Loading...
1997-10-01October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 00000 . A regular meeting of the BOard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October I, 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, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Attorney, Mark Trank, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 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. PUBLIC. There were none. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation. Ms. Humphris presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. Robert A. Musselman for his service as an Officer of Election for more than 50 years. Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.14 on the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. (Note: Conversation relating an each individual item will be listed at the end of that item.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Item 6.1. Appropriation: Thomas Jefferson Health Department, $80,000 (Form #96084). It was noted in the staff's report that during FY 1996-97, approvals were granted from the County and the City to use $74,000 from Health Department Maintenance Funds to offset overruns in the renovation and expansion of the Health Department. These funds were appropriated in the Capital Improvement Fund. However, staff failed to get authorization to transfer the funds from the Health Department Maintenance Fund. This request is to appropriate and transfer $74,000 in the Health Department Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund. In addition, staff requests appropriation of an additional $6000 to cover miscellaneous repairs and insurance costs incurred during FY 1996-97. The requested appropriation is based on actual expenditures made from the Health Department Maintenance Fund and is funded by rental income from the Health Department building. These expenses are not appropriated during the normal budget process. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NL~BER: 96084 FUND: HEALTH DEPARTMENT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 1996-97 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) ,/ EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATE~©RY 1855051025331000 1855051025530000 1855093010930013 DESCRIPTION REPAIRS AND MAINT INSURANCE TRANSFER TO CIP REVENUE 2855O15OOO15O1O1 2855015000150237 2855051OOO51O1OO DESCRIPTION INTEREST ON DEPOSITS RENT HEALTH FUND BALANCE O0000Z TOTAL AMOUNT 3,900.00 2,100.00 74,000.00 $80,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT $2,800.00 55,000.00 22,200.00 $80,000.00 Item 6.2. Appropriation: Grant, $62,715 (Form #97018). Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) It was noted in the staff's report that the County of Albemarle has received notification from the Department of Justice that it has been awarded a technology grant. The grant will provide a digital mug shot imaging system and five computer workstations for officers. The mug shot imaging system will allow photographs to be captured and stored electronically. The officer workstations will upgrade older equipment so officers will have full access to the records management system. The $62,715 grant award consists of $47,036 in Federal funds and a local match of $15,679. The local match was provided for in the General Fund budget process. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98 NUMBER: 97018 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICE SERVICES GPJ~NT EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 152331010310000 152331010800700 152331010800710 DESCRIPTION PROF SERVICES ADP EQUIPMENT ADP SOFTWARE TOTAL AMOUNT $2,000.00 40,215.00 20,500,00 $62,715.00 REVENUE 2152333000330001 2152351000510110 DESCRIPTION GENERAL GRANT REVENUE LOCAL GOV'T TRANSFER TOTAL AMOUNT $47,036.00 15,679.00 $62,715.00 Item 6.3. Appropriation: Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant, $51,346.69 (Form #97019). It was noted in the staff's report that this is the continuation of a U.S. Department of Justice grant that was approved through September 30, 1997. The intent of the grant is to increase community-oriented policing through increased overtime and use of hand held notepad computers. The County of Albemarle proposes to purchase 15 notepad computers and pay for 2000 hours of overtime under the COPS MORE program to increase the presence of existing sworn officers in community-policing activities. The work to be performed by the County will be funded by a $8,421.26 Fund Balance and additional COPS MORE '95 grant funds in the amount of $42,925.43, for a total appropriation request of $51,346.69. Additional local funds are not required. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98 NUMBER: 97019 FUND: GRANT October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) OOOO08 PuRpOsE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICE SERVICES GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEQORY ii52i3i0i0i20000 i152i3i0i02i0000 ii52i310i0800700 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT WAGES-O/T $12,862.69 FICA 984.00 ADP EQUIPMENT 37.500.00 TOTAL $51,346.69 REVENUE 2152133000330001 2152151000510100 DESCRIPTION GENERAL GRANT REVENUE FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $42,925.43 $,421,26 $51,346.69 Item 6.4. Appropriation: Law Enforcement Block Grant, $18,000 (Form #97020). It was noted in the staff's report that this is the second year of a two- year grant. The purpose of the grant program is to reduce crimes and improve public safety. This grant will utilize one officer on a part-time basis in the Esmont and Scottsville areas to provide a part-time neighborhood police officer. The work to be performed by the County Police Department will be funded by a 1996-97 carry-over appropriation of $17,730.68 and anticipated interest earnings of $269.32 for a total appropriation of $18,000. No additional funds are required. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98 NUMBER: 97020 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEQORY 1153131010110000 1153131010210000 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT WAGES $16,721.00 FICA 1,279.00 TOTAL $18,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2i53ii5000i50i0i INTEREST $269.32 2153151000510100 FUND BALANCE 17,730,68 TOTAL $18,000.00 Item 6.5. Appropriation: Route 29 North Traffic Enforcement Grant, $1,340.82 (Form #97021). It was noted in the staff's report that U.S. Route 29 north of Charlottesville is the busiest and most crash-prone area in the County. Patrol officers on regular assignment do not have the opportunity to do much traffic enforcement. The primary proposed solution is to increase traffic enforcement through selective enforcement assignments employing one or two officers working overtime. This is a Federal grant extending through September 30, 1997. It was originally appropriated in the 1996-97 fiscal year. This request appropriates the fund balance. There are no additional funds requested. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98 NUMBER: 97021 FUND: GRANT October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) 000004 PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DMV MINI GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEg0RY 1153231145120000 1153231145210000 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT WAGES-O/T $1,245.54 FICA 95.28 TOTAL $1,340.82 REVENUE 2153251000510100 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUND BALANCE $1,340.82 TOTAL $1,340.82 Item 6.6. Appropriation: $4,285.01 (Form #97022). County-wide Traffic Enforcement Grant, It was noted in the staff's report that traffic activity is increasing in Albemarle County. Patrol Officers on regular assignment do not have the opportunity to do much traffic enforcement. The primary proposed solution is to increase traffic enforcement through selective enforcement assignments employing officers working overtime. This is a companion grant to the Route 29 North traffic enforcement grant. This is a Federal grant extending through September 30, 1997. It was originally appropriated in 1996-97. This request appropriates the fund balance and the balance due from the Federal government. No additional funds are required. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98 NUMBER: 97022 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DMV PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEgORy 1153331145120000 1153331145210000 DESCRIPTION WAGES-O/T FICA TOTAL AMOUNT $3,980.50 304.51 $4,285.01 REVENUE 2153333000330011 2153351000510100 DESCRIPTION FEDERAL GRANT FUND BALANCE TOTAL $2,795.98 1,489.03 $4,285.01 Item 6.7. Appropriation: Community Crime Prevention Grant, $20,295 (Form #97023). It was noted in the staff's report that for several years, the County of Albemarle has experienced a steady increase in its crime rate. The County has seen particularly dramatic increases in burglaries, larcenies and motor vehicle thefts. The purpose of this grant is to continue to develop a comprehensive crime prevention network for the community. Enhanced departmental crime prevention capabilities have been a factor in some target crime category decreases since 1994. The Department of Criminal Justice Services has renewed the Community Crime Prevention Grant, 98-D8421, in the amount of $20,295, $15,222 Federal funds and $5073 local cash match. The local match will be funded out of current budgeted expenditures. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98 NUMBER: 97023 FUND: GRANT 000005 October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION GRANT #98-8421 EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATE$ORY 1152029404110000 1152029404120000 1152029404210000 1152029404310000 1152029404320000 1152029404350000 1152029404390000 1152029404520100 1152029404550600 1152029404580000 1152029404600100 1152029404600106 1152029404601000 1152029404601700 1152029404800710 DESCRIPTION WAGES WAGES-O/T FICA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TEMPORARY HELP PRINTING OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES POSTAGE TRAVEL MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES FILM POLICE SUPPLIES COPY SUPPLIES SOFTWARE TOTAL AMOUNT $4,616.81 3,520.96 623.23 876.00 2,500 00 500 O0 5,000 O0 200 O0 950 O0 300 00 308.00 300.00 200.00 100.00 300.00 $20,295.00 REVENUE 2152033000330404 2152051000512004 DESCRIPTION DCJS GRANT GENERAL FUND TRANSFER TOTAL AMOUNT $15,222.00 5,073.00 $20,295.00 Item 6.8. Appropriation: Community Policing Grant #98A-9687, $3,440 Form #97024). It was noted in the staff's report that the Community Policing Unit of the Albemarle County Police Department is less than a year old. The Unit's increasing involvement and level of activity have put stresses on it in terms of time and resources. The training and majority of supplies funded by this grant will be used by the Bike Patrol Team. The balance of the supplies will be used by citizen volunteers involved in community policing. The Department of Criminal Justice Services has approved this $3440, $2,580 State funds and $860 local match. The local match will be funded out of current budgeted expenditures. By the above recorded vote, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98 NUMBER: 97024 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COMMUNITY POLICING GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATE~QRY 1152431012550400 1152431012601000 DESCRIPTION EDUCATION POLICE SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $960.00 2,480.00 $3,440.00 REVENUE 2152424000240500 2152451000512004 DESCRIPTION STATE GRANT REVENUE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER TOTAL AMOUNT $2,580.00 860.00 $3,440.00 Item 6.9. Agreement and Resolution establishing Commission on Children and Families for Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. It was noted in the staff's report that at the Board's June 4 meeting, the Alliance, a group composed of CACY members, Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) members and City and County staff representatives, came before the Board to propose a new Commission on Children and Families (the "Commission") for Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. The Alliance proposed restructuring the CPMT and the CACY commission to form a October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) 000006 stronger organization and a more streamlined and uniform process for assessing and delivering services to children, youth and families. The Board, as well as City Council, approved the proposed restructuring of this new Commission, and staff was to come back to the Board with the charge, membership and implementation procedures for final approval and appointment of members. The new "Agreement Between the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council on the Commission on Children and Families" sets out the structure, responsibilities, staffing and funding for the Commission. A resolution officially establishes the Commission on Children and Families for Albemarle County and dissolves the CACY Commission. The Commission will be appointed by the County and the City and will consist of fifteen voting members, seven of whom will be citizen representatives, three appointed by the County and three appointed by the City. At least one appointee from each jurisdiction will be a parent. Seven members will be public agency administrators or their designees: two School superintendents, two Social Service directors, one Juvenile Court Services director, one Health Department director, and one Community Services Board director. One member will represent the University of Virginia. In addition to the fifteen members, three ex-officio members will represent the County Executive's Office, the City Manager's office and the United Way on the Commission. Commission responsibilities will include planning, monitoring and evaluating all children and family services in the community, as well as providing program and agency funding recommendations to the City and County. The Commission will be responsible for carrying out the mandated responsibilities of the CPMT for at-risk children as set forth in the State Code. A subcommittee structure will address finance and administration, planning, and communication issues with future projects focused on streamlining and improving the juvenile justice system and developing a comprehensive Healthy Families program. Commission staff will be hired by the City and County, with input from the Commission, and will be City employees housed in the current CACY office in City Hall. Within the available revenues, the Commission will be staffed by four FTE's, one Director, one Juvenile Justice Coordinator, a Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) Case Manager and either a full-time planner or a part-time planner and a part-time secretary. With respect to funding for the Commission, the proposed available revenues are as follows: State Dept of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) $46~000 Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) funds $45,500 Local Contributions (City and County share of CACY funding) $64,200 CSA administrative funds $19,300 Total Budget $175,000 The Agreement and the Resolution stipulate that the County agrees to provide the required match for CSA based on Albemarle's State formula and to continue providing the local matching funds required by the Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act Grant, which now helps to fund the CACY Commission. The County and the City also agree to provide a mutually agreed upon annual contribution to the Commission. However, the new Commission will not require any additional local funds over the current contribution to CACY. With the combined oversight for VJCCCA juvenile justice programs and CSA expenditures, the Commission will be administering over $2.5 million in CSA funds, $1.1 million in VJCCCA funds, as well as over $1.8 million in local program review agency funds. To administer these funds and provide legal services to the Commission, the City will receive an administrative fee equal to two percent of the Commission's operating budget. Staff recommends approval of the Agreement Between the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council on the Commission on Children and Families and a resolution to officially create the new Commission. If the Board approves both the Agreement and the Resolution, the Board could proceed with the appointment of the following mandated members to the new Commission, as well as initiate joint advertising for the three County citizen members, three City citizen members and the one private service provider: 000007 October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) Dr. Kevin Castner Albemarle County Superintendent of Schools Dr. William Symons City of Charlottesville Superintendent of Schools Kathy Ralston Albemarle County Social Services Director Buz Cox City of Charlottesville Social Services Director Jim Peterson Region Ten Community Services Board Director Martha Carroll Court Services Unit Director Dr. Susan McLeod Thomas Jefferson Health District Director (Mr. Tucker explained that staff was notified Monday by the State that youth representatives from both the City and the County have to be added to the membership. He asked that this be part of the Board's approval. It would increase total membership on the Committee from 15 to 17 by adding two youth members.) By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution, and authorized the Chairman to execute the following Agreement (has been forwarded to the City for signature): R E S 0 L U T I 0 in WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is committed to improving services to children, youth and families in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Albemarle County have a vested interest in strengthening families and developing positive attributes in their children and youth; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission was established in 1990 to serve as a comprehensive planning, coordinating and evaluating body for children and youth services for the City and the County; and WHEREAS, the Community Policy and Management Team was established in 1993 to serve the needs of troubled and at-risk youths and their families for the City and the County and to maximize the use of state and community resources; and WHEREAS, representatives of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council are recommending that the County join with the City to form a comprehensive planning, coordinating and evaluating body for children and family services composed of citizens and human service directors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors be authorized to execute an agreement with the City of Charlottesville to establish a Commission on Children and Families (the ~Commission") whose sole responsibility shall be to plan, coordinate, monitor and evaluate a community-wide system of all children and family agencies and programs. Such agreement shall contain substantially the same terms as the attached draft agreement. o That the membership of the Commission shall consist of seventeen voting members: Nine of the members shall be citizen representatives, four appointed by the County, four appointed by the City and one jointly appointed service provider. Of the nine citizen members, at least one appointee from each jurisdiction must be a parent and one must be a youth. Seven members will be public agency administrators or their designees: two School Superintendents, two Department of Social Service Directors, one Juvenile Court Director, one Health Department Director, and one Community Service Board Director. One member will represent the University of Virginia. In addition to the fifteen members, three ex-Officio members will represent the County Executive's Office, the City Manager's Office and the United Way on the Commission. