the Social Services Board increased the rate of payment for Companion providers' to $4.50 per hour. Additionally, they provided child care assistance as a priority service to Section 8 Housing Self-Sufficiency clients to enable them to obtain employment and/or education and training. Ms. Humphris said the Board of Supervisors appreciates the time and effort George provided not only to the Department of Social Services, but to the clients and taxpayers in service to the community. She then presented him with a certificate of appreciation. Ms. Humphris said Mr. John Dawson served on the Children and Youth Commission from November 14, 1990, until February 5, 1997, as one of its original members. She said John has always been an active and dedicated member of the Commission, missing only three meetings in those six years out of a total of 80 meetings. He served as Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary of the Commission du~ing his tenure. He was instrumental in the development of the Comprehensive Plan for Children and Youth, the Teen Center, the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Coalition and the annual agency assessments. His wisdom, political "savvy" and love of children provided inspiration and energy to the Commission and its staff. Ms. Humphris said John's presence on the Commission will be missed, but his legacy of true volunteer spirit and dedication to children and youth will remain. In this time of a national commitment to volunteerism and community service, John Dawson's participation on the CACY Commission is a good example of true volunteer spirit. She then presented Mr. Dawson with a certificate of appreciation. Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. MS. Karen Dame said she came today to speak about the Regional Competi- tiveness Program. She feels the process going on now for establishment of a partnership for regional strategic planning is, in her view, not in compliance with Albemarle's resolution for participation. It is also not in compliance with any rules for the establishment of a new organization. Decisions have already been made which she thinks should have been left to the partnership. She asked that the Board determine whether the process is consistent with Albemarle's resolution and the community's intent for a regional strategic ooooaa May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) planning effort. She further requests that the Board gather the group of persons it asked to participate in this endeavor and provide them with two things: 1) Official guidance regarding Albemarle's intentions toward this program with an opportunity for discussion, and 2) An opportunity for a presentation by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, which is charged with conducting this program at the state level, along with an opportunity for a question and answer session. She thinks Albemarle should suspend its participation in this endeavor until these things have been accomplished. Ms. Dame said she would, give some of the bases for her concern. On April 28, she received packet of materials sent under the letterhead ~Thomas Jefferson Venture", a name of unknown origin, containing a meeting schedule. It was stated that "the participating localities have set a goal of meeting the July 1, 1997, deadline for submission of the area's request for qualifica- tion for the Regional Competitiveness Act." She knew of no such decision by the localities. When she questioned this at the first gathering of potential participants in this partnership, she was told that the localities had made this decision and meeting the deadline is definitely the agenda. Upon further inquiry she learned that a July 1 time frame was set by the Planning District Commission (PDC) on April 3, 1997. At that time, neither Greene County or Nelson County had decided whether to participate. It is not clear to her what standing that decision by the PDC has. Also, the minutes of the PDC do not make it clear as to whether the decision was made by a vote of members. Ms. Dame said at the second orientation gathering last night, partici- pants were told they would meet weekly in May, once in June, get the money in September, meet one more time and except for deciding whether to meet in the future, that would be it. This was not her understanding of Albemarle's interest in a regional planning endeavor. It is not how she felt five-year planning on a regional scale would occur. She does not think it comes close to meeting the aims and guidelines of the Regional Competitiveness Program. She feels the July 1 application deadline to the State is dictating the whole process around formation of this planning body. Seventy-four individuals were put forward by the localities for participation. Attendees at the first orientation meeting were told that some people declined because of the intense meeting schedule. There were only 25 attendees at the first orientation, and nine attendees at the second. They heard last night that replies from some people were still coming in. Nevertheless, committees were established by proclamation of the convener of the first meeting. These committees are being pressed for action before a list of people agreeing to participate in this endeavor has been established. Ms. Dame said that as one of only four people at the first meeting who agreed to join a bylaws subcommittee, she received E-mail from Planning District staff Monday of this week stating that any changes she might want to recommend to the bylaws should be to Planning District staff by 9:00 a.m., Tuesday morning May 4, so the by-laws could be submitted to Albemarle County for approval TODAY. An organization that doesn't know who its members are, and which has never formally convened to consider bylaws is somehow planning to seek this Board's approval of bylaws. This concern about bylaws may seem off the point to some Board members in relation to applying for money from the State. However, there are different ways this partnership can be constructed and the choice will affect who can receive and disburse those funds. She was told by PDC staff yesterday that it had been decided that this group would not be formed as a legal partnership. Therefore, the original draft bylaws distributed (without any evidence of authorship) to those invited to partici- pate in the partnership govern an organization with no legal standing. This decision has not been attributed to anyone and its implications for the partnership have not been described. Ms. Dame said she does not think any of the participants have any idea of these nuances of the program. Two of Albemarle County's representatives said they expected to be introduced to the whole project and they arrived and left the orientation meeting without knowing the purpose of this program. Nevertheless, there is to be a public hearing 22 days from now on a five-year prioritized strategic plan for addressing the region's barriers to economic competitiveness. If this approach to regional planning was the intent of this Board's March 19, 1997, resolution to support the formation of a regional partnership in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, she would like to have that affirmed so she can stop fighting to have voice in this group. She had the May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000054 (Page 4) understanding that the appointees to this group would be formally convened, educate themselves to the ins and outs of the program, and would determine whether it was feasible to approach the State for July 1, 1997, versus December 1, 1997, versus July 1, 1998. She thought all the decisions affect- ing the operation of the group and the strategic planning would be made by the group. She has concerns that time constraints of this presentation prevent her mentioning today. She welcomes the opportunity for further discussion of this matter. Ms. Humphris said she thought that Ms. Dame would be present this morning. She has heard concerns from others. Her own serious concerns are among them, but, she does not know what to do about them. She knows that Ms. Thomas is heavily involved with the PDC. Ms. Humphris said, without going into any detail, she feels this thing is rushing along and not in the way Albemarle County intended it to go. She has no faith in the region being able to accomplish this strategic plan in three weeks given the fact that no one even knows who the members of this group are. Ms. Thomas said she was to chair the group as the bylaws state until the members choose their officers. She can respond to most of what has been brought up, but that is not what the Board usually does at this point on the agenda. She and Mr. Perkins did represent Albemarle County on the PDC at the time when they decided it was better to try for the July 1, 1997, application deadline. The group may fail at that attempt but it was a unanimous decision by the PDC to put in a month's intensive effort and get twice as much money (the pot of available money is not large). Ms. Thomas said that she and Mr. Perkins agreed to that. It seems to be an effort which is more doable with the 70 people who have been asked to serve. Most of these people have very busy schedules, but are willing to put in the intensive effort in May. She has mentioned to some people that she feels the bylaws can be dealt with. Ms. Humphris said she thinks all of these things need to be discussed at the meeting on Thursday because it is not just the PDC, it is the whole group which is now being called ~the Venture" that should be making decisions as to how the group will go forward. She sees a problem with the way decisions are being made, and not by the group set up to make the decisions. They are being made by someone else. She thinks a very clear presentation of what everyone was there to do should have been made at the first meeting. The membership should be known. She sees a lot of problems with the way this is racing along. She is not sure the main thrust should be meeting the end of the month deadline. The main thrust should be in doing it properly and making sure that all know what they are doing. A lot of the members don't seem to know at this time what is to be done. Mr. Tucker said the size of the group has made it difficult. It is unwieldy to deal with that many people. Also, the fact that it is not a legal entity, especially when it comes to funding, creates a problem. Does the Venture actually have the authority to disperse funds? He said that maybe the whole concept should be rethought. Is it appropriate to have this large of a group of people trying to deal with something that is so complicated? Would it be better to actually have the PDC act as the formal body to represent the region? He thinks Ms. O'Brien tried to create a subcommittee of members to look at the bylaws so they could be brought to the Venture itself for action. Mr. Bowerman said the bylaws need to be consistent from county to county with the city, those forming the partnership. Mr. Tucker said Albemarle County was the only entity that wanted to see the bylaws before the Venture went forward. The other localities adopted the standard resolution the Board saw initially. Mr. Bowerman asked what Greene County's nonparticipation does to the Venture. Mr. Tucker said it does not affect it. Ms. Thomas said the lack of participation of a member of the PD 10 does not have to be approved. If Greene County wanted to join the planning district to its northeast that would have to be approved. Mr. Bowerman said he understands special approval is needed if all of the localities in the Planning District do not participate in the partnership. Mr. Tucker said that was only if there was a noncontiguous member. Mr. Davis said no regional configuration will be approved that excludes a locality which passes a resolution saying it wants to be part of the partnership. That requires special action, and one that results in fragmenta- May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) 000085 tion of a region will not be included. The way Greene lies in relationship to the rest of the localities, that would not be a problem. Any location outside of, but contiguous to the planning region, can be added after review. If Greene does not wish to participate, that would not cause an inordinate problem for the State to approve the region. Ms. Humphris asked if Greene Co~mty made its decision last night. Ms. Thomas said she had not heard. Ms. Humphris said the Greene County chairman was included in the subcommittee meeting which she attended on funding yesterday. Ms. Thomas said Greene has not taken any action yet on the partnership. Ms. Humphris said the resolution adopted by Albemarle County says the bylaws need to be approved by this Board before formal commencement of strategic planning. There are no bylaws at this time and Albemarle will not have an opportunity to deal with any bylaws until May 21. The strategic planning should be a broad and deep process. It should not be something just thrown together at the last minute. Ms. Thomas said there is a choice to be made. The Board can either do something to get this region into the program (it is not a lot of money, but it could provide seed money and be a sign that the region is willing to participate in a regional program), or the Board can say it has to be done carefully. There is no money for any of the planning. The Board could put up money and say it has to be carefully planned, and it does not care if it takes a year or more. She believes this Board's resolution laid out steps that were careful but doable, and indicated the Board wanted to proceed and participate in a regional effort. She is guilty of assuming this Board wanted to go for it as opposed to the process being more important than the results. The Venture will not work without Albemarle County's participation, but it is the County's right not to participate. Ms. Humphris said she thinks it is a shame that it has been put that way. She would like to say one more thing. This Board had a public hearing on this matter. The Board heard from the public and tailored the resolution in support of the formation of the regional partnership to what this Board thought was proper and appropriate and to what the citizens thought was proper and appropriate. To say this is just a piece of paper, and the Board should just go ahead and do whatever anybody wants to do just for the purpose of meeting a deadline is something she cannot support. She said the faith of the citizens is in this document. Ms. Thomas said to talk about saying things in an extreme way, maybe the Board should "ratchet" this down a little. She pays a great deal of attention to that resolution and thinks that everything being proposed in the activities of the partnership can work with that resolution. She is not suggesting that the Board not treat it with total respect. She suggested that there is a way to deal with the bylaws, which have not yet been approved. She thought this was something the Board should discuss today as it whether it wants to wait until May 21, or whether it wants to have the members of the Board of Supervi- sors present at the meeting of the Venture on Thursday approve the bylaws. She would feel better if the bylaws got the approval of the two Board members who are not sitting on the Venture. Mr. Bowerman asked for a clarification. Mr. Tucker said there are two Board members, Mr. Martin and Mr. Marshall, who will not be at that meeting Thursday. Since the other four Board members will be present, Ms. Thomas is suggesting that with the consent of Mr. Martin and Mr. Marshall the other four members could approve the bylaws (if they are ready for review and approval on Thursday), rather than waiting until May 21. Mr. Marshall said he consents to that decision. Mr. Bowerman said he is attending as a member of the Sustainability Council and not as a member of the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Humphris said she is uncomfortable with doing Board business outside of the forum of the Board with all members being present. She does not think it is an appropriate way to do Board business. Mr. Bowerman said the Board entered the Venture after a lot of discussion both by the public and the Board members. She thinks it is important that the Board stick to the text of the resolution in both principle and in fact. If there is a way to deal with participation in the Venture and abide by the resolution, he thinks the Board should do so. Mr. Marshall said it seems that Ms. Thomas and Mr. Perkins believe the Board is abiding by the resolution. It is a case of participating or not participating and he is going to participate. 000036 May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Perkins said he thinks Ms. O'Brien has been told to proceed and that is what she has done. That is the direction the Planning District decided to take, and it has to be on a fast-track. He thinks all need to go through the process and see what results. It may be something that is not wanted. He thinks everybody has to have a little faith. He thinks Ms. O'Brien has done a good job in getting it started. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the full Board should make the decision on approval of the bylaws. That was clear in the resolution. Ms. Thomas said the Board said it wanted to approve the bylaws prior to formal commencement of strategic planning. What ~formal" means is the question. The first meeting dealt with the definition of "competitiveness' and an outline of strengths and weaknesses as shown in data that had been collected by the Census Bureau and others. The meeting on this Thursday will be regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the area. There is an agenda. Mr. Bowerman asked if the bylaws are on that agenda for adoption. Ms. Thomas said "yes". Mr. Davis said he had an agenda and it indicates ~adopt bylaws, complete definition of competitive, identify strengths and weaknesses of region" and on May 15, the meeting schedule is "identify strategies, project activities, and begin setting priorities." Ms. Thomas said the question is whether the Board members are comfort- able with that activity proceeding before this Board's regular meeting on May 21. Mr. Bowerman asked what would happen if there is a disagreement tomorrow among the four Board members who are present. Mr. Tucker asked what will happen if the other Venture members vote for the bylaws. Mr. Davis said there is no punitive measure set forth in the Board's resolution as to what would happen if the other localities don't comply with the request in the resolu- tion. It would be at the option of the Board to react to whatever the Venture does, and decide to participate of not participate, or request them to change their action. Mr. Bowerman said that could be done on May 21 regardless of the Committee's action tomorrow and the following week. Mr. Martin said that makes sense to him. Whether or not they are conducting formal or informal business seems to be a sticking point. To him it is irrelevant. Go ahead and attend the meeting on Thursday. All of the other Board members can look at the bylaws and make a rationale decision on May 21. There are two meetings of the Venture before this Board officially approves the bylaws. What difference does it make? What can it hurt? Ms. Thomas said those who sit on the Venture got a copy of the bylaws as they are proposed. A copy of those, and whatever amendments are agreed to tomorrow, can be sent to all Board members. Mr. Martin said if the two meetings are held and then on May 21 this Board decides that it does not like the bylaws and wants to pull out, what do those two meetings hurt? He does not see what is lost by just waiting until May 21 to review the bylaws by the full Board. Ms. Humphris thanked Ms. Dame for her analysis and input and said the Board members will go to the next meeting and see what happens. One of the major problems is that Albemarle County does have a structure and a resolution in place and none of the other entities do. The other localities don't know about Albemarle's resolution and they don't care and so anything that is done seems to be alright with everybody else. It doesn't fit with the plan as this Board envisioned it. Mr. Tucker said if this Board pulled out of the Venture it would have some major implications. Mr. Bowerman said the Board knew that going into it. Mr. Tucker said this Venture cannot happen with the localities left because there has to be three or more contiguous counties involved. With no one else rising to speak about a matter not listed on the agenda, the Board proceeded with the next item. Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve Items 7.1 through 7.10 and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000~7 (Page 7) AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms~ Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Item 7.1. Appropriation: Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant, $19,826.00 (Form ~96070) . It was noted in the staff's report that the U.S. Department of Justice has approved an additional grant to increase community-oriented policing through increased overtime. The County proposes to pay for 1000 hours of overtime under the COPS MORE program to increase the presence of existing sworn officers in community policing activities. The program will be funded by a $14,869.00 U.S. Department of Justice COPS grant and a $4957.00 local match. The local match is funded by the police operating budget. Additional funds are not required. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96070 FUND: GR3LNT(S) PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1152131010120000 1152131010210000 ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY- ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES (COPS) DESCRIPTION OVERTIME WAGES FICA TOTAL AMOUNT $18,417.00 1,409.00 $19,826.00 REVENI3E 2152133000330001 2152151000510110 DESCRIPTION FEDERAL GR3LNT LOCAL GOV'T TRANSFER TOTAL AMOUNT $14,869.00 4,957.00 $19,826.00 Item 7.2. Appropriation: Debt Service Fund, $500,000.00 (Form #96071). It was noted in the staff's report that in FY 95-96, the Board approved a recommendation to put aside $250,000 in a reserve for future capital or debt service costs associated with the new high school. An additional $450,000 was approved as a reserve in the current FY 96-97 fiscal year. Both of these reserves were officially appropriated into the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund because at that time it was uncertain whether the reserves would be needed for debt or other high school capital needs. Since these reserve funds will be used solely for debt service purposes, not capital expenses, to properly account for these funds, transfers need to be made to the School Debt Service Fund (9900) rather than the School CIP Fund (9010). Added to 1995-96 and 1996-97 Debt Service Fund balance monies, the transfer of the above amounts will result in a total reserve balance of $1,968,700 for future high school debt service. Debt service will increase in FY 98-99 from $6.7 million to $8.6 million, a $1.9 million increase, to be funded by this Debt Service Reserve Account. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NI3MBER: 96071 FLTND: DEBT SERVICE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REALLOCATION OF DEBT RESERVE FLTNDS EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1990068000999980 1990068000999980 DESCRIPTION DEBT RESERVE DEBT RESERVE AMOUNT $450,000.00 250,000.00 May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 000088 1901093010930003 1901095000999979 TRANSFER TO SCHOOL DEBT RESERVE DEBT RESERVE TOTAL 250,000.00 (450.000.00) $500,000.00 REVENUE 2990051000512004 2990051000512000 2901051000512030 2901051000510100 DESCRIPTION TRANSFER FROM G/F. TRANSFER FROM G/F CIP TRANSFER FROM G/F APPROP FROM FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $450,000.00 250,000.00 (45O,0O0.O0) 250,000.00 $500,000.00 Item 7.3. Appropriation: Debt Service Fund' $129,294.40 (Form $96072). It was noted in the staff's report that the FY 1996-97 budget included $129,294.40 appropriated in Information Services to cover the lease-purchase agreement for the last upgrade to the County's mainframe computer. Accounting guidelines require the expense to be recorded in the Debt Service Fund. This request is for your approval to transfer the funds and appropriation from the General Fund to the Debt Service Fund. No additional local funds are re- quired. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96072 FUND: DEBT SERVICE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TO CORRECT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION FOR INFORMATION SERVICES DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1991068000800815 1991068000800825 DESCRIPTION MAINFRAME LEASE PAYMENT INTEREST EXPENSE TOTAL AMOUNT $116,655.25 12,639.15 $129,294.40 REVENUE 2991051000512010 DESCRIPTION TRANSFER FROM G/F-INFO SERVICES TOTAL AMOUNT $129,294.40 $129,294.40 Item 7.4. Appropriation: Education, $2,400.00 (Form ~96073) . It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on April 7, 1997, the School Board approved the appropriation of $2,400.00 from Piedmont Virginia Community College. Piedmont and Albemarle County Schools entered into a cooperative agreement to provide instruction for students enrolled in dual enrollment courses in College Composition I and II. Instruction will take place at Murray High School. The instructor(s) will be approved by the College and all academic aspects of the courses will remain under the sole and direct control of the College. Albemarle Schools will employ the instructors. Piedmont agrees to pay $2,400.00 as reimbursement to the County for their instructional services. The courses will be open to all qualified students who have been accepted for admission to Piedmont Virginia Community College. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96073 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH PIEDMONT VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE TO PROVIDE COLLEGE COMPOSITION I & II May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 000039 EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 12303611013012100 DESCRIPTIO~ CONTRACT SERVICES TOTAL AMOUNT $2,400.00 $2,400.00 REVENGE 2200018000181109 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT MISC REVENGE $2,400.00 TOTAL $2,400.00 (Ms. Thomas asked if the cooperative agreement between Piedmont Virginia Community College and Albemarle County Schools is the standard way things have been done. It seems strange that the County pays the instructors and they are totally supervised by Piedmont Virginia Community College. Mr. Tucker said he will have to look into it.) Item 7.5. Appropriation: United Way Scholarship Program, $342,828.00 (Form %96074) . It was noted in the staff's report that the United Way Child Care Scholarship Program helps low and moderate income working families in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District maintain employment through direct fee- subsidies to pay for child care. The program promotes quality child care for children, especially nat-risk" children, by allowing the parent to select a licensed or certified provider. Scholarships are awarded based on a sliding scale fee with parents paying a portion of the cost. A 1992 agreement between the Albemarle, Charlottesville and Virginia Departments of Social Services approved the United Way to administer the pool of funds. The 1996-97 program will expend $291,421.00 for scholarships, $44,570.00 for United Way administrative fees, and $6,857.00 for Albemarle County administrative fees. The pool is funded by $171,424.00 in Federal funds, $80,879.00 by the City of Charlottesville, $50,545.00 by the County of Albemarle and $40,000.00 by the United Way. The Albemarle local match was approved in the 1996-97 operating budget. No additional funds are required. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NI3MBER: 96074 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 1996-97 UNITED WAY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1155053110390055 1155053110390056 1155053110567910 DESCRIPTION ADM FEE-ALBEMARLE COUNTY ADM FEE-UNITED WAY UNITED WAY DAY CARE PROGRAM TOTAL AMOUNT $6,857.00 44,570.00 291,421.00 $342,848.00 REVENIIE 2155033501160502 2155033501160503 2155033501160525 2155033000330014 DESCRIPTION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE UNITED WAY MATCHING FUNDS HHS PASS THRU GRANT TOTAL AMOUNT $80,879.00 50,545.00 40,000.00 171,424.00 $342,848.00 Item 7.6. Adopt resolution adjusting 1996-97 VDOT Revenue Sharing funding request. It was noted in the staff's report that staff recently discovered that the Revenue Sharing resolution for FY 1996-97 adopted by the Board, incor- rectly listed the McIntire Road Extended project (Meadow Creek Parkway - Phase I from Route 250 to Rio Road). The intended Revenue Sharing project for FY 1996-97 identified in the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan is Rio Road from Hydraulic Road to Berkmar Drive. This was an error on VDOT's part in provid- ing the County the project number. Since this error was caught by VDOT staff after the Commonwealth Transportation Board had already approved funding for May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) 000040 the McIntire Road Extended project, VDOT will need a resolution from the Board requesting that the funds be removed from McIntire Road Extended and placed on the Rio Road project. The result of this action will have no impact on the total funding of either project, or on the overall funding of the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan. The purpose of this action is to insure the appropriate source of funds for projects is utilized. Revenue Sharing funds and Secondary funds will essentially be switched with each other for these two projects in the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County Primary and Secondary Road Fund, more com- monly known as the "Revenue Sharing Program," allows the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to provide state funds to match local funds for the construction, maintenance or improvement of primary and secondary high- ways in the county; and WHEREAS, since 1988 the County of Albemarle has worked with its Resident Engineer to identify a list of improvement pro- jects to be undertaken with these funds; and WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting on March 6, 1996, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors elected to partici- pate in the "Revenue Sharing Program" for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 and identified a road project which was forwarded to VDOT; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board subsequently approved the allocation of funds for the Fiscal Year 1996- 97 "Revenue Sharing Program" as requested by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, it was recently brought to the Board of Supervisors' attention that the road project forwarded to the Common- wealth Transportation Board for Fiscal Year 1996-97 "Reve- nue Sharing Funds" was incorrectly identified as the "Meadow Creek Parkway - Phase I, from Route 250 to Rio Road"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requests that the road project identified for Fiscal Year 1996-97 "Revenue Sharing Funds" be cor- rected to reflect the approved project in its Six Year Secondary Construction Plan. The funds should be directed to the road project identified as "Rio Road, from Hydrau- lic Road to Berkmar Drive" (Project #0631-002-185-C501). Item 7.7. Approve two Board members to the Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) . In 1995, the County joined with eight other jurisdictions to form the Jefferson Area Community Criminal Corrections Board (CCJB) to undertake regional criminal justice planning and in securing pretrial services and community corrections options for the criminal justice system in our area. The board consists of 20 members, some who represent specific constituencies such as judges, sheriff's departments, commonwealth attorneys, etc., as well as one representative from each of the jurisdictions. Currently, there are two vacancies on the board, one from Fluvanna County and one from Louisa County. All members of the Board must be approved by all the localities. The CCJB has requested that Albemarle County approve the following nominees to fill two vacancies on the Board: NAME Mel Sheridan ADDRESS Route %2, Box 2268, Kents Store, VA 23084 REPRESENTING Fluvanna County May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) Clyde M. B. Harkrader P. O. Box 856, Louisa, VA 23093 0OO041. Louisa County Item 7.8. Proclamation proclaiming May 4 through May 11, 1997, as Municipal Clerks Week. By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved: MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK WHEREAS, the Office of the Municipal Clerk, a time honored and vital part of local government, exists throughout the world; and WHEREAS, the Office of the Municipal Clerk is the oldest among public servants; and WHEREAS, the Office of the Municipal Clerk provides the professional link between the citizens, the local governing bodies and agencies of government at other levels; and WHEREAS, Municipal Clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality, rendering equal service to all; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Clerk serves as the information center on functions of local government and community; WHEREAS, Municipal Clerks continually strive to improve the administration of the affairs of the Office of the Municipal Clerk through participation in education programs, seminars, workshops and the annual meetings of their state, province, county and international professional organizations; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby recognize the week of May 3 through May 9, 1997, as MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK and further extend appreciation to our Municipal Clerks for the vital services they perform. Item 7.9. Proclamation proclaiming May 11 through May 17, 1997, as National Police Memorial Week. By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved: NATIONAL POLICE MEMORIAL WEEK WHEREAS, May 15 of each year was proclaimed "Police Offi- cer's Memorial Day" by President John F. Kennedy on October 1, 1962, in honor of those peace officers who, through their coura- geous deeds, have lost their lives or become disabled in the performance of duty; and WHEREAS, the calendar week in which it falls was pro- claimed "Police Week" in recognition of the service given by the men and women who night and day protect the citizens through enforcement of our laws; and WHEREAS, in these days of increasing fear, rising crime, reckless acts of violence, recall to our minds President Ken- nedy's words of praise for these officers as "truly men and women of courage, judgment, integrity and dedication;" and WHEREAS, we share his sentiments and agree that it is time to remind the public of the day-by-day heroism of our officers, May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) oooo41 both those on active duty and those who have given their lives in the line of duty; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby declare and set aside the week of May 11 through May 17, 1997, as NATIONAL POLICE MEMORIAL WEEK and call upon all citizens to recognize the significant efforts and accomplishments of these officers. Item 7.10. Proclamation proclaiming May 18 through May 25, 1997, as Industry Appreciation Week. By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved: INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is blessed with a strong base of large employers; and WHEREAS, these employers provide much needed jobs for the citizens of the County of Albemarle; and WHEREAS, these same employers provide local taxes from which the entire local citizenry benefit; and WHEREAS, our community also benefits greatly from the many volunteer activities and charitable contributions so generously provided by these employers; and WHEREAS, we recognize and appreciate these important facts; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of County Supervi- sors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby salutes its existing employment base and gives notice to the citizens that Virginia industries are building a better Commonwealth; AND, FURTHER, recognizes the week of May 18 through May 25, 1997, as INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK. Item 7.11. Letter dated April 29, 1997, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, VDOT, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: comments regarding transportation matters discussed at the April 2nd Board meeting, was received for information. ~Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Board of Supervisors Meeting April 2, 1997 Dear Ms. Carey: We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at the April 2nd Board meeting. The Department is tentatively providing for preliminary engineering money in the primary six year plan for the four laning of Route 20 south to the Route 742/Avon Street Connector Road. This funding should be approved for fis- cal year 97-98. May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) OOO048 The Department anticipates additional funding for fiscal year 97-98 in the secondary six year plan that will cover the estimated cost of $180,000 to $200,000 for the West Leigh Drive rural addition/railroad crossing upgrade. We are requesting that a resolution which supports the addi- tion of this rural addition project be forwarded to this office immediately. A sample resolution is attached and has also been forwarded to the County Engineer's Office. For your information please find attached recent corre- spondence to Senator Emily Couric regarding clearing work along Route 20 north and Route 29 north. Through truck restriction signs on Georgetown Road (Route 656) have been installed. By copy of this letter we are advising the County Police of same. The Department is proposing a through truck restriction based upon safety concerns for Rio Road (Route 631) from the City Limits to Hillsdale Drive. A resolution support- lng this restriction would be appreciated. A sample reso- lution is attached. Please share this information with the board members. If there are any questions regarding the above issues, I will be prepared to discuss them at the May 7th Board meeting." (Mr. Marshall asked that this item be discussed under transportation matters. He is concerned about the fact that VDOT is just getting around to getting preliminary engineering money for the four-laning of Route 20 down to the new road for Monticello High School.) Item 7.12. Letter dated April 24, 1997, from the Honorable Robert E. Martinez, Secretary of Transportation, to the Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, re: Route 29 Bypass, was received for information. "April 24, 1997 Thank you for your recent letter. On April 17 the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the major design features for the Route 29 Bypass in Albemarle County. This decision to move this project forward came after many hours of discussion and debate by the CTB. This project represents an important link in the transportation network for central Virginia. The decision to proceed will benefit those who depend on this corridor for the transportation of goods and services through this very congested area. VDOT is very aware of the concerns regarding the sequencing of the Bypass project with other projects in Albemarle County. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors reiterated this in their resolution of April 9. The action taken by the CTB approved the Bypass design, and has no impact on the sequencing of this or other projects in Albemarle County. In fact, several of the projects mentioned in the County's resolution are already under- way: Widening of existing Route 29 North currently is underway and in some sections complete; The design of the North Grounds Connector was approved on April 17, and VDOT will continue to work with the Univer- sity to develop these plans in a manner that is acceptable to the Darden Business School and the Law School, with UVa itself confirming its final position; The study for the three grade-separated.interchanges at Rio, Greenbrier and Hydraulic Road has been dropped by VDOT; 000044 May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) The Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I currently is under design. This project will run from the intersection of Route 250 and McIntire Road to Rio Road, just north of the VoTech Center. A Design Public Hearing will be held for this project later this year. There is funding in VDOT's Six Year Improvement Program for right-of-way and construction of this project. It is funded through the use of urban and secondary funds. V]DOT wishes to continue to work with Albemarle County on these projects as well as the Route 29 Bypass. I appreciate your continued interest in this project. I regret this outcome must be a disappointment to you, but the CTB delib- erated long and hard before deciding what it felt was the best course. Your dedicated work for the citizens of Albemarle County in the area of transportation has paved the way for many improvements and contributed to several positive refinements on this specific project. I have instructed staff to begin dialog with the County to work toward a mutual agreement for completing the Bypass. Please feel free to contact this office with any suggestions you may have, as we work together for the citizens of the Commonwealth." Item 7.13. Copy of letter dated April 23, 1997, from Mr. Donald R. Askew, District Administrator, VDOT, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Advisory Committee to the Commission Studying the Future of Transportation, to review the needs of the Commonwealth, was received for information. '~April 23, 1997 This is in response to your letter regarding the Albemarle County's involvement in the efforts of an Advisory Committee to the Commission Studying the Future of Transportation to review the needs of the Commonwealth. Ms. Nancy O'Brien from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is a member of the Advisory Committee, and informa- tion has been forwarded to her for review and comments. It is my understanding that the MPO staff is currently doing the review. An assumption was made that the Albemarle County staff is working together with the MPO staff in order to provide comments for the Department. If this assumption is incorrect, please advise. The Virginia Department of Transportation's Transportation Planning Division, in cooperation with FHWA, has scheduled the 1997 MPO/PDC Conference. The meeting will be held on May 6, 1997, starting at 10:00 a.m. at the Research Council in Char- lottesville, and May 8, 1997, at the Fredericksburg District auditorium. A copy of the agenda is attached for your informa- tion. Should you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact me at (540) 829-7511; and I would be glad to discuss it further." Item 7.14. Notice from Mr. J. T. Mills, State Location and Design Engineer, VDOT, that the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the location and major design features of the Route 29 Bypass, from 1.12 km (0.7 mi) N of Route 29/250 interchange to 0.8 km (0.5 mi) N of Rivanna River, was received for information. "April 17, 1997 Route 29 Bypass Proj: 6029-002-F22, PE-101, RW-201, C-501 Federal Proj: AC-NH-037-2 (130) Proj: RUVA-002-101, PE-101 May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) Fr: 1.12 