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)' (Page 8) 000008 That upon the execution of an agreement by the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle COunty establishing the Commission, the current Children and Youth Commission shall be dissolved. That the County agrees to adhere to the responsibilities of the Community Policy and Management Team set forth in Virginia Code Chapter 880, Section 2.1-745 and those of the Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act Grant programs set forth in Virginia Code Chapter Title 66, Chapter 3, Section 66-31 of the Code of Virginia. 5o That the Commission on Children and Families shall advise the County Executive and the City Manager in the administration of children and family human service programs. 6 o That the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors intends to provide an annual contribution as mutually agreed upon by the County and the City for the operation of the Commission. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL ON THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council agree to join together to form the Commission on Children and Families (the ~Commission") whose sole responsibility shall be to plan, coordinate, monitor and evaluate a community wide system of children and family agencies. The intended goal of the Commission is to improve services to children, youth and families, to be accountable for the efficient use of public/private resources and to be responsive to the changing needs of the community. In doing so, we agree to the following: 1) With respect to the STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that: a) The Commission shall consist of seventeen voting members: Nine of the members shall be citizen representatives, four appointed by the County, four appointed by the City and one jointly appointed private service provider. Of the nine citizen members, at least one appointee from each jurisdiction must be a parent and one must be a youth. Seven members will be public agency administrators or their designees: two School Superintendents, two Department of Social Service Directors, one Juvenile Court Services Director, one Health Department Director, and one Community Service Board Director. One member will represent the University of Virginia. In addition to the seventeen members, three ex-Officio members will represent the County Executive's Office, the City Manager's Office and the United Way on the Commission; b) Citizen members of the Commission shall be appointed for a three-year term and may be subject to reappointment; the private service provider shall be appointed to a two -year term and will not be subject to reappointment; initial appointments may be staggered for continuity; October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 000009 c) The Commission shall elect its own officers and establish its own by-laws. 2) With respect to the RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that the Commission shall: a) Adhere to the responsibilities of the Community Policy and Management Team set forth in the Virginia Code Chapter 880, Section 2.1- 745 et seq.; b) Provide comprehensive short and long range planning for children and family services within the Charlottesville/Albemarle community; c) Make program and funding recommendations to the City and County governing bodies within the budgetary procedures and guidelines set by each jurisdiction; d) Review and evaluate current service delivery systems to ensure that the needs of children and families are being met effectively and efficiently; e) Identify and encourage new and innovative approaches to program development for children and families; f) Identify additional public and private funding sources for children and youth programs; g) Participate in the yearly evaluation of the director of Commission staff; h) Provide structured opportunities for community input and participation on the needs of families, e.g., public hearings, workshops, focus groups and work teams; I) Provide an annual report to the Board of Supervisors and City Council to insure that the County and City are in agreement with the policy and direction set by the Commission. 3) With respect to STAFFING OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that: a) Staff will be hired, supervised and evaluated as mutually agreed upon by the City and the County with assistance and input from the Commission; b) Staff will be employees of the City of Charlottesville subject to all personnel policies and entitled to all its benefits. With respect to FUNDING OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County intend to: a) Provide an annual contribution as mutually agreed upon fOr the operation of the Commission; b) Provide the local match required by the Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act Grant Programs and adhere to the minimum standards set out in the Virginia Code Chapter 33, Title 66, Section 66-31, subject to annual appropriation; October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) 0000 .0 c) Direct the Commission on Children and Families to actively seek funding for children and family projects from other sources, including public and private grants, local service groups and the business community; d) Pool all Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) administrative funds for the operations ~f the Commission. Each jurisdiction will continue to provide the required matching funds for CSA services according to the state formula subject to annual appropriation; e) The City of Charlottesville will provide fiscal and legal services to the Commission for an administrative fee equal to two percent of the Commission's operating budget. Item 6.10. Park and Ride Agreements with Paran United Methodist Church, Peace Lutheran Church and Maple Grove Christian Church. It was noted in the staff's report that on Thursday, August 28, 1997, JAUNT started the Route 29 North commuter route called BIG BLUE. In order to make this route as successful as possible, staff has worked with JAUNT and RideShare to establish several park and ride lots along the corridor. The Planning Staff has worked with the County's Attorney, Finance and Executive Offices in an effort to assume the liability of adding three churches to its insurance policy to cover the use for the park and ride lot. The County can add three churches to its insurance policy for approximately $179 a year. The three churches are Paran United Methodist Church on Route 606, Peace Lutheran Church at Hollymead, and Maple Grove Christian Church on Proffit Road. Staff recommends that the Board approve the park and ride agreements with these churches. (Ms. Humphris said she noticed on the agreement for Paran United Methodist Church, it states five spaces, but the map indicates six spaces. Mr. Juandiago Wade of the Planning Department replied that the Church donated one space, as a bonus for the Lord. Ms. Humphris noticed that on the Peace Lutheran Church agreement, they added ~Monday through Friday", and the others do not have that wording. Mr. Wade said that each contract was taken to the governing bodies of the particular church and that church felt they wanted that ~pecified in the contract and wanted to utilize the parking spaces themselves on the weekend. Ms. Humphris noticed that on the Maple Grove Christian Church agreement, the whole maintenance part is scratched out. Mr. Wade responded that works on all the agreements because JAUNT only works when the City is open. Usually the service will not run when the weather is bad. Mr. Tucker said these agreements will be tested as a pilot program and if there are any problems, staff can go back and renegotiate with the churches.) By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the following Agreements: PARK AND RIDE FACILITY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this 14th day of August by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the "County," and Paran United Methodist Church, hereinafter referred to as the "Owner." WHEREAS, the County desires to establish a park and ride facility on Route 29; and October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) 0000 .:I. WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to allow the County to use part of its property for such a facility. WITNESS: IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual premises stated herein, the parties agree as follows: Purpose: The purpose of this agreement is to allow the County to use part of the Owner's property as a park and ride facility for the benefit of persons in carpools and commuters. 2 o Premises: For the uses described in section 4 of this agreement, the Owner hereby licenses to the County that part of the Owner's premises marked "Park and Ride," hereinafter referred to as the "Premises," shown on Exhibit ~A," which is attached hereto and made a part of this agreement. The number of park and ride spaces shall not exceed five (5) spaces. Term: The term of this agreement shall be six months from the date hereof. Either party, however, may terminate this agreement after three months by giving one month's notice to the other party of its intent to terminate. Uses of The Premises; The County may use the premises for a park and ride facility, a carpooling parking facility, vehicle and personal access, and all similar and related uses. 5 o Access: The County and patrons of the park and ride facility may use the Owner's property surrounding the premises for vehicle and pedestrian access to and from the park and ride facility and for circulation, excluding vans, and persons in carpools. Marking of Premise and P~blicity: The County may install signs indicating that the Premises are available to persons in carpools and commuters as a result of the Owner's courtesy. The County will obtain the Owner's written approval before placing any improvements on the premises. Such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld. Maintenance; The Owner shall arrange for regular and/or timely snow plowing of the Premises at its sole expense. Extraordinary maintenance and repair of the Premises arising from its additional usage pursuant to this agreement shall be performed by the County at its sole expense. 8 o Liability: The County agrees to add the Owner to its general liability insurance policy as an additional insured for the County's operation of a park and ride facility on the Owner's property. Title. Access and Authority; The Owner covenants and warrants to the County that the Owner presently owns the fee simple interest in and to the Premises; that the Owner is duly authorized and empowered to grant this License; and that the person executing this license on behalf of the Owner warrants himself to be duly authorized to bind the Owner hereto. 10. Entire A=reement: This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes any prior understandings or oral or written agreements between the parties respecting the within subject matter. 11. i~: This agreement may not be modified, except in a writing signed by the parties. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) ( Page 12 O000a.2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto bind themselves to this agreement as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (Signed) By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Title: County Executive PARA/~ UNITED METHODIST CHURCH (Signed) By: Clyde Duke Nuckols, Sr. Title: Pastor PARK AND RIDE FACILITY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the "County," and Peace Lutheran Church, hereinafter referred to as the "Owner." WHEREAS, the County desires to establish a park and ride facility on Route 29; and WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to allow the County to use part of its property for such a facility. WITNESS: IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual premises stated herein, the parties agree as follows: 2 o 5 o Purpose: The purpose of this agreement is to allow the County to use part of the Owner's property as a park and ride facility for the benefit of persons in carpools and commuters, Monday through Friday. Premises: For the uses described in section 4 of this agreement, the Owner hereby licenses to the County that part of the Owner's premises marked "Park and Ride," hereinafter referred to as the "Premises," shown on Attachment ~A," which is attached hereto and made a part of this agreement. The number of park and ride spaces shall not exceed five (5) spaces. T~rm: The term of this agreement shall be six months from the date hereof. Either party, however, may terminate this agreement after three months by giv[hg one month's notice to the other party of its intent to terminate. Uses of The Premises: The County may use the premises for a park and ride facility, a carpooling parking facility, vehicle and personal access, and all similar and related uses. Access: The County and patrons of the park and ride facility may use the Owner's property surrounding the premises for vehicle and pedestrian access to and from the park and ride facility and for circulation, excluding vans, and persons in carpools. Marking of Premise an~ Publicity: The County may install signs indicating that the Premises are available to persons in carpools and commuters as a result of the Owner's courtesy. The County will obtain the Owner's written approval before placing any improvements on the premises. Such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld. Maintenance; The Owner shall arrange for regular and/or timely snow plowing of the Premises at its sole expense. Extraordinary maintenance and repair of the Premises arising from its additional usage pursuant to this ooooa, a October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) agreement shall be performed by the County at its sole expense. Liability: The County agrees to add the Owner to its general liability insurance policy as an additional insured for the County's operation of a park and ride facility on the Owner's property. Title, Access and Authority~ The Owner covenants and warrants to the County that the Owner presently owns the fee simple interest in and to the Premises; that the Owner is duly authorized and empowered to grant this License; and that the person executing this license on behalf of the Owner warrants himself to be duly authorized to bind the Owner hereto. 10. Entire Agreement: This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes any prior understandings or oral or written agreements between the parties respecting the within subject matter. 11. M~: This agreement may not be modified, except in a writing signed by the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto bind themselves to this agreement as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (Signed) By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Title: County Executzve PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH (Signed) By: Rev. Wm. T. Stewart Title: Pastor PARK AND RIDE FACILITY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the "County," and Maple Grove Christian Church, hereinafter referred to as the "Owner." WHEREAS, the County desires 5o establish a park and ride facility on Route 29; and WHEREAS, the Owner is willing Eo allow the Counsy to use part of its property for such a facility. WITNESS: IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual premises stated herein, the patsies agree as follows: Purpose: The purpose of this agreemen5 is to allow the County 5o use part of the Owner's property as a park and ride facility for the benefit of persons in carpools an~ commuters. 