km (0.7 mile) North of Route 29/250 Interchange To: 0.8 km (0.5 mile) North of Rivanna River Albemarle County 000045 Design Public Hearing Approval Clerk of the Court Albemarle County 501 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 I would like to take this opportunity to advise that the Common- wealth Transportation Board of Virginia at its meeting today approved the location and major design features of the above project as proposed and presented at the February 25, 1997, public hearing with: Modification in the final design phase to modify the inter- change at the northern termini to eliminate impacts to the Brook Hill property which is likely eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; Modification in the final design phase to reduce the Hydrau- lic Road bridge to reflect a two lane design; Approval of the selection of the "Central Design Alterna- tive'' (as designated on the attached map) that shifts the Stillhouse Mountain alignment out of the mountain side. A shift in the alignment of Lambs Road to the east to lessen impact to the west side of the proposed roadway in the final design phase; An evaluation of ramp nD" on the south end of the project to see if the existing southbound Route 29 Bypass can be uti- lized in lieu of constructing a whole new ramp "D"; Modification to the North Grounds Connector road, which shall be no wider than 33'-0", curb to curb, and its right of way no wider than would be appropriate for a roadway of that width; The northbound access ramps nE" and "F" to the Route 250 Bypass revised to be relocated northward as close as is physically possible to the new alignment of the Route 250 Bypass, i.e., as far distant as is possible from the new Darden School of Business and Law School; Every possible aesthetic measure taken to preserve and enhance the University's considerable investment in the setting and appearance of its new Darden School of Business and the Law School, including visual buffering using plant materials of appropriate size and scale, and density of coverage, as well as acoustic buffering using sound walls faced with materials compatible with those historically in ~use at the University. In addition, any stormwater deten- tion ponds which may be required in the vicinity of the University as a result of the new Bypass or the North Grounds Connector road shall be designed in conformance with the principles of the University's Water Resources Manage- ment plan. Concurrence from the Board of Visitors, of the University of Virginia, with the proposed design modifications on or before July 15, 1997." Item 7.15. Notice of application filed by Central Virginia Electric Cooperative with the State Corporation Commission for approval of experimental demand-side management programs and residential and general service rate experiments, was received for information. May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) 000046 Item 7.16. Draft Report of the Wireless Telecommunications Task Force. It was noted that at the request of the Board of Supervisors, staff had created a Wireless Telecommunications Task Force for the purpose of recommend- ing potential policies on the siting of wireless communication facilities (towers). The Task Force has drafted a report which is anticipated to be final by June 4, 1997. The draft report is submitted for information only at this time. Item 7.17. Report on the Cost of Living in Albemarle County prepared for the Welfare Reform Steering Committee. It was noted that with the July 1, 1997, implementation of welfare reform in Albemarle County, a report was developed for the Welfare Reform Steering Committee to provide information on the estimated cost of living in Albemarle, and, to provide information on the minimum income levels required for different family configurations, particu- larly the single-parent household with children. One of the intentions of the report is to point out the difficulty single parents working at minimum wage levels will have in attaining long-term self-sufficiency without some form of assistance in the areas of child care, medical/dental care and/or housing and the need to look at the long-term impact of welfare reform on working fami- lies. The report is provided for the Board's information only and requires no action. Item 7.18. Copy of public notice from the Department of Environmental Quality, re: Proposed Reissuance of a VPDES Permit No. VA0073059, Cove Creek Industries, Covesville, Virginia, to discharge to State waters, and, State certification under the State Water Control Law, was received for information. Item 7.19. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly Bond and Program Report for the month of March, 1997 was received for information. Item 7.20. Copy of ABG Financial Services Inc., Monitoring Report, Section 103(b) (4) (A), for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.), was received for information. Item 7.21. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for April 22, 1997, was received for information. Item 7.22. March, 1997 Financial Report, was received for information. It was noted that the General Fund revenue projections were last revised in December, 1996 and are expected to exceed the budget by $467,513.00 or 0.54 percent. General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time. School Revenue projections were revised and are expected to exceed the budget by $123,718.00 or 0.18 percent. School expenditures reflect a six percent hold back policy. Agenda Item No. 8a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Replacement of bridge over Southern railroad tracks on Free State Road (Route 651). Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bowerman had asked for this item to the added to the agenda today for discussion. Repairs to this bridge are already scheduled in the Six-Year Road Plan within the next couple of years. One thing Mr. Bowerman is interested in is an inspection report on the bridge and its safety aspects. Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, said she does not have the report with her, but the bridge does have a very low sufficiency rating. Mr. Bowerman said it was brought to his attention that it is in serious need of repair. The question was raised as to its degree of safety between now and the time it is scheduled to be repaired or replaced. He is asking if the bridge can continue to be used until its scheduled improvement. Should it be repaired now? Ms. Tucker said the railroad is responsible for maintaining that bridge at its current posting and no less than a posting that would accommodate passenger vehicles, which is now at six tons. Mr. Bowerman said there is a lot of vacant land in that area, with about 15+ residents who presently use the bridge, and the Fairview Swim and Racquet 000047 May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Club also uses it. Ms.'Tucker said the railroad has a maintenance schedule and she will provide the Board a copy of the bridge inSpection report and the railroad maintenance schedule. She said VDOT does not anticipate the bridge being closed between now and the year 2000 which is when the Six,Year Plan has this project set up reconstruction or whatever is deemed necessary. VDOT would like to see it replaced and improved to a two-lane structure without a posting. It is Priority #9 in the Six-Year Plan and the advertisement date is set for October, 2000. Mr. Bowerman asked who is responsible for the inspection. Ms. Tucker said the railroad is responsible for the inspection which is shared with V DOT. Mr. Bowerman asked who pays for the eventual improvement. Ms. Tucker said it depends on what is ultimately done with the bridge. If it is to be upgraded and improved, then the State participates in that cost. It can be the railroad's responsibility forever if the current standard is maintained. Mr. Bowerman asked if fire trucks can use the bridge. Ms. Tucker said fire trucks cannot use the bridge. She noted that there is private access to this area through Dunlora Subdivision. It is a circuitous route but it goes from where Route 651 leaves Huntington Subdivision, back through the old Dunlora Estate and then through the back of Dunlora Subdivision. It is a well-worn driveway; no stabilized surface, but the area is not landlocked except from a public roadway standpoint. It is a dead-end road. Mr. Martin asked how aware the police, fire and rescue are of that circuitous road. Ms. Tucker said she did not know. She has only recently learned about it. Mr. Tucker said he does not know, but he will make them aware of it. Mr. Martin said there are residences back in there that are at more risk for fire and rescue personnel and equipment than other residences because of heating methods, and houses being all wood framed. Ms. Thomas asked if it is the railroad's responsibility to bring the bridge up to the level that fire trucks could use it. Ms. Tucker said that would be an upgrade. The railroad maintains the structures only to the point where they were when the road actually came into the State Secondary System. Ms. Thomas asked if the Six-Year Plan calls for VDOT to upgrade the road. Ms. Tucker said that has not been determined yet. She believes VDOT is hoping for a replacement structure. Mr. Tucker said staff does not have answers to all of the questions raised. He suggested that a report on this bridge be returned to the Board at another time. Ms. Tucker said VDOT is not at the point yet where a lot of the details would be established for the preliminary engineering process. They have discussed it because there are several bridges throughout the County which need serious attention, and this is one of them. Mr. Martin said this situation may be a little different. He has been down that road many times. He never thought that if the bridge were removed there would be no way to get in and out of the area. Most of those homes do have wood stoves or kerosene heaters and other alternative kinds of heat. Maybe this is one project the Board should look at and move up in the Six-Year Plan. He said it is like a different world in there. Most people don't even know it exists. Once you pass the swim club, it is a totally rural area. Ms. Tucker said the potential to accelerate that project might move it up one year. That is something that could be looked at and maybe make an adjustment this Fall in the Six-Year Plan. Agenda Item No. 8b. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Marshall said when the VDOT people were here last December, he was promised that VDOT would fast track the four-laning of Route 20 South. Now, Ms. Tucker's letter states that VDOT is tentatively providing for preliminary engineering funds for Fiscal Year 1997-98. That is no guarantee the road will be completed before the high school opens in September, 1998. He is very concerned about the danger to children. He asked what can be done to get the road done faster. He has suggested that since there will be a lot of buses coming from the south that they use Avon Street and then the new connector road into the school. Without a left turn lane in the middle of that road and straightening out the curve at that point, he feels there will be a fatality at some point. In the other direction there is a rather lengthy deceleration lane which will help some. This is a serious matter. May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) 0000 Ms. Tucker said VDOT's planning and funding process is approximately three to four years at best with any project. They have brought the need to the point of being prioritized in the Primary Six-Year Plan. The process has begun by starting the project with funding to get a survey done and to start designing the plans. They have gone so far as to schedule a public hearing. Next comes the funding of right-of-way acquisition, and then construction. At next year's Preallocation Hearing, the Board needs to continue to pursue the additional funding. One reason it did receive attention was because it does impact a school site. The Secretary of Transportation is interested in improving transportation with respect to that type of facility. Mr. Marshall asked if there is any way to get the road completed in less than three years. Ms. Tucker said even if the project were funded this year, she does not know that VDOT's process would move it that quickly. VDOT has to schedule a survey, come up with a process involving a lot of people checking the design at various stages, hold a public hearing with the proper notifica- tion, etc. It is an involved process. Mr. Tucker said the first request was made in 1996 at the CTB Preallocation Hearing in Culpeper and then again in the Spring of 1997. At the time of construction of the connector road for the high school, the County will look at what provisions have been made. There is a deceleration lane for southbound traffic, and he believes there may be a left-turn lane. The larger project is the four-laning of Route 20 all the way up to the current four- lanes near Route 53. There may be some improvements that will happen at the time of construction of the connector road, but he does not think it will be adequate to meet the needs. He does not remember what VDOT is requiring on the site plan for the school. Mr. Marshall asked if there is anything the Board can do to get the attention of VDOT. Mr. Tucker said he has talked with Mr. Roudabush about it, so he knows the CTB and VDOT are aware of the need. It is a matter of how quickly they can move the project to construction. He suggested focusing on what will be done at the time the County constructs the intersection improve- ments at the new connector road for the high school. It may be that could be upgraded a little more than has been planned. Staff will investigate and make a report to the Board next month. Mr. Perkins asked Ms. Tucker to look at Route 707 located off of Jarmans Gap Road. The Board approved a special use permit for a Home Occupation which has increased the traffic on that road. This brought to mind the ~Pave in Place" program. He would like to see a list of all the roads in the County that would qualify even though he realizes there is no funding available. He asked if VDOT would look at Route 707 to see if there are some maintenance things that can be done to improve its condition. Mr. Perkins said he has received a request about lowering the speed limit on Chris Greene Lake Road. Ms. Tucker said that was done a few years ago, but VDOT will look at it again. Ms. Thomas asked about the status of the West Leigh railroad crossing. She noted that her property will be affected by this, but she is a member of a large group of people in a similar situation. She said Ms. Tucker's note seemed fairly optimistic that there will be funding for this project, and also requested a resolution today (Item 7.11 on the Consent Agenda). She now understands that for some reason, the resolution is not needed today, but Ms. Tucker received a letter from the railroad company saying the May 15 deadline would no longer be the deadline for closing the road. The homeowners have not seen that letter. She asked the situation now. Ms. Tucker said the request for a resolution was in lieu of an agreement from the railroad that the May 15th deadline was no longer pending. Given that the railroad is not making an issue of the May 15th deadline, she thought there would be a better level of comfort in passing a resolution given that VDOT is looking to fund this project with additional fiscal year funds. Every year VDOT bases its Six-Year plan on an estimate. When the actual money comes in, it is either a bit more or a bit less than that estimate. Her office has been told that the amount of funds should be more than what was estimated for the Six-Year Plan and should be sufficient to take care of what has been estimated to be a $200,000 project. She has been told that the field inspec- May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page I9) OOO049 tion brought to light a possible cost adjustment with regard to construction which may increase that estimate to $300,000. Because of that uncertainty, she suggests that the resolution not be adopted until the first month of the fiscal year in order to know for certain what funding is available and also know the impact to the rest of the Six-Year Plan. At this time, she does not think the resolution is necessary in order to take care of the May 15th deadline. The project itself cannot happen without this two- to three-month decision-making process. Ms.. Thomas asked that a copy of the CSX letter be sent to the homeowners. MS. Thomas mentioned Gillums Ridge Road. She said that as Broad Axe Road is being paved, the trucks full of gravel and everything needed for the road construction cannot get there using the ~dry bridge" because it has an insufficient weight limit. They are using Gillums Ridge Road and, according to one of the residents, severely impacting it with such severe wash boarding that cars cannot drive safely on it. Chemicals are put down but then the road is scraped and the problem reappears again. It has been suggested that the empty trucks use the ~dry bridge" and have the full trucks make a full circle from the quarry. There are two issues: 1) condition of the road, and, 2) the route traveled by the trucks that are actually doing the work and will apparently be working all summer on Board Axe Road. Mr. Bowerman said the intersection at Old Brook Road with Rio Road is increasingly difficult without a traffic light. With the speed on Rio Road posted at 40 mph, and with most people traveling 45 mph, traffic gets on the driver quickly. When Squire Hills is added in directly across from Old Brook Road, it creates a confusing traffic situation. There are about 500 homes which are directly served by Old Brook Road. It is a confusing traffic situation. There are a number of minor accidents at that point because people get impatient to get out and they take chances they should not take. Since there is already a light at Hillsdale, he does not believe it would impact the situation on Rio Road that much to put a light at Old Brook Road. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on a request to abandon Old Route 631 located between 1-64 & Moores Creek. The proposed abandonment is approx 600 ft long. It is separated by TM76M(1), Pl. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg said Holiday Inn South, of Bangor, Maine has requested that Albemarle County abandon Old State Route 631. The road is approximately 600 feet long in the County and serves only three parcels. The applicant owns all three parcels. This section of Old State 631 was ~discontinued" in 1971 as a result of the construction of Interstate 64. A discontinuance pursuant to Code of Virginia §33.1-150 is a determination that a road no longer serves the public convenience warranting its maintenance at public expense. The road remains a public roadway until it is abandoned. The applicant, as well as staff, assumed this section was abandoned by the State of Virginia. In October 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved the abandonment of Tebbs Lane- Route 1104. Tebbs Lane intersects with Old State Route 631. The applicant was informed by V DoT in the process of finalizing the Tebbs Lane abandonment that Old State Route 631 had never been abandoned. Old State Route 631 does not have any historical significance and its abandonment would not negatively impact any historical property. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends abandonment using statutory author- ity under §33.1-156 of the Code of Virginia. The Chairman opened the public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Smith, representing the applicant, said this was a generic problem with the definition of abandonment, and the State Highway Department indicated to him that technically this section of roadway has not been abandoned. His firm may run into some problems in the future because of this delay. They have several people who are interested in that property, and there is a long County process of special uses, permits, site plans, etc., that will have to be pulled together. He has talked with Mr. Tucker about this, and the applicant may need some relief in the future because of the delays this has caused the applicant. May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) 000050 With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Davis said he has not seen the resolution of abandonment yet. Mr. Tucker suggested the Board approve an action to abandon, and then the actual resolution be included on the Board's consent agenda on May 21, 1997. Mr. Davis said that is acceptable. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the request to abandon old Route 631 located between 1-64 & Moores Creek. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 11, Licenses, of the Albemarle County Code, to change the requirement for deter- mining gross receipts by real estate brokers and agents relating to real estate commissions. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 1997.) Mr. Tucker summarized the reasons for this public hearing (see the Board's minutes for April 2, 1997). He said that several months ago the County's Business License Ordinance was amended to bring it in compliance with State Code. The amendment caused controversy with real estate agents and brokers who believed a number of inequities resulted. Agents generally felt the amendment was not within the intent of State legislation to reduce the tax burden of small businesses. Brokers objected to their additional administra- tive work since they intended to pass the license fee to agents. Staff recommends that the license ordinance basically revert back to previous ordinance requirements. Agents with gross commissions in excess of $5000.00 will pay a license fee of $50.00 plus a tax on commissions in excess of $100,000.00. Brokers will pay a license fee and tax on gross commissions less commissions paid to agents. Brokers will also be required to provide a listing of the agents to whom commissions were paid and the amount paid. Staff recommends approval of the amendment as proposed. Ms. Humphris said she would like a clarification. When this matter was discussed in April, it was said that there might need to be an extension of the June 15 payment deadline for the agents. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said he does not believe it will be necessary. Basically, the brokers who have already filed their application have supplied the majority of the information on gross receipts for the billing. They have the information to bill them without actually filling out an application, which was staff's intent. He does not see any reason for an overall extension. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bill May, President-Elect of the Charlottesville Association, said this is the result of a joint effort between the County and the real estate community. They encourage the Board to vote for this amendment. Ms. Humphris said the Board notes that there are a group of brokers and officers of the Association present this morning. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 11, Licenses, Article I, in General, and Article II, Schedule of Taxes, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) 000051 ORDINANCE 'NO. 97-11 (1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 11, LICENSES, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, AND ARTICLE II, SCHEDULE OF TAXES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 11, Licenses, Arti- cle I, In General, and Article II, Schedule of Taxes, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section ll-18(b) (9), Same-- Exclusions and deductions of grOss receipts, and by repealing Section 11-65(c), Financial, real estate and professional ser- vices, as follows: Article I. In General Sec. 11-18. Same--Exclusions and deductions of gross receipts. (a) General Rule. Gross receipts for license tax pur- poses shall not include any amount not derived from the exercise of the licensed privilege to engage in a business in the ordi- nary course of such business. (b) The following shall be excluded from gross receipts: {1) Amounts received and paid to the United States, the Commonwealth or any county, city or town for the Virginia retail sales or use tax, or for any local sales tax or any local excise tax on cigarettes, or for any Federal or state excise taxes on motor fuels. (2) Any amount representing the liquidation of a debt or conversion of another asset to the extent that the amount is attributable to a transaction previously taxed (e.g., the fac- toring of accounts receivable created by .sales which have been included in taxable receipts even though the creation of such debt and factoring are a regular part of its business). (3) Any amount representing returns or trade-in allow- ances granted by the business to its customer. (4) Receipts which are the proceeds of a loan transaction in which the licensee is the obligor. (5) Receipts representing the return of principal of a loan transaction in which the licensee is the creditor, or the return of principal or basis upon the sale of a capital asset. (6) Rebates and discounts taken or received on account of purchases by the licensee. A rebate or other incentive offered to induce the recipient to purchase certain goods or services from a person other than the offeror, and which the recipient assigns to the licensee in consideration of the sale of goods and services shall not be considered a rebate or discount to the licensee, but shall be included in the licensee's gross receipts together with any handling or other fees related to the incen- tive. (7) Withdrawals from inventory for which no consideration is received and the occasional sale or exchange of assets other than inventory, whether or not a gain or loss is recognized for Federal income tax purposes. (8) Investment income not directly related to the privi- lege exercised by a licensable business not classified as ren- dering financial services. This exclusion shall apply to inter- est on bank accounts of the business and to interest, dividends and other income derived from the investment of its own funds in securities and other types of investments unrelated to the licensed privilege. This exclusion shall not apply to interest, late fees and similar income attributable to an installment sale May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) 000052 or other transaction that occurred in the regular course of business. (9) Amounts paid by real estate brokers to real estate agents as a commission on any real estate transaction shall be excluded from real estate brokers' gross receipts. Each real estate broker claiming the exclusion shall identify on its license application each agent to whom the excluded receipts have been paid, the amount of the receipts paid to each such agent, and the jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia to which the agent is subject to business license taxes. © The following shall be deducted from gross receipts or gross expenditures: (1) The gross receipts or gross expenditures attributable to any definite places of business of the person in any other locality. (2) If otherwise taxable, any amount paid for computer hardware and software that are sold to a United States Federal or state government entity provided that such property was purchased within two (2) years of the sale to said entity by the original purchaser who shall have been contractually obligated at the time of purchase to resell such property to a state or Federal government entity. This deduction shall not occur until the time of resale and shall apply to only the original cost of the property and not to its resale price, and the deduction shall not apply to any of the tangible personal property which was the subject of the original resale contract if it is not resold to a state or Federal government entity in accordance with the original contract obligation. (3) If otherwise taxable, any receipts attributable to business conducted in another state or foreign country if the person is liable for an income or other tax based upon income in such other state or foreign country. (d) With the exception of license requirements under section 11-49, all social organizations, fraternities, benevo- lent orders, religious, education, civic and military organiza- tions, charter clubs, rescue squads or volunteer fire companies which conduct business or perform services in which compensation in any manner is received shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter so long as the compensation or receipts in excess of the actual expenses are devoted to and used for charitable purposes. All such organizations seeking exemption under this section shall apply, and provide proof if necessary, to the director of finance or his appointed deputy for an exemption certificate. Article II. Schedule of Taxes Division 5. Personal, Professional, Business or Repair Service Businesses, Occupations or Professions. Sec. 11-65. Financial, real estate and professional services. (a) Generally. Each person engaged in a financial, real estate or professional service shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of fifty-eight cents ($0.58) per one hundred dollars of gross receipts. (b) Enumerated. A person engaged in a financial service, real estate service, personal service or professional service includes, but is not limited to, the following: Financial services. The service for compensation by a credit agency, an investment company, a broker or dealer in securities and commodities or a security or commodity exchange, unless such service is otherwise provided for in this chapter. "Broker" shall mean an agent of a buyer or a seller who buys or May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) 000053 sells stocks, bonds, commodities, or services, usually on a commission basis. "Commodity" shall mean staples such as wool and cotton which are traded on a commodity exchange and on which there is trading in futures. "Dealer" for purposes of this chapter shall mean any person engaged in the business of buying and selling securities for his own account, but does not include a bank, or any person insofar as he buys or sells securities for his own account, either individually or in some fiduciary capac- ity, but not as part of a regular business. "Security" for purposes of this chapter shall have the same meaning as in the Securities Act (sections 13.1-501 et seq.) of the Code of Vir- ginia, or in similar laws of the United States regulating the sale of securities. Those engaged in rendering financial services include, but without limitation, the following: Buying installment receivables Chattel mortgage financing Consumer financing Credit card services Credit unions Factors Financing accounts receivable Industrial loan companies Installment financing Inventory financing Loan or mortgage brokers Loan or mortgage companies Safety deposit box companies Security and commodity brokers and services stockbroker Working capital financing Real estate services. Rendering a service for compensa- tion as lessor, buyer, seller, agent or broker and providing a real estate service, unless the service is otherwise specifi- cally provided for in this ordinance, and such services include, but are not limited to, the following: Appraisers of real estate Escrow agents, real estate Fiduciaries, real estate Lessors of real property Real estate agents, brokers and managers Real estate selling agents Rental agents for real estate Professional services. Rendering any service specifically enumerated below or engaging in any occupation or vocation in which a professed knowledge of some department of science or learning, gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruc- tion and study, is used by its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising, guiding, or teaching them, and in serving their interests or welfare in the practice of an art or science founded on it. The words ~profession" and ~pro- fessional" imply attainments in professional knowledge as dis- tinguished from mere skill, and the application of knowledge to uses for others as a vocation, and including, but without limi- tation, such attainments attributed to the following: Architects Attorneys-at-law Certified public accountants Dentists Engineers Land surveyors Practitioners of the healing arts (the art or science or group of arts or sciences dealing with the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure or alleviation of human physical or mental ailments, conditions, diseases, pain or infirmities) Surgeons Veterinarians May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) oooOs4 Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water only to Key West Subdivision located on TM62, Sec62B(1), 62B(2) & 62B(3) & Cedar Hills Subdivision located on TM62, Sec62C. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg said the Board considered this request on April 2, 1997, and agreed to set this public hearing. The applicant, Key Commercial, Inc., requests service area designation for water only for service to Key West Subdivision and to Cedar Hills Subdivision. These two subdivisions are located off Route 20 (Stony Point Road) just north of the Neighborhood Three Development Area. The applicant stated that the request for the water only designation is due to the primary well serving the subdivisions being contami- nated with a gasoline additive called Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) . The applicant has attempted to drill additional wells but they did not produce the water quantity needed to serve the neighborhoods. At its April 2, 1997, meeting, the Board requested that the Virginia Department of Health provide more specific information concerning its method- ology of assigning design capacity for public water supply wells. The Department of Health responded with a memo and a copy of their Waterworks Regulations. Staff's memo quantifies the inadequacy of the uncontaminated wells' capacity to meet the needs of Key West and Cedar Hills subdivisions. In addition, the applicant has provided a list of the parcels in the Key West and Cedar Hills Subdivisions to be served by public water. Based on the comments in the staff's April 2, 1997, report about verification of a public health and safety issue, and information since provided by the Department of Health, staff recommends amending the service area boundaries to allow for water only designation for the Key West and Cedar Hills subdivisions located on Tax Map 62, Sections 62B(1), 62B(2), 62B(3) and 62C (all parcels located on these sections are within these subdivisions and are recommended for inclusion for water only service). Ms. Humphris mentioned that Ms. Mary Bull, a resident in Key West, had forwarded to the Board some pictures showing silt and discolored water in her house. She asked what that has to do with the toxic substance in the water. Mr. Cilimberg said he had not seen the pictures, and it might be best for Mr. Bill Brent of the Service Authority to discuss that matter. Ms. Thomas said it seems that where approval of a waterline extension is given, other nearby areas begin to assume they should also have access to that waterline. She understands the action contemplated today is because in Key West/Cedar Hills it is a community well serving a large number of houses. The law the State Health Department works under puts those wells in a different category from the well of an individual. State support for extending a waterline to an individual landowner would be different. Mr. Martin asked if Ms. Thomas was talking about the County paying for the waterline extension versus the Service Authority. Ms. Thomas said public money is paying for extension of this line because it is a community well and not an individual well. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Brent may wish to speak to that because it will not be County money paying for the extension, but State money. With no further questions at this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jack Schwab, applicant, said he has operated this water system for 38 years without a problem. Today, water sources they thought were basically untouchable have been touched. Well No. 2 has a small amount of MTBE in it, but the records show that they have pumped over ten million gallons of water through that well, and the problem still persists. As a water company owner he is concerned because no one can tell him what the effect of intake and ingestion of this particular chemical will be. From articles he has read in technical publications, the problem is widespread over the United States. He has no other choice than to come to the Board today and try to resolve the situation for the people of the community. Mr. Schwab said from his standpoint, they are in the position of turning over the water system for a zero remuneration of their capital expenditures over the years. The problem is serious. He said if it can happen in his water system, it could happen anywhere in Albemarle County. They have no May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 0000'-55 commercial activities anywhere near them, and that is why the problem has been so hard to resolve. He said they appreciate the opportunity to come and talk about this problem. Key Commercial, the owner of the water company, is in agreement with everybody that this problem needs to be resolved. He said there were many people present to speak. Ms. Humphris mentioned the letter from Ms. Bull with pictures showing silting in her home. She asked if that has any relationship to this problem. Mr. Schwab said it has nothing to do with the MTBE, but has a lot to do with the fact that they just turned on another well. They drilled three wells ten years ago, capped them and held them as a reserve. One of them tested at the initial drilling at about 55 gpm, and the other two were below 10 gpm. Within the last three and one-half weeks, they laid the pipeline and put Well No. 4 on line at about 64 gpm. It is a dead-end line and that stirs up the system. It is taking a while to settle down. Next week, they will follow a program of going around and blowing off all the hydrants to clean out the system. Now, as far as supply is concerned (using actual consumption records for Key West over the last 38 years), unless there is a huge problem, they should be able to handle the system until it gets on line with the Service Authority. If for any reason they should have to turn off Well No. 2, they would be down to a wintertime operation of no outside watering, no automobile washing, no uses of water not absolutely necessary. Ms. Thomas asked about the existing distribution system. She said one of the attachments to the staff's report suggests that it does not meet current minimum construction standards of the Albemarle County Service Authority. She asked if this is something that has been worked out. Mr. Schwab said that has nothing to do with what pressure the pipes can take, but has to do with sizing. Some of the dead-end lines are four-inch lines, and they cannot support a fire hydrant. In the development plan for Key West, they have two large ponds, so the fire department does not hook to the hydrants, but instead pumps from the ponds. In the beginning they did not have the capacity to put the water into the system in a quantity great enough to provide for fire protection, so the lines were built based on what could be done at that time. Most of the pipes are cast iron. They have maintained the system over the past 38 years. Lines have been replaced when necessary. At one time, the system was operated on a pressure tank, with the pressure in the high areas being around 60, but in the lower elevations it was up to 95 or 100 lbs. A lot of the homes in Key West in the lower elevations already have a pressure reduction valve installed. Ms. Thomas asked if the upkeep and maintenance of this system after it comes into the service area becomes the County Service Authority's responsi- bility. Mr. Schwab said that is what he understands. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Schwab will have to dedicate the waterlines to the Albemarle County Service Authority. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Martin said the people at Key West have used experts and gone the extra distance to show that they are in an impossible situation and need the help of the public water supply. He offered motion to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water only to Key West Subdivision located on Tax Map 62, Section 62B(1), Section 62B(2) and Section 62B(3) and to Cedar Hills Subdivision located on Tax Map 62, Section 62C. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Ms. Humphris asked if it would be appropriate to have all of the communications from the State Department of Health included in the record for justification of approval of this request. Mr. Martin agreed. Mr. Marshall mentioned that the iron stain in appliances can be cor- rected by using a substance called "oxalic acid." Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (Note: The Board recessed at 10:44 a.m. and reconvened at 10:55 a.m.) May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) 000056 Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to Amend the Albemarle County Code by amending Chapter 6, Elections, Section 6-6, Same-- Scottsville Magisterial District, to create a new voting precinct in the Scottsville Magisterial District by dividing the existing Monticello Precinct to create a new precinct to be called the Cale Precinct. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 1997.) Mr. Tucker summarized the reasons for the request (see the minutes of April 9, 1997). He said the Board does need to adopt the ordinance, and then adopt a resolution designating the new polling places in the Monticello and Cale voting precincts. He said that Mr. Cliff Anderson, Secretary of the Electoral Board, was present to answer questions. At this point, Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Martin, to Adopt an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 6, Elections, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 97-6 (1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 6, ELECTIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 6, Elections, Sec- tion 6-6, Same--Scottsville Magisterial District, is hereby amended and reordained by amending subsection 6-6(b), Monticello Precinct and by adding new subsection 6-6(e), Cale Precinct, as follows: Sec. 6-6. Same--Scottsville Magisterial District. The Scottsville Magisterial District shall be divided into four (4) voting precincts, bounded as hereafter set out, and named as follows: (b) Monticello Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Scottsville Road (State Route 20) and the southern city limits of Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its intersection with the Rivanna River; then meandering southeast with the Rivanna River to the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line; then southwest with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Rolling Road (State Route 620); then northwest on Rolling Road to its intersection with Secretarys Road (State Route 708); then west on Secretarys Road to its intersection with Carters Mountain Road (State Route 627) then south on Carters Mountain Road to its intersection with Scottsville Road; then north on Scottsville Road to its intersection with the southern city limits of Charlottesville, the point of beginning. (e) Cale Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended (State Route 781) and the southern city limits of Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its intersection with Scottsville Road (State Route 20); then south with SCottsville Road to its intersection with Red Hill Road (State Route 708); then northwest with Red Hill Road to its intersection with Old Lynchburg Road (State Route 631); then north with Old Lynchburg Road to its intersection with Sunset Avenue Extended (State Route 781); then north with Sunset Avenue Extended to its intersection with the southern city limits of Charlottesville, the point of beginning. ooooS? May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adopt the following Resolution to Designate Polling Places in the Monticello and Cale Voting Precincts. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE POLLING PLACE IN THE MONTICELLO AND CALE VOTING PRECINCTS WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has established by ordi- nance dated May 7, 1997, new voting precincts designated as the Monticello Precinct and the Cale Precinct in the Scottsville Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Electoral Board has recom- mended the location of polling places for the newly designated precincts; and WHEREAS, the recommended polling places meet all the requirements for polling places set forth in § 24.2-310 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the recommended polling places provide safe, convenient and accessible locations for all voters at public buildings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors designated that the polling place for the Monticello Precinct be located at Piedmont Virginia Community College and that the polling place for the Cale Precinct be located at Cale Elementary School. Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing on a request, pursuant to Section 15.1-262 of the Code of Virginia, to consider the sale of approx 1.494 acs of County property consisting of a 75 ft strip of land adjacent to Tandem Friends School, such property being a part of an 8.1 ac parcel designated as TMgl, P2. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 1997.) 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 consti- tuting 1.494 acres adjoining the Tandem Friends School property for the purpose of expanding the Tandem soccer field to accommodate a regulation sized facility. Staff reviewed the request. The parcel from which the strip is being acquired consists of 8.1 acres, so 6.6 acres will remain. As long as utility easements over this 75-foot strip are preserved, this sale will not adversely impact the master plan for development of this parcel. The Build- ings and Grounds Committee reviewed this proposal and recommends that the sale price to'Tandem be $20,000 per acre which approximates the County's investment in the property. The Committee also recommends that there be a stipulation on the sale that this soccer field will be available for use by the public at times when it is not in use by Tandem School. This stipulation is in exchange for some assistance with trash pickup and portable toilet facilities. The Director of Parks and Recreation believes this field would be a benefit to the community and is willing to work through the issues on trash cleanup and toilet facilities while working with scheduling issues. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that following the public hearing, the Board accept the recommendations of the Building and Grounds Committee to dispose of this property once an agreement is reached by staff on the schedul- ing, maintenance and easement issues. The Board also needs to authorize the County Executive to sign the agreement. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Rosalyn Byrnes was present for Tandem School, but did not care to add anything to the staff's presentation. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) ooooSs Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the recommendation from the Buildings and Grounds Committee to sell approxi- mately 1.494 acres of County property consisting of a 75-foot strip of land adjacent to Tandem Friends School, such property being a part of an 8.1 acre parcel designated as Tax Map 91, Parcel 2, once agreement is reached by staff on the scheduling, maintenance and easement issues, with the agreement being signed by the County Executive. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Presentation of Book: Hallowed Ground: Preserving America's Heritage, by the Piedmont Environmental Council. Mr. Peter Hallock said the Albemarle County Board of the Piedmont Environmental Council is proud to present the Board of Supervisors with a copy of the book. It contains pictures of things that they would like to preserve from the black churches to the historical manors to just plain good farm land that is in the Piedmont region of the Commonwealth. The author points out that Fairfax County went from being a farming community to what it is today in one generation. The last dairy farm there became a prison. Someone who was just driving through Albemarle told him it has all the right pieces, there can be growth, but parts can also be preserved. He hopes that all enjoy the book. Ms. Humphris thanked Mr. Hallock for the books on behalf of the Board members, and for the message that came with it. Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Juvenile Detention Planning Needs Assessment Update, and Request for Adoption of a Resolution Requesting Capital Funding for Construction of a Juvenile Detention Facility for Albemarle/ Charlottesville. Ms. Roxanne White began by handing to the Board members a copy of the updated report. She said that in September, 1995, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council received a report that assessed the needs for secure juvenile detention for both Charlottesville and Albemarle youth. That report outlined the process for securing state funding for a new or expanded juvenile detention facility. In November, 1996 the Board appropriated $33,545 as the County's share of a juvenile detention planning study to be conducted by Mosely, Harris and McClintock in association with Carter Goble Associates. Also funded by the City of Charlottesville and the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home, the study and the report were to provide a detailed analysis of projected capital and operational costs based on facility location, size, design, programs, etc. The Mosely Harris report includes a needs assessment update, a program design and a planning study addressing secure juvenile detention. It analyzes the costs and alternatives available to Charlottesville-Albemarle for creating new secure bed space by either expanding at the current detention facility in Staunton or by building a new facility locally. The needs assessment confirms that 40 new beds are needed (35 pre-dispositional beds and five post-disposi- tional beds), with expansion potential of 60 beds. Renovation of the Staunton facility (current capacity of 32 beds) and expansion to 72 beds (adding 40 new beds and working on the auxiliary space) is estimated to cost $7,770,658. The Charlottesville-Albemarle share of that cost would be $5,062,718, or 56 percent of the total. The cost to build a new facility locally is estimated at $6,287,162, a difference of $1,224,444 in total costs. The per bed capital cost under both of these scenarios is approximately $150,000. Currently, the State reimbursement rate is 50 percent for capital costs. In actuality it is not 50 percent because they have capped that at a maximum of $52,000 per bed. That is an outdated figure and it may change. In a scenario where the State reimbursed expansion and renovation at the Staunton facility based on 72 beds, the City/County share (at 56 percent of usage) would be $2,175,784. In a scenario where the State reimbursed for only a 40-bed expansion at the Staunton facility, the City/County share (at 56 percent of usage) would be $3,119,568. Construction of a new facility in Charlottesville/Albemarle will cost the City and County May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) 0000S9 $4,087,162 after the State reimbursements are deducted. Based on a 50/50 split of local costs, Albemarle's share of capital costs under each scenario would be: Expand/renovate Staunton facility (72 beds) Expand/renovate Staunton facility (40 beds) Construct new facility locally (40 beds) $1,087,892 $1,559,784 $2,043,581 The FY 1997/98 - FY 2001/02 Capital Improvement Program included approximately $5.4 million for a new detention facility based on an estimated cost of $135,000 per bed with the County's projected share of the local project at $1.6 million. Unless the state revises its reimbursement rates to reflect 50 percent of actual construction costs ($75,000 vs. $52,000), an additional $400,000 in local borrowed funds would need to be added to the CIP project costs. Charlottesville's and Albemarle's share of the annual operating costs are projected to be $741,200 at the Staunton facility and $800,000 at a new local facility. Depending on which formula is used (currently based on number of detention days), the County's share of operating costs under each scenario would be: At 50%/50% split As percent of 1996 detention days (37%) As percent of total population (65%) Staunton Local Increase Facility Facility (Local over Current) $373,100 $400,000 $276,000 $279,601 $299,760 $175,760 $481,523 $516,240 $392,240 The addition of projected annual transportation costs of $41,063 to the Staunton facility and $8103 to a local facility results in annual operating costs that are much the same: Annual operating costs Transportation costs Staunton Local $741,200 $800,000 41,063 8,103 $782,263 $808,103 Annual operating costs for a local Charlottesville/Albemarle juvenile facility might be somewhat reduced by per diem charges to other localities (provided space is available) or by bringing in another jurisdiction to form a Juvenile Commission. Fluvanna County is interested in pursuing either of these options and discussions with them will continue if the Board and City Council agree to move forward on a new local facility. Though difficult to quantify, access to community-based youth programs and to post-dispositional programs that a local facility would provide must be factored into decision-making. A local facility would allow community-based services to be delivered and would also serve to increase family participation in counseling services. These services are not available at the Staunton facility. The planning study does recommend that the best option is to have a local facility. Ms. White said staff does recommend approval of a resolution requesting capital funding from the State for construction of a juvenile detention facility in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. The Board of the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice will take action on the resolution in June. Mr. Bowerman asked if the beds would stay at 40 initially if there were three localities involved. Ms. White said that Fluvanna's numbers are very small, maybe two or three. Mr. Bowerman said their operational costs would be based on that number of beds, but what about capital costs. Ms. White said that question is open for discussion. Mr. Marshall asked if this facility will be located in the City or the County. Ms. White said staff has looked at some possibilities, all outside of the City limits. Looking for the actual site would be the next step. Mr. Perkins asked if the figures given include land acquisition costs. Ms. White said there is $350,000 built into the local estimate for land. Mr. Perkins asked if there is a possibility of having other localities partici- pate. Ms. White said some other counties might be interested. Mr. Perkins May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) OOO060 asked if beds can be added to the facility. Ms. White said the 40 beds is based on four different pods of ten beds each. The facility could be expanded to 60 beds and the core space would also be expanded slightly. Staff will proceed to discuss this facility with Fluvanna County, and will also speak to other counties about purchasing bed space. Ms. White said as to the process, the State has had the report for about a month. They have made some slight changes to the report, but overall thought it was a good study. The resolution must be approved by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. If reimbursement funds are committed during the 1997 Session of the General Assembly, architectural and engineering services would commence in July 1, 1998 (FY 1998-99). Construction would begin in July, 1999 (FY 1999-2000) with completion scheduled for the Summer of 2000. The additional $400,000 in capital costs for the local facility would need to be programmed into the five-year capital improvement budget. In addition, funds for increased annual operating costs would need to be pro- grammed into the FY 1999-2000 budget. The next step is to have the resolution in by May 14, and that will be reviewed by their staff. It then goes to the State Department of Juvenile Justice Board on June 18. Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to adopt the resolution provided, with the understanding that the funding formula followed in the past will remain in effect. There has been a question with regard to what the City is proposing, but that has nothing to do with the resolution. Staff feels strongly that the basic formula for funding should remain as it has been in the past. Mr. Bowerman said the Jail was 50 percent sharing on the capital costs, for administration and joint areas, but for the Cells it was based on usage. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Mr. Bowerman asked if that is what is proposed for this facility. Mr. Tucker said staff has not gotten into that type of detail. Right now, staff has been looking at 50/50 on capital costs and then based on usage for operations. Mr. Martin said that is the way it is done now in Staunton. That is why Albemarle has for the last couple of years had to go back and increase the amount allocated, because there has been more County usage than anticipated. Mr. Bowerman said when the Jail was built, the cost of the cells was not equal. Mr. Tucker said that is correct for the current expansion project. Ms. White said that just has not been part of this discussion. Mr. Bowerman asked what action the City Council took on Monday. Ms. White said they adopted a resolution which is a little different from the draft given to the Board. They also discussed the operating cost formula, although they did not take any action on that. The City did add the words nas part of a multi-use assessment and post-dispositional center" in the last paragraph of the resolution. They felt it was important that it not only be a juvenile detention facility, but it also would have the possibility of being a more complete assessment center, and also be able to provide services to youth while they are there. That is not something the State reimburses for at this time. There have been comments at the State level that it is something they would like to see happen. They would like for facilities to be more multi- use. The State is not funding these uses now. Mr. Martin said the State does fund post-dispositional use. Ms. White said the assessment part only. If that was something Albemarle wanted to expand, it would be local costs. Staff did talk to the consultants about this idea, and they did design this facility so it could be expanded to handle the additional space. Ms. Thomas asked where such activities take place now. Ms. White said they use Community Attention, or the court services unit. Mr. Martin said some providers will go to Staunton and do assessments without there being an extra fee. Mr. Tucker said there is no formal assessment. Ms. Thomas asked if there are special rooms for this use in the Staunton facility. Mr. Martin said uno", it is just office space. Mr. Marshall said he supports it. Mr. Perkins asked if there are any examples of the private sector providing this and then charging the localities a use fee. Ms. White said this was a part of the study because the State required that a privatization analysis be done. Basically they found that operating costs could be provided May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) 000062 at a lower rate, but private borrowing rates would be higher for capital costs, therefore, their total costs would be higher. Ms. Thomas asked if anything prevented the localities from using public improvement money, but having private management. Mr. Marshall said he thought the Board was talking about providing space, but not the service. Ms. White said she thought the consultants looked at lower personnel costs because they don't have the contracts. Mr. Marshall said the benefits to be gained from this facility for the community as a whole can't be measured. Mr. Perkins said he thinks it is foolish to be running back and forth when something is needed here. Ms. White said she thinks they are anxious for the City and County to leave. This would free up about 41 percent of their space, so they could have space for themselves and have post-dispositional space which they don't have now, and it also gives them the ability to sell some per diem space. That is a reason why Albemarle's cost has gone up, because additional revenues could not be brought in from other localities because the facility has been full. Ms. Humphris said the Board should take note of the letter which was hand-delivered from Judge Jannene Shannon, in which she notes "our courts presently face a juvenile detention crisis." She gives her support to this facility. Mr. Martin said he would like to add some reasons which are not so tangible. One is a safety issue. Over the years there have been several situations where people riding in the back of a van have been mischievous and created situations which were not safe for other juveniles as well as law enforcement officers. Another thing that is hard to measure is where a juvenile is sent to Staunton and the juvenile gets a tooth ache but is not scheduled for court for two weeks. There is no provision for that child to get that type of service without an officer going over, picking up the child, bringing him back to Charlottesville, waiting in the dentist office, etc. Post-dispositional is basically sentencing. Now, a juvenile can be held in Staunton until sentencing, but detention cannot be a part of sentencing even though the statute allows for that. The Staunton detention home does not have the space. With a home being local, it could be used as an option for sentencing if the judge wanted to do so. Mr. Bowerman asked what happens to the children who are sentenced now. Do they go to another facility in the state? Mr. Martin said sentencing can be postponed for a couple of weeks, or use other kinds of options. Youths are committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice. Some times the youth might not have been sentenced, but instead goes to one of the various correctional facilities. Ms. White said the study looked at that as a reason to have a facility with the post-dispositional space. Mr. Martin said it was mentioned that Fluvanna County's numbers were low, but that might be simply because they don't have the bed space. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board's resolution should be consistent with the City's by adding the additional wording. Mr. Marshall said he agrees with that wording. Ms. Humphris said these words are added with the understanding that it would be at local cost. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following resolution with the same language as recommended by the City Council. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. (Note: The resolution, as adopted, is set out in full below.) A RESOLUTION REQUESTING CAPITAL FUN-DING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY FOR ALBEMARLE/CHARLOTTESVILLE O0006Z May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) WHEREAS, the Shenandoah Valley Detention Home has been experiencing overcrowding for several years; and WHEREAS, an assessment of juvenile detention needs for the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville concluded that there was an immediate need for 40 pre-dispositional and post-dispositional beds to serve the growing number of delin- quent youth; and WHEREAS, a program design and planning study has concluded that construction of a new facility is the most desirable alter- native for Albemarle/Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, established procedures require the adoption of a formal resolution from the governing body to indicate local interest to seek capital funding participation by the Common- wealth through the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervi- sors, Albemarle County, Virginia, that it does hereby express its intent to proceed with the construction of a juvenile deten- tion facility as part of a multi-use assessment and post-dispo- sitional center, and to seek the maximum amount of capital funding reimbursement from the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. Agenda Item No. 16. Adopt Resolution: Meals Tax Referendum. It was noted that the Vote Yes Campaign has been circulating a petition among Albemarle County residents for the past several months to support a meals tax referendum. The proposed referendum would authorize the levy of a County meals tax of no more than four percent. If the petitioners are successful in raising a little under 4000 votes by August, the referendum will be placed on the November election ballot. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Davis has a reworded resolution for the Board to consider due to a problem he found with the resolution forwarded in the Board's packet. Ms. Thomas said she would like to express her support of the resolution by more than just a vote, but given the time constraints this morning, she will just say it is very necessary to increase revenue. She has told many people that they have a choice of either seeing this amount of money on their real estate tax bill or this amount of money on a meals tax. Ms. Humphris said she has always been supportive of a meals tax and she still is. She said the County will be facing a very difficult situation during the next fiscal year, and needs to prepare for it. This is an alterna- tive that reduces the pressure on the property tax. Mr. Marshall said he has never supported the meals tax until now. He is wholeheartedly in support at this time because he does not want to raise real estate and personal property taxes in Albemarle County. If this referendum does not pass, he does not believe the Board will have another choice. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adopt the following resolution of support for a meals tax referendum. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT-MEALS TAX REFERENDUM WHEREAS, population growth in Albemarle County has and will continue to have a significant fiscal impact on the quality and availability of essential government services, including education, public safety, recreation, libraries, and capital improvements; and May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) 000063 W~EREAS, the fall 1998 opening of Monticello High School will require $1.3 million in recurring costs, in addition to $1.4 million in projected enrollment costs for over 300 new pupils; and W~EREAS, the County's projected revenues are inadequate to meet either maintenance of effort expenses or needed school initiatives and essential services; and W~EREAS, the rate of increase in real estate assessments has decreased steadily since 1991; and W~EREAS, the Virginia State Code limits the Albemarle County Board of Supervisor's ability to establish new revenue sources, including impact fees on new real estate development; and W~EREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors must remain fiscally responsible when balancing annual revenue sources and expenditure needs. NOW, T~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, in its desire to postpone, reduce the need for, or eliminate the need for a property tax rate increase, hereby supports a citizen-initiated petition to advance a refer- endum to authorize a County meals tax levy of no more than four percent, the revenue from which would be deposited in the County's General Fund. Agenda Item No. 20. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 11:41 a.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, 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 regarding appointments to Boards, Committees and Commissions and an administrative evaluation; under Subsection (3) to discuss disposition of an interest in County property; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion and probable litigation concerning the landfill. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 19. Recognition of Boards and Commissions on the Front Lawn of the Albemarle County Office Building on McIntire Road. This was the day for County Government Open House. It also was National County Government Week. Agenda Item No. 21. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session. At 4:10 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. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin (Mr. Martin left during the executive session at 3:20 p.m.) 000064 May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. Mr. Bowerman nominated Ms. Gene E. Smith and Mr. Edward J. Jones to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging with terms to expire on March 31, 1999. Ms. Thomas nominated the following persons for the Route 250 West Corridor Study Committee: Mr. George Carter, Ms. Pat Kennedy, Ms. Diana Strickler, Mr. Willie Smith, Mr. Carroll Connally, Ms. Marion Rothman, Ms. Nancy Barnette, Mr. David Carr, Jr., Mr. Charles Toms, Mr. John Cruickshank, Mr. Pete Anderson, Mr. Tom Payne, Mr. Phil Unger, Mr. Thomas Goodrich. Mr. Perkins seconded the nominations. Roll was called and the motions carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Ms. Thomas said this study has been delayed because VDOT has not yet signed a contract with the consultant. Ms. Thomas nominated the following persons for the Thomas Jefferson Venture: Mr. David Bowerman, Dr. Kevin Castner, Ms. Vicki Crews, Mr. John Cutlip, Ms. Karen Dame, Ms. Charlotte Humphris, Ms. Karen Lilleleht, Ms. Jewel Mason, Mr. Steve Murray, Mr. Walter Perkins, Ms. Sally Thomas, Ms. Angela Tucker, Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., Ms. Jodie Webber, Mr. James Eddins, Mr. Peter Hallock, Mr. Don Borwhat and Ms. Ann Taylor. (Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Perkins are members because they are members of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Ms. Humphris is a member because enabling legislation makes the Chair of the Board a member, Mr. Bowerman is a member representing the Sustainability Council.) Mr. Bowerman seconded the nominations. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Ms. Thomas said on Tuesday, May 13th, at 7:00 p.m., there will be a meeting at Murray Elementary School cafeteria regarding a tower that is tentatively being proposed in the Ivy area. This is an attempt to meet with the residents ahead of time. The request has not been brought to the Commis- sion yet. Ms. Thomas said she thought the Board would need to adjourn in a way to show that several members of this Board will be at a meeting of the Venture tomorrow. Mr. Davis said rather than adjourn to those dates, just announce the Venture meeting dates as additional meeting dates of the Board of Supervi- sors and then by agreement of the Board members limit the business to simply attending the meeting for that purpose. Mr. Tucker asked if that has to be done each time. Mr. Davis said to just announce the meeting dates today. The only problem would be if the Venture created additional meeting dates. The meeting of the Venture is a public meeting, so it is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. A bigger problem is that four members of the Board constitutes a quorum so that kicks in the requirement for minutes to be taken. Minutes could be minimal indicat- ing who was in attendance, what was discussed, and what time the meeting started and ended. He thinks the best way to handle it is to state today that there will be additional meetings of the Board on May 8, May 15, May 22, May 29, June 26 and September 4 which are the dates known at this time. That will meet the requirements of the Act. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to add the following additional meeting dates to the Board of Supervisors' meeting schedule for the purpose of having Board members attend the Thomas Jefferson Venture meetings; May 8, May 000065 May 7, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) 15, May 22, May 29, June 26 and September 4, 1997. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Ms. Humphris said she received a nice note from Ms. Theresa Tapscott at AHIP, thanking the Board for ongoing support of AHIP and its programs. Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Approved by Board