2 o Premises: For the uses described in section 4 of this agreement, the Owner hereby licenses Eo the County that part of the Owner's premises marked "Park and Ride," hereinafter referred to as the "Premises," shown on Attachmen5 ~A," which is attached hereto and made a part of this agreement. The number of park and ride spaces sh~ll not exceed ten (10) spaces. Term: The term of this agreemen~ shall be six months from the date hereof. Either party, however, may terminate this agreement after three months by giving one monsh's nosice to the other party of its innent to terminate. n October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 0000 4 Uses of The Premises: The County may use the premises for a park and ride facility, a carpooling parking facility, vehicle and personal access, and all similar and related uses. Access: The County and patrons of the park and ride facility may use the Owner's property surrounding the premises for vehicle and pedestrian access to and from the park and ride facility and for circulation, excluding vans, and persons in carpools. Marking of Premise and P~blicity: The County may install signs indicating that the Premises are available to persons in carpools and commuters as a result of the Owner's courtesy. The County will obtain the Owner's written approval before placing any improvements on the premises. Such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld. arising~,.=~ ~ ~~~=~~ usage pursuant to this ~ ................. ~ .......... b~ County at its ~c cxpcnso. 8 o Liability: The County agrees to add the Owner to its general liability insurance policy as an additional insured for the County's operation of a park and ride facility on the Owner's property. 9 o Title. Access and Authority; The Owner covenants and warrants to the County that the Owner presently owns the fee simple interest in and to the Premises; that the Owner is duly authorized and empowered to grant this License; and that the person executing this license on behalf of the Owner warrants himself to be duly authorized to bind the Owner hereto. 10. Entire Agreement: This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes any prior understandings or oral or written agreements between the parties respecting the within subject matter. 11. Modificationz: This agreement may not be modified, except in a writing signed by the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto bind themselves to this agreement as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (Signed) By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Title: County Executive MAPLE GROVE CHRISTIA/~ CHURCH (Signed) By: James R. Leake Title: Chairman, Building & Grounds Item 6.11. Resolution to Amend the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy P-61/62 Relating to Work Periods for Firefighters. It was noted in the staff'S report that Section 207(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act authorizes the County to adopt a 212 hour, 28-day work period for nonexempt fire protection employees. This provision recognizes the need for flexibility in scheduling firefighters to address otherwise mandatory overtime pay requirements. Currently, P-61/62 of the Personnel Policy provides for similar scheduling flexibility for law enforcement personnel. Under Section 207(k) law enforcement officers are allowed a maximum of 171 work hours in the 2S-day work period. The proposed policy amendment would provide a maximum of 212 work hours for firefighters in their 28-day work period. Hours worked in October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 0000 15 excess of the maximum must be compensated at one and one-half times the regular hourly pay rate or by an appropriate amount of compensatory time. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution approving the referenced amendments to P-61/62 of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has adopted a personnel policy for its employees pursuant to § 15.1-7.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; and WHEREAS, Section 207(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §207(k), authorizes the County of Albemarle to adopt an alternative work schedule that provides a partial exemption from overtime pay requirements for fire protection and law enforcement personnel employed by the County; and WHEREAS, under the 207(k) exemption, nonexempt fire protection employees are entitled to overtime compensation only after working 212 hours in a 28-day period, and nonexempt law enforcement officers are entitled to overtime after working more than 171 hours during the 28-day work period; and WHEREAS, §P-61/§P-62 of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy sets forth the overtime/compensatory time policy for employees of the County, and currently provides for a 28-day work period for nonexempt law enforcement employees; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to amend these provisions to establish a 28-day work period for fire protection employees as authorized by section 207(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Board wishes to claim partial exemption from the overtime pay requirements of the Act. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby adopts and approves the amendments to §P-61/§P-62 of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy as set forth in the Policy attached hereto. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PERSONNEL POLICY §P-61 §P-62 §P-61/62 OVERTIME/COMPENSATORY TiME PQLiCY A) Responsibili%y The authorization and control of all overtime work is the responsibility of the department head. Overtime shall be permitted only when required by operational necessity. Department heads shall assure that adequate funds are available for payment for overtime work and be responsible for the scheduling of compensatory time. Department heads may require that employees work additional time or overtime to meet the needs of the department. Whenever possible, notice of this requirement will be provided in advance so that the employees can arrange their personal schedules. B) Eligibility Employees are eligible to earn overtime except for those employees in bona fide professional, administrative or executive positions, elected officials, and certain seasonal employees, all as defined by the ~ Standard~ AC~. The County Executive will approve a list indicating positions determined to be exempt or non-exempt from overtime requirements. This list shall be maintained in the Human Resources Department and the status of individual positions shall be indicated in the personnel files. 0000'16 October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) C) Computation of Overtime P~y Monetary overtime compensation shall be one and one-half times the employee's hourly rate of pay for each hour of overtime worked. The hourly rate of pay shall be determined by dividing the employee's annual salary, as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, by the required number of hours per year that an employee in that position would be regularly required to work. D) Reporting of Overtime Additional hours shall be recorded, in writing, on the day that it is worked. Such records shall be maintained by the employee's supervisor. Overtime hours shall be reported at the end of the work period. Computation of Overtime H©urs Overtime shall be earned when, due to operational necessity, a nonexempt employee works in excess of the maximum number of allowable hours in the work period. 2 o The work periods and maximum allowable hours for County employees are as follows: Category of Work Period Maximum Personnel (Consecutive Days) Allowable Hours Law Enforcement 28 171 Fire Protection 28 212 All Other 7 40 Amended: August 4, 1993; August 3,1994; October 1, 1997 The County Executive has established the official work period as extending from Saturday at 12:01 a.m. to Friday at 12:00 midnight. The beginning and ending time for the 28-day work period for employees eligible for a 28-day work period under section 207(k) of the Fair Labor Standards ACt shall be determined by the Chief of Police for law enforcement officers and by the Fire and Rescue Division Chief for fire protection employees. Changes to the established work period may be determined by department heads to meet the needs of the department provided that the revised schedule is provided in writing to the employees and a copy is on file in the Human Resources Department. 3 o Paid or unpaid time off during which the employee is absent from the service of the County shall not be counted as hours worked in determining if the maximum allowable number of hours has been exceeded. Such absences include, but are not limited to, sick, annual, compensatory, civil, personal and military leave, holidays, leaves of absence, lunch periods and inclement weather days. When nonexempt employees work during the scheduled lunch period, such time shall be considered as hours worked. Employees shall report this time to their supervisor and it shall be documented on forms designated for that purpose. When nonexempt employees are required to attend meetings or conferences that occur outside of the County and which require travel time, the hours involved in the actual travel as well as the hours involved in the training/meeting shall be considered hours worked. Employees shall report this time to October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) 00O01.7 their supervisor and it shall be documented on forms designated for that purpose. Department heads shall manage their employees' hours worked whenever possible within the official seven- day work period or, for law enforcement or fire protection purposes, the 28-day work period, to avoid the accrual of overtime. For example, if an employee works more than eight hours in one day, the number of additional hours worked that day may be given off during another day in that work period so that the maximum number of hours (forty) for that work period is not exceeded. Similarly, for law enforcement employees, such additional hours worked should be offset with scheduled time off during the 28-day work period to avoid the maximum number of hours (171 or 212), after which, time and one-half compensation'is required. F) Compensatory Leave or Compensotory Time Nonexempt employees who work in excess of their regularly scheduled work hours, but who do not exceed the maximum allowable number of hours as defined in (E) above, may be granted compensatory leave in the amount of one hour of leave for each hour worked or may be paid their regular hourly rate in lieu of compensatory leave for hours worked. Nonexempt employees who work in excess of their regularly scheduled work hours, and the hours exceed the maximum allowable number of hours as defined in (E) above, shall be given the choice of overtime pay or compensatory leave in the amount of one and one- half hours of leave for each hour worked during the work period in excess of the maximum allowable hours. This choice shall be made prior to working the hours constituting the overtime. Notwithstanding the choice option above, contractual overtime shall only be compensated monetarily. Contractual overtime is defined as work hours assigned to an employee, other than a sworn law enforcement employee, at the request of an outside entity and for which the County is reimbursed by the outside entity the wages of the employee. No compensatory leave shall be used unless specifically approved by the department head in advance of it being taken. Compensatory time shall be used within one year of its accrual or the employee shall be paid for it. Department heads shall be responsible for scheduling compensatory leave so that it is used within one year or assuring that adequate funds are available for payment of compensatory time in lieu of compensatory leave. 5 o Employees in sworn law enforcement positions and fire protection positions eligible for a 28-day work period under section 207(k) of the i~ Standards AC~ may accrue up to 480 hours of compensatory time. Ail other employees may accrue up to 240 hours of compensatory time. Employees shall be paid for all compensatory time in excess of the maximum allowed for accrual. Nonexempt employees who are transferring to another department or who are promoted from a nonexempt into an exempt position shall, prior to assuming the new position, reach an agreement with their department head to use their accumulated compensatory leave or to be paid for the unused compensatory time balance. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) O000 S The employee's compensatory time balance must be zero prior to the starting date for the new position. Upon termination, nonexempt employees shall be paid for unused compensatory time. 8 o Any payment for unused compensatory time shall be based upon the employee's current regular hourly rate. 9 o Exempt employees shall not accrue compensatory time nor will they earn additional compensation for hours worked in excess of the regularly scheduled hours in a work week. This does not, however, preclude department heads from using their discretion and granting time off to exempt employees in recognition of time worked beyond normal work schedules. SECTIONS G THROUGH J ARE UNCHANGED Item 6.12. Road Name Change Requests. It was noted in the staff's report that staff has completed the road name change phase of the Enhanced 911 implementation project in accordance with the Board's road name change policy. The Board's policy requires that, with this phase of the project completed, no further changes to road names would be permitted without Board approval. Staff has been made aware of four situations for which road name change requests should be further considered. Request to change the name of Stonehedge Farm Road to Liberty Corner Road at the request of the property owner. The farm name has been changed to Liberty Corner. The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. 2 o Request to change the name of Safari Camp Drive to Misty Mountain Road at the request of the property owner. The camp resort (Jellystone Park Camping Resort) name has been changed to Misty Mountain. The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. Request to change the name of Turner Wood Road to Turner Mountain Wood Road at the request of the property owners. The new road name will reflect the name of the subdivision (Turner Mountain Wood). The property owh~r Will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. 4 o Request to change the name of Faulkner Drive to Faulkner Way at the request of the property owner (The University of Virginia). The current name has been confused in some instances with a similarly named road. The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. Staff recommended that the Board support the name changes as proposed and authorize staff to coordinate with property owners regarding changes. By the above recorded vote, the Board supported the name changes as set out in the staff's report and authorized staff to coordinate with property owners regarding the changes. Item 6.13. Set public hearing for November 5, 1997, to grant two Virginia Power Utility Easements for Monticello High School. It was noted in the staff's report that electrical power is needed to serve the new Monticello High School and the football stadium complex. Two separate easements are required for each facility. One easement is needed to serve the rear of the main building from the Willow Lakes subdivision area. The other easement is needed from Avon Street Extended along the north side of the connector road (recently named Mill Creek Drive) to serve the stadium. Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing on November 5, 1997, to dedicate these two utility easements to Virginia Power. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) · i 000019 By the above recorded vote, the Board set a public hearing on November 5, 1997, to dedicate two utility easements for Monticello High School to Virginia Power. Item 6.14. Set public hearing for November 12, 1997, on a request from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to restrict through trucks on Rio Road from Hillsdale Road to the Charlottesville City limits. It was noted in the staff's report that VDOT has proposed this restriction based upon safety concerns. Rio Road in this area is a narrow, curvy and hilly road that carries approximately 17,500 vehicles trips a day. According to the County Police Department, there were 72 reported accidents on Rio Road in this section between January 1, 1991, to June 30, 1997. There were 31 persons injured, but no fatalities. The Police Department considers this to be a higher than expected frequency of accidents. VDOT is currently conducting survey work for the installation of guardrails in a portion of this section. The alternative through truck route would be Route 29 to the Route 250 Bypass. Staff recommended that the Board support VDOT's request and set a public hearing as required by State Code §46.2-809 for November 12, 1997. (Ms. Humphris said she noticed that VDOT had done some upgrading with the signage about through trucks being prohibited on Georgetown Road. Below Route 656 is an orange sign that states "Georgetown Road". She thinks that will help with the situation. She assumes the signage on Rio Road will be very clear based on past experience. The County is responsible for enforcing this restriction and it cannot be responsible unless the signage is such that the truck drivers have a fair chance to know they are not supposed to use that route. (Mr. Martin said he thinks this action will make a big difference on Rio Road because there 'is a lot of truck traffic on the road.) By the above recorded vote, the Board set a public hearing on November 12, 1997, on a'resolUtioh restricting through truck traffic on Rio Road from Hillsdale Road to the City Limits. Item 6.15. Letter dated September 22, 1997, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: transportation matters discussed at the August 6 and September 3 Board meetings, was received for information as follows: "We have the following comments regarding tranSportation matters that were discussed at the August 6 and September 3 Board meetings. Vandalized street signs along Route 20 South from Avon Street Extended (Route 742) to Marshall Manor Subdivision have been repaired and/or replaced. Route markers at Berwick Circle (Route 1451) and Berwick Court (Route 1441)have been replaced. The Department will review the section of Route 20 from Route 742 north for a reduction of speed to 45 mph. The Department will review Route 702 for curve warning and maximum safe speed signs and guardrail. The traffic signal at Old Brook Road (Route 652) and Rio Road (Route 631) should start full operation by the first week in October, the second at the latest. The Department has measured the sight distance at the Routes 810/614 intersection in Whitehall and notes that the required commercial sight distance is available. The hedge appears to block the line of sight, however, it is kept neatly trimmed and only requires that vehicles pull up fully to the STOP sign an this intersection. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) . ..~. ~.~...~ 000020 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 October 1 Board meeting." Item 6.16. Letter dated September 17, 1997, from Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, giving notice of approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board of allocations for the Revenue Sharing Program for FY 1997-98. Albemarle will receive $229,877 for Route 631 (Rio Road) from Route 29 for the construction of four lanes; Albemarle will receive $100,000 for widening Route 656 from Route 654 to Route 743. Letter was received as information. Item 6.17. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly Bond and Program Reports for the months of July and August, 1997, were received for information. Item 6.18. Letter dated September 15, 1997, from Mr. Jay Roberts, Environmental Engineer, Department of Environmental Quality, re: Notice of Receipt of a VWPP Application, City of Charlottesville, Department of Public Works, Moores Creek Channel Modification - (JPA-97-1454), was received for information. (Ms. Thomas noticed that Moore's Creek is so full of silt that they could not find any mussels in it. She wondered if that indicates what is happening with the County's Soil Erosion Ordinance. The area they tested is downstream from the University's Fontaine Research Park. If it is so full of silt that it cannot be tested for various kinds of species, that may be a bad sign. Mr. Tucker replied that he would ask the Director of Engineering, Mr. Mawyer, to have an erosion control inspector look at the situation.) Item 6.19. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority of June 30 (special meeting), July 10 and August 14, 1997, was received for information. (Ms. Thomas stated that in reading the minutes of the Jail Authority, she noticed that cost estimates for the Jail Expansion project seem to be moving upward. She 'asked that the Board ~e kept infOrmed ab0ut that. Mr. Tucker said the Jail Board had a very long meeting last month looking at creative financing and ways to reduce spending. Ms. Humphris said that not only did the Jail Board look at deleting items from the financial package, but went all the way through the process. She has been impressed at the methodology by which they picked and chose what were the really necessary items. Mr. Tucker said they are anticipating what the costs will be based on the bid climate a year or so ago. They bid the excavation costs and did receive a much lower bid that what they had estimated.) Item 6.20. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority of August 25, 1997, was received for information. Item 6.21. Copy of FY 1997-98 Capital Improvement Projects from the Department of Engineering and Public Works (updated 9/22/97), was received for information. Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: September 6 and November i, 1995; March 12 and March 19 (N) and May 21, 1997. Mr. Martin read the minutes of September 6, 1995, pages 17 (Item #7b) to 35 (Item #13), and found them to be in order Mr. Martin read the minutes of March 19(N), 1997, pages 15 (Item #7) to the end, and found them to be in order. Ms. Thomas read the minutes of March 19iN), 1997, pages 1 to 15 (Item #7), and found them to be in order. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) 00002 1 Mr. Marshall read the minutes of November 1, 1995, pages 1 to 15, and found them to be in order. Mr Marshall read the minutes of March 12, 1997, and found them to be in order. Mr Bowerman read the minutes of May 21, 1997, pages 1 to 20 (Item #8), and found them to be in order. Mr Perkins read the minutes of May 21, 1997, pages 20 (Item #8) to the end, and found them to be in order. Ms Humphris read the minutes of September 6, 1995, pages 1 to 17 (Item #7b) and found them to be in order with one typographical error. Ms Humphris said the minutes of September 6, 1995, which included a lengthy discussion on the road restoration at Sugar Hollow. At the end of the discussion, she made a motion, which was passed, that a meeting take place between certain parties in which a plan would be set out as to how any future emergency such as this would be dealt with by VDOT, to prevent VDOT from coming in and widening, paving or straightening a road not supported by the County. She was not aware that had ever been done. Ms. Tucker replied that Senator Emily Couric introduced legislation, which was passed, that had to do with a public hearing being required with regard to maintenance work under emergency conditions. Ms. Thomas said she recalls that the Board was interested in there being agreements in place before an emergency occurred. She thinks a public hearing would nom be held until after some work had already been done. Mr. Tucker said Senator Emily Couric's bill looks at the policy State-wide and allows local input early in the process. Ms. Humphris said the overriding issue was that faceless people from Richmond, or wherever, stepped in, took over and gave directions for what was done without input from any local people. She does not know if Senator Couric's bill fixes that problem. She noted that the flood happened in June, but that the first public meeting did not take place until August, so it is the interim period that is a issue. Ms. Tucker responded that a lot of the controversy at Sugar Hollow evolved around VDOT's ordinary emergency operations, the fact that they were not working sensitively within the scenic river boundaries, even beyond the actual paving of the road. VDOT has policies and procedures for how to restore a road under emergency conditions even before the new legislation regarding emergency paving would kick in. It might be helpful if she outlined that policy and procedure for the Board members setting out what VDOT is required to do before this legislation would get involved. Motion was then offered by Mr. B0werman~ 'seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 8a. Other Transportation Matters. Regarding Consent Agenda Item 6.16 about State Highway Revenue Sharing, Mr. Cilimberg said it appears that Albemarle's revenue sharing money will go to two projects. The first is actually Phase II of the Meadow Creek Parkway EIS (Environmental Impact Study), which is noted as Route 631, from Route 631 to Route 29. Revenue sharing money is going into that project in addition to Secondary moneys that were to be used on Greenbrier Drive. All of that money is needed and will enable the County to proceed on the EIS). The other project is Georgetown Road, from Barracks Road to Hydraulic Route, the Route 654 project. This project is also in the Six-Year plan. Ms. Humphris asked why it is listed as a widening. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT agreed to the improvements requested by the Georgetown Road Task Force. He does not think there is any widening actually incorporated in the project. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meesing) (Page 22) 000022 Ms. Tucker answered that VDOT did not want to eliminate looking at the potential to add turn lanes, particularly as one leaves Georgetown Road going onto Hydraulic Road. VDOT has been asked if they could widen and pave the existing shoulders at Westgate Apartments so there is enough stacking space for the volumes that lead up to that intersection. VDOT is also looking at bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of Georgetown Road. Ms. Humphris noted that the Board had tried for years to get rid of the idea of widening that road, and she thought they had finally accomplished that. It is nightmarish to see it continue to be listed for widening when it is listed for spot improvements in the County's Six-Year Program. Ms. Humphris mentioned that Georgetown Road is a mess; it has patches on top of patches along the surface. Ms. Tucker said she will let Ms. Humphris know when it is due for a full overlay. There have been a lot of improvements and it is more than overdue for a full overlay. Ms. Tucker said the Hydraulic Road project is finishing up. VDOT is fine-tuning the signals, doing some cleanup and will be advertising the Rio Road improvement project from the Rock Store around to Berkmar Drive in February, 1998. There will be a bit of a lapse through the winter and then they will be back in the same area, constructing Rio Road. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that there was a fence in front of the trailer park, which is located behind the Rock Store on the west side of Rio Road. When the improvements began there, the fence was taken down. When the Board approved adding public sewer to the trailer park, there was a condition of approval on the site plan of an opaque screening fence. With the old fence down, the highway is an intrusion on the people who live in the park, and it is also unsightly. It looks like the fence will be down for another year and that is a long time to have it down. Ms. Tucker replied that she had also heard that there was an interest in saving the large trees there. The major utilities are running on the other side of the road, and she will double-check to make sure that no existing utilities are being pushed out. Mr. Bowerman said County Engineering brought to his attention that Centel will be putting fiber optic cable on the west side of Rio Road. Ms. Tucker replied that they were looking to bore some of the Sprint-Centel cable along portions of tha~t p~oject'~ and Perhaps if it was moved over, they could minimize the impact. Ms. Tucker added that if the privacy fence was to be set on, or just behind, the righ~-of-way line, the reason for the year delay is due to the fact that they have construction and slope easements beyond the right-of-way line that are going to be required for the machinery, etc. If the fence was installed before that happened it would be in the way of actual construction. At the pre-construction conference with the contractor, because VDOT does not require them to work in any particular order, she will ask them if they can address that fine grading first so that they can get the fence in earlier. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was an estimate as to when this could be done. Ms. Tucker replied that she thought it could be in early summer of 1998. Mr. Bowerman asked if anything can be done temporarily. Ms. Tucker said she will check into temporary private fencing. Mr. Bowerman said he has received a lot of calls from motorists. Mr. Perkins asked for a status report concerning the bridges at Sugar Hollow. Ms. Tucker responded that they are to be advertised for construction in the next two months. VDOT could likely work through the winter on that. She will provide firmer details on the actual advertisement date. VDOT has completed the design, gone to public hearing, has the right-of-way and is close to advertising. Mr. Perkins noted that the intersection of Route 240/Route 250 at the Mechum's River Bridge is becoming more hazardous. There was another accident there this morning. With the island and the high speed on Route 250, he thinks that possibly a traffic signal, or at least a caution light, needs to be installed there. It is also a difficult situation for people coming out of Brown's Gap Road onto Route 240 or Route 250. Ms. Tucker replied that she October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) O000; B will have that reviewed for a caution light, looking at accident history, traffic volumes and the layout of the intersection. Mr. Martin mentioned Route 20 from Route 250 East to Wilton Farms, which now has a considerable amount of foot traffic. Besides the lack of sidewalks, there is an issue of low lighting, which makes the situation even more dangerous. He thinks it is incumbent upon the Board to work with VDOT to address the issue. More and more you cannot drive that stretch of road without coming across a couple of people walking. If it is at night and they are walking along the edge of the road because they are unable to see, you will not see them until you drive up beside them. This needs to be addressed by lights until the sidewalk issue can be addressed. He would like for the Board to look at a combination of things. Ms. Tucker said there can be a request made for a spot improvement, meaning sidewalks and street lighting, at the Spring Preallocation Hearing since it is along a primary road and that would be a VDOT project at VDOT costs. It can be done under permit to the Department by either a developer or the County or a combination of both. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there are two places in the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) where this could be done, either under Sidewalks or Neighborhood Improvements, but there may not be enough money there for both. Even if this was eligible for Primary road money, it would not be available for at least a year. Mr. Martin said he thinks it should be a priority. The sidewalk fund would take at least two years, and this is an accident waiting to happen. He thinks the County has an obligation to provide some things as quickly as possible. He suggested that Ms. Tucker and Mr. Cilimberg get together and bring back a proposal. Mr. Bowerman suggested an asphalt sidewalk within the right-of-way may be a possibility, funded out of current funds. Mr. Tucker said staff will see ~if there can be some shifting of projects since there is no money available at this time. Mr. Martin said recently he has received a lot of complaints about the gravel being used by VDOT. People are saying it is not gravel, just dirt. It is very dusty. It sounds like VDOT is getting a lower quality of crushed stone. Ms. Tucker said they also have received comments. They will address some of the dust issues with dust control in addition to the actual dustier gravel that is being used. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the neighbors of the Ivy Landfill are concerned about the condition of the paved portion of Dick Woods Road right in front of the landfill, because trucks bring dirt out onto the road. She has been driving there every day, and she does not think that it is a VDOT issue. In the process, she has been checking out the other roads. One little road, Pounding Creek Road, is in beautiful condition. She suspects the other roads are being impacted by large trucks. The landfill is being capped right now but it is taking two feet of dirt over 22 acres this summer which means a lot of big trucks are going over the roads. In some ways this is temporary. The roads which seem to her to be really impacted are Dick Woods Road, where it is not paved, particularly down close to Miller School Road, the washboarding there really does jar your teeth, Gilliums Ridge Road where it is not paved has washboarding but it also has lumps which she suspects is happening because of the large trucks. Broad Axe Road where it is not paved and is close to the landfill, the neighbors are quite vocal about its poor condition, although it is not as bad as the first two. Those three roads are all showing the affects of the extra weight of those big trucks. Anything that can be done as far as maintenance and cutting down on the washboarding would be appreciated. Ms. Tucker replied that this would require some substantial extra maintenance. Some of the bumps are worn down to the point where boulders and large rocks show up at the surface, requiring a heavy load of gravel to be placed on top. Ms. Thomas noted that Dick Woods Road is on the Six-Year Plan for paving, but there are no plans to ever pave the other two roads. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) 000024 Ms. Thomas said she was stopped by some people who live on 0wensville Road near the intersection with Route 250. They were concerned with the speed limit. There are some places on 0wensville Road where curves or traffic have allowed the posting of an even lower advisory speed limit (lower than 40 mph). These people feel that close to Route 250 it does not have an advisory about the fact that there are a lot of driveways. She asked about lowering the advisory speed limit, if not the official speed limit. There are a number of subdivisions and old driveways that enter the road. It is also an aging neighborhood, so there are a lot of elderly people who are rather frightened. Ms. Thomas said the West Leigh project is waiting for the Six-Year list to be revised by the County, but there is some concern as to who owns the road and who should be doing maintenance on it up to that Point. Ms. Tucker said the next step is to bring it into the system because officially no roads can show up on the Six-Year Plan without being a public ~oad, and that detail is next in line to happen. VDOT is currently working on the paperwork. The railroad upgrade will happen but possibly not at the same time that they do improvements to the road. Ms. Thomas said someone has removed the graffiti from underneath the bridge at the Bellair Restaurant. Mr. Tucker noted that they do not know who took care of removing it. Ms. Thomas said that graffiti is a problem and maybe there needs to be some way the County can take care of it. Mr. Tucker said he does not know if comparatively there is a big problem. He would be concerned about giving too much publicity to it. He said staff could quietly touch base with certain people and try to handle situations that way, Ms. Humphris noted that since the widening of Barracks Road and the construction of the huge retaining wall there, a committee was set up because it was an open invitation to graffiti, and none took place for many years. She agreed with Mr. Tucker that not calling attention to the location of walls and bridges was a good thing. Mr. Bowerman asked if it was necessary to retain the UNo Right Turn On Red" at the intersection of Rio Road and Route 29 North. There is a lot of backing up of traffic which he believes is creating cut-through traffic through the neighborhoods. Ms. Tucker said she does not believe all of the signals from Albemarle Square, Woodbrook, Schewels and Hilton Heights have been coordinated. They may just be getting out of a test period. Once the coordination takes place throughout the corridor from Hydraulic Road out past the Wal-Mart store, that will be the time to remove that restriction. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Department has a policy on traffic calming if 75 percent signatures from the residents have been obtained. Ms. Tucker replied that it is a draft policy right now. Mr. Bowerman stated that he has five neighborhoods that want to do something and asked if they could be brought up to date on it and when VDOT expects to have a decision. Mr. Martin noted that they had been dealing with the issue out in Holly- mead, and it does not look good in terms of VDOT ever actually having something that all communities could subscribe to and expect to work. Mr. Cilimberg said the policy is still in draft form. Staff has made comments on the policy, and next month, they are planning to put the policy on the Board's schedule so it can see it and make any comments about how that policy would be applied. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board needs a mechanism to deal With this problem. If the people want it, the Board needs to get it implemented. He would like to see this pursued, and asked for a status report. Mr. Martin said that he is not disagreeing, but the issue one of maintenance. Ms. Tucker mentioned that there are people in the Department who are uneasy about these policies. When they are adopted, they will be adopted State-wide. The primary concern is to figure out what the problem is as clearly as possible up-front, so the solution is applied properly. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 000025 Mr. Bowerman asked if the Department has a policy about exhaust brakes on trucks on Primary roads running through the urban areas. When trucks drivers hit their brakes it makes an unbelievable noise. He hopes there is some kind of signage that could be placed. Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Tucker had been approached by the owners of the Crenshaw Mobile Home Park regarding access to Townwood Road. Ms. Tucker answered "no." Ms. Tucker added that Route 610 will be finished from a construction status standpoint within the next two weeks. Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: 1997-99 Work Plan for County Development Departments.. This item was skipped at this time, and will appear in the minutes later in the afternoon. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing on a request to amend the service area boundaries of Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) for limited sewer service to existing warehouse structures only on TM59, P23B1 for W. J.' Kirtley, Jr. Property is located on Route 250 West in the Ivy area (Deferred from September 3, 1997). Mr. Benish summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Offmce and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said that he applicant, W. J. Kirtley, Sr., has requested Service Area designation to provide sewer service to property located on Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B(1). The applicant's property consists of 3.25 acres and is located outside of the designated Development Area on Route 250 West in the Ivy area. The applicant's property is located in the Albemarle County Service AuthoriTy service area for water only and a portion of the property near Route 250 West is designated for water and sewer (the Kirtley Realty Office site). In 1984, the Board established a policy regarding propertmes in this area with pre- existing zoning saying sewer service should be provided only to the portions of the properties which could be served by gravity flow and which drained away from the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. That action added the portion of this parcel that drained away from the Watershed to the service area for sewer, Mr. Benish said there are four buildings located on the total property. A realty office is located near Route 250 West and is within the designated water and sewer area. Three attached warehouses (one structure) are located near the railroad tracks and are located in the water only designated area. The applicant has stated that the drainfield serving the three warehouses in the rear of the property has failed no the extent that the septic field needs to be pumped weekly. The applicant hired a soil scientist to explore the possibility of locating a new drainfield to serve these buildings. The Health Department, in a memo dated July 9, indicated that the system may be in the early snages of failure, although an the time of the mnspector's site visi5 the system was functioning satisfactorily. One alternative locanion for a new drainfield would require the abandonment of an existing well. A second alternative site ms an "uphill" location which would require pumping and would also take up some of the reserve septic sime for another building on the property. Connection to the public sewer would require connection to the ACSA collector line on the north side of Route 250. This would also require pumping. Mr. Benish said an ACSA collector line is located adjacent no property on the norEh side of Route 250 so the application meets the adjacent line requirement. With the applicant's septic system backing up, the request meets the health and safety criteria. However, the warehouse site drains toward the water supply watershed and, therefore, does non mee5 the Board's policy for providing sewer service no this area. The applicant provided information at the previous Board meeting regarding the level of maintenance required of the existing sysnem. This information was given to the Health Department along with a clarification of the status of the reserve septic field for the Kirtley Realty office building that the reserve field is non necessary for the office building since that part of the property is mn the service area for sewer service and can be 0000; 6 October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) served with public sewer. Based on this additional information, the Health Department has provided revised comments which indicate that there is a "high probability" that the existing system is failing, and that the Kirtley Realty office reserve field would be adequate to serve the warehouse. Mr. Benish said this request is consistent with the strategies in the Comprehensive Plan for the provision of service outside of designated Development Areas in that there is high probability that the existing system is failing and the site is adjacent to an existing sewer line. However, there appears to be a viable on-site alternative to the provision of public sewer service through utilization of the existing reserve drainfield for the office building. This will require pumping from the failing system to this drainfield, but pumping would also be necessary to connect to the public sewer line. Furthermore, this request is not consistent with the policy of prohibiting service to properties in this area which drain to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed. Therefore, based upon the Health Department's review of the adequacy of the reserve drainfield area, staff believes this request for sewer service may be premature at this time, and does not recommend approval. However, should the Board decide to amend the service area, this area should be designated for limited sewer service to the three attached warehouses only (one structure). Staff's recommendation is that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but there appears to be a viable on-site alternative to public sewer, through the utilization of a reserve drainfield, which will require pumping. Staff feels that the request for sewer service may be premature and does not recommend approval. At this time, Ms. Humphris opened the meeting to the public for comments. Mr. Richard Carter, representing the applicant, said that several months ago, Mr. Kirtley sold the beer distribution business, but he still owns this parcel. The warehouse is currently leased to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. This is one parcel of land, but the topography makes it seem like two parcels of land. Parcel 1 is in the service area for both water and sewer; Parcel 2 is in the service area only for water. Only recently did they discover that Parcel 2 was not within in the service area for sewer. This application is made because of potential health problems from the failing drainfields. He emphasized that this is not an application for an expansion of the use of the property. There are no plans, nor is there much room, to expand the warehouse. It is noteworthy that the Health Department said the septic system appeared to be in the early stages of failure, and now they are saying there is a high probability of failure. Mr. Carter said the Board was sent a letter from Mr. Gooch, describing the state of the drainfield. According to hi~ calculations, they removed 212 tons of rock to dig the ditch for the waterline, and the waterline was not half as deep as the drainfield lines would have to be. He presented the Board with a plan that was submitted and approved by the county showing a connection from the real estate office to the sewer line.. Yes, another potential drainfield exists, but it is not a question of whether it will fail, but when. Mr. Crickenberger, of W. E. Brown, described how it was necessary to jackhammer through boulders in order to connect a waterline to the real estate office. Looking at the reserve area drainfield, there are four-foot diameter boulders even on top of the ground. His opinion is that it is not a suitable drainfield. Ms. Thomas stated that since another reputable firm has suggested that this is an area suitable for a drainfield, how his statement compares to that opinion. Mr. Crickenberger replied that, based on what he ran into to get a waterline in the ground, and based on what he is familiar with, it is not suitable. Ms. Thomas asked what the expense would be for the line. Mr. Crickenberger responded that it would roughly cost $4000. Mr. Kirtley, the applicant, said when the Albemarle County Service Authority brought their line from Crozet, they came up this very road on the other side. They needed to dynamite their way through the rock to bring it up. Twenty feet over, they dug for their waterline, and also ran into solid rock. The area they are talking of for the drainfield has a visible outcropping of rock within 15 feet of where you walk. To say that there is either no rock or lots of rock is impossible without digging, and he is 0000.27 October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) fearful that he would hit solid rock. They had two wells that operated spasmodically and have now been abandoned. The Service Authority tapped into the manhole on their property and extended the sewer line into their property some 20 to 25 feet. He asked for the Board's consideration because of the rock situation and how much expense would be involved. Already, it has cost a few thousand dollars to tap into the water. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Kirtley was saying he had already paid $17,000 to have sewer and water extended. Mr. Kirtley said he had. The fire plug in front of North Ridge was put in and the ACSA determined it would cost $17,000 to extend sewer and water into his property, which he paid, and it was his expectation that he would be allowed to connect. Mr. Bill Brent noted that the ACSA takes no position on this request. It is important to recognize that the Authority did not extend the waterline or sewer line to Mr. Kirtley's property. That was a joint effort between Mr. Kirtley and the developer of the North Ridge property. Mr. Kirtley replied that he had granted the ACSA an easement through there so it was his opinion that they were a part of that discussion. With no one else from the public rising to speak, Ms. Humphris closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Ms. Thomas said she has certainly seen the rock, and certainly thinks the system is failing, so pumping will be needed either way. She was taken by surprise by the Gooch report describing the land that might be used. Although Mr. Carter describes this as minimal, the Heath Department describes the area as perfectly adequate to last forever if it is maintained correctly. The Health Department is describing the soil as perfect for a septic field, yet there are visual sightings of boulders above ground, and every attempt at entrenching in that area has run into lots of rock. She does not want to set a precedent, when there is a report in front of the Board saying that there is a perfectly good septic field. So, there is a disagreement of f~ct~ not of policy. Mr. Benish suggested that more analysis of the site be made. He visited the area and the only way to know for sure if the system is failing is to uncover the distribution boxes. The same thing would hold true for the septic system; the only way to know if it will work is to have more analysis. The rocks that were visible in the field appeared to be loose rocks, and not significant outcroppings, but there is no way to confirm that 100 percent. He explained the Health Department's reversal of their original position was because they did not know that the area was not being used as reserve drain- field. Mr. Marshall stated that using that area as a drainfield would make it impossible for the applicant to sell off those two pieces of property separately. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it would not be impossible; they would have to give easements. Ms. Thomas asked what would happen if the Board should deny this request based on there being a viable septic field and then it was discovered that the field is indeed full of rocks. Ms. Humphris stated that it was just a judgment call, that there is conflicting information. Mr. Marshall stated that he would support this request because he did believe in putting a band-aid on something when major surgery was necessary. If this was a new building, he would not support it, but there is no expansion possible. Ms. Thomas said if this area is a suitable drainfield area, that would cost less than the cost to hook up to the sewer. Mr. Marshall replied that it would not be a permanent fix, and if they ran into boulders, then the Board would have to revisit the whole thing. Ms. Humphris commented that the way Mr. Marshall was looking at it was a very simple way, the nice thing to do, but she perceives that the Board needs to look at the long-standing and extremely important Board policy about not extending the service area into the watershed unless it meets these circumstances. This needs to be distinguished from the usual request that the Board denies. Mr. Marshall replied that he thought Mr. Carter had done a good job of doing that[ He stated that this was an existing business and that the October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) 000028 office building already needs to be hooked up to sewer; he cannot see it happening again in the same way. Mr. Trank responded that every case is going to be different and each 'request needs to be looked at on its own merits, but the concern about a precedent being set is that unless the Board has a reasonable basis to grant this request that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then the next case will use this case as a precedent. Mr. Marshall stated that this was a health and safety issue. Mr. Trank replied that the Board has information before it, saying that there is a viable alternative; if that is not the case, then the Board needs to know that. Mr. Martin asked how many situations there are in the County where there is one parcel of land with service area only on half of the parcel, where another building on the property has a completely separate septic field. This is the first time he has ever seen something like this. Mr. Benish replied that there are a number of rural parcels where the service area is divided based on the existing dwelling units. Mr. Bowerman stated that, on the other hand, sewer service has never been extended to a parcel of land in the watershed, that had an alternative drainfield site. Mr. Martin replied that part of the parcel already had the service. Mr. Perkins said the issue is whether or not the alternative site works or not, and seeing the rocks there, is doubt in his mind. The best way to protect the Reservoir is to hook this parcel to the sewer line. Ms. Thomas said there would be a greater impact on the Reservoir by having more development occur because of the sewer line than from the impact of a failing septic field. This is not a case of a failing septic field. As far as they know, it is a very good septic field. She does not want to condemn the business to an inadequate septic system, however. Mr. Bowerman stated that, since there was a question of fact, the only way to resolve it would be to require that it be used. Mr. Perkins replied that there seemed to be some doubt as to whether it was a usable drainfield. There were already two drainfields that failed. Mr. Bowerman responded that the report from Gooch and the Health Department says that it is perfect. Mr. Martin said the Board could either adhere strictly to the policy and deny the request or vote for deferral pending further information or make a decision that the applicant will run into trouble and go ahead and approve the request. Ms. Thomas asked what would happen if the Board denied the request and they ran into rock while trying to excavate for the lines. Mr. Tucker replied that it would be better, in that case, to defer it, otherwise they would have to start the process over again. Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer this request to get further information from the applicant about the potential drainfield as proposed for the Kirtley Distributing Building by a document from Mr. Steve Gooch of Earth Tech, Inc., to ascertain whether the conditions that appear to be favorable for 67-foot lines with a good percolation rate in fact exist, because without that information, it would be impossible to know what kind of precedent the Board would be setting by allowing this amendment. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Mr. Tucker stated that when this information becomes available, this item will be rescheduled for an agenda. (Note: At 11:27 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:44 a.m.) F October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) Agenda Item No. 11. Annual Presentation by Dr. Deborah DiCroce, President, Piedmont Virginia Community College. This item was rescheduled for the November 5, 1997, Board meeting. Agenda Item No. 12. APPEAL - SUB-97-044: Rivancrest Preliminary Plat. Proposal for subdivision of 5 lots on 26.42 acs in RA near Rivanna Reservoir in the Earlysville area. Subdivision to be served by private rd w/ access from Woodlands Rd (Rt 676). TM45, P5. Located on S sd of Woodlands Rd (Rt 676) across Tuckahoe Farm Lane & Rivanwood Dr (Rt 1050). (Property noit located in a designated growth area.) Jack Jouett Dist. Ms. Elaine Echols summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. She said the property is heavily forested and has two houses on it which will be removed as a result of the subdivision. The property has steep slopes, a stream, flood plain and is located in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed area. The preliminary plat met all requirement of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances for development. Private roads were proposed and supported by the County's Engineering Department. Water provision and sewage disposal are proposed on site and require the standard Health Department approval. Ail building sites are shown to be outside of the flood plain, off of steep slopes and appropriately set back from the Watershed Protection Area. Staff had concerns about the layout of Lots 1 and 5. Lot 1 has 9.86 acres and the most developable property on the site. From the topography shown, there are at least two building sites in that area, and possibly more. Rather than using the most developable land for the division, the subdivider chose to place a building site on Lot 5 in a place which requires an extended culvert for the private road over the stream or a separate stream crossing to provide access from the private road to the building site. Ms. Echols said that staff encouraged the developer to redesign the property to avoid the stream crossing and the extended culvert. The developer declined to redesign the lots and offered to place a driveway from Route 676 to the building site on Lot 5 instead. Staff consulted with the County Attorney's office to ascertain whether or not the County could require a redesign of the parcels as a result of these issues. It was determined that neither the staff nor the Commission has the authority to require the reconfiguration of lots suggested by the staff. Only one other alternativ~ exists in order to avoid the stream crossing for the driveway and that is for the Commission to approve a separate driveway entrance from Route 676. Staff determined that the provision of a driveway from Route 676 across from Rivanwood Drive would require that over 30 trees be cut down on the adjoining parcel to ensure adequate sight distance. The Water Resources Manager said that minimal stream impact would take place if the culvert on the private road which crosses the stream is extended. Such an extension would allow for a driveway to cross into the proposed Lot 5 without a second stream crossing. Assuming a redesign of the lots was not going to be take place, the staff recommended that the driveway for Lot 5 access from the private road and cross an extended culvert rather than give access from Route 676. Ms. Echols said the request for use of private roads required that the Commission make several findings. Staff supported the provision of private roads for the lots because the difference in earthwork would be at least 30 percent less than constructing a private road. According to the County's Engineering Department, the reduction in earthwork is the result of a lesser road width, a difference in vertical alignment, and a reduced amount of fill in the ravine next to Route 676. Staff recommended approval of'the subdivision plat and the use of private roads, subject to four conditions. Ms. Echols said the development proposal referenced above was denied by the Planning Commission at its meeting of September 16, 1997, based on its determination that the preliminary plat did not satisfy the requirements of Sections 18-22(a) and 18-36(b) (1) of the Subdivis'ion Ordinance. The Commission looked at the private road and considered that a different design might have less impact on the Reservoir. They felt there was not enough information provided to ensure that adequate provision was made for the minimization of pollution to downstream water sources. They asked the applicant if he wished a deferral until these two items could be addressed. The applicant declined, and hence, the Planning Commission denied the plat. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) ~. Ms. Echols said the applicant then'met with staff and was given three options: 1) to appeal the denial of the preliminary plat to the Board of Supervisors; 2) to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Circuit Court; or, 3) to modify the plat and resubmit it to the Planning Commission. Staff recommended to the applicant several ways of dealing with the water quality issues which were of concern to the Commission. The applicant chose to not consider any of these options, but instead to file this appeal with the Board. At this point, Ms. Humphris asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Richard Carter, on behalf of the applicant, noted that Mr. Gooch ha~ done the soil testing for all of these sites and passed all. He mentioned that there would be less degradation to the environment by the private road because of the amount of earth-moving needed. A public road would be wider, require more earth-moving and have a wider vertical alignment. The Commission did not agree that there was no alternative alignment that would alleviate the environmental degradation. The road entrance site is as far west on Route 676 as they could have while still meeting VDOT requirements. There is an existing entrance into this property that does not meet VDOT sight requirements. By moving the road to meet VDOT requirements, it adds more safety. Moving the road further to the east on the property would put it closer to the Reservoir, into steeper terrain and into an entirely wooded area. His opinion is that the evidence supports the test for a private road. Mr. Carter said if the Commission wanted a public road, they could have made that requirement rather than denying the subdivision at the preliminary plat stage. The second reason they gave for denial was the disposition of surface water runoff. Historically, that kind of issue has been handled during final plat approval. Looking at the recommendations of staff, it is noted that the final plat will Not be signed until engineering staff approves the erosion control plan. Preliminary approval is made contingent all of these things being submitted before the final plat. Another reason the Commission stated for denial was based on minimization of pollution on all downstream watercourses. Looking at the recommended conditions, it says that all of this will be covered by final plat submittal. Mr. Carter stated that after reading over the Commission's minutes, it appeared they had two concerns: protection of the Reservoir, and they did not like the way the lots were configured. Different people will have different ways to subdivide a property, and the proposal might not even be the best way it could be done, but the preliminary plat way meets all of the ordinance requirements. The County Attorney determined that neither staff nor the Commission had the authority to require a redesign of the lots. What the Commission did was try to force the applicant to do so. Lot one is designed in a particular way because it is intended for his daughter's use. The building site on Lot five is problematical, but it meets the requirements. He asked that the Board approve the preliminary plat. Mr. Roger Wray stated that he was the surveyor who did the plans in question. He met with Mr. Charles Baker of VDOT to determine the optimal road location. Because Route 676 is posted at 45 m.p.h., it requires 450 feet of sight distance, so the entrance is put as far west as possible while meeting VDOT requirements. The entrance road could be moved farther east and still meet VDOT requirements, but it would put the entryway and road into an environmentally protected area. The road was redesigned in order to leave the pond area for erosion and sediment control measures, at the advice of Mr. David Hirschman. If the internal road was moved any further west, it would put it in steeper terrain and require more grading activities. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Wray was involved in determining a driveway for a building site on lot five. Mr. Wray replied that it has not yet been determined where the driveway will be. He supports placing it as close to Route 676 as possible. Ms. Humphris asked if anyone else from the public would like to comment. Ms. Shirley Marks said that si~ce this subdivision would surround her property, she is concerned with what has been presented. They have owned their property for 35 years; the road that goes in would not meet any type of requirements now. She would not like to see it go in, but that is only personal. Ms. Humphris asked her if her property was the one with the horses. Ms. Marks replied that it was part of this property. 000031. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) With no one else from the public rising to speak, Ms. Humphris placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Bowerman asked about the difference between the preliminary and final approval process. Mr. Greg Kamptner replied that Section 18-22 sets forth some requirements that have to do with design criteria; Section 18-52 sets forth the criteria for a preliminary plat and requires that there be statements explaining how and when the subdivider proposes to provide drainage structures. A lot of what would be required is determined between preliminary. and final plat approval. Typically, to satisfy the design criteria, it is dealt with at the final stage. Ms. Humphris noted that the property lies in the Jack Jouett District. Obviously, it borders on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. She has combed through the information provided and comes down on one over-riding issue, the whole requirement in the Zoning Ordinance about flood control which speaks to' the minimization of pollution. She did not see that any alternatives had been looked at. This Board has focused on trying to stop such pollution from having to be minimized in the first place, and the desire to protect the environment and public health means that she will not support this appeal. Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to deny the appeal of the Rivancrest Preliminary Plat based on the actions of the Planning Commission, as set out in the letter dated September 18, 1997, to Mr. Roger Ray, from Elaine K. Echols, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion and Approval of 1998 Draft Legislative Program for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. It was noted in the staff's report that the County's legislative program is developed each year in a collaborative process with the legislative liaison under the supervision of the Planning District Commission (TJPDC) . A draft program is before the Board today for discussion and approval. In addition to the issues presented in the TJPDC program, the County will need to submit special legislation to allow a Juvenile Commission, of which Albemarle is a member, in order to borrow funds for a juvenile detention facility. Although the County has statutory authority to create a juvenile commission, the borrowing authority for that commission must be granted by special legislation. This minor legislation can be drafted by the County Attorney and submitted to one of the area legislators for Sponsorship. The only other legislative issue specific to Albemarle County is the possibility of Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU) legislation. However, the County Attorney is still waiting on an Attorney General's opinion on the current ADU enabling legislation. Staff recommended approval of the TJPDC 1998 Draft Legislative Program with the understanding that any suggested changes from the Board will be reflected in the final version of the regional legislative program. Ms. Bonnie Fronfelter, Legislative Liaison, said she had kept in the legislative package the three principles the Virginia Municipal League and Virginia Association of Counties have kept for years on end: not restricting local land use decisions, expanding local authority to raise revenue, and, continued limit on State and Federal mandates. From these come policies in ten areas that have not changed since last year; growth management, finance, education, environmental quality, local government structure and laws, housing, public safety, transportation, health and human services, and economic development. This gives a framework in which to work. Mr. Fronfelter said there are two action items. First is the Composite Index. The Planning District and its member localities support use of the composite index in determining local share of educational funding. However, because the formula dicEates rigidity in determining local share, several member localities receive undue ratings of wealth based on factors that localities are unable to Eap as revenue. Furthermore, the formula does not take into account the high debt certain localities incur due to school October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) 000032 construction and renovation costs. Second is Education Infrastructure. The Planning District and its member localities support an increase in the State's funding for school construction and renovation costs. Currently, the State's role is limited to ~buying down" interest rates and making it easier for some localities to issue debt for school construction and renovation by avoiding referenda. Local governments pay one hundred percent of the cost of school construction and renovation; however, the formula for determining local composite indices for education funding does not factor in the annual debt service shouldered by localities. This can be a significant amount, especially in urbanizing or rapidly growing localities. Ms. Fronfelter said that regarding the composite index, there is no appeals process for a locality to explain why their situation is unique. Albemarle County's composite index reflects wealth that they are unable to tax. Regarding the educational infrastructure, it is the position of the TJPDC that there needs to be some change in the formula in order to consider debt service that localities incur for capital costs. Another item concerns the personal property tax. Although both gubernatorial candidates are proposing elimination of the personal property tax, it is a growing and important revenue source. There is also legislation concerning the deregulation of electric utilities. Since there is a question as to whether a locality could require an out-of-state provider to collect the locality's utility tax, how easy would it be to manage? Mr. Marshall asked why Virginia would want to let an out-of-state company come in and take away its revenue. Ms. Humphris responded that that was a congressional decision and the State will have no say in it as that would be restricting interstate commerce. She suggested that the public utility tax be listed on the utility bills so consumers become aware of it. Ms. Fronfelter stated that, regarding telecommunications, there are six areas of concern to local governments. The telecommunications industry has agreed to one percent of their gross revenues as a franchise fee for being allowed to put towers in highway rights-of-way, which will be put by VDOT in the Transportation Trust Fund and will be earmarked for the localities where this is taking place. Under the Telecommunications item, there is "Universal Service and Consumer Access" listed. It is noted that educational and community services are provided via telecommunications. Providers must be responsive to citizen needs and concerns and provide appropriate customer services to all segments of our community, so that no citizen or locality is disadvantaged due to income or geographic location in obtaining access to new technology. Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Fronfelter to check this with the County's Telecommunications Task Force or Planning Department staff because the Board might want to oppose this legislation. One of the issues to do with placement of towers in the County has to do with how much service is ~adequate" service. When a request is received by the County for a cellular tower and its placement would degrade the environment and scenic beauty, the Board needs to be able to argue that if one lives in a rural area, that person does not necessarily have access to the same services they would receive in a designated growth area. It is a vagary in the law at this point, because adequate service has not been defined. The Board does not want the State to define "adequate service" as "excellent service no matter what hollow one lives in." On Economic Development Initiatives, it says "The Planning District and its member localities support continued funding of the Governor's Opportunity Fund, Community Development Block Grants and other sources of financial assistance for localities in supporting economic development projects. We support review of the awards distributed from the Opportunity Fund to ensure that benefits of the Fund are realized in all regions of the State." Ms. Fronfelter noted that there has been only one grant from the Opportunity Fund awarded in this region. This should be pointed out to the area legislators so they are more aware of geographic distribution. Ms. Thomas said the legislators might have second thoughts about supporting the Regional Competitiveness Fund, since it has been used primarily to fund Northern Virginia. It may have been totally coincidental that the localities who received funding where the regions who threatened to sue. Under "Jails", Ms. Fronfelter noted that the Board wished to add juvenile detention facilities in the public safety section. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) O000L 3 Ms. Humphris agreed with what Ms. Thomas had noted about the definition of Universal Service and Access. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the draft legislative program, with the understanding that any suggested changes would be incorporated into the final document. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 12:59 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to discuss specific legal matters relating to interjurisdictional agreements and to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation and reversion, and, under Subsection (1) to discuss Board appointments. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 18. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session. At 2:28 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was 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: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Development Departments. 1997-99 Work Plan for County Mr. Huff summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is the fourth edition of the Work Plan for the Albemarle County Development Departments. It is distributed to relevant boards/commissions, the development community and interested members of the public. This informational listing is intended as a means of assessing and prioritizing the many items which occupy the time and resources of the County Development Departments. This product is intended as a communication tool to the many "customers" that the Development Departments serve. To keep all interested parties informed and up-to-date, the work plan is revised and made available yearly. The time frames noted are estimates based on the latest obtainable information and are subject to change without prior notice as workloads and priorities shift. Mr. Huff highlighted a few items that he considered of importance: Page 1 there are five Capital Improvement Program (CIP) drainage projects that will finally be cleared off of the work plan. Page 2 - the Avon Street Connector road and new street light projects have been scheduled. Page 3 - the regional Jail addition. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) 000034 Page 4 the Mountain Protection Ordinance and the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Under Comprehensive Plan review, Phase 2: the Natural Environment Section should go to the Planning Commission in October; the consultant has met with the Development Area Initiatives committee and the first public meeting will be held on October 8; the Rural Areas section is being worked on by staff now; the Critical Resources Inventory is slated to begin in February, 1999; a proposal has finally been developed for a Development Design Manual after ten to fifteen years of discussions. Page 6 - the Fiscal Impact Planner position will be advertised for the third time; Page 7 - the metric system transition will certainly impact the Development Departments; Neighborhood studies are part of the work plan; The Consolidated Water Ordinance is hoped to be before the Board in December; The Branchlands and Rio Hills basin project is slated for completion in December; The update of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS) has been scheduled for a joint City/County work session; Page 10 the Meadow Creek Parkway includes the Environmental Impact Study (EIS), and there is some indication that the Highway Department (VDOT) would like the County to manage the EIS; the Route 250 corridor studies are both underway; traffic calming is being studied by staff; Noise Regulation is planned for a draft ordinance to the Planning Commission in December; Page 11 - a Tower Policy is in the draft stages. Under Fire/Safety, Mr. Bowerman noted that it says ~install new reflective road signs throughout the County to replace the temporary signs." He asked what was being referred to as temporary signs. Mr. William Mawyer, Director of Engineering, replied that there were street signs in place before the E911 Ordinance was adopted. The ordinance sets out specific requirements as to how large the signs can be, so some existing subdivision signs are considered temporary signs. Regarding the Birnam Basin Pedestrian Bikepath, Mr. Bowerman said that he remembered community members asking if it had to be placed along the roadway, and he remembered the Board determining that it could be anywhere in the Park. Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff understood that there was park land and some dedicated right-of-way and that they could use it as needed with no specific location planned. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it should not be a straight line, but be a winding path. Regarding the EIS for the Meadow Creek Parkway, Mr. Bowerman asked what it meant when it was said that VDOT might not want to participate. Mr. Cilimberg replied that, after some preliminary discussions, VDOT felt that for objectivity's sake, it might be better for someone other than VDOT to manage the EIS. Mr. Bowerman suggested that staff look at whether VDOT should be managing this, because if that is what they normally do, then that is what they should do in this case. VDOT has requested that the County pay for the EIS. If it does, and VDOT does not like the procedure, they might not accept the results. Since this is an initial step before requesting that VDOT include this road in the Primary System, it is important to go by their guidelines and criteria; the County can assist, but it needs to be done to VDOT standards. Ms. Humphris stated that this seemed like a glaring attempt by VDOT to separate themselves from this project; this should be the same as any other project. The County does not want to spend over a million dollars only to find an unanticipated roadblock because VDOT was not in charge. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) 000035 Ms. Thomas noted that regarding the item ~Dark Skies Implementation", the Board had made sure the Chamber of Commerce was involved with the enabling legislation. The Chamber may feel they should have some notification of or participation in this implementation. Mr. Cilimberg replied that implementation was to be in a few phases because there is an element that could be put in Site Plan provisions. For the second phase, which actually deals with existing lighting, a committee of local people, including the Chamber and businesses, will be used. Ms. Thomas said regarding the Hollymead NeighborhOod study, she understood they did not want anything done until after the Development Area Initiatives Project is completed. On the other hand, she hopes that they are not waiting too late. Ms. Thomas said she was glad to see both the Illegal Dumping Task Force recommendations and Family Divisions (research regarding current ownership of former family divisions) scheduled. The Route 250 Corridor studies should probably start a little bit later because VDOT has not signed the agreements yet. Ms. Thomas asked about the item "Target violations as need arises." Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, said the Department tries not to deal with just one individual complaint, but deals with all of the same type of violation at one time. Mr. Martin mentioned that they are doing a fair amount of work on Proffit Road. He asked if that was an untargeted violation sweep, or had there been a lot of complaints. Ms. McCulley said she was not sure about that situation. Ms. Thomas said she was glad someone was looking at the question of alternate sewer systems. Mr. Huff said staff had discussed the situation where the Board gets presented with a new item which requires staff work. Staff would like for the Board to also give some thought to what could be delayed when something new is added to the work plan. Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Request for Career Firefighter/ Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). Mr. Tucker said that Albemarle County, like many other localities across the country who rely on volunteers to staff the community's response to fire and medical emergencies, continues to experience daytime manpower shortages. As early as 1978, Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department indicated to the County that they were in need of career personnel to supplement the volunteer system for adequate daytime responses. Since that time, the level of volunteer participation has ebbed and flowed, always struggling to cover daytime hours as members find work outside of their community or employers find it impossible to allow the volunteers to leave work to respond to calls. In early 1996, the Board approved the purchase of an aerial truck to be manned by volunteers supplemented by three career personnel. At that time, direction was given to assure that career personnel were integrated hand-in- hand with the volunteer system to support their efforts, never to replace them. In April, 1997, the County's first three career personnel began work and, since that time, their integration into the volunteer system has been a successful one. With the new model in place and working well with all parties, Earlysville and Stony Point Volunteer Fire Departments have, by letter from their Board of Directors, asked the County to provide daytime supplemental support as well. Staff has met with the leadership from both companies who indicate that with increasing frequency they are unable to send a crew at all during daylight hours for fire and EMS emergencies. Mr. Tucker said these two departments, along with the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, provide coverage to the County's busiest sectors. Because Earlysville and Stony Point are responsible for areas that reach to the Orange County and Greene County lines, and EMS responses will be coming from either McIntire Road (CARS) or Crozet (WARS), and career EMT's in outlying areas of the County would significantly improve response times while allowing a ~system" response to other parts of the County. The concept of a coordinated system where all resources are fully utilized is being fine tuned. 0000 6 October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) For example, with additional resources in the northern corridors, other resources can be made more readily available to the south and east. Mr. Tucker said that in order to meet the requests for manpower that have been submitted, three personnel for each station are needed. Total costs including salary and equipment to hire the personnel in January, 1998 is $148,350 for the current fiscal year. Full year costs for next year would be approximately $250,260 for the six additional firefighters/EMT's. In the past, the Board has discussed the concept of service districts as a method of providing necessary funding for fire services. .State statute allows the Board, by ordinance, to draw a district boundary that encompasses the areas that are to receive the added service and assess an additional real estate tax. One alternative to using General Fund moneys to fund fire personnel is to levy an additional real estate tax for service districts that would coincide with the response areas for the stations. For discussion purposes, a rough estimate of the cost of three career personnel for Stony Point would result in a Fire District Tax of 5.2¢, 1.3¢ for Earlysville, and 1.0¢ for Seminole Trail. This disparity in taxation in order to receive the same level of service needs to be further studied in order to pursue the issue. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board consider funding the additional personnel in the current year from carry-over funds and further research the service district concept as a potential funding source for the full-year costs in the next fiscal year after a more comprehensive analysis is available. Mr. Marshall asked if the County went to service districts, would the citizens be able to get some money back on their fire insurance premium. Mr. Tucker replied that it is very complicated. A lot depends on how much service is provided. It probably would not make much difference unless the house was near a fire hydrant. Mr. Bowerman asked if the service district concept is one which the Board enacts or is a referendum is needed. Mr. Tucker replied that this is within the Board's purview. The Board would even have the power to make the entire County a service district. Mr. Marshall said that there would be people who would not want to pay for a fire truck, because of how far out they live. Mr. Tucker replied that they are already doing so, from General Fund revenues. Mr. Marshall responded that at least they do not know about that, so they are not complaining about it. Mr. Tucker noted that, if there were any insurance benefits, it would go to those within five miles of the firehouse. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to fund the additional firefighters/EMT personnel in the current year from carry-over funds and to further research the service district concept as a potential funding source for the full year costs in the next fiscal year after a more comprehensive analysis is available. Mr. Perkins stated that he would support the motion, but he thinks there should be a clear message sent to the other fire companies that this request is out of sequence with the budgeting process and that needs to be corrected. Mr. Bowerman added that if it were not a safety issue, he would not consider the request at this time. Ms. Thomas noted that it has always been the concept that if one lived in a rural area, they would not be within five minutes of a fire station. That is the difference between a rural county and a suburban one. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) OOO03? Agenda Item No. 15. Work Session: 800 MHZ Public Safety Radio System. Mr. Huff said that over the last two-plus years, members of the City, County and University Public Safety staffs have, with the assistance of a radio communications consultant, analyzed the community's joint needs for public safety radio communications and potential solutions to meet existing problems with current systems. The report from a radio subcommittee presented to the 911 Management Board indicates the critical shortcomings of the existing public safety radio system. This includes insufficient radio coverage and in-building penetration, insufficient channel capacity for public safety operations, lack of interoperability (police, fire, and EMS) due to independent/individualized radio systems, and outdated current equipment which has exceeded its normal useful life. Due to limited channel/frequency availability, application was made in 1995 for a sufficient number of frequencies in the 800 MHZ radio frequency range for a public safety radio system upgrade. These frequencies are extremely limited in their availability and so were secured at a time when a window of opportunity presented itself which has since closed for the unrestricted frequencies which were secured. The system being proposed is an 800 MHZ Trunked ten-channel radio system to serve the police, fire and EMS radio needs of both of the City, County and University Public Safety agencies. The technology involved in a trunked radio system is similar to the concept of a trunked telephone system whereby users share available lines rather than each individual station being assigned its own unique line. In much the same way, users would share available frequencies allowing all agencies to communicate with each other using one radio system on an as needed basis. Mr. Huff said that on September 16, 1997, the 911 Management Board reviewed and agreed to pass on to the involved localities a recommendation to move to the Request for Proposal (RFP) stage for a community-wide Trunked 800 MHZ 10-channel radio system. Total cost for the entire system for the City, County and University, as well as the Joint Security Complex, Airport and Town of Scottsville, is approximately $6.0 million. This figure includes both the radio equipment required for mobile units, as well as individual portable radios, and also includes the infrastructure including tower sites and associated equipment. The 911 Management Board has agreed to a formula to share in the cost of the infrastructure based on the total number of mobile and portable units needed by its agency. Albemarle County's share of the project includes $1,498,200 for radio equipment and $1,556,093 for associated infrastructure costs for a total of $3,054,293. This includes County Police, County Fire, County Rescue and County Sheriff's Department. The City of Charlottesville's total cost is $1,753,417 with the balance of the cost being shared by the University, Scottsville Police, the Joint Security Complex and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport. These costs are estimates at this point and cannot be solidified until a RFP is issued and more definitive engineering and equipment analysis is completed. Several problems exist within the existing public safety radio independent systems. As examples, some of the radio equipment currently used by the City and the County fire departments is between fifteen and twenty years old, operates on only two channels on a low-band frequency that does not allow sufficient channels for multiple operations, exhibits poor coverage and in-building penetration throughout the County as well as increasing difficulty in finding replacement parts for existing equipment. Under the existing systems, fire units are unable to talk directly to EMS units or police and vice versa in instances where multiple responses are required. Mr. Huff said financing for this project appears to be available most economically through a lease-purchase arrangement on a master contract for the entire ten channel system. Although this financing would be procured through a competitive process, current estimates are that it can be obtained at an interest rate between five percent and six percent. A preliminary review by staff of funding solutions indicates that one-time moneys and money currently programmed in the CIP to improve existing radio systems in the CIP can be appropriated to this project bringing the amount to be financed down to $2,094,668 yielding an annual amortized cost over a ten-year period at five and one-half percent of $263,408. Staff estimates that once the current obligations on the 911 surcharge revenue source are fulfilled, $152,720 can be made available annually toward this project. In addition to the on-going amortization costs, the maintenance of the system and its electronics has also been considered. 000038 October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) Timing for this project, if it'moves forward, is projected such that and RFP and analysis of that request and ultimate construction and installation will take 18 months to two years. The FCC regulations that govern the frequencies that were granted in 1995, given their scarce nature, require that the frequencies be used by the year 2000 or be forfeited for redistribution to other entities. Mr. Huff said the 911 Management Board has recommended that the localities approve the next step in the process to develop an RFP for the system and associated financing so that a better cost analysis, as well as engineering studies on the design of the system, can be completed. It is possible, once better budget numbers are developed, that financing can be arranged to redistribute some of the up-front costs to'ease the amount needed in the first years of the loan. Mr. Bowerman asked if this would be a line-of-sight system. Mr. Huff replied that it would be. Mr. Bowerman asked if that was enough to give full coverage. Mr. Huff responded that the consultant told them that three major sites and two minor sites were enough; they do not know the answer for certain until the system engineering work is done. They believe that, for the most part, they can use existing towers. The goal, with this new system, is to have 95 percent of the County covered by portable radio. Mr. Marshall said that they could do digital. Mr. Huff replied that this would be a combination of digital and analog. Mr. Bowerman asked why they would not just put fire and safety on the current police frequency. Mr. Huff replied that that was a logical question and they had the consultant look into it. There are two answers: there are not enough FCC licenses for those frequencies to handle the traffic, and with developing technology, the FCC is probably going to push public safety out of the band width where they are now located. Mr. Martin asked how much the licenses would sell for on the market. Mr. Huff said the County cannot sell the frequencies; staff has already asked if they can sell or rent them. The frequencies have to be used or surrendered. They were free to the County for use for public safety. (Note: Mr. Marshall left the room at 3:25 p.m.) Ms. Thomas asked if new technology might develop that would allow all three systems to be connected rather than having them all on one new system. Mr. Huff replied that he did not think that is going to happen, although no one could know for sure. In the low-band area, which is where the fire department frequency is, those types of radios and parts are no longer being made since low-band has inherent problems with coverage. This means that no one is spending any research and development money on keeping that a viable frequency. There is no indication that this kind of technology would become available. Mr. Martin mentioned the comment in the materials that 911 surcharge revenues would be available once obligations were fulfilled and he asked about the timeframe for that. Mr. Huff replied that once the new building is paid for, those surcharge revenues would be available. The worst year is year one, and it appears that in new money, they would need $110,000 from General Fund moneys above the surcharge money. Ms. Thomas asked what promise was made to the community when the 911 surcharge started. Mr. Tucker replied that the law originally said that when the E911 system was up and running, after taking care of operating expenses, that fee could not be used for other things so the fee would be reduced. Subsequent to that happening, the law was changed to allow use of that surcharge to pay for staff and other things. Mr. Trank pointed out that the law says that the surcharge can be used to recoup the original capital outlay; the law was amended to cover system upgrades and other areas. The Attorney General has said that costs that were needed to make the system operational were recoverable from the 911 surcharge. The issue of whether you could raise the tax to cover these costs is not clear. Ms. Thomas asked if the other Board members agreed to this suggestion even though a promise seems to have been made to the public that they were not continuing with the surcharge. Mr. Tucker replied that staff had informed the Board that the Board could reduce or eliminate the surcharge and instead increase the real estate tax rate, and the Board chose to keep the tax rate October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) 000039 where it was. Ms. Humphris said there was no subterfuge; this was all done in the open. Mr. Bowerman said that the people who did not like E911 to begin with would not like any other part of the plan. Mr. Bowerman asked if police officers would hear the fire calls on the new system. Mr. Tom Hanson, EOC Director, responded that when a call comes in, a call-taker takes the information and then, by computer, sends the call to an individual agency or to several at once. Under the present system, when the system gets overloaded, the people talking to police officers in the field also have to take telephone calls. Under the new system, there will be one bank of people who take calls and then forward them to dispatchers. The person who coordinates the call is the dispatcher, and that dispatcher cannot coordinate both fire and police. Ms. Thomas asked if fire and police will be separated administratively, is it important that their radio frequencies be separated as well? Mr. Hanson replied that it is important that they be able to talk with each other while in the field. Mr. Bowerman asked if the police officer at a multi-agency response would be able to hear all three radio calls. Mr. Hanson replied that, under an 800 MHZ system, they could do a simulcast, which means that all three would hear it at the same time, but that cannot be done under the present system. As an example, there are only two simultaneous channels on the fire system, so dispatching a third call becomes a problem. With no further discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to authorize the 911 Management Board to move forward with the process to develop an RFP for the 800 MHZ system and associated financing so that a better cost analysis, as well as engineering studies on the design of the system, can be completed. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. (Note: Mr. Marshall returned at 3:28 p.m.) Mr. Tucker requested approval to sign an agreement with BFI regarding waste handling from the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority that will not go into affect until July, 1998. It is a ten-year agreement with two five-year renewals. Basically, staff began this because of the waste that may be picked up from any County facility, such as the County Office Building or a School facility. RSWA will receive a $4.00 rebate on each ton that goes over the scales at BFI's facility. . Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to authorize the County Executive to execute the Rivanna Service and Contribution Agreement (set out in full below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. RIVANNA SERVICE AND CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made this day of 1997, by and among RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY, a public body politic and corporate of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Authority"), THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA ("City"), THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF T~E COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ("County"), THE RECTOR ~ VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, with approval of the Governor pursuant to §2.1-504.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended ("UVA"), and THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE, VIRGINIA (Scottsville") . October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) 000040 RECITALS R-2. By that certain Agreement For Municipal Solid Waste Disposal dated , 1997, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "BFI Agreement"), Authority and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. ("BFi") provided for acceptance by BFI of certain non-hazardous solid waste at BFI's Fluvanna Transfer Station in accordance with certain terms and conditions contained therein. Ail capitalized terms used in this Agreement and not defined herein shall have their meaning as defined in the BFI Agreement. City, County, UVA, and Scottsville have agreed with Authority to provide waste to BFI's Fluvanna Transfer Station under the terms of the BFI Agreement and have further agreed to certain other terms set forth in this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid, the foregoing recitals and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The BFI Agreement. City, County, UVA, and Scottsville each hereby agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the BFI Agreement, except as specifically provided herein. 2. Fees: Service Contribution, a. Pa_vment of Fees and Service Contribution. As Authority receives monthly invoices from BFI for amounts due under the BFI Agreement, it shall in turn present to each of City, County, UVA, and Scottsville appropriate monthly bills for such party's respective share of such amounts, plus a service contribution equal to Four Dollars ($4.00) per Ton of MSW delivered by such party under the BFI Agreement during the applicable invoice period (the "Contribution"). b. CPI-U Index Adjustment to Contribution. The Contribution which may be charged by Authority in the second and subsequent years of the term hereof shall be adjusted upward or downward in the same manner as provided in paragraph 3.2. of the BFI Agreement. 3. Nonconforming Waste. If in the event City, County, UVA, or Scottsville delivers or causes to be delivered under the BFI Agreement any Nonconforming Waste, such responsible party shall reimburse to Authority any additional costs paid by it in connection with the handling of such Nonconforming Waste, as provided in Section 2.2.1 of the BFI Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement, however, shall prohibit any party from proceeding against any generator or hauler responsible for such Nonconforming Waste. 4. Miscellaneous. a. Modifications and W~iv~r$. No waiver, modification, discharge, or amendment of this Agreement shall be valid in the absence of the written and signed consent of the party against which enforcement of such is sought. b. Default. In the event that any party fails to perform any covenant or breach any representation or warranty in this Agreement, the other parties shall have the right to exercise any remedies available at law or in equity to obtain damages or enforcement of this Agreement, including specific performance. October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 41) 00004 . c. Entire A~reement. This Agreement, together with the BFI Agreement incorporated hereinto, contains the entire agreement among the parties relating to the transactions contemplated hereby. Ail prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written, are merged herein. d. Severabili;y. If any provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof in any circumstance, is deemed to be unenforceable, the remainder shall not be affected thereby and shall remain enforceable. e. Applicable L~w. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. f. Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, all of which shall be deemed originals. Mr. Tucker mentioned that the School Board had not heard the budget presentation on long-range fiscal planning and would like to hear that. He also will be prepared to recommend an individual for the position of Human Resources Director. He would like to do that jointly in an executive session. He is suggesting the afternoon of October 15, at 4:30 p.m. He said staff should have revenue projections finished by early next month, and he would want to discuss those with the School Board also. Two potential dates for a meeting are on Thursday, November 6, or Wednesday, November 12. Mr. Martin suggested 4:30 p.m. on November 5. The Board agreed to hold a meeting either on the 12th or the 5th. Mr. Tucker said there are two potential dates for a meeting with area legislators: Wednesday, November 19 or Monday, November 24. Mr. Bowerman said he could not be present on the 24th. Ms. Humphris asked that Mr. Tucker inquire of the legislators as to any legislation they are planning to file. Ms. Thomas noted that there is an event occurring on the Downtown Mall on Sunday, November 12 which will have the Charlottesville Municipal Band and comments about the Planning District Commission, in honor of the PDC's Twenty- Fifth Anniversary. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board could send a brief note to the individuals who speak under ~Other Matters" at the beginning of meetings acknowledging what they have said. Ms. Humphris said staff is trying to do that now. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that he had received a call from an individual expressing concern that non-domestic animals are being harbored in the County, specifically, that one of the pet stores has a cougar in its front window. She has some concerns about safety and the County has no policy on this question. Mr. Trank said there is enabling legislation for requiring a permit for pet shops saying that animals must be cared for in accordance with directives of the Game and Inland Fisheries Department. There is, however, a specific statute that allows a local ordinance to be stricter than a simple permitting ordinance. The question is how far the Board would want to go. If there is an issue of adequacy of care or treatment, the County does have the authority to take care of it under existing State law. Approved by the !ard of October 1, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 42) 000042 Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:59 p